Debates of May 14th, 2009

Agriculture and Agri-food--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am reading those numbers in association with the estimates for Agriculture and Agri-Food under program by activities and those numbers are from the line item food safety and nutrition risks. That number $220,466,000 is in association with the budget estimate for 2009-10.

The number $236,848,000 is in association with the previous year's budget, 2008-09. So would the minister not agree that there is less money being budgeted for food safety and nutrition risks in this year's budget than last year's budget?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, no absolutely not. He can pick a one line item out and make a comparison, but looking at the overall budget, the CFIA for food safety in its programing has the largest budget it has ever received in the last two years. The department the same because we do things a little differently. It is not line-by-line. It is the fulsomeness of the overall package that is available for Canadian consumers.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, those numbers are in association with a single line item, food safety nutrition risks.

I would like to ask the minister, would he agree that the number $136 million is less than $335 million?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I should have spent more time in high school. These numbers are astounding. Of course, it is a smaller number.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I said to the minister that those numbers are in association with another line item, contributions in support of those initiatives that contribute to the improvement, advancement and promotion of the federal inspection system, and that $136 million was the estimate for this year's budget, 2009-10, and the number $335 million is in association with last year's budget, 2008-09, would the minister agree with me that there is less being spent in this budget than the last budget in support of initiatives for the promotion of federal inspection?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, absolutely not. What the member opposite is doing is perverting the numbers. Certainly, there are programs--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It's my time, is it not? Okay?

When it is compared line-by-line, certainly there will be changes as we change the system. The overall budget to CFIA has gone up. There are more inspectors. There is more money to do a better job. That is what we continue to do. The member opposite can cherry-pick line-by-line, but at the end of the day the job CFIA is asked to do is bigger, the budgets are bigger, and the inspector numbers are growing. That is the bottom line.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am reading the very numbers that the minister himself produced in his own budget.

A question asked earlier by one of our colleagues from Quebec was skilfully evaded by the minister, so I will repeat the question in the hope that he will answer it directly.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Prime Minister committed $500 million over four years to create an agriculture flexibility program to help farmers build flexible programs to meet their local needs, but once elected, in budget 2009, the Conservatives only announced $190 million over five years. Why did the government break its promise?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, a promise made to deliver a $500 million agricultural flexibility program. Promise delivered. The money has been reworked in programs that are not meeting the target. The old government was great at promising big money that never was triggered out. We will not do that. We are not scared to back up and take a look at it, and make sure this is not being funnelled out.

I made the point earlier that certain sectors of these line items always change. They always will and what we deliver is a better program for agricultural producers in this country.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am with the member for Vancouver Quadra and the member for Charlottetown. Do I have one more question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

If you take one more question, you will be taking time from your other colleagues.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, is years behind in its job of taking older, higher impact pesticides off the market and approving new, lower impact pesticides.

Has the minister any work he can show or any funds invested to help the PMRA speed up its process of pesticide regulation?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite would know that PMRA is actually a division of Health Canada not Agriculture Canada.

Through growing forward and now through agricultural flexibility, we will be able to move forward to do the background checks and work with industry on the program to make sure it gets access to the new innovative ways of pesticides and chemicals. We are happy to do that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr.Chair, I take it the answer to my question was no.

A recent report has raised serious concerns about groundwater quality in Canada. It described a major threat to groundwater as being intensification of agriculture.

What is the minister's position on the role of intensified agriculture production as a source of contamination for our nation's groundwater?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure what the member did not get in the last submission I made. I said that we would be happy to work with PMRA, to spend money under growing forward and agriculture flexibility to make sure that producers have access to new and better pesticides that will actually be better for our groundwater. We are doing that.

We have also done pilot projects. That moves the agricultural system back from groundwater. We have done that. We will continue to work with the provinces because this is more under their jurisdiction than ours.

We are all concerned about the contamination of anything, including groundwater. My department takes that seriously. We work with PMRA to that end.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, I also did not get an answer to that question of the role of intensified agricultural production on contamination of groundwater. As we know, groundwater contamination was responsible for seven deaths and 2,300 illnesses directly from agricultural sources like manure.

The minister does not apparently care much about the environment, but he does claim to care about farmers. Our farmers produce high quality food with high standards and high environmental standards, yet pesticides that are not allowed on our products here, particularly ones that are harmful to handlers, are allowed in the United States and Mexico.

What is the minister doing to ensure that products using those pesticides are not allowed into Canada?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, we have a good solid set of rules. Products are checked at the border. Things that would contaminate Canadian produce are not allowed here. We do work on a case by case basis to make sure that what is coming in meets Canadian standards. We continue to work with regulatory agencies around the world to build a better food safety system.

I am not sure where the member opposite is coming from. In 2009-10 we will spend some $180 million on the environment through Agriculture Canada. We continue to foster a better environment.

I totally agree with her that our producers are stewards of the land. They do a fantastic job and will continue to do so with the help of my department giving them access to new and improved pesticides and chemicals.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, the farmers I am referring to feel that they are being asked to compete with their hands tied behind their backs on a completely unlevel playing field. Products are allowed into Canada that have pesticides harmful to handlers. Funding for CFIA has been reduced so there are fewer inspectors inspecting the products. It is farmers themselves who believe that there is no level playing field, and the minister appears to be dismissing that.

There are farmers who have been asking for help based on a very positive pilot project undertaken by the Liberals to see whether the set-asides of farmland for habitat and protecting of biodiversity could contribute to the common good. The answer was yes. Farmers have been asking for support for this program.

Is the minister aware of it at all? If so, why has the government done absolutely nothing to support these farmers?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would have the member opposite have those farmers call me. We will certainly work with them on a case by case basis. If they are facing a situation that is unfair in their estimation, we will work to level that.

The member opposite would also know that the residue levels that she is talking about are set by Health Canada not by us. CFIA makes sure that the products that come in meet Canada health safety standards.

She also talked about changes to CFIA budgeting. I can assure her that for the last two budget years the moneys for CFIA have gone up. The largest budgets in its history happened in the last two budgetary years and will continue. The main estimates are only one part of the funding for CFIA. There are supplementary estimates that flow as it works on a case by case basis on issues that pop up.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, in January, the minister announced on behalf of the Government of Canada an investment of $6 million to Atlantic beef capacity in Atlantic Canada at the Borden-Carleton plant. There has been some confusion in this investment. I just want to confirm for the record that this is a grant and the money has been received.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, as I understand it, we have signed off as a government on that money to flow. The province of P.E.I. and the other Atlantic regions are reassessing how they want to handle this. I cannot speak to the holdup in the delivery of the money. We have signed off on it. It is ready to go. It is out of our hands.

As far as I am concerned, it is in the hands of ABP. They have not gotten it yet because the provinces are taking a second look at it. That is the best I can tell him.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, it is a grant for sure and he is waiting for some conditions precedent on the money to flow. That is for sure.

The Minister of Finance announced in the budget that there would be a $50 million investment in slaughter capacity. That was budget 2009. Will the minister confirm for the Canadian public that this is also a grant?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite should have been here sooner. He should have listened to my last response. These are repayable contributions in both cases. The repayment terms are based on the sustainability of whichever facility these moneys go to. We will work out those terms on a sustainability profit line basis. The future looks bright.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, that is certainly not what the minister was saying back in November 2007. However, that is his statement right now.

The last time the minister's department was before the public accounts committee, a number of his employees were moonlighting to process claims before the respective agencies. Over the next day or two, they were adjudicating these claims. Can he confirm that has been stopped?