Agriculture Committee on March 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayers.

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau. Your time is up.

Mr. Longfield, you have six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to the staff. We're meeting often. Getting our first foot forward properly is very important for this committee.

Looking at the estimates, my questions to the minister had more to do with the technology and the application of technology. I want to touch on that. The first part of my question has to do with the increase in the federal infrastructure initiative of $32.1 million. I know these are main estimates, but I'm wondering whether any of that infrastructure might have to do with broadband in rural areas or the access to infrastructure that can help people implement technologies. I know that has been a concern in rural Canada.

That may be for another department.

[Pierre Corriveau]

The $32 million under federal infrastructure is in fact for the infrastructure that's owned entirely by the department. This is for the science capacity internal to the department—such as our research lab in Guelph, for example.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

That was a great example, by the way.

[Pierre Corriveau]

Thank you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Hopefully we can work together on further research labs besides the dairy centre. That's for another conversation as well.

That may have answered the second part of my question. This is around the research that could be implemented at farms, or the applied technology at farms. I'm wondering what your interaction is with other ministries, such as innovation or science and technology, and how this works within the machinery of your department.

I'm new to government, so I'm just trying to understand the machine here.

[Gilles Saindon, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll make an attempt to answer the question.

In terms of research in agriculture and agrifood, we work in a concerted manner with industry as well as with provinces. That's part of the joint framework we have with them. We do a lot of our research in collaboration with industry. In this case, it's stakeholders, which basically are producer organizations. They give us a lot of insight on where their issues are and all of that. We work with universities under some partnership arrangements where we can work on science clusters as well as on research projects.

We try to work in a focused way on particular issues as identified by industry and as identified by us as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

And that's what we could expect on the next level of funding—an extension, if you will, of what's been going on under Growing Forward 2.

[Gilles Saindon]

I don't know if I can predict exactly what will come in the next framework, but obviously what we've heard a lot at committees and from people when they've talked to us is that they see a lot of merit in these research partnerships and the research aligned along clusters or projects. They really like the mechanics and the progress we've been able to make with these large projects in a concerted and coherent manner.

I think we expect they'll continue to say that, and we may see that in the next framework, but I can't really make a prediction at this point in time.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, I understand that as well. It's ongoing.

Is there a connection, or an example of connection, between this department and the other departments I mentioned, such as science and technology or innovation? Or do they work pretty much autonomously?

[Gilles Saindon]

I think there is a lot happening interdepartmentally. The example I will give you is around genomics research, which we do with all the other departments within the Government of Canada under the genomics research and development initiative. We have two large projects that we'll be launching shortly, one on antimicrobial resistance and the other on eco-biomics, which is the microbiome you have in the first foot of soil that you see around the country.

Those are examples of what we do in partnership with six or seven other departments, as a matter of fact.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Terrific. Thank you for that.

Thanks for being here again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Mr. Breton.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am especially interested in initiatives that have to do with improving the productivity of farmers and producers—in other words, anything that has to do with innovation projects or programs.

Can you tell us which existing programs have had their funding increased over the fiscal year we are talking about?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

I think in the context of the estimates, that's the method by which we are appropriated and receive the funding that supports all of the programs that we deliver. In the context of the current agricultural policy framework, we of course have three major programs that we deliver federally, one of them being the agri-innovation program, one of them being the agri-marketing program, and the third one being the agri-competitiveness program. In addition to that we have a few programs that fall outside our agricultural policy framework.

In terms of the agri-innovation program in particular, it is the program that supports the funding of research and development, and that funding is often provided.... We support, for example, science clusters. We have 14 of those science clusters, and that funding can flow over a five-year period. They're quite large projects that support research and development that ultimately, at the end of the day, will be of benefit to producers. For example, we have a beef cluster, and the intention is that over time that research will actually translate and migrate at some point on farm and help producers who produce that particular commodity, and that would be true of all of our research clusters.

In addition, we support a variety of research and development projects that are often shorter in duration and much more focused. Again, the intention is really to have the results of those research projects transition over time and play out at a farm level. Not every one of them happens immediately. Sometimes it takes a period of time for the research to actually translate to a point where it can be commercialized and applied on farm, and of course, all of our provinces and territories fund innovation programming as well, through the cost-shared strategic initiatives funding that's provided to them. Again, that would be programming that would support projects, at a local and regional level, that would be of benefit to the sector in all parts of the country.

It's a comprehensive framework that provides support to individual projects that ultimately are supporting our producers.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question to ask, but before that, I would like to come back to Francis' comment and Mr. Poissant's answer.

Mr. Poissant, congratulations on being appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It's true that the code of ethics contains special provisions because, following your appointment, you become a public office holder. So there must be special and extraordinary provisions owing to the fact that you are an elected official.

Francis talked about the chief of staff, who is also a public office holder, but is not elected.

So I am asking Mr. Drouin to check whether the standards are the same. For our part, we don't believe that they are necessarily the same. A chief of staff is someone a cabinet decides to hire, an employee. They are not an elected official. There are extraordinary provisions because an elected official with agricultural holdings cannot be discriminated against.

So I ask that you look into that and, if you want, send us the information later, as I want to use my time to ask another question that really affects me.

This is for the department representatives.

Two or three weeks ago, I talked about an important agricultural niche market we are currently hearing a lot about—maple syrup production. The Gagné report indicates that there is a problem in Quebec. The Americans are increasing their production significantly. According to the Gagné report, the Americans are being subsidized to increase their number of maple tree taps. We are not doing that because we are complying with free trade laws.

There are a number of ways to subsidize maple syrup producers. It can be done directly or indirectly. The government can fund the roads leading to the sugar bush or a power line. It can fund a number of things without providing direct subsidies.

I asked the department representatives to check whether it was true that the Farm Bill allowed for direct or indirect subsidies for the production of maple syrup in the United States and, if so, if that was in compliance with NAFTA rules.

[Frédéric Seppey, Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Trade Agreements and Negotiations, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

I want to thank the member for the question.

I was not aware of that request, but we could indeed look further into the issue and follow up, if the committee so wishes.

The U.S. Farm Bill is a piece of legislation that has a very broad scope and contains many elements. That is why we constantly have to look at many of the elements contained in the Farm Bill to ensure not only that they do not hinder the economic interests of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector, but also that they comply with the rules, as you pointed out.

I can't tell you right now whether the support for the U.S. maple syrup industry is causing compliance issues with NAFTA rules or World Trade Organization rules. That's something we can look into.

Generally speaking, since maple products are a Canadian symbol, we support that sector in various ways, whether we are talking about developing international markets, developing innovative farm practices or other initiatives. We are trying to do as much as we can to help the sector improve.

Let's hope that the Americans are also complying with international rules.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I have another question.

The Lever program is a federal-provincial initiative—funded at a rate of 94% by the federal government—which helps agri-food industry people buy processing equipment. In this case, maple sap is what is being processed.

Does the Lever program provide some flexibility to help our maple syrup producers acquire equipment for primary, secondary or tertiary processing, improve their products, manufacture new products and increase their production volume?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

I think that's a Quebec program. I don't think it's a federal program.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It's a federal-provincial program. I announced it myself. That program is administered by the MAPAQ, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Lever program is funded at a rate of 94% by the federal government and 6% by the provincial government. That 6% is only for administration. So the money provided directly to producers and processors comes from the federal government.

I would like you to look into that and tell us whether the program has the flexibility needed to help our maple syrup producers.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, we could perhaps follow up on that later.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I would like to get some answers. I already asked this question three meetings ago. However, we will put our foot down this time if we do not receive any answers. Okay? Thank you.

It's okay.