Agriculture Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

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

Thank you.

Obviously, global food security was the main issue we were all looking at, trying to see how we can collaborate better to contribute to food security in the world. I thought it was particularly interesting to see how much we talked about farmers' livelihoods.

It was obvious we were all there to talk about global food security. We had, virtually, Ukraine's minister of agriculture, so we talked about the impact of the war on food security and how we can support Ukraine as well. We obviously talked about the climate crisis, shared our best practices, identified common objectives and shared how we can do it differently. We recognized that we all have different realities in terms of environment and agriculture, but there was a lot of emphasis on farmers' livelihoods.

I thought that was very important, because having been very much in the field across the country in the last year, I could see their commitment to these best practices and new technologies, but I could also see their high level of anxiety. Obviously, our food security relies on these farmers, and we want to be there to support them.

This is why I started to say that we are investing $1.5 billion to support them in this transition. They know that investing in good practices also makes them more resilient. We saw it in British Columbia after the flood. Those who had adopted cover cropping, for example, found it was easier for them to recover.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I think the comment made by the fruit and vegetable growers about the cost of the price on pollution by 2030 didn't take into account any changes in practices or adaptation of clean technology. I know that's the point of what we're doing, so I'm glad to hear you were sharing those practices at the OECD meeting. We will undoubtedly see those practices put into place here.

It's over to you, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks to my colleague for sharing her time.

It's good to have you here, Minister. Since the last opportunity to have you at the committee, you've completed negotiations of the renewal of the Canadian agricultural partnership with provinces and territories. I just want to say that it's a major achievement. It affects the biggest programs that affect the agriculture industry right across Canada, all of the programs that start with “agri”—AgriStability, AgriInvest and so on.

I noticed that this time the CAP also has the word “sustainable” in front of it, which I was happy to see, and it's fantastic.

Could you explain to us any of the changes that came with the renewal of the now SCAP?

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

Yes, I'm glad to speak about the sustainable CAP because, unfortunately, we haven't had too many opportunities yet.

The big news is that we have increased the cost-share portion by $500 million, which is significant. It hasn't been done for a five-year cycle before. It's a good increase. I'm sure you remember, but it's a 60% contribution from the federal government and 40% contribution from the provinces.

A big part of it, $250 million, will be around the resilient agriculture landscape program. This program is really meant to recognize farmers for ecological services. We have given flexibility to each and every province, once again recognizing that the environment and agriculture are done differently across the regions. The provinces will have flexibility to put in place this resilient agriculture landscape program. I really look forward to seeing how it will roll out.

We have also improved AgriStability. You will recall that maybe two years ago, we were able to negotiate with the provinces and remove the reference margin limit, which made AgriStability more equitable and generous. My offer, which had been on the table for two years, was finally accepted by our colleagues from the Prairies, and we were able to increase the compensation rate to AgriStability from 70% to 80%.

I would say that these are the highlights of the sustainable CAP, and the integration of climate risk within the business management suite is also part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister and the other witnesses for being with us today. We appreciate it.

Minister, I would like to talk to you about the positive subject you have been discussing. You know that I believe very much in recognizing environmental actions. I would simply say that we should be investing even more money in that.

I have a more serious issue to address. Last week, we held two meetings to study poultry product imports from Ukraine, after a remission order was rather quickly made. The day after the second meeting, when the committee's report had not yet been written, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued import permits.

That bothers me a bit, because it sends the message that the committee's work is of no interest to the Agency. Is that a misinterpretation?

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

That is definitely a misinterpretation, so I want to reassure you.

You know we are very determined to support the Ukrainian people in this war, this unspeakable invasion. We have imposed a number of trade sanctions on Russia and we have taken measures to increase flexibility in trade with Ukraine.

In the case of supply-managed products, I want to reassure you. The market will be opened for one year only, the time it takes for the Agency to do the necessary work. That is what we would do for any other new trading partner. It will end in June, and the supply-managed products coming from Ukraine will then be subject to the World Trade Organization's tariff rate quotas.

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

With all due respect, Minister, this is still a new hole, even though that is what your government had promised not to create.

I want to be very clear: everyone here wants to help Ukraine. However, the people in the industry have raised what I think are legitimate fears, including the question of bird flu. If anyone knows the problems that causes, it is you, since you are on the ground. Several countries neighbouring Ukraine have reported cases, but Ukraine has not reported any, although it is a country at war that is being bombed and has no electricity in its cities. I think the people in the industry have raised legitimate fears.

So waiting for the committee's report before issuing those permits would have been the least the Agency could do. Personally, I find this inconceivable.

If specific recommendations are made or there is a massive influx of goods, are you prepared to review this decision before June? The witnesses last week told us they would be prepared to react rapidly if there were massive influxes of goods. However, I was never able to get a specific answer as to how much time it would take. Can you give me some reassurance on that point?

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

First, I have complete confidence in the expertise of the Agency's people and I do not doubt that they proceeded as we do with all our trading partners: based on the science and depending on the risks.

I can also reassure you: the first containers that are going to enter the country will be inspected, even though the risk of bringing disease in via frozen products is minute. If you want any more technical explanations, I would be happy to give the Agency's vice-president the floor.

To answer the other part of your question, this opening is an exceptional and temporary one and will terminate in June. From then on, the products will have to enter under the World Trade Organization's tariff rate quotas.

Do you want a more technical answer from the vice-president of the Agency, Mr. Perron?

