:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 64 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is beginning consideration of the 2023‑24 main estimates, specifically, vote 1 under Canadian Dairy Commission, vote 1 under Canadian Grain Commission, and votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023.
Now I would like to welcome the Honourable Marie‑Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
On behalf of the committee, Minister, I want to acknowledge your tireless work to support Canadian families and farmers. Thank you for being here today to discuss the main estimates.
[English]
Thank you very much, Minister. It's great to see you.
We also have Stefanie Beck, deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Let me recognize your new role and congratulate you. We wish you all the best in the days ahead in the name of our agriculture sector.
Also from the department we have Marie-Claude Guérard, assistant deputy minister, corporate management branch.
From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Sylvie Lapointe, vice-president, policy and programs; and Philippe Morel, vice-president, operations.
Colleagues, you know the drill. We'll allow for an opening statement from our minister of around five minutes.
I can give you a bit of extra time, Minister, if you'd like to finish up, after which we'll go right to questions.
[Translation]
The floor is yours, Minister.
We are here today to discuss the 2023‑24 main estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
These main estimates total more than $1.8 billion, for this fiscal year alone, but I expect total expenditures for 2023‑24 to exceed $3.8 billion. These investments illustrate yet again the government's commitment to helping Canadian farmers and food processors manage risk and become more resilient. Through these estimates, we are supporting farmers as they manage the unprecedented risks they have faced in recent years, with $769 million in funding for business risk management programs.
Keep in mind that these estimates are merely a snapshot in time. Additional investments in the year ahead will demonstrate our ongoing support for the sector, including continued funding for business risk management programs, and the new Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership agreement, supported by a 25% increase in cost-shared programming funded by the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
I also want to highlight that, in budget 2023, we committed to helping farmers deal with the significant financial challenges they face, by increasing the interest-free limit for loans under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $350,000 for the 2023 program year. Combined with last year's increase to the interest-free limit, this measure will save farmers a total of nearly $84 million over two years. This further increase means that farmers will have access to the additional cash flow they need to deal with higher interest rates and input costs.
In addition to supporting economic sustainability, the funding requested through these main estimates supports agricultural resilience and the transition to sustainable agriculture, with nearly $260 million in funding for the agricultural clean technology program and the agricultural climate solutions program. That funding is part of the $1.5‑billion envelope for climate-smart agriculture programming. The investment includes the on-farm climate action fund, which helps thousands of farmers across the country adopt cover cropping, nutrient management and rotational grazing practices.
These main estimates also attest to the government's strong support for supply management, with more than $157 million in funding to help dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors cope with the impacts of trade deals with Europe and the trans-Pacific region. That investment is part of our overall commitment to provide $4.8 billion to supply-managed sectors to offset the impact of the three trade agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.
The support we are providing is already helping Canadian egg farmers invest in new heating, lighting and ventilation systems to improve animal welfare and save energy.
[English]
Since we last met, Mr. Chair, we have also launched our federal programs under the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, which will support key priorities for the sector over the next five years, including research and innovation across the value chain, action on climate change and the environment, expanding markets for Canadian exports, creating a more diverse and inclusive workforce, and public trust.
On the international stage, we continue to help our producers and processors to maximize their opportunities in the global marketplace. Last year, Canada's agriculture and food exports reached a record of close to $93 billion, not far from the target of $95 billion set by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers for 2028. That's an amazing achievement, given the many challenges farmers are facing.
To help our producers and processors diversify their markets, we will open Canada's first-ever agriculture and agri-food office in the Indo-Pacific region. The region holds significant opportunities for our agri-food sector, and it will account for two-thirds of the global middle class by 2030. Last month, I was able to strengthen our agricultural trade relationships in the region with a mission to Japan and Singapore. I can tell you that the customers there are looking for more of our world-class Canadian agri-food products.
