Agriculture Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

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

Thank you.

I will turn my remaining time over to Monsieur Lehoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Lehoux, you have one minute.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Ms. Forcier, I would like you to provide us with supplementary answers and suggestions in writing if you do not have enough time to answer my questions.

In speaking about the “agri-disaster” initiative, my colleague Mr. Perron mentioned that it was truly important to bring in this new way of working. I would like you to indicate in writing what your association thinks of this.

My second question has to do with labour, which represents 52% of production costs. Do you think that automation can play a role? Could an investment tax credit be an important factor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Lehoux, the time is for questions and answers. We have time, but the answer needs to be brief.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

That is why I asked for an answer in writing, if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Very good, okay.

Ms. Forcier, you have 30 seconds.

[Stéphanie Forcier]

I will talk about automation. By all accounts, producers want to automate. However, a robotic strawberry picker does not exist in the world right now. This is a medium to long-term solution. In the short term, a tax credit for research and development will not help the sector. What is more, labour, especially foreign labour, truly represents a major component. Producers want automation, but that is not happening any time soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lehoux.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Drouin for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Forcier, several colleagues have asked questions about an “agri-disaster” initiative. This topic was also addressed with the produce sector in a previous meeting. We can always change the brand of a new program, but the fact remains that in the private sector, even when I deal with insurers, the process can take up to a year and a half.

I wonder whether this is the right solution. I also wonder how our government can ensure that there is a good analysis of needs on the ground before even creating a new program. Nevertheless, whether we are talking about “agri-disaster” or “agri-anything-else”, the goal is for the money to be available as soon as possible.

[Stéphanie Forcier]

Two out of three producers are not insured. That is not normal. Soilless raspberry production, which is the way of the future, is not even insurable. The government needs to ensure that producers are insured and that new production methods are, at the very least, covered by the crop insurance program.

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

You said that two-thirds of people are not insured. When you discuss the issue with your members, do you think that they believe it is not worth it because the premiums are too high?

[Stéphanie Forcier]

It is the chicken and the egg. Again in the raspberry sector, there are so few producers who are insured, I think there are only five. Premiums are far too high. What can we do to mutualize the risk and create a ripple effect, hoping that producers will join in?

Again, if producers are in the soilless raspberry sector, which is not insurable, then what? Do you see the dilemma? We need to modify the programs. That is where things stand with the industry. Does the coverage reflect the state of the industry? That is the first question that needs to be answered.

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

Do you have any solutions to offer that would be respected by all your members? Essentially, you summed up the situation using the chicken and egg analogy. What happens if the solution you want is not received unanimously by the sector?

[Stéphanie Forcier]

If producers have adequate coverage, they are eligible for it and the premium is reasonable, then of course they will get insurance. The Quebec Produce Growers Association received money to conduct a study on why members were not getting such insurance. In my humble opinion, however, it is not up to the industry or the associations to do this work, even though this work needs to be done.

I will come back to the comments made by your colleague, who said that the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership is ending in 2028. Let's not wait until 2028 to modernize these programs. Whether the program is called “agri-disaster” or any other program, we need to make sure that there is a strong enough safety net for all producers.

Indeed, in the insurance sector I hear that it takes too long. However, if I come back to the AgriStability example, I wonder why an interim payment needs to go through a chartered accountant? The producer could send the figures directly, indicating his estimated income loss without having to pay $1,000 or $1,300 to send those figures to another intermediary, who then sends that information to Farm Credit Canada. Do you see? I will skip the details. I want to make these recommendations in writing. I think these are minor solutions that could get rid of some irritants.

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

I imagine you don't have the numbers, but do you think that the majority of your members do their own accounting, through the AgriStability program for example?

[Stéphanie Forcier]

No.

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

In fact, they have to submit their documents to an accountant, but they do have to have some rather advanced knowledge in accounting.

[Stéphanie Forcier]

Yes, they do.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much, Ms. Forcier.

Mr. Gilvesy, it's nice to see you and Mr. Lee at the committee.

Going off some of the questions that have been asked previously by other members, you're aware that other countries are currently discussing carbon levies or import tariffs. Whether it's a price on carbon in Canada or another mechanism, we know that in the future, it affects anything we export. The United States is having this conversation as well. If countries don't have some sort of price on carbon, they will be dinged with an import tax, essentially, which would make our communities and businesses less competitive worldwide.

I'm wondering whether there's a preferred method you're asking for. I know Ontario had a system before 2018. Whether you liked it or not is another question. Would you prefer a cap and trade system or another price on pollution mechanism that's not the one we're currently under right now, which is federal jurisdiction?

[George Gilvesy]

Thank you for that question.

We are not climate deniers. We recognize that we need to address this.

However, what we're suggesting is that whatever is done be aligned with our biggest trading partner. If the United States and Canada can agree on the approach, we're not disrupting the markets or the competitive advantage or disadvantage on either side of the border and we're not going to put a sector out of business in Canada.

Whatever we do, we think it should have alignment with the United States.

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

I'm probably out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have just a few seconds. Thank you.

Mr. Perron, you have two and a half minutes.

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

That's perfect, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Forcier, two and a half minutes is not a long time. I will try to be quick.

I want to start by focusing on something you said in your opening remarks, that we need to stop talking about support and start talking about an investment when it comes to our food security and resilience. I think that is a very positive idea and we will keep in mind.

You also talked about reciprocity in standards, including social standards. Could provide some details on that? Do you have any recommendations?

[Stéphanie Forcier]

We talk a lot about reciprocity with respect to environmental standards using the example of pesticides that are no longer permitted in Canada, but are permitted in other countries from which we import the same products.

When I talk about reciprocity in standards, I mean environmental standards as much as social standards. Let me come back to labour here. Keep this in mind as well: how can we compete with a country whose hourly wage is six times lower than in Canada? That is what I mean by social standards. The United States is our main competitor. However, we see that production is increasingly heading to Mexico, including with Driscoll's. There is a reason for that: the labour cost in Mexico is far less than here.

In my opening remarks, I also mentioned the importance of recognizing the producers' support and monitoring services. There is a cost to providing housing or transportation and so on. We calculated those costs at the Association: In 2023, those costs represented roughly $3.50 an hour. We indexed that amount by 4% using the consumer price index and came up with $3.62 an hour. Minimum wage plus the hourly rate of $3.62 represents, in our opinion, the cost to ensure the support and monitoring service. That is part of what we mean by reciprocity of standards.

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

The government will have to take that into consideration and recognize the work that you're doing in that regard. I understand that. I want to reiterate that, if you do have any specific solutions, please send them to us. We would be happy to take a look at them.

I have very little time left. You quickly addressed the registration process. Should it be harmonized with that of our neighbours? How should that be set up?