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

We will be addressing the technical aspects in the second hour of the meeting, so the vice-president of the Agency is going to be with us longer.

Ms. Bibeau, if I may, I am going to talk to you about the 35% surtax on Russian fertilizers. Once again, the principle is always the same: everyone agrees about helping Ukraine, but we have to do it without hurting ourselves. Canada is the only G7 country that has imposed this tax.

We agree if the government does not want to send the signal that it is cancelling the tax. However, in that case, the money should be sent directly to the producers who paid the tax, because it increases the actual production costs or reduces the profit margins.

The government is telling us that it will rebate the money, but that it will be done through programs rather than directly to the people who paid the tax. Why not rebate the money directly to the people who paid the tax, or simply cancel it?

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

We have already rebated a substantial amount to the industry in response to the sanction applied to Russia. The first way of doing it was to make improvements to the Advance Payments Program by increasing the interest-free portion from $100,000 to $250,000. We estimate that over two years, at the present interest rate, approximately $69 million will be repaid to agricultural producers. I know that is not exactly a rebate to each individual and each business, but...

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

Could a direct rebate be made, Ms. Bibeau?

It seems to me that it would be simple.

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

That is something we considered, but it would not be simple. I'm sure you are very familiar with the sector, Mr. Perron. First, the way the rebate is administered by the various suppliers varies enormously from one to the other. Second, there are reasons why the surtax was imposed, but it is technically not possible to directly rebate every dollar that was paid.

We have already put $69 million back into the sectorand we are currently studying other ways of helping producers, particularly those in eastern Canada, because they are the ones who are most affected by the tariff. We are currently weighing other options, and of course we are speaking with the Minister of Finance and the industry to see how it could be done, if we have resources to allocate to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Perron, Minister.

I will now give Mr. MacGregor the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Welcome back to our committee, Minister.

I always find it helpful before you appear before our committee to do a review of your mandate letter. The Prime Minister did say that he expects his ministers to publicly report not only to him but to all Canadians on their progress.

A growing number of constituents but also other Canadians are quite concerned with the last point, which is that you were called to ban the export of live horses for slaughter. I've actually sponsored a petition that in a very short while has already garnered 13,000 signatures and is expected to grow quite significantly.

Can you please inform our committee as to what progress you've made and what steps you are taking to implement that very clear directive from the Prime Minister?

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

Thank you.

Well, this is a mandate letter for four years. We were dealing with a few emergencies at the beginning of this mandate.

We have started a conversation internally. I think this is something that we will have to look at very carefully and, as we always do, we will have to consult in different ways to see the best way forward. If you look at my mandate letter after only one year, I am still very proud of the achievements in the first 13 months.

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

When do you expect you will be able to provide an update on what direction you will be taking with that promise?

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

It's hard to tell. As I said, we have only started internally for now. Once again, I have four years to go through my mandate letter, hopefully.

I've learned in politics that giving a date is very risky. I acknowledge this is in my mandate letter, and we will move forward and we will try to do it the right way.

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

I will move on, but I will just note that on a regular basis—

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

I hear you. I hear you.

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

My Conservative colleagues were talking earlier about costs associated with putting a price on pollution. I wanted to juxtapose that with the cost of inaction. We know that in the agricultural clean technology program, one of the streams has been suspended because of the demand. I want to get a sense of that from you. Can you quantify that demand? Will your department be acting in future years to try to meet it?

Also, on the other side of the equation, what are the projected costs to programs like AgriRecovery when these natural disasters related to climate change are affecting our farmers? We always talk about the cost of trying to address this issue, but I don't think enough attention is paid to the cost of not doing anything and the increasing frequency and severity of these things with respect to our agricultural sector.

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

Thank you.

On the first question around the clean technology program, yes, I would say we received at least five times more demands, as a round number, than we could approve in the first round.

In the last budget we got an increase. We have a total of $495 million for the program now, with the last increase. Recently we sent a letter to all of those who were not approved who did not go through the first round to tell them that there will be a second call for proposals early next year. We will have criteria that are a bit more ambitious in terms of emissions reductions, considering the high level of interest and the fact that we want to make sure that every dollar we invest helps us the most to reduce our emissions. This is where we are now with the clean tech program.

Concerning AgriRecovery and the climate risk, something that I forgot to mention when I reported on the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership agreement is that we have agreed with the provinces to find a way to integrate climate risk into the programs. They all committed to put in place a pilot program, which was most likely to be around AgriRecovery, but there was flexibility around that. Once again provinces want flexibility, so as long as we keep our target in mind, I'm okay with flexibility.

I look forward to seeing the proposals from the provinces in 2023 for a pilot program with some kind of adjustment.

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

I need to go very quickly because it's my last minute.

I know it's always hard to predict what's coming our way, but we do know what costs have been associated with previous disasters like the wildfires in B.C. and the flooding in the Fraser Valley? Based on information from those disasters, is your department projecting what the cost could be, as a ballpark figure, and will you have the financial wiggle room to deal with that?

Again, we have to ask ourselves how many future tax dollars we are prepared to spend to deal with the mess. That's a very realistic question.

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

Absolutely. This is work that is being done under the leadership of Minister Blair. I don't have the data with me, unfortunately, but I can assure you that this is something that we are looking at very carefully and this is why we are investing $1.5 billion in agri-environmental programming for the agriculture sector, specifically in clean tech, good practices, and research and innovation, including the living labs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll keep it at that.