Agriculture Committee on May 27th, 2021

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We sent a clear message to dairy farmers in particular. We told them we were to make payments to them over eight years, but we reduced that timeline to four years to provide predictability.

We explained to them that because of the emergency programs that need to be put in place to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, there would be delays in the CUSMA negotiations. So I don't think they're surprised, because that's what we agreed to when we tightened up the payment schedule to four years rather than eight years. Our commitment is still very strong, but we must put emergency programs in place at this time.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

As I understand it, we're at the same point.

You mentioned the emergency processing fund. You know that those programs ran out of money during the pandemic.

Can we hope that new money will be made available for that? Is that what you said earlier?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We have invested an additional $10 million. So the amount for the emergency processing fund has increased from $77.5 million to $87.5 million.

However, at this time, we are not planning any additional investments. You saw where the investments were directed in the fall economic statement and the spring budget.

You can see that we are investing quite significantly to make this climate change transition. Our farmers are the first to be impacted by climate change and we really want to do as much as we can to help them adapt and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I invite you to explore this avenue as the needs are there. When undertakings become more efficient, their operations obviously have less negative impact on the environment.

You mentioned temporary foreign workers earlier in the exchange with Ms. Rood, and the decrease in the $1,500 amount. You know I wanted that amount to go up, not down. Obviously, we have a different position on this issue.

My question is about people who have experienced delays because of Switch Health. This issue is central to Quebec, because Quebec is where we have had language issues and we have seen quarantines last up to 20 and 30 days.

Are you considering compensation for producers who have had seven, eight or 10 workers stop working for weeks at a time?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

As always, my response will be quite transparent.

The mandatory isolation support for temporary foreign workers and the 14-day isolation period component is an emergency program developed in the same spirit as other emergency programs that have been put in place for our businesses across all sectors, such as the Canada emergency business account or the emergency wage subsidy. They are designed to help our entrepreneurs in all sectors weather the crisis, keep their heads above water and bounce back when the recovery comes.

When you compare the various sectors, the agricultural sector has weathered the crisis much better than other sectors, and this emergency program may not be essential to keep entrepreneurs' heads above water.

This is not a compensation program, but an emergency program to get them through the crisis. That's why we announced in the budget that we were going to phase out of this program, while leaving a small door open. We would be willing to reconsider if we saw that, for certain sectors or certain regions, this program was helping businesses to be viable.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I would urge you to keep that open-mindedness with respect to businesses. You would have to look at their situation on a case-by-case basis, obviously, but I think businesses would be able to document their losses. We're not talking about the cases where there was an extra day or two, but where the losses were really significant and disrupted the crops as well as the businesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Unfortunately, your time is up.

Thank you, Minister.

Now it's Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to our committee, Minister. It's good to see you again.

First of all, I want to note that it is really great news to hear of the increase in revenue that we're seeing on farms. I think all of us can really celebrate that fact. It's great to see that this year is on pace to beat the previous year.

In light of that, I'm interested in digging down a little closer into some of the numbers, because your departmental plan doesn't yet have a result for the percentage of financially healthy farms. I think you had a target of 90%. Do you have any updates on that? Farms, in recent years, have taken on a significant amount of debt. While their gross receipts might be quite high, they also have to pay a lot of that to input costs, so the farmer, at the end of the day, is sometimes left with a very small amount.

Can you tell us a little bit about how many financially healthy farms there are, from the department's numbers?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We just recently received the information from Statistics Canada, and our officials are analyzing the situation. It's a bit early for me to share with you any results from this analysis.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Do you have a timeline as to when that might be available for us?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I would maybe turn to my deputy minister.

[Chris Forbes, Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, for the question.

We're working in the coming months to do the analysis of the farm financial survey, and certainly we can share that as quickly as we have it available.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

That would be appreciated. Thank you.

My next question dovetails from the first one. It's regarding the agricultural climate solutions program. I think we, all around the table, recognize that farmers are increasingly on the front lines of climate change. It's great to see that financial resources are being made available to really recognize the key role that agriculture can play in combatting climate change.

I know that this program uses the living laboratories model, in partnership with farmers and scientists, in setting up little mini-research stations across the country.

Going forward, looking into the next decade, we've been kind of stuck in this argument over the carbon tax. I'm trying to find ways we can maybe financially reward farmers for good agricultural practices.

Minister, in your long-term vision for how Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is going to tackle this, do you see room for other types of policies in the future that will build on what the ACS is currently doing, where we can maybe reward farmers for good agricultural practices in the future, give them an incentive for following regenerative models, give them rewards for the amount of carbon they're sequestering in the soil and so on?

