Evidence of meeting #85 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 course.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Do you have a guarantee from the Americans—California, in particular—that this is not going to endanger their exports to Canada?
9:45 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I would not say that.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
Thank you, Deputy Minister.
We're now going to turn to Mr. Steinley for up to five minutes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
I just want to pick up on something Mr. Carr said and Mr. Rosser finished. The invasion of Ukraine led to food prices.... However, this government also put a tariff on fertilizer that led to fertilizer taking $33.5 million out of farmers' pockets as well.
Is that fair, Mr. Rosser?
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Yes, it is correct that there were some tariffs applied to the import of fertilizer from Russia last year.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
That's correct.
November 30th, 2023 / 9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Thank you. I appreciate just getting that on the record.
Dr. Kochhar, I have a question. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while now with respect to SRM and the fact that it's more difficult for processors in Canada. They take up more of that SRM, and that has to be disposed of, which add costs.
Have we looked at maybe going back to pre-2004 SRM standards? I know that we have “negligible risk” status now with the WOAH. Would that affect our status? We have a processing issue in Canada, and it has been very much shrunk to a few major players. Would that help in promoting more processing capacity, if we took a look at that? Is that on the books, for CFIA to maybe loosen some of those regulations around SRM?
9:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Let me start by saying that our system as it explains the specified risk material—the SRM—is actually a control measure to make sure international trading partners actually have confidence in the beef we produce and that it does not in any way, shape or form transmit BSE. We put that in place as a feed ban and other aspects after we detected BSE in Canada in 2003.
The conversation we have, Mr. Chair, is that at this point the surveillance of the BSE program has given us the negligible risk status, which is from control. Will it vary with our SRM movement or controls? International partners actually look at that, rather than the negligible risk status. We won't lose the negligible risk status unless we find another BSE case.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Do you think that it is a bit of barrier? Across western Canada, there is only one company that disposes of the SRM, and they set the price and really control that market. One of the issues we have with getting more processors into our country is maybe some of that red tape they have to cut through. Are we looking at making it easier for processors to dispose of SRM and making it more attractive to get some more processing into Canada?
9:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
To answer you in a more precise form, I'll put it in two ways.
One is if we are looking at harmonizing, for example, for the U.S., we will need to fundamentally change the way we use our feed mills and our processing of the plants—
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Thank you. I just have a minute and a half left.
I have one more question. During COVID, we allowed meat from provincially regulated meat processors to be sold across the country to allow for the supply chain to be more flexible. That worked out well and there were no issues. Moving forward, could we see a provincially inspected processing facility, abattoir, able to sell across the country? It worked during COVID, so I'm wondering if that would help. Loosening some of those interprovincial trade barriers would be beneficial to all of our processors.
9:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, what I would say is that there wasn't a wholesale movement of meat; there was a pilot conducted across Saskatchewan and Alberta, which was very successful. We're looking at opportunities in remote areas where there aren't any meat processing facilities that cross two borders or cross the borders of two provinces, and we are working towards looking at whether we can have more of that capacity. It would be another way of looking at it more like an interprovincial pilot.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
During that pilot project, there were no issues, right?
9:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Right now, at this point, we are using it as a pilot, and we haven't figured out anything specific on that.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Lloydminster, I think, is what you're referencing, Mr. Steinley. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Kochhar.
We now have Mr. Drouin for five minutes.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, thank you to the department for being before this committee.
I want to raise a few points that have been said at this committee. I understand there have been goals set on plastics, and I know for a fact that no decisions have been made; rather, there have been objectives set out. I believe somewhere we can balance the need to protect our fish stocks so our commercial fisheries can continue on fishing and can continue feeding Canadians, because we know microplastics are killing marine life. We understand the need to prevent food waste by using products such as plastics.
I also want to confirm that there have been many cases where governments have moved forward on CG I and have pulled back because they've heard some comments from industry. I wanted to inform the other side of this particular process.
I want to chat about AgriRecovery, because it's been raised on multiple occasions.
Mr. Perron and others mentioned AgriRecovery.
Sometimes we get the impression that because a province sends a letter, it's automatically approved. I want to confirm this: When the province wants to trigger AgriRecovery, who does the analysis for this? Is it just a yea or nay from the federal government, or does it involve other partners such as the provincial governments?
9:55 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Of course, it's never as simple as it seems. In fact, the first letter that the province sends is a heads-up. It says, “We're going to do this.” Many weeks can happen between that letter and when the province follows up with all the details. That's part of the issue.
They obviously have the analysis in hand by then—usually because the event is over. We produce what we have as well, and we have discussions with the province and the officials on exactly what it is. We have an agreed statement of facts, if you will, and then each of us has our own processes to go through in our own systems to get access to the funding, because, of course, this is a cost-shared agreement.
That's partly why it takes a long time, but also, it was not designed to be quick. I really want to make that clear. AgriRecovery was never designed to be quick, and that was a joint design. It wasn't feds imposing upon provinces or territories.
We, as a community, with my deputy minister colleagues from all the provinces and territories, are actually just starting right now to create a working group to look at exactly how that works, because it's not satisfactory for anybody, frankly, and it's highly frustrating for both sides of the table.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
When you say it's cost-shared, what's the split between the feds and the provinces?
9:55 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
That's the sixty-forty.
9:55 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It's 60 for the federal government, to be clear.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I see. AgriRecovery acts like a “last chance” insurance, essentially, because no other programs are able to respond to the needs of farmers currently on the ground. What would be the...?
I assume you're having these conversations, but I know that even when you're dealing with private insurance, it can sometimes take up to a year to settle.
The analysis that is done by both the province and the federal governments in terms of the needs.... If we go too quickly and we forget certain needs that are on the ground that we haven't met, how do you balance a quick response—which is never quick enough for farmers who are going through a crisis—with the need to ensure that you're responding to the true needs of all farmers who are going through this crisis?
9:55 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It would be a mix of programs. In fact, what we saw on the east coast was that the DFAA was actually the one that was ultimately most used, because it was deemed to be faster and, frankly, provided greater coverage. That was 90% of the cost incurred, so that was the default, if you will, and then AgriRecovery stepped in afterwards.
One way they can make sure that more farmers are included is extending the date for applications. That's what happened in the west with the most recent AgriRecovery set of programs that we issued. Farmers can apply for relief up until the end of the fiscal year. That gives them a long time to be able to understand, for instance, that they don't have enough feed for the winter because there was too much drought in the summer. They still have time to go and buy replacement feed for their animals. That's good until March.
That's an example of what's negotiated, where there's flexibility in the conversation with the provinces.