Of course, we continue to strengthen our relationship with our largest trading partner. Last week, I was in Washington and met with Secretary Vilsack. We renewed our commitment to priorities on resilient supply chains and on making sure that trade is based on science and rules. I also raised our industry's concerns that the voluntary “Product of U.S.A.” labelling requirements could restrict trade and disrupt supply chains.
Mr. Chair, there is no question that the sector faces significant challenges, but the sector is strong, growing, and has a bright outlook for the future. Our farmers are, and will continue to be, leaders in sustainable production and innovation. We will continue to work together to help farmers keep their businesses strong and growing through investments such as the main estimates that we are discussing today.
Thank you.
The answer is zero, so there's a massive trade imbalance. We're seeing a similar trend with pork, which has gone down substantially every single year—that's Canadian pork exported to the U.K.
Why did you not prioritize addressing this trade imbalance before agreeing to the accession of the United Kingdom to the CPTPP, which seriously diminishes our strength in terms of leverage to come into agreement? Are you going to address this, as the Canadian Cattle Association have said, as a failure of this government to address that before agreeing to the accession of the U.K. to the CPTPP?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Bibeau and all of the department officials, for being here today. Thank you for the hard work you're doing at the ministry to support our agricultural sector and to move toward more sustainable agriculture as well.
I want to talk about another area where I think there's potential for growth, which is the plant-based food market.
I recently met with World Animal Protection and a young woman, Nika Moeini, who works with Youth Climate Save. She's also an ambassador for the Plant Based Treaty, which advocates for a transition to sustainable agriculture.
Plant-based food is an area where there's a lot of potential for growth. It's also an area where we can build on the incredible sustainability work that's being done through our agriculture sector, because a transition to the consumption of more plant-based foods has the potential to close the gap in reaching the climate targets that we currently have in our emissions reduction plan. It's about nine megatons. It's quite impressive, when you look out to 2030.
I'm wondering what the government is doing and what the department is doing to support the growth of that plant-based food sector, which I believe is a huge export market for our agriculture community as well.
Minister, I'd like to thank you and the other witnesses for being with us today.
I have a lot of questions, so I will try to be brief.
As you know, we did a study on poultry imports from Ukraine. Officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada told us earlier this year that the first 10 poultry shipments from every establishment would undergo full inspection.
Can you tell us whether CFIA's inspections revealed any substances that are banned in Canada?
:
Since the tariffs were reduced, we've received 24 containers of poultry from Ukraine, 11 of which were fully tested. The testing is complex and can take up to a month to complete.
As you mentioned, Mr. Perron, the first 10 shipments are undergoing a comprehensive inspection. Of the lots received, three portions were found to be non-compliant and had to be destroyed or shipped back out of the country. The rest, however, were found to be compliant. I should point out that the samples were very detailed, as per the requirements and our policy for the first 10 shipments.
If the poultry from a given establishment is found not to comply with Canadian standards, we increase the number of shipments we test to 15, and that testing is just as rigorous.
:
I'm sure you can understand that I would spend a lot more time on the subject, but I have to move on.
The members of the Union des producteurs agricoles called on the government for help a while ago. I asked you about it at the time, in the House. I sensed that you were open to the idea, but perhaps I'm just an optimist. You tell me.
Extending the deadline for repaying the Canada emergency business account loans could prove helpful from a cash flow standpoint. On May 11, the Quebec government took action, announcing $100 million to help with loan interest for three years, among other things.
Agriculture is an area of shared jurisdiction, and my feeling is that you would like to help out. Do you plan to help Quebec in its efforts to provide more support to our farmers, if only providing 60% of funding? That's common practice with business risk management programs, for instance.
:
Cost-shared programs fall under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. Funding is available in that the measure is consistent with the direction we've agreed on.
I spoke with Mr. Lamontagne, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, just yesterday, and I've had that same discussion with all of my provincial counterparts. I could hardly give Quebec a 60% share of funding without doing the same across the country.
