Evidence of meeting #115 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dave Carey  Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association
Gayle McLaughlin  Senior Manager, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association
Tyler Fulton  Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association
Gregory Kolz  Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada
Émilie Bergeron  Vice-President, Chemistry, CropLife Canada
Massimo Bergamini  Executive Director, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada
Catherine Lefebvre  President, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec
Patrice Léger Bourgoin  General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec
Keith Currie  President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Katie Ward  Past President, National Farmers Union
Phil Dykstra  President, P & D Dykstra Farms Inc.

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Okay, that's perfect. Thanks for clarifying that.

With respect to interswitching, I get the comments that, with the short timeline that you have had and the shorter distance, it's been hard to get a complete, holistic picture of data. With regard to the regions where you have been able to collect data, can you report anything back? What's it been like so far?

4:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association

Dave Carey

Even at the peak of interswitching, during 2014-17, only 1% of grain was moved through it. Typically, it's the canola processors who are big movers of it. It's a corporate negotiation strategy. A shipper can say to one class I railway, “We need 500 grain cars this week.” If that railway says, “We can only send 300”, the shipper can then call the other class I railway and say, “We need 500. How close can you get?”

With the duration of the pilot being only 18 months and with no path to permanency or no horizon for an extension at this point, many shippers are scared to use it, for fear of retaliation from the class I railways after the expiration of interswitching. Again, it is a negotiation tool. It's not something that is typically used a lot, but it provides the only way our shippers can say.... We have geographic monopolies that, at the best of times, operate as a duopoly. In the worst-case scenario for farmers, if a grain elevator processor gets full, they can't deliver their grain even if they have a contract. Then they can't pay their bills. Increasingly, we're seeing, in your neck of the woods, that all the anchorage or demurrage from vessels is as a result of poor grain car fulfillment from railways.

For us, 80% is good. CN has been pretty good post-labour action. CPKC is still in the 70% of grain car fulfillment. When those ships anchor, those demurrage costs, up to $15,000 a day, get passed on through the value chain. Then they have to go back to sea. They cause Vancouver Island residents heartache, etc.

It's a significant issue. It affects our global reputation as an on-time, reliable trading partner.

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Yes. That is still a very hot topic for my constituents.

I'd like to turn to the Canadian Cattle Association.

Mr. Fulton and Ms. Babcock, welcome back.

I heard your opening comments about the encroachment of cropland onto grazing land. I also want to focus on the tremendous efforts you've made in working with organizations like the Nature Conservancy of Canada and showing how a well-managed, symbiotic relationship between large herbivores and Canada's traditional grasslands can really intensify the ecological health of the area.

Do you feel that government policy is giving enough recognition to those types of efforts and the types of measures you're putting into place to preserve Canada's traditional grasslands?

4:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association

Tyler Fulton

No. We've advocated fairly consistently, definitely over the last five years, to get recognition and to really address the grassland loss that happens largely from a conversion to cropland.

As I relayed in my statement, we think a big part of that is simply the incentives that crop insurance provides within that program to roll the dice and try growing canola, for example, on marginal land that you know wouldn't otherwise really be able to support it. I grow both beef cattle and canola. When there is a program in place that favours one over another, it will influence my decisions on it. Really, the hope is that we can level the playing field so that the market decides what the best use of that land is. Hopefully, the market can reflect the value of that pasture in nature.

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Finally, I know that this committee, in previous years, especially after the pandemic, was looking at Canada's processing capacity. Do you have any comments you want to make on Canada's current state or on anything the government needs to look at?

4:30 p.m.

Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association

Tyler Fulton

Really, I would just lock down what I was saying earlier. Square one is getting these SRM regulations matched with the U.S. Without that, we cannot attract the investment that we need into our sector in order to grow that processing sector, which is critical. In particular, for the small and medium packers, I have friends who have expressed a desire to grow but also the concern that they can't compete.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Fulton.

We will now go to Ms. Murray online.

I understand that Mr. Drouin is still not able to join us, but I know we'll be in capable hands with you, Ms. Murray. It's over to you.

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you for being here and for sharing with us the information about your members' priorities, which is, of course, very helpful to the government.

I was listening to hear if any of the priorities linked in to our previous discussions on carbon border adjustment and preparing to help defend Canada's agriculture sector in the context of that potential, which we know is not for sure, and we know the sector is not thrilled about the idea. However, preparing for that also means reducing greenhouse gas emissions out of Canada's agriculture sector.

In regard to the cattle industry, for example, I totally understand why livestock price insurance would be a top priority. I'd love to hear what the industry is doing to reduce methane release and the very potent greenhouse gas emission that it is. I'd also like to hear about the plant science innovations. I'm sure there are innovations to reduce climate gas production.

