Agriculture Committee on March 21st, 2022

[Chris Forbes]

We are in the process of reviewing what we heard from stakeholders. There are a range of views and interests. Obviously there are some significant views placed around outward inspection fees in general, with some feeling that this is an extra burden and some stressing the importance of it.

We've had a few other issues come up over the course of the consultation. The normal process would be that we would work through a set of options, approaches—which is what we're doing—to move forward, to see if there are ways we can respond to stakeholder feedback to modernize the act in a way that we feel will be helpful for the sector moving forward.

It's a bit early to say exactly when and how next steps will come out, but it is something, as you said, that was in the minister's mandate letter, so it will be something that we continue to work on.

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

Another part of the minister's mandate letter was to ban the live export of horses for slaughter.

I've received a lot of correspondence on this issue over the years. It's not only in my riding, but across the country. Many Canadians are concerned with this practice.

The mandate letter is starting to show a bit of age, now that we're in March 2022. Can you provide our committee with an update on how the department is moving ahead with that particular directive?

[Chris Forbes]

I will turn it over to colleagues at the CFIA. However, Mr. MacGregor, I think with the mandate letter as a whole, we will certainly look to implement as much as we can as quickly as we can.

Obviously with an entire mandate letter, it can take months, if not years, to get through all of the items, so that's certainly on the list of items we are discussing.

Sylvie Lapointe may wish to elaborate a bit on that specific commitment.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

As you indicated, Mr. MacGregor, this is a very polarized issue across Canada, and certainly one we've been well aware of for a long time.

From a CFIA perspective, the federal perspective, we have measures in place currently to make sure all animal health and welfare standards are met in terms of the transportation of these animals outside of Canada. We are actively working on how we are going to implement the mandate in the minister's letter.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll generously cede the rest of my time to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can always add 20 seconds on at a future time. I'll keep that in mention.

We're going to now turn to Mr. Barlow.

Colleagues, obviously we want to pass the estimates, or certainly call it to a vote, so we are going to go for five minutes, five minutes, two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes. That will get us to 12:50. I'm going to reserve one question for myself—I rarely do it, but I want to—and then we'll get to the voting procedures.

Mr. Barlow, you have five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to focus my questions on CFIA, Ms. Lapointe and Mr. Morel.

Ms. Lapointe, I understand that an 80-page draft report was recently sent from CFIA to USDA regarding the P.E.I. potato issue. It was a draft; it was never vetted by the minister or by the industry. Parts of that, including the fact that the P.E.I. Potato Board supports increased labelling on potatoes, are completely false.

Why was this draft report shared with the USDA before being vetted?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

As you noted, we shared a draft document at the technical level—a scientific document, a pathway analysis—with our colleagues in the U.S. This is something that is normally done. It is normal practice among technical experts between countries who share information back and forth—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Ms. Lapointe, I'm sorry, but I have limited time.

It's normal practice for CFIA to share documents with other countries, including USDA, with incorrect information in them.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

The incorrect information that you mentioned was corrected. We noticed that error and it was fixed immediately. As I indicated, colleagues in the U.S. know that this is a draft document that could change over time, and it builds on information we have already shared with the U.S. There is nothing new in that document with respect to the fact that our table-stock potatoes are perfectly safe to ship to the U.S.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Can you table that draft with the committee, and can CFIA also table all of the correspondence, emails, phone calls, texts, between CFIA and the USDA that were made before the ministerial order and suspension were put in place? That would be very helpful. Thank you.

With regard to my next question, P.E.I. has had a successful potato wart monitoring program for 20 years. The potato wart was detected in fields that were monitored.

What is the reasoning for CFIA recommending shutting down the entire province for two detections, and describing the province of P.E.I. as completely infested with potato wart when that is not the case?

[Sylvie Lapointe]

I would note that there were two detections, but the implications of those two detections on two fields actually then entail a very lengthy investigation that right now involves up to 300 fields.

That is why, from a science perspective, and further to our domestic and international obligations, it was felt that a ministerial order was required to limit the spread of potato wart in the province but also outside of the province to other parts of Canada.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

What's the point of having a monitoring program to detect pests and then throwing out 20 years of data and making such an overreach, I would suggest, with the decision that was made by CFIA?