Right now, we are assessing where help is needed most and what those needs look like countrywide. We are figuring out whether we can provide support through the business risk management programs or under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. We are also considering whether other options are available.
Welcome back, Minister. To you and to all your officials, thank you for joining us today.
I also want to stay on the subject of supply management. My colleague Monsieur Perron asked about Ukraine. I want to ask about future trade deals. India, of course, looms large right now. India has indicated very publicly through its high commissioner to Canada that agriculture is going to be a big thing.
Now, at the same time, Parliament is in the middle of debating a private member's bill, Bill , which is going to put in force and effect a legislative firewall on the ability of the Department of Foreign Affairs to negotiate on tariff rate quotas. I think that's there because Parliament's trust, at least on the opposition side, was broken three times by your government, if I'm speaking frankly, through three successive trade deals. Yes, you can talk about the compensation, but on that third pillar of supply management—import controls—some things were given away there.
Minister, Bill still has a little bit of a journey ahead of it. It does need to go through the Senate before it receives royal assent, and you have that legislative constraint in place. In the meantime, if the trade deal with the Indo-Pacific region, with India specifically, marches ahead at a pretty rapid pace, can we have your assurance that supply management is not going to be on the table and that you're not going to take advantage of the time between now and when Bill comes into force and effect?
:
Okay. Thank you for that.
You probably thought you were going to be safe from a PACA question today, but I'm going to prove you wrong. I was very happy to see the vote today on Bill . This has been a long time coming. I guess my question is this. It's been a long journey. In the 42nd Parliament both this committee and the Standing Committee on Finance made recommendations. In this Parliament this committee and the Standing Committee on Finance again made recommendations.
I guess after seven and a half years of your government being in power, it's taken the opposition—it's taken us—to get this bill up front, debated and sent to committee. In other words, the initiative lay with us. Every time we tried to convince your government that this is what people wanted and needed and that this was what was needed to protect our perishable fruit and vegetable sector because existing tools did not work—and they have been explaining this to your department time and time again, ad nauseam—they lost their preferential access in the United States, which I sure hope came up in your discussions with your U.S. counterparts.
Why now? Why has your government now done an about-face, and why is it now going along with what has been demanded for so long?
:
Okay. It's better late than never.
You may be aware that our committee, of course, spent one of its meetings looking at the recent plant closure by Olymel in the region of Quebec. That happened in Quebec. Tomorrow it could be in the region of my home province of B.C.
The irony, of course, is that our committee has completed a study on processing capacity in Canada. We have identified some of the major deficiencies in the system, such as that too much of our processing capacity is tied up in large corporations. When they go under, they leave our primary producers in a really very difficult spot.
This is a private company. I understand that we can't get too involved in the private affairs of a single company, but from the system as a whole, what have you learned from what has happened with Olymel, and what steps do you plan on taking in the immediate future to address that processing capacity and those weaknesses that exist throughout the country?
:
You're right, and COVID has shown us even more how depending on two big ones, the beef industry and a few more, and the pork industry, makes us more vulnerable. That's why it has been identified as a priority in the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership.
If you look at the Guelph statement, you will see that the supply chain is there. That is also why there is funding available through the provinces, with 60% federal funding to strengthen our regional supply chains.
As you said, these are private affairs, but this is something I witness when visiting farmers all across the country. It is an issue that we're looking at with the provinces. Obviously, the CFIA stands ready to support newcomers who would like to put in place or implement new processing facilities in the country.
Good afternoon, Minister.
You were just discussing the closure of the Olymel plant in Vallée‑Jonction, which is in my riding. I have to tell you how disappointed I was about that, especially because the plant generated a lot of jobs. Farmers are also very worried. Canada exports 70% of its pork, as we know. Quebec is a major exporter of pork. The plant closure is going to affect the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and perhaps even Manitoba.
Ms. Bibeau, you're a Quebecker and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Why haven't you said anything about the closure? It was announced four weeks ago.