For the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, whether it's transportation or fertilization, could you give us some highlights as to how you're helping prepare to reduce the impact of potential carbon border adjustment?

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

I'll try to help facilitate.

Go ahead, Mr. Fulton. You look like you're ready to go.

4:30 p.m.

Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association

Tyler Fulton

Thank you.

Absolutely, the beef sector relies very heavily on export markets, on trade agreements. We export roughly 50% of our cattle, or beef, abroad. We are very focused on all aspects that could influence that, not the least of which is, for example, Bill C-282. That's a big concern to our industry. But we are also concerned about carbon border adjustments.

Specifically, you mentioned methane. What I can speak to is a protocol that is designed to allow ranchers and cattle producers to benefit if they can show a reduction in methane production. There are a lot of good, technological, advanced products that we can point to that actually help to reduce that, but it's important that those incentives are aligned with.... Producers can't afford to spend the money on that technology without somehow realizing a benefit.

In general, we identify the fact that we need to do our part, and that's why I would point to the grasslands and the fact that we use these natural environments that sequester carbon as our places of work, where we produce that beef. We have a great story to tell, and we can talk more about it.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Folks from CropLife, there was a reference to you. Would you like to weigh in quickly?

4:35 p.m.

Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada

Gregory Kolz

Yes, thank you.

I would say that, on the whole, the agriculture industry is quite focused on, if not seized with, the idea of being environmentally responsible and sustainable—certainly from a plant science perspective, whether it's the use of plant breeding innovations in order to grow more on less land, under rather adverse conditions, or the ability, for instance, for us to protect the crops we have and ensure a higher yield.

No farmer wants to see their crops go to waste. We want to make sure that we can provide, as I mentioned in our opening remarks, food not only for our country, but for the world. The environmental component and the sustainability element are key to ensuring the long-term success of the industry.

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I appreciate hearing that, because I heard your priorities as being food security and affordability, which are critical, but I didn't hear sustainability until now, so thanks for sharing that.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Thank you.

Mr. Louis, you have about a minute and 20 seconds.

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you very much for your time.

I have a quick question for the Fruit and Vegetable Growers executive director, Massimo Bergamini.

I'm really intrigued by what you said about the idea of putting a food lens on all public policy to make food security a national priority. I think that really resonated with people on both sides of this table, the question of whether the policy would enhance or reduce food production.

I appreciate your sharing this at the federal level. Are you having these discussions at all at the provincial level as well?

4:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada

Massimo Bergamini

Not yet, but we intend to. It should be for all orders of government.

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I think feeding people is a non-partisan issue.

Here is a quick question, in my remaining time, for the Canadian Cattle Association.

Herd levels are down in Canada to levels that haven't been seen since, I think, 1987. In the U.S., their levels are actually down to where they were in 1951, I believe.

If the government were to move ahead with the livestock price insurance, what kind of evidence do we have that this would ensure the growth of this sector? Have you done a study? Is that something that is public, or is it something you can share with this committee so we can advocate?

4:35 p.m.

Vice-President, Canadian Cattle Association

Tyler Fulton

I would make reference to some materials that we shared, which reflect the uptake of the program. It's a very similar program in the United States. It shows that when there were cost-shared premiums, it really increased the use of the program.

I would just point back to the fact that the cattle business is risky. What we would identify as our biggest risk is the price risk. Currently, in particular, ranching, or the cow-calf side, doesn't have the tools to really address those risks. This is one that the industry is fully supportive of and that puts us on a level playing field. With the combination of that and land use, but also the lens on a young producer starting up and how leveraged they are, I'm really confident that we'll see a recovery and growth in the cow herd.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

We're at time.

Thank you, Mr. Louis. Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

Here are two quick questions from the chair.

Do you have a per-animal opportunity cost of SRM? Is that something you can provide to this committee? Knowing how many actual additional costs there are, in terms of not having SRM aligned with the U.S., would be helpful for this committee. You don't need to answer. Maybe my Conservative friends already know.

My second question is for the Canola Growers Association. APAS was on the Hill last week as part of the CFA days. One of the things that were raised was the idea that the rail companies pass the entirety of the carbon price as part of their pricing model down to shippers. Is it your understanding that this is true? Is there any policy argument to say that, although maybe some costs should be passed down, certainly the intent of the carbon price is to actually adjust and drive innovative behaviour, and if that's not happening, the entirety of the cost should not be passed on the sector? Is there validity to that argument?

4:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association

Dave Carey

That's my understanding. The newest issue we're dealing with is that the railways are really pushing differential pricing, which means they want to flatten the curve, as opposed to farmers needing access to rail capacity when they're harvesting. We're seeing on the horizon very significant increases to costs from railways for shippers, which impact farmers during peak times of harvest. We have no opportunity to do anything about that. When we're harvesting, South America and Australia aren't, which is when we need to get to market. Significant costs are passed down, absolutely.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Okay, thank you very much.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I'd like to thank the witnesses for their work and their testimony here today.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend very quickly, and we're going to turn to the second panel in about two minutes.

The meeting is suspended.

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Colleagues, we're going to get started with the second panel.

First of all, from the National Farmers Union, we have Katie Ward. Welcome back to the committee.

From the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec, we welcome Ms. Catherine Lefebvre and Mr. Patrice Léger Bourgoin.

From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Keith Currie, president, and Brodie Berrigan, senior director.

Last but not least, from P & D Dykstra Farms Inc., we have Phil Dykstra.

We're excited to have you all before the committee.

Colleagues, we're going to move quickly again. Timewise, we're a bit behind. I know our witnesses will do a good job with no more than five minutes. I will be a little bit stricter today.

We appreciate hearing some of your concrete ideas on low-cost or no-cost measures to support your industry.

I now yield the floor to the representatives of the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec, who have five minutes.

Catherine Lefebvre President, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, as citizens, we are all concerned about the financial health of the state. In this context, we won't be submitting requests that would have the effect of increasing the pressure on the current situation. Instead, we will focus our recommendations on the efficiency of the state's human and financial resources, to ensure that the population's food resilience lives up to its expectations. For us, the issue is paramount. The government must set clear performance targets for its public policies, particularly those that direct it towards measures that have concrete and direct effects on the competitiveness of our businesses, while preserving the collective interest.

First, let's address the issue of fairness. As we have repeatedly stated, it is imperative to strengthen controls on imported fruits and vegetables. Canadian regulations do not provide for the same requirements and control measures for companies growing fruit and vegetables in Canada as for imported products. The Safe Food for Canadians Act is just one example. This law imposes numerous traceability requirements on local producers. Numerous inspections and controls are carried out to verify producers' compliance with the act. However, in the case of imports, reliance is placed on importers rather than directly on producers. In our opinion, this is unfair. It is becoming increasingly urgent to document situations of unfair competition. In this respect, our proposals do not involve additional or extraordinary expenditures. We are simply asking for a reallocation of existing resources so that border controls related to food safety, phytosanitary protection and the presence of pesticide residues are strengthened in order to better protect Canadians and ensure fairness in the treatment of imported and domestically produced foods.

Second, let's talk about regulatory distortion. Regulatory distortion occurs when Canadian requirements affect the competitiveness of local businesses. Canadian vegetable producers operate in a highly integrated North American market, so it's essential that Canada's trade rules don't harm their competitiveness. Take the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, for example. This agency imposes Canada-specific requirements for registering a crop protection product. It goes without saying that the health of workers and the public must take precedence over all other considerations. However, the economic impact of decisions must also be taken into account. Most crop protection products are imported from the four corners of the globe, but mainly from the United States. Canada is a small player on the world stage. If Canadian requirements and registration costs are unjustifiable in the eyes of manufacturers, it will be easy for them to give up and not make their products available in Canada. With manufacturer consolidation having taken its toll, the possibility of finding a substitute product becomes slim.

Patrice Léger Bourgoin General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec

We're very concerned about the way the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, operates. We certainly adhere to the principles of scientific rigour and independence in order to protect the health of our fellow citizens, however, we believe that a rigorous but more time-efficient analysis process can be put in place.

Submission times for plant protection products are far too long to allow us not only to adapt adequately to commercial changes, but also to climate change. At present, the PMRA is unable to meet its own timeliness performance targets. We are asking for a corrective plan to improve the efficiency of the current process in handling minor use applications for crop protection products.

Thirdly, let's talk about improving risk management programs. In a context of increasing climate risks, it is necessary to adapt current parameters. Climate change is exacerbating environmental problems and creating new challenges.

More than ever, government programs need to be linked more effectively to companies' personal risk management strategies. Crop insurance and AgriStability need to be reviewed to better reflect new needs. Coordination with the provinces and flexibility to implement innovative solutions that meet producers' needs are required of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

In conclusion, make no mistake. We are not advocating across-the-board deregulation, nor are we reducing the role of government. Sound, effective regulation is the mechanism par excellence and the bulwark by which the public interest is protected. When well designed, regulation aims to manage risk appropriately. We are simply asking for better collaboration with economic players.

For example, if the PMRA were to take into account—

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

I'm sorry, Mr. Léger Bourgoin. Unfortunately, your time is up. During the question and answer period, you'll have time to say more.

We're going to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for up to five minutes, please.