Agriculture Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to turn to Bill C-234.

Once again this morning, I met some producers from your organization who asked us to restore Bill C-234 to its initial form. That, incidentally, was proposed in an amendment.

What's your view on the subject? What pressure could we exercise to put a stop to all the to-ing and fro-ing involved with this bill and to ensure it comes into force as soon as possible?

I imagine it'll have consequences for you as well.

[Catherine Lefebvre]

We're much less affected by that in Quebec because we already have provincial framework legislation for carbon pricing.

So Bill C-234 will put us at a disadvantage if it's passed as proposed.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

However, you have to understand that this effect will eventually be felt. Quebec won't be able to tolerate being in competition for long.

It will nevertheless have consequences.

Won't it?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

Yes, it will have consequences.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Earlier you mentioned risk management programs. You're being hit by one disaster after another from one year to the next.

What program do you think should be reviewed as soon as possible?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

Considering the summer we had in Quebec, I'd say crop insurance is the essential program to re-evaluate and modify immediately.

We're lacking a program, a farm disaster program. No such thing currently exists. It would apply to incidents associated with climate change, since the AgriRecovery initiatives aren't meeting needs right now.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

That's right. AgriRecovery doesn't meet disaster-related needs, which are becoming increasingly frequent.

It's really important to introduce a program for that purpose. I think the federal government should exercise leadership and come up with a program like that as soon as possible.

[Catherine Lefebvre]

I entirely agree.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Many new climate-change-related problems are appearing. I'm thinking of mould in particular. All kinds of bacteria develop and undermine producers' work in the fields.

We know that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, hasn't had a good time of it in recent years. It's had to deal with a budget that has remained unchanged. Canada isn't competitive with other countries.

I would like you to tell us more on that subject.

What do you think about this situation? How should the federal government react?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

First, PMRA takes way too long to make decisions on emergency approvals and all types of special approvals.

We saw this in the carrots case, and we're experiencing it now with beets. Pesticides have been pulled from the market without any alternatives being offered. These decisions, which are slow in coming, are really ruinous for producers.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you think the increasing red tape is due to a shortage of staff in the system?

Do you think PMRA's budget should be significantly increased?

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

We think so, Mr. Lehoux.

Consider the beet example. The sugar beet was already a certified product in Canada. PMRA was simply asked to expand the certification to include the traditional beet. If you're playing Jeopardy, and I ask you how many years the file has been under review, the answer would be—wait for it—12 years.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Everyone very clearly understands that, when a review extends over 12 years, that has consequences. The reaction is too slow in coming.

I'd like to address another factor that will have significant repercussions. Earlier you discussed plastics and the significant financial impact associated with them.

Can you quantify that impact?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

We don't have that figure for the moment. Our producers aren't there yet.

However, I'd like to go back to the subject that the previous witnesses discussed.

The reciprocity of standards is very important. If we're prepared to accept products that come from outside our borders and aren't packaged in recyclable or compostable plastic, as we require of our producers, we can't require it in the sale of products from our Canadian and Quebec producers.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

Please allow me to add to that answer, Mr. Lehoux.

Earlier Mr. Lemaire discussed food waste, which is a serious problem.

Plastics help preserve products for much longer periods. We're talking about grocery basket affordability here. Take two pieces of broccoli, one wrapped in plastic and the other without plastic packaging. Put them in your vegetable drawer and see how long they're preserved.

Food waste is also a problem. We mustn't solve one problem by creating another.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Yes, you're right. Nearly 50% of food waste could occur as a result of this problem. So it's important to study the problem.

Ms. Lefebvre, thank you for reminding me of the reciprocity of standards. I don't usually forget that aspect. It's something that has always been very important for me.

How do you view—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Your time is unfortunately up.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I now yield the floor to Mr. Drouin for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to give you my last two minutes of speaking time, since we have people from your province, Nova Scotia. I wouldn't dare cause you to miss an opportunity to question the good people of Nova Scotia who have come to see us here in committee.

However, I'm going to take this opportunity as well to ask Mr. Bourgoin and Ms. Lefebvre some questions in French.

We spoke in November, and I also spoke to several fruit and vegetable producers. They told me that new situations arise from field to field because some fields may have dried up, whereas others a few kilometres or a few hundred metres away are flooded. I know that situation causes a certain amount of stress among the producers you represent.

We've often discussed crop insurance and the affordability of insurance premiums, and there's one thing I'd be curious to know.

I know you've begun a study, and the witnesses from Nova Scotia who appeared before you discussed it. There appears to be a problem in the fruit and vegetable industry. Insurance premiums are too high, which undermines our producers' profitability.

What solution would you suggest for that? What would be an acceptable premium relative to revenue? With what other sectors could you compare your situation?

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Catherine Lefebvre]

First, what makes fruit and vegetables a complex sector is the fact that insurance has to cover all the vegetables that we produce, which isn't the case today. Some protections aren't available for certain niche vegetables or small vegetables.

Second, the producer pays a contribution of 40% of the total crop insurance premium rate, and we expect to get the minimum amount corresponding to that 40% contribution, which isn't the case in all provinces.

Third, the problem with crop insurance is that it covers the shortfall in a hard year, that is to say, only when a small portion of the area of the fields is lost.

We experienced a tough situation in 2023. Some farms lost more than 50%, even up to 85%, of the area of their fields. Crop insurance didn't cover that loss. We agree that crop insurance covers approximately 30% of the revenue that was lost.

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

We normally look at the range of risk management programs when a crisis or situation arises. If that doesn't work, the provinces can obviously request federal assistance through AgriRecovery, which isn't really a program in itself. It's more of a regulatory agreement, a regulatory framework that determines needs.

You also mentioned the possibility of establishing a program that you called "agri-disaster".

How would that program be different from AgriRecovery? The challenge in creating such a program is that the needs of the producers suffering through that kind of crisis always have to be thoroughly analyzed.

How would a program like "agri-disaster", to use your words, be different from the AgriRecovery initiative?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

What we're now hearing from provincial representatives is that, to qualify for AgriRecovery assistance, losses must be related to production deficiencies that are covered by crop insurance.

As you said earlier, crop insurance covers only 30% of our final cost. We should have a program to make up that difference. It could be called "agri-disaster", as I said. However, regardless of how the program would be named, it would cover the shortfall. That program could also meet the needs of producers over a period not exceeding a year and a half.

You have to understand that, as a result of AgriRecovery's delays, the disaster occurs and the producer doesn't receive a cheque until 18 months later. That component of AgriRecovery doesn't work either.

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

That's somewhat the problem with insurance programs in general. It takes time even in the private sector. A few trees fell on a shed at my place, and it took a year for me to get a cheque.

However, I'm sure we can find ways to do better. We should be able to address the new realities that all producers experience as a result of climate crises that are occurring virtually everywhere in Canada and Quebec.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lefebvre.

I'm going to yield the rest of my speaking time to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

I'm wearing my Annapolis Valley tartan tie today because we have some folks from Nova Scotia, just outside my boundary, but of course they're good advocates in the province.

Jeff, I want to pick up on what you talked about around the HST input tax credit. As I understand it, because we have had this conversation, I want this committee to understand what you're asking. Right now, when you go to build new housing for seasonal workers, let's just say that the cost was a million dollars. In Nova Scotia, the HST would be 15%. As I understand it, you are able to take the entirety of that expense and claim it against your taxable income over the lifetime of the house.

What you're proposing, and what you said to this committee today, is that it would be nice to be able to have that HST provided up front, when the purchase of the home is actually made or the home is actually built, for cash flow purposes. Is that correct? It's just so this committee can understand.