Anything that you can talk about in that vein would be appreciated.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

You referred to the agricultural climate solutions program that was announced. We already had our living laboratories initiative, and then with the increase in the budget, in the fall economic statement, we now have $185 million to, how should I say, put in place more of those kinds of living labs across the country. In this budget, you've seen an additional $200 million—over and above the $185 million—that is directly and specifically dedicated to putting money in the pockets of the farmers who are adopting better practices to contribute to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions or to increasing carbon sequestration.

We are designing the program right now in consultation with the industry, and the idea is really to reward those who will be adopting rotational grazing, cover cropping or nutrient management like the 4R approach. This is really what we are doing.

There will also be the reverse auction. The idea is that instead of having one seller and many buyers, there will be many sellers and one buyer—the government. The idea will be that for those farmers who will commit to protect a certain portion of their grassland, for example, or forest and make sure that these are contributing to sequestration, we will pay them for that. It's another way for us to support, to reward, those who are doing the right thing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

All right. I just want to sneak in one more question.

It seems that our relationship with our American neighbours and the supply management issue.... There was another thorn in our side this week with their opposition over our TRQ allocation. Just give a brief statement on how this might impact future compensation for the CUSMA trade deal to our supply-managed farmers. Do you foresee that it is going to have any impact?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We've been negotiating hard with the U.S. on this agreement. They are challenging us in the way that we are applying the TRQs. I am very confident that we do respect the rules, as Canadians do, so we will let the Canada-America committee do the verification. However, I am quite confident that we are following the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Bibeau.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll move to our second round.

We'll start with Mr. Lehoux.

Mr. Lehoux, I think you want to share your time with Mr. Epp.

Gentlemen, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Greetings, Madam Minister. Thank you for being with us this afternoon.

In the budget, $1.5 billion is allocated for risk management programs. In the last few months, we have provided you with a report on building food processing capacity.

The government has proposed to the provinces that the compensation rate for producers be increased to 80%, but the provinces are not unanimous.

Why not move forward with this compensation program in co-operation with all the provinces that are willing to sign on to allow producers to benefit from the program and get what they need?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We did take an important step in the right direction by removing the reference margin limit. We have the support of all provinces in this regard. This is retroactive to the year 2020. This will put approximately $95 million back into the pockets of our producers who need it most.

The second offer is to increase the AgriStability compensation rate from 70% to 80%. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get the support of the Canadian prairie provinces, but I want to make it clear that the offer is still on the table.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Why not allow the provinces that want to join to do so?

This is an important issue. The federal government has to put the money on the table. Then those provinces can contribute. That way, at least the producers in those different provinces would be supported.

Why don't we allow it?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I understand your question very well and I wish it were that simple. First of all, risk management programs are part of a legal framework that we have negotiated with the provinces. There are certain conditions that must be met in order to change the rules of the game along the way, one of which is the need to have the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces, by number. The weight of the provinces is measured by the number of participants. So getting two of the three prairie provinces to agree is a must for this to happen.

And then, at the federal level, we can't help one region differently than another without exposing ourselves to international trade risks. So we have to take all of this into very serious consideration.

We continue to encourage the prairie provinces...

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I yield the floor to my colleague Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Minister. It's good to see you.

I would like to begin with the pest management centre and its funding. The budget has cut the budget for the centre down to $8.9 million. The Canadian Horticultural Council is requesting another $5.3 million for this centre. In particular, the pesticide risk reduction program has been reduced from $1.2 million down to $200,000, resulting in the closures of Bouctouche, New Brunswick, and the Delhi station in Ontario. The testing capacity of this risk reduction program is down from 37 projects to 10 in just a year.

The result is that our competitors get access to more benign products sooner, and they take our market share. It seems like the budget had money for everybody except agriculture. Agriculture's not looking for handouts here, but we're looking for the tools to become competitive.

Why would you cut funding for research, particularly when it's a source of data for new crop protection products that are more selective and of a more benign environmental footprint?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

First of all, I want to say that we are not making cuts to science. We're still spending $600 million on research, innovation and our 20 science research centres. So we are really investing in a major way.

To answer your question more specifically, I will ask my deputy minister for help.

Mr. Forbes, are you able to provide more specific answers to Mr. Epp's question?

[Chris Forbes]

Yes, I can.

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Yes. We've actually had some discussions with the Canadian Horticultural Council about their concerns about the allocation of funding to the pest management centre. That is part of our broader science and technology branch budget, so as we allocate within that budget, we have to make choices about where we put the money. Certainly, their concerns have been raised with us, and we're looking at those and understand the issue.