:
Minister, the current business risk management programs don't offer any funding for this. I've heard from a number of farmers on the subject.
The plant is closing, and we may feel the impact sooner than we think. The hogs are in the fattening period as we speak, but the plant could close before it's time for slaughter.
Have you considered creating new programs? Do you have anything you want to announce to businesses?
Most of them are family-run, and farmers are very worried given how tough the past year has been.
Does the government intend to create a business risk management program to address this problem specifically?
Canada is a pork-exporting country, after all.
:
I don't want you to put the cart before the horse, Minister, but the plant is going to close.
I realize it's a private company, but keep in mind that there's a monopoly in the sector. The plant's closure will affect not only Quebec, as I said earlier, but also other provinces in the country.
Personally, I think the federal government has to put its foot down and do something quickly to help farmers. Last week, we heard from Ontario hog farmers, and they talked about how worried they were.
That means the government needs to establish a program right away to help get these businesses through the crisis. It won't fix everything, but it will at least give them some support.
:
I've been there, and I've seen and heard what they want. The Japanese, for example, want more Canadian products. They trust our system. They know that we offer high-quality products, so we have a closer relationship.
In Japan, our Canadian ambassador has been named as special envoy to the Prime Minister. It's kind of a second high-level representative as well.
We have opportunities with the CPTPP to open up new markets and increase market share.
Here in Canada, the beef sector, the pork sector and the grain sector are all looking forward to being there and joining forces as well. One of the objectives of our office there is to work even more closely with provincial representatives and industry representatives in the field.
:
In the main estimates right now—as you know, the budget comes in a few tranches—we have the business risk management portion, which is not full at this date. As always, it's an estimation depending on the disasters we might have to face or the trade disruptions.
We don't know exactly how much will have to be distributed to farmers, but I can assure you that these programs are ready to be rolled out when a disaster happens, such as a drought, floods or a hurricane. Right now, we are following closely the fires in Alberta and, in B.C., maybe floods as well, I'm in contact with Minister Horner and Minister Alexis on that.
The agri-environmental programs, the on-farm climate action fund and the agricultural clean technology program.... Actually, we just launched a second call for proposals on the agricultural clean technology program. I would invite farmers to apply, and to apply fast, I would say, because the first call for proposals was subscribed to very rapidly. Farmers are eager to benefit from these programs and to increase the efficiency of their equipment.
Minister, I'd like to address the issue of genome editing monitoring and traceability. As you know, last year, the industry was fairly unanimous in calling for mandatory traceability, as I understand it, managed by the government.
But what you announced at the beginning of the month was traceability handled by the industry. There have been several reactions from groups who are not necessarily satisfied. No one is trying to block the technology. People just want it to be monitored, particularly in the organic industry. What do you have to say to those people?
Representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles reacted by saying, among other things, that they were disappointed that traceability was not mandatory. You can't rely on it if it's not compulsory. How can you reassure us on this point?
:
I understand that the organic sector has concerns, but the vast majority of the agricultural sector in this country is delighted with our announcement.
The grain and seed sector has made giant strides. The traceability database is going to be complete and significantly more detailed. We're going to make sure it includes all seeds that have undergone genetic manipulation, whether it's genome editing or genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. This will be properly catalogued. We've set up an advisory committee that will closely monitor the situation and make recommendations.
As for the government, it will ensure monitoring. The industry is committed to having a comprehensive, regularly updated and easy-to-use database.
If you look at what's being done in the United States or elsewhere, you'll find that Canada offers the most transparent system. When I recently spoke to my colleagues in other countries, including Japan, Singapore and the United States, particularly in Washington, they told me they thought our system was based on common sense and they were looking at it closely.
The standards will therefore be imposed by industry, as is the case for many other agricultural standards.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister.
Over the last number of years, I have been fortunate to establish a great working relationship with the Deans Council—Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine. We have some fantastic institutions right across Canada. They see a lot of potential in making Canada's place in the world even better than it already is. However, in order to do that, of course, they are going to need some significant investment.
