Agriculture Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our first hour of today's meeting.

Minister, thank you for being here before the committee.

I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say thank you for your work on behalf of Canadian agriculture. We'll let you get on with your day.

Our officials will stick around, so colleagues, I'm going to suspend just for a minute or two and then we'll be up with the officials.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're back in session.

Thank you to our officials.

We've added Marie-Claude Guérard from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

We have Mr. Xu, who is with CFIA.

Welcome. Thank you for being here.

We'll go right into questions.

Mr. Epp, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you to the officials for being here.

In the opening round, the minister stated that he had not or was not aware of the railway and the private crossings issue. I find a bit astounding that he would not have been briefed on that.

I want to also go into the railway issues, but with drainage.

Specifically, what federal change in policy or in legislation has led to CN Rail declaring that it no longer is subject to the Ontario Drainage Act?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Thank you, Chair.

I do say that I should defer to Transport Canada colleagues on this. I will note, just on the rail crossings in the first instance, that I think a lot of work has been going on to identify potential exemptions, either temporary or longer term. I'll leave that with them.

I've met with multiple stakeholders since I started this job. This issue has not been raised personally with me. On the drainage issue, I'm very sorry, but I think that in terms of regulating and working with CN, that would probably be a question better answered by Transport Canada officials.

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

CN is actually being sued by Perth East, which is a municipality in Ontario. CPKC is being sued by my own municipality of Chatham-Kent.

I know the Ontario federation has written extensively, publicly, on behalf of farmers, so I'm a little surprised that AAFC.... I know the Ontario Minister of Agriculture has written to the Minister of Transport.

What has AAFC done? Has it made representations to transport on this issue, both the crossings, I guess, and on drainage in particular?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Chair, to my knowledge, on this drainage issue, no representations have been made to me from any of our stakeholders. I will ask Tom if any have with him.

[Tom Rosser]

Although I meet regularly with provincial and national stakeholders—probably dozens a year, if not hundreds—they have not raised it with me, nor has it been raised directly with the minister in any of the meetings of his that I have attended.

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

By way of background, both CN and CP have declared that they are no longer subject to provincial legislation on drainage, yet they have complied with that for over 100 years.

The Ontario Drainage Act was the single first piece of business undertaken by the Ontario legislature when it was formed because it's so important to Ontario farmers. For 100 years, the federally regulated railways complied with it. Five years ago, they stopped and now municipalities are suing them.

In fact, there was no regulatory change or policy change. They found a loophole in the legislation when the railways act was morphed into the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

Has the AAFC done no work on drainage in Ontario and other places with respect to federal legislation?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I will never say that we have never done any work on a specific issue in case we have, but I will say, just to reiterate the point from my colleague, that this issue has never been brought forward to us by any of our stakeholders. To my knowledge, it's not something that we're actively engaged on.

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

Thank you.

I'll switch gears a bit and go to fertilizer. I'll focus not on potassium or nitrogen but on phosphorus, which Canada lacks in its present capacity. Eastern Canada, where I'm from, has in the past largely depended on imports from Belarus and Morocco. Florida is the main source of phosphorus into Canada.

What work has the department done with respect to the threat of 25% tariffs? How will that affect our Canadian ag industry?

[Lawrence Hanson]

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement from the president-elect, needless to say we've been talking to all our stakeholders about this. They're bringing up the issues of the tariffs.

I will just defer to the comments that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about the desire to work closely with the incoming American administration, given the mutual dependencies of the agriculture sector across the border.

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

Has AAFC done any work at all on enhancing Canada's own supply of phosphorus?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Not to my knowledge, but I'll turn to Tom on that.

[Tom Rosser]

We certainly have engaged with ag fertilizer stakeholders on the security of supply and availability of different types of fertilizers over the past several years, including looking at what options might exist to increase domestic supply for those who are reliant on imports.

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

Can you table with the committee any information on that, specifically with the possibility of enhanced mining of phosphorus in Canada?

[Lawrence Hanson]

Any information we have on this we'll be happy to table.

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

Great. Thank you.

I'll switch gears again and go to the grocery code of conduct, which the minister raised. What makes Canada different? It's an issue that I've certainly followed. I'm sure the department has followed the evolution of the development of the grocery codes of conduct in the U.K. and Australia. What makes Canada different from those two countries that will allow us not to have to follow that same process that unfurled in both of those countries in lockstep?

[Lawrence Hanson]

In terms of how we're different, I will just say that this is an issue that we have worked on with provincial and territorial governments. It was discussed at the Whitehorse meeting, which the minister referred to earlier today. There was a consensus among federal and provincial governments that an industry-led voluntary approach was the most effective means at this time, notwithstanding what others might have done.

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

Great. Thank you for that.

Are you aware of the other steps that have evolved in the other countries?

[Lawrence Hanson]

I believe the other models are a little bit more dirigiste, if I may say. The idea was to tailor the situation to the Canadian situation. Again, there was a consensus at a federal, provincial and territorial table that this was the way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being in front of us.

My honourable colleague asked about the Ontario Drainage Act. The title speaks for itself. Has the Ontario government sent us a letter to request our help to enforce their own act?

[Lawrence Hanson]

To my knowledge, no. If there were such a letter, I imagine it would have gone to Transport as opposed to our department.

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

Right. The issue is that the Ontario Drainage Act was passed in Ontario and not at the federal level. For decades now, CN and CP have not been Crown corporations of the Government of Canada. I understand there are federal regulations that they must follow, but at the same time, we expect our rail lines to follow provincial regulations wherever they may cross. I think this is an issue where I hear where the stakeholders are at, but at the same time, if provinces want to enforce their own act, then they have the power to do so. I hope they do it. I fully support our farmers and our municipalities who are facing those particular issues.

Mr. Chair, over the last few days, I've noticed that on Twitter there's a campaign of disinformation on a food additive. I would like to direct my questions to CFIA in terms of how we approve food additives in Canada. It's been raised that there are those who are advocating to provide public trust into our system, while at the same time there are certain professors who are providing mistrust in the system in terms of not providing real data.

When a private sector company asks CFIA for a food additive to be available in Canada, what is the particular process? Will CFIA treat this as a food additive or perhaps a drug? What's the balance there in terms of ensuring not only public safety but also animal safety and human health, at the end of the day?

[Robert Ianiro]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

I just want to clarify that if we're talking about food additives for human food consumption, that would be for Health Canada. If it's related to a feed additive for animal feed, there is a process that is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

In particular, the ingredient that is being referred to is 3-NOP, which is a feed ingredient that has recently been approved in Canada. It is actually approved in the U.S. and the EU for use in beef cattle. It was recently approved in Canada for use in dairy cattle and in beef cattle. It is approved because it is a known reducer of methane emissions in cattle, which are a key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a robust process in place. They go through an evaluation at the CFIA. There is a consultation process. In particular, for 3-NOP, that ingredient was consulted on from November to December, after which it was added to the ingredients table. That allows manufacturers to make a determination on whether or not they want to use that additive in their feed.

We regulate the ingredient.