Finance Committee on Feb. 6th, 2020

[Scott Ross]

I could start on that.

Both the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and Keystone Agricultural Producers are members of the CFA. I would say that their analysis is quite recent. It was just undertaken. It's probably the best assessment we have seen to date on the farm-level impacts. I could certainly share the results with the committee.

At this point in time, they are the most robust datasets we have on that. Certainly we will continue to look into it, but I would suggest that both of their analyses are probably the most in-depth studies we have so far of the farm-level impacts.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

You would agree, then, with their assessments of a 12% input cost and $15,000 per farmer. You think they're generally correct, then.

[Scott Ross]

Our understanding is that they pulled the numbers directly from farmers, from either their income statements or whatever it might be. I think the numbers are quite reliable, yes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Okay. Terrific.

Pierre or David, do you have any comments?

[David Wiens]

I would basically reiterate what Scott just said. Of course, being from Manitoba, KAP is our provincial organization. They work on behalf of all the commodities to collect the information. Certainly, from the numbers that Scott raised earlier, it certainly is a reflection of how we experience it on our farms.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

In terms of potential budgetary solutions, there are a couple of options—to exempt it, meaning the money stays in the pockets of farmers, or to have a rebate, with money going to Ottawa and then coming back. Living in rural Ontario and knowing the farmers and your members like I do, I think generally their preference would be that it not to come to my hands and then go back.

Would you care to comment on that as well?

[Scott Ross]

Our membership has been pretty clear that their preference would be for an exemption. Additionally, at this point in time, given the significant challenges that last year's harvest presented from a weather perspective and just more generally—a number of issues came together to make it particularly troublesome—they'd also prefer that a rebate provided for the existing costs already incurred by farms relating to grain drying.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

Pierre and David, with regard to the impact of a new NAFTA, you're asking for direct compensation. I have done some tours, and I've seen the tremendous innovation in the dairy industry and some of the investments made. For my benefit and that of the rest of the committee, I'm wondering if you might be able to expand on the money that would go back as compensation for the losses in CUSMA. What type of innovation and technology do these modern dairy farms need in order to stay current?

[Pierre Lampron]

Prior to the three recently signed agreements, significant investments had been made in animal welfare, because doing so benefits the industry. A lot of animal welfare research is conducted. Farmers have acquired considerable knowledge, established new steps and improved facilities. They've also introduced robotic milking systems. They make significant use of automation because it cuts down on labour costs.

They invest heavily in fields, crops and GPS. All of those things factor into the cost of producing milk. Technology is available, but it takes money to make that investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just on that—if I may, Philip—in your presentation you made it very clear that the compensation should be paid out directly. Philip's question really related to innovation in the industry. The first part of the compensation, the first one that came out, was tied to people doing certain things on their farms. That really didn't work. Only 10% of dairy farmers got money out of that initial program. It did not work.

Where are we at? Are we saying that the compensation, which I believe has been budgeted for, should be absolutely direct? Or are you looking at programming that ties it to what you do on your farm for innovation?

[David Wiens]

Certainly, our past experience has been that through programs, it hasn't worked very well. There was was a bit of a problem with it, because farms are at different points in their economic cycles. Some who had just made a major investment were not eligible, and it would have worked well for them to be able to reduce their debt. For others, they were well positioned to make those kinds of investments at that time. That's why, from what we're hearing from our members, it needs to be direct payments to farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

You have time for a very quick question, Philip, if you have one.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for you, Ms. Ballantyne. Thank you very much for your report. I listened to it carefully. As a single mother raising my two sons many years ago, it was tough, and in Quebec we've had an affordable child care plan since 1997. I have met many, many mothers in my constituency of Vimy in Laval who are very grateful to have the affordable system that is currently available in Quebec. This system, in addition to the Canada child benefit, has allowed them to return to work, contribute to society and provide for their children. As we know, especially for single-parent households, it's very expensive.

Can you tell us what resources child care providers need in order to provide more affordable child care options to Canadians? Can you also elaborate on the obstacles that are not permitting us right now, as a nation, to put such an affordable child care plan in place? I can't imagine that people don't feel that this is the right thing to do for our families and our economy at large. What are some of the things that you've heard or that you can share with us that are stopping us from going forward on this very needed plan?

[Morna Ballantyne]

On the first point, you draw a parallel with the Quebec child care system. One of the reasons the Quebec child care system that was introduced in the nineties was so successful was that a government decided to spend money and transfer money directly to child care providers. Essentially the government decided to take the provision of child care “off the market” and to treat child care as a service that a government should fund and provide for.

Since the service was funded directly, the cost of child care to the parent could be reduced and regulated. This is what we would like to see across the country, direct funding of services as opposed to money transferred into the hands of some parents, not all parents, through a subsidy of sorts to help parents pay.

Giving parents some government help in the form of fee subsidies doesn't actually create child care spaces. We're in a situation across Canada of having a shortage of spaces, and the costs are too high.

That's why, in our plan, we say that the government should look at the issues of availability and cost simultaneously. It can't do one without the other.

With respect to what child care providers need, one of the big problems we're facing right now is a shortage of early childhood educators. There is a shortage of early childhood educators because the wages are so poor and the working conditions are so difficult.

Many early childhood educators are working for minimum wage, but increasingly government regulation requires a fairly high level of education to be able to work as an early childhood educator. We support high qualifications of educators. We think early childhood educator should be considered a profession and that educators should be trained, but in return they need to receive proper compensation.

When you ask why we don't have a child care system, it was first recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women more than 50 years ago. I would turn that question back to members of the committee and members of the House of Parliament: For 50 years it's been recommended over and over again. Why have you not acted?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If you have one, Annie, it has to be very short.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I want to say thank you for that, and I am sure that all my colleagues at this finance committee heard the last point. I can't imagine that we're not all going to work together to make sure we get this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Annie.

We will go to Mr. Ste-Marie and then over to Mr. Julian.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here.

My questions are for Mr. Lampron and Mr. Weins, from the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

In your presentation, you pointed out that the dairy sector had been sacrificed so the three recent trade deals could be signed, the Canada–EU deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the new NAFTA. As you mentioned, the concessions made in the agreements, under the World Trade Organization framework, amount to a combined loss of around 18%. Supply-managed producers are paying the price, especially dairy farmers.

You asked the government to provide financial compensation to dairy farmers in the form of a transfer, not an investment program. You proposed that the measure be included in budgets over the next few years.

You also asked the government to take certain administrative measures. Would you suggest any other measures to help mitigate the impact you've suffered as a result of the trade agreements?

[Pierre Lampron]

Thank you for your question.

Of course, there are other measures because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA… I'm not sure whether you're aware, but the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, no longer has the expertise to check all the products entering the country. With the increase in dairy products coming in, border officers need to have the expertise to determine whether they are dealing with milk, cream or powder. If we really want to control the products coming in, border measures will have to be rigorous.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

You're saying that the CFIA and CBSA need more resources to control what's entering the country. We could be duped, so border officers need to be able to analyze milk powder and other dairy products.

What other products might enter the country? Could you give us some examples?

[Pierre Lampron]

Milk is the main one, but it could be concentrated or processed. The fat content for milk is 4%, but for cream, it's 35%. It can vary significantly, and that changes how the product is defined. It’s important to know what products are coming into the country. When the fat content is 4%, the product is nowhere near the same as when the fat content is 35%.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

You're saying that our neighbours to the south might get creative in order to sneak products into Canada that are not supposed to be competing with supply-managed products.

[Pierre Lampron]

Yes. I also think Canadians want to know what they are consuming, so it's imperative to know what's coming in and ensure it's tightly controlled.