I think they are looking at the demographic crunch that is approaching and the ability of Canadian universities to bring forward people with the expertise and technical skills to find a place in 21st-century agriculture. They have come forward with a number of proposals, but a lot of them centre on establishing a funding program for some of the very dire infrastructure that Canada's agricultural universities have and need.
First of all, are you aware of their asks, and how have you, as minister, been advocating with your counterparts around the cabinet table to see that what they're asking for is met?
:
I think any CEO who would lose $48 billion would be fired, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to switch gears. Talking about the new amendments put forward by CFIA on traceability, I had a conversation with both the CEO and the president of Canadian Western Agribition. They see this as being very cumbersome to add these new traceability regulations onto fairs, counties, the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair in Toronto. Agribition sees this as a big amount of red tape that it's going to have to cut through, making it much more cumbersome to track animals on and off yard, which it didn't have to.... They're also very concerned about actually having to tag animals at these fairs...if something goes wrong and they lose their tag.
Do you guys have any consultations with any fairs or exhibitions? This is really going to hurt 4-H and small town shows as well, because it's going to put a lot of pressure on these volunteers.
Who did you consult with before you brought in these new traceability amendments?
I have a few right here, so please take a look at what they're saying, because it's making it very hard for on-the-ground volunteers to try to keep these shows running if these amendments are put forward. That's the feedback we've had so far.
My last question is going to be around electronic logging devices and transporting of livestock. As predicted, the animal transportation regulations your government implemented are causing havoc, because there aren't the safe rest stops to load and unload cattle when using these electronic logging devices.
Have you heard feedback from the transportation companies? Are you looking at changing some of these regulations? They're creating unsafe atmospheres for both drivers and the animals that are being transported.
:
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I will be splitting my time with Mr. Turnbull.
I want to thank the officials for being here.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today, and for visiting my riding in Kitchener—Conestoga recently for this year's first local harvest, which was by maple syrup producers. I appreciate that.
We all know that one of the challenges for farmers is the need to pay up front for various inputs and expenses. Returns on farmers' investments typically come in the fall, after the harvest is complete and crops are sold. The time gap between expenses and revenues can sometimes cause financial strain for farmers. They have ongoing costs that need to be covered throughout the growing season, which is why the advance payments program is such an important and popular loan program for farmers, helping to alleviate that burden of upfront costs.
In our latest budget, the government once again raised the interest-free portion of the advance payments program.
Through you, Chair, can the minister share more details about the advance payments program—its importance and the positive impact it can have for our hard-working farmers in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga or anywhere in Canada?
[English]
The advance payments program is exactly meant to provide a loan in the beginning of the season and then give them an interest-free portion, which has been increased up to $350,000 this year. If we add it to last year's, it reaches about $84 million in savings for farmers. They can get the loan early in the season and then proceed with their reimbursement later on, when it's the right time for them to sell. It's a really great program. I wish that we all could promote this program. It could be used by more farmers.
I've been told recently in Ontario, actually, that young farmers particularly appreciate the program. It brings them into AgriStability at the same time. It's helping new farmers as well.
:
I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification.
You mentioned innovation, which relates to another line of questioning I want to pursue with you.
This week is Canadian Innovation Week. We know how important technological innovation is to our agricultural industry. It allows farmers to be more productive and competitive. It also provides solutions to make their production more sustainable. I understand we're working on these issues with our allies in the G7 and G20. One of the latest forums is the agriculture innovation mission for climate, or AIM4C, which is a U.S.-U.A.E. initiative that brings together over 50 countries to discuss agricultural innovation initiatives.
Minister, I understand you were in Washington and participated in this summit. Can you tell us a bit more about that?
:
Very quickly, it was very impressive. I came back from this mission thinking we would not only reach but surpass our climate objectives.
