Agriculture Committee on March 21st, 2016

[Greg Meredith]

Thank you for the question. I think it's fair to say that we are not, as a department, doing any specific research on the language question, but we are very sensitive to the need for the temporary foreign worker program to work effectively in all of its streams. You're talking about one specific stream of the temporary foreign worker program.

The minister has had several discussions with his colleague Minister Mihychuk. The minister herself has indicated that she wants to bring questions about the temporary foreign worker program to committee to have the program examined and see how it's working. We can raise this issue.

It's the first time, I have to admit, that I've heard about the language barrier being a serious problem.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. I will definitely follow up then with a letter to your ministry regarding this issue, because the language barrier has become a fairly significant issue for them.

My second question is on the movement of grain. In 2014, it became a significant issue, and steps were taken to improve the movement of grain by rail to our ports. Those helped in that respect, but we understand that there was then a problem with bottlenecks at the elevators in the ports; they simply couldn't handle the volumes that were coming in.

Is there anything in the main estimates now coming forward that is being directed towards either studying that issue or resolving it in some way, so that we can effectively get our farmers' products to markets overseas?

[Greg Meredith]

There's nothing specific in the main estimates, unless my colleague corrects me, but this government is very attentive to the problems of grain transport. You're quite right that there's a potentially acute problem when you have issues such as what happened in 2013-14, which was a record crop and a record cold winter that resulted in very significant backlogs, primarily in inland terminals.

The government of the day took some temporary measures. Some of those measures will end on August 1, 2016, unless they're extended by Parliament. My minister has spent a great deal of time talking to stakeholders and getting feedback from stakeholders on the issue of extending those provisions, as well as on longer-term solutions with respect to the Canadian transportation system.

As you're probably aware, the Canada Transportation Act was recently reviewed by an expert panel, which submitted its report to the Minister of Transport, and he has submitted it to Parliament and it's now public. It contains a number of wide-ranging recommendations with respect to transportation, not strictly grain. A great many of them deal either specifically with grain transportation, or more broadly with rail freight shipping.

The government has undertaken to consult extensively on that report. In the minister's mandate letter, the Prime Minister has tasked him with looking at the grain supply chain in a fulsome way along with the Minister of Transport in the context of responding to the CTA review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We still have a minute.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The almost $17.5 million earmarked for the agri-risk initiatives program, including $16.5 million in transfer amounts, is 40% higher than previous budget amounts. Can you explain the reason for this increase, the background behind it?

[Tina Namiesniowski, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll attempt to answer that question.

Agri-risk is a new program that was included as part of the business risk management suite of programs under the current Growing Forward 2 framework. As a result, since it is the first time this program has been put in place, a decision was made at the time to ramp up the funding for the program. You'll see a funding increase last year, an increase this coming fiscal year, and an increase again in the final year of the program. That was an intentional decision at the time because it was a new program, and the thought was that a bit of work was needed to incent demand for that program. That is why you see additional levels of investment in the program going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Drouin has the floor for six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today

Before I ask my question, I would like to point out something important, for the benefit of the entire committee. It was said earlier that the minister's chief of staff seemed unfit to occupy her position. However, it is important for people to understand that there is a process in place to protect those who may find themselves in a conflict of interest situation.

I have also not heard one bad word from the agricultural community about the minister's chief of staff. No one is pleased when that position is held by someone who doesn't understand anything. I think that people are happy to finally have someone who understands the farming process and has been involved in agriculture.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to take a couple of minutes to explain to us the process he used to determine that there was no conflict of interest. If I remember correctly, he's also a dairy farmer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Poissant.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Francis pointed out, when I was appointed parliamentary secretary, I had to comply with ethical principles. The commissioner called me. She asked me about my agricultural holdings and my businesses. I do manage two businesses, in addition to running the family farm. I had to give up any duties related to the administration of the businesses. The numbers for my company are definitely not in the same ballpark as the ones that were mentioned earlier, but regardless of the company's size, I had to comply with all the ethics rules. I believe that's the right thing to do. The government must be transparent in everything it does.

Thank you.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I completely agree.

Now for my questions for the witnesses who are here.... Just as we are embarking on the consultation process for moving beyond Growing Forward 2, what process does the department undertake in terms of negotiating or speaking with provinces, and how long does that take, in general?

[Greg Meredith]

You are right. We are now embarking on that engagement process. You will recall that during my last visit here we spoke briefly about the shared jurisdiction that agriculture experiences. Both the federal and provincial governments have responsibility, which imposes on governments the obligation to ensure that policies and programs are aligned, as much as possible. The policy frameworks that we put in place are negotiated with provinces for that reason, to ensure that we have policy alignment, that we are all pulling in the right direction, and that we remain responsive to local needs.

The process we would pursue would bring us from roughly where we are now through April 1, 2018, which would be the implementation of the new framework. The minister has this obligation in his mandate letter. He will be spending some time between now and July 2016 discussing with the sector where they want to go and what priorities they want to bring to bear.

July 2016 is important because ministers will be meeting in Calgary. One of the issues that will be on the table will be the next policy framework, and where ministers as a collective see that framework going.

It is fair to say that our minister has made a commitment. I believe it will be shared by all ministers, to engage this sector in a fairly robust way between July and whenever programs and policies get put in place. What you will see is a process of officials and ministers engaging the sector at the federal level, within each province, and jointly.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Great, thank you.