For our own government to put in a ministerial order when the United States is exporting to Mexico potatoes that are Sprout Nipped and washed.... It seems odd that the Americans are exporting the potatoes that you say are perfectly fine for the Americans when, in contrast, not only is Canada blocking those same potatoes from P.E.I., but the United States has quarantinable pests in many states, including Idaho, yet we are still importing those potatoes into Canada.

Why is there a double standard from CFIA? We are punishing perfectly safe Canadian potatoes while still importing American potatoes that have quarantinable pests.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

We are not blocking the movement of table-stock potatoes from P.E.I. The ministerial order is not a document that bans anything. It's actually an enabling document that allows products and commodities from the potato industry to move, under certain conditions, across Canada. That is completely separate from the decision the United States took, which was to not allow or to suspend the import of potatoes from P.E.I.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm sorry, Ms. Lapointe. Can I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm sorry, Mr. Barlow. We're going to have to leave it there.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Look, Mr. Barlow, we're at time. Everyone is allotted their time.

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

We're going to go to Ms. Taylor Roy for five minutes now.

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

Thank you very much.

I had some questions about the youth employment program and how that's working. I was wondering if you could go into a little more detail. I know we've had a couple of questions about the $4 million that's been transferred over, but it seems that in the agriculture sector there have been a lot of applications and a lot of demand for that program. I'm curious to know where those are coming from and whether even more funding in this area could help with some of the labour shortages we've been hearing about.

[Chris Forbes]

On the program itself, we were basically supporting youth employment in the agriculture and food industry by covering about 50% of wages and benefits, up to about $14,000, with additional incentives for youth who have specific employment barriers, like those from under-represented groups, or for an employee with a disability, for example. If you needed to buy specialized equipment, there would be additional support.

Regarding the applications, I'd have to check. I don't have the data in front of me, but they come from across the country and from a range of subsectors. We find that it's a popular program. Would continued funding be helpful for the sector going forward? I would say yes. Ongoing funding under this program will support youth hiring and of course, as you point out, given the shortage of labour and the rising costs of labour, particularly at some of those salary levels, I think it would be helpful for the sector.

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

Given the need for more youth employment and to attract young people to this sector, which we obviously depend on greatly for our future, this seems to be a win-win situation right now. I don't know. I know the labour shortage is quite severe. Mr. Lehoux mentioned a shortfall of 300 employees in one area. I'm just wondering if more money is going to be allocated for this or has been requested in the budget to help address the strains that are being felt by this sector right now, not only in terms of labour but in terms of costs. Obviously, it's providing subsidies and there are so many stresses right now, from supply chain issues to fertilizer issues and with what's happening in Ukraine. I'm just thinking that if it was oversubscribed in agriculture, perhaps there's a way to get more funding into this and to try to address some of the labour shortages and cost pressures through a program like this. I just encourage the department to look at the possibility of doing more in this area.

I asked the minister about incentives for the agricultural sector to engage in the reduction of greenhouse gases. In the meetings we've had with different associations, they've been very eager and very willing to be involved and to try to help move forward on this important issue.

Once again, I know there are a number of different challenges the sector is facing right now. I know for some of the groups that have been here and for individual farmers, there are just so many other things to have to worry about right now and it's very difficult. I am wondering if you think the programs we have in place currently are sufficient in terms of incentives to help our young farmers or farmers who are really interested in trying to deploy new methods to reduce greenhouse gases? Do we have enough programs in place or do you see the possibility for other programs that could provide further support?

[Chris Forbes]

We launched the agricultural clean technology program about a year ago, and we have the agricultural climate solutions now up and running, as the minister mentioned, with a number of partners across the country looking at how to support the implementation of best practices. We also have funding with the provinces for programming they deliver under the agricultural partnership, which we hope to continue and potentially will see expanding in the next agricultural partnership. I think probably more is going to be needed to help the sector adopt practices that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Forbes, we're going to have to leave it there with perhaps the need for more programs. Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Forbes, I am going to give you a chance to finish your answer. You were saying that this could be an opportunity to do more. I would like to know what you were going to say, because that interests me.

[Chris Forbes]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

I simply wanted to say that we have to do more to help our producers adopt the practices that are necessary to achieve our objectives of reducing greenhouse gases. We could offer training programs on the ground, for example.