I also took the opportunity to meet with Secretary Vilsack, of course, and with farmers and processors in the beef sector, because I wanted to be clear that.... No one has mentioned COOL, but I want to say this is something I'm following very closely. I wouldn't want any mandatory COOL in the U.S. Secretary Vilsack keeps reassuring me in terms of voluntary.... Still, depending on the way it's being done, it could impact our supply chain.
I took the opportunity to be there and enjoy all the innovation, but also to have this honest conversation.
:
Thank you, Minister. That ends our period of questions.
I know you have to run, Minister, so we're going to let you do that.
Unfortunately, I have to go, as well.
Mr. Barlow, I know you're going to take the chair for the second hour, for the officials.
We're going to suspend for two or three minutes; then we'll get our second round of questioning started.
Thank you very much, Minister.
Thank you to all the officials for being here. We'll see you in just a few minutes.
:
Colleagues, we have an issue with Ms. Collins' sound. I'm not sure if it's her headset. We're going to go ahead and start, but when it comes to Ms. Collins' turn, we'll have it resolved, hopefully, and the NDP will be able to get their slot.
For the sake of time, we'll get started. Hopefully, we'll have Ms. Collins' sound issues resolved when we get to her spot.
We've had introductions. We know most of our guests.
Thank you very much to the officials for sticking around and providing your time this afternoon.
We'll get right to the rounds of questions.
We'll be starting with the Conservatives and Mr. Epp for six minutes, please.
:
You can table it with the committee. Thank you very much.
The is co-chairing the grocery code of conduct committee. I have two questions here.
First, can you provide the timelines for when it's estimated that it's going to be completed?
Second, what advice did the department provide the from the U.K. and Australia, two of our allies that have gone down this road? On their failed initial attempts, what advice was given to the minister?
Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has provided all kinds of challenges. This came up earlier, on fertilizer.
What steps has AAFC undertaken to make Canadian sources of fertilizer more available? Particularly in eastern Canada and Atlantic Canada, on my own farm, over my lifetime, I've actually used more Russian and Belarusian potash than potash from Saskatchewan, for economic reasons.
An hon. member: It's shameful.
Mr. Dave Epp: It's shameful. I agree with my colleague.
What steps has AAFC taken to help Canadians, particularly with respect to fertilizers, on the east coast?
:
It's an important question. Thank you for raising it.
This is something that's extremely important, not only to farmers in the east, but in the west as well. We have been in conversation with the industry ever since the tariffs were announced, to ensure there would be enough supply for this year and indeed ongoing. We have been informed, just for the record, that there is ample supply for this coming year.
What we've seen is a shift in behaviour as well. We are confident that going forward there will be enough for Canadian farmers, not only in the west but in the east as well.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to our witnesses. Congratulations, Ms. Beck, on your position.
I have some questions around the price on pollution, the agricultural climate solutions program and the impact those have had on our farms and the emissions that have been coming from the agricultural sector. We have a carrot-and-stick approach here in Canada, where we have the price on pollution, but we also have this great agricultural climate solutions program, worth about $4 billion, to help farmers adapt.
We've been hearing a lot about the price on pollution, how it's going to hurt farmers and what it's going to cost, but there's been no incorporation of behavioural change on the part of farmers, as Mr. Turnbull was mentioning earlier. We just heard from that we've had a 53-megatonne reduction in greenhouse gases, which is amazing. That's the equivalent of 11 million cars on the road. It wasn't broken down by sector.
My question is for anyone. Do we have any estimates of how much greenhouse gases have been coming down in the agriculture sector or what the projections are, given both the price on pollution and the agricultural climate solutions program that we have in place?
:
We have been very heartened by the changes we have seen, in particular in behaviour. The programs that have been in place have been deliberately designed to target changes in behaviour. We know, though, that Canadian farmers have been doing a fabulous job on this for, frankly, decades, in different parts of the country. What we're seeking is greater adoption of those techniques more broadly to see an increase in the kinds of reductions you have been mentioning, with which we're very pleased.