When you are embarking on this process, is it the normal custom for this to be done by yourself, or with an ADM working group along with your provincial counterparts, or mostly at the ministerial level?

[Greg Meredith]

The ministers are very involved. For example in their annual meeting our minister will be speaking to his colleagues. One issue on the table will be the next policy framework, but to get all this work done there's a lot of back office activity, as you can imagine. I chair a committee of assistant deputy ministers whose responsibility is to bring forward ideas for ministers to deal with. Supporting that is a fairly methodical network of people who are responsible for putting the details of a potential next framework in place.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks. Where I'm coming from is that I've heard from a few farmers, and it's mostly the younger ones. They appreciate the programs, but the younger people don't ask, “Where's the forum for that?” They ask, “Where's the app for that?” I know the federal government funds these programs, but it doesn't necessarily deliver them. How can we ensure that input is put into the process with our provincial counterparts? Does the federal government have any say in terms of how we deliver the program, or is that mostly left up to each province?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.

The last time I was before committee I talked about the fact that under our current framework there are programs that are delivered at the federal level. Federally we have a lot of input into the design and whether those programs are delivered by us directly or indirectly through a third party. When you talk about the business risk management suite of programs, those are the ones where sometimes we do involve third parties.

At the federal level, our federal-only voted programs are delivered exclusively by the federal government. At the provincial level, for the $2 billion we talked about the last time in cost-shared programming, it's up to the provinces to decide how they will design and deliver those programs. In the context of discussions with the provinces and territories, we do have as part of those discussions an emphasis on service delivery.

At the federal level we're focused on how we can improve the way we deliver those programs, including the adoption of technology and tools. We recognize that our clients have an expectation that they would be able to interface with the federal government the same way they can interface with other service providers, such as banks. A lot of people do online banking for example. We have some technological tools at our disposal that would allow for online application to a number of our federal-only programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Namiesniowski. We're going to have to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Ms. Brosseau, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to hear from you in committee.

The Minister of International Trade said she wanted the CETA to enter into force in 2017.

Mr. Seppey, can you tell us whether the compensations intended for dairy producers are included in the supplementary estimates?

[Pierre Corriveau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

I will answer the question.

You have before you the main estimates, and no new elements have been added in terms of that commitment.

[Greg Meredith]

You asked Frédéric Seppey, who's younger and more handsome, so I understand, but I'll have to hazard an answer.

The minister has been fairly clear that the government is aware of the need for compensation in the context of CETA and the TPP. He has tasked me and others to engage with the industry to understand their perspectives on some of the proposals the previous government had on the table. We've been spending a great deal of time doing that so that the design of any compensation package in the future will reflect the needs and priorities of the sector.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I was at committee when we had the bill—I think it was Bill C-30—to help facilitate grain transport. You did mention that some provisions will be sunsetting in August and that it has to go before Parliament. Does it have to come before Parliament in order to keep those changes in place? Or could it be done by a directive from the minister to keep some of those provisions?

[Greg Meredith]

It's an order in council that has to come and be passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

So it's important to consult industry and make sure that this problem does not arise again.

The concerns over the CFIA persist. We have raised those issues with the minister. That's actually mainly the responsibility of the Minister of Health. A number of articles were just published. Surveys have been conducted with unionized CFIA employees, and 55% of respondents believe that the current resources are insufficient. We want to make the minister aware of the importance of taking action and auditing the CFIA. We have to make sure that the agency has all the resources it needs. As we know, the Liberal Party has promised to provide about $80 million, but the former government had reduced the budget by $56 million per year.

Do you think it would be preferable to carry out an audit now? An audit will be done in 2017, but I believe it is important to find out what the problems are and to take action. In fact, given that agency experts are sounding the alarm and telling us that a crisis is coming, I think it is of the utmost importance for the government to take those concerns seriously.

[Greg Meredith]

Mr. Chair, I think this really is out of the competence that my colleagues or I could.... Paul Mayers, being ahead of me, has graciously joined us at the table. He can probably provide a response.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you for the question.

I'll answer briefly so as to avoid having my colleagues attempt to speak on behalf of the agency, which I know puts them in an awkward position.

As it relates to the issue of the resource profile in the agency, of course the commitment on the part of the government is a matter of policy, and I won't comment with respect to that matter. However, as it relates to the issue of current resources for the agency, again I'll note, as I did earlier with the information we provided to this committee, that since the listeriosis event in 2008 the agency's front-line inspection resources have been significantly increased through a very strong commitment on the agency's part.

In terms of front-line inspection, I certainly am very aware of the polling you refer to. As an agency, we will pay very close attention to the views of our staff, but at the same time, we'll also work with the resources that were allocated. We bring a very strong focus in the agency on prioritizing our actions in relation to risk and to focusing on delivering front-line inspection in relation to those risks.

The actions on the part of the agency in delivering for Canadians have been recognized not just domestically but in the international context. The Conference Board of Canada's review of OECD member countries' food safety systems has ranked Canada number one, along with the Irish food safety system. We're proud of that outcome.

We don't rest on those laurels. We continue to focus on continuous improvement. We will take very seriously any of the views of our own staff in terms of where opportunities are for continuous improvement, but I can assure you that our commitment to food safety outcomes for Canadians will continue to be paramount.