There are discussions right now around the sustainable agriculture strategy. We're in the process now of consultations across the country. The differences among small farmers and the kinds of crops they grow or the livestock they raise are the kinds of things that will make a difference in how we make the final design for our strategy.
Already we've seen differences in the kinds of approaches farmers are taking. We're spending a lot of money, as I think you know, on research and development, again, depending on the region and the kind of crop that's being grown or the livestock, and then a whole other section of work is being done on adoption. We have all kinds of other incentives to procure things like biodigesters, which also make a difference.
We're very comfortable that we are headed in the right direction. I have actually seen a number on what the GHG emissions could be, but I don't have it with me right now. I'd be happy to table that later.
:
It has been terrible and devastating for our farmers.
Perhaps, to give two relatively straightforward numbers, we know that we spent $600 million in Alberta after the droughts of 2021. That's one province alone, and one terrible, catastrophic event.
For hurricane Fiona, we're looking at $300 million, at least, for agriculture alone.
These are big numbers, and we're not expecting them to diminish any time soon, unfortunately. That means, though, that we're looking at more mitigation and what it is that we can provide to farmers in terms of innovation, be it in equipment, practices or seed, that will make a difference in the future.
I just want to thank you for the work you're doing on this.
I think having some of these facts and some of these numbers around.... We can't make projections without putting assumptions in.
I think some of the assumptions have been that behaviour is not going to change among our farmers. We're seeing that our farmers have always been at the forefront and have done so much, and they are continuing to do that, so I'd really like to see some of the numbers around how their behaviour is changing, how that is impacting and how both the carrot and the stick are contributing to this change in behaviour of the farmers.
They're at the forefront of climate impact, as we always say, so it's going to be benefiting them in terms of the climate events. Hopefully, we can manage them and mitigate them as well.
I'd like to thank the four witnesses for staying with us so abidingly.
I'll continue where I left off. We were talking about genome editing. I did like the end of the minister's reply, when she said that if a problem arose, action would be taken. What worries the community is that we don't know how we're going to ensure that the database is complete and that proper monitoring is being done.
So you say you'll take action if there's an issue, but can you give us more details on the timeline? How often will consultations take place between industry and the committee, among other things? I'd like you to keep your answer brief.
:
At any rate, we're counting on your rigour and prudence.
Earlier, Mr. Lehoux asked about the closure of the Olymel plant in Vallée-Jonction. Over the course of several studies, the committee has been able to observe significant concentration in the sectors, particularly the slaughtering sector, but in the processing sector in general.
Can we envision additional support for smaller processing units that would be better distributed across the regions and could constitute a kind of ancillary network capable of absorbing this kind of shock?
Have you had discussions on that?
:
We had just such a discussion in recent weeks. My colleagues have been speaking directly with business representatives.
I know the companies have considered the impact this will have on the region, and I know they've already started talking to producers in other provinces, for example, to accommodate them at different plants. As we know, the decision to close the plant wasn't made overnight, because people were aware of the consequences it would have.
I myself spoke with my colleagues at Farm Credit Canada to see what more we could do to lend a hand. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada doesn't have a specific program to help the industry recover. However, there are Canadian banks that are perfectly capable of doing so, since they have the authority and mandate to do so.
:
We know where we need to apply pressure.
We often hear virtuous rhetoric about climate change. However, when I look at the figures, I realize that they're not very high. For example, an amount of $87,390,000 is being proposed for the farm action for climate plan. This number may seem high, but it really isn't, since it applies to all regions of Canada.
Are you planning further investments? Will there be other application cycles?
:
Unfortunately, no date has been finalized. You are right when you say that the department is not responsible for this file. We are, however, developing our own strategy for agricultural workers. Of course, this includes people from abroad, who are needed all over the country, not just in Quebec.
We have also consulted various producers, farmers and processors, among others, on this topic. Interesting points arose from these discussions. For example, we asked them whether temporary foreign workers should have a specific visa to work at a particular plant or company. Some said yes, while others said no.
Once the person has arrived in Canada, he or she might work in a specific sector for six months, which equates to one season. But what could they do for the rest of the year? I'd say there's a diversity of opinion on that.
:
I want to thank all the witnesses and our officials for being here.
My first questions are for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Back in February, my colleague Alistair MacGregor presented a petition with more than 36,000 signatures to the House, calling for a ban on exporting live horses for slaughter. There was a huge outpouring of support from Canadians across the country. It was in the top 20 for the highest number of signatures ever for any petition to the House of Commons.
The government responded on March 29. Presumably, officials from CFIA had some involvement in the drafting of that response.
The last paragraph states:
To conclude this answer, the Government would like to thank petitioners for this opportunity to reiterate that the Government takes the issue of animal welfare seriously. We remain engaged in working diligently to implement the mandate letter commitment to ban the live export of horses for slaughter.
I'm curious as to whether the department officials can share with the committee what the holdup is with implementing this section of the 's mandate letter to the .
I'm going to go back to the CFIA for a second.
Just to reiterate, I'm a 4-H kid. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm. Going to livestock shows was a huge part of my growing up and really learning more and more about agriculture. These volunteers who put on these shows.... Please review these traceability regs that you're putting forward, because it's going to shut down a lot of these shows.
The problem I see right now with part of what's going on in agriculture is that there is a disconnect between rural and urban Canadians. So many Canadians in Toronto, Regina and all urban centres really, for the first time, get to see animals and learn about animals at these smaller shows, and big shows such as the Toronto winter fair. It's something that's a really big part of our agriculture heritage.
To put these onerous new regulations on volunteers and these shows is going to be very taxing on them. You need to listen to their feedback. I think we can take a step back and review what's going on.
That's the final pitch from me.
Perhaps you could make a couple of comments on that, please, Ms. Lapointe.
:
The main estimates will provide $769 million to producers in ongoing business risk management programs.
Through the agricultural climate solutions program and the agricultural clean technology program, $259.3 million will help producers find ways to reduce their emissions, and will also help bolster the sector's resilience.
Another $157.6 million is earmarked to support dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors while they adapt to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Finally, to help Canadian wineries adapt after the excise duty exemption on all-Canadian wine was repealed, we have funding totalling $82.4 million this year.
:
Perhaps I can answer the second one while my colleague is looking up numbers. For the Grain Commission I suspect it's a timing issue, but we'll look into that for you.
On reducing emissions in the supply chain, and in particular through transport, we're absolutely working with our colleagues in Transport Canada, inter alia, to find out if there are cheaper, faster or better ways of moving grain, for instance, across the country. We're seeing what alternatives are in place where we can be assured that there will be fewer emissions during the transportation of any of our agri-food products destined for export.
I would look, too, at the investments being made, for instance, in the port of Vancouver, which have been recently announced. They will take some time to take place, but the goal there as well is to reduce emissions in that part of the transportation process.
[English]
Thank you to the officials for your time today. We will now excuse you and we will just do a quick vote here with my colleagues.
Colleagues, we have five or six votes here, but I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to condense the first five into one vote. Is everyone okay with that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Barlow): I'll read it off. I have a pretty good feeling what the answer is going to be.
For the main estimates, shall vote 1 under Canadian Dairy Commission, vote 1 under Canadian Grain Commission, and votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, carry?
CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,222,621
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$5,467,952
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$463,606,864
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$31,963,435
ç
Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$513,062,360
(Votes 1, 5 and 10 agreed to on division)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Barlow): Shall the chair report the main estimates 2023-24, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Barlow): Thank you very much, team.
It's great to see everyone. Please enjoy your break back in your constituencies. I know everybody will be busy.
We'll see everyone in 10 days.
The meeting is adjourned.