:
Thank you, Larry, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm told you're going to keep your eye on the proceedings today.
I'll tell you, I really feel comfortable in this group when I look around and see all these cookie dusters that everybody's sporting.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Hon. Gerry Ritz: It's great to be back. I'm here today with a lot of agricultural staff from CFIA and from the agricultural department as well, as you well know. Not unknown to you are John Knubley, deputy minister, and Rita Moritz, program director. From CFIA we have the president, Carole Swan, and Paul Mayers, from the programming side.
Paul just got back in from Belgium late last night, so if he nods off, don't hold it against him.
I have a few opening remarks that I'd be happy to share with you.
We know that agriculture is the backbone of Canada's economy. That's why we put farmers first in all of our policies and programs.
As you know, Mr. Chair, in January of 2006, Canada's farmers gave this government a mandate to give them the tools they need to succeed. Since we've taken office, this government has delivered $12.8 billion to help build a profitable, competitive, innovative, and sustainable agricultural industry.
We continue to strengthen the agricultural industry even further. The estimates you have before you--and I know that's what we'll concentrate on here today--show an additional $290 million, bringing the department's total budget to $3.3 billion. This represents an increase of $696 million, a 27% increase over last year's spending. These new investments deliver on the government's promises to help farmers affected by flooding this year and to support a competitive livestock industry into the future.
Our Growing Forward programs, which are cost-shared and provincially delivered, strengthen food safety, marketing, innovation, environmental services, and farm support. They provide regional flexibility in programming that helps farmers make their money from the marketplace. This allows the consumer, both domestically and internationally, to have access to the top-quality products that our farmers and processors are rightly proud of.
This government is taking concrete steps to open new markets for our exporters, while always protecting our supply-managed sector. Unlike the previous government, this government has focused on actually talking to farmers, finding out what's working and what's not, and making the adjustments.
We've teamed up with Canadian industry associations to make sure we're all rowing in the same direction, hitting the right targets, and fixing what farmers want fixed. Industry and I have hit the road and knocked down doors in more than 20 different markets, some more than once. We're reopening markets, some that have been closed to Canadian producers for almost a decade, and creating new market opportunities that will help farmers boost their bottom line. We've been to India and Turkey to secure our pulse exports and to Colombia to get our beef into South America.
Asia has been a real focus, and in particular, China, Japan, and Hong Kong. Almost a year ago, the Prime Minister announced full pork access for China and full access to Hong Kong for our great Canadian beef. In June, China also agreed to a staged approach for beef access. We will begin those commercial shipments shortly.
Despite continued restrictions from China for canola seed, we were able to negotiate transitional measures for the current crop year, a market that is still worth in excess of $1 billion. Of course challenges still remain, but we won't rest until we have unfettered access, based on sound science, in all these markets.
I'm proud to report that Canada's agricultural exports have risen by 8% in this year alone. This is tremendous news for our front-line farmers. Once consumers around the world taste our high-quality Canadian products, I know they'll continue to choose Canadian when they go to their grocery stores.
We're also working bilaterally through free trade agreements. Step by step, market by market, this government is opening up new markets for our farmers and exporters. We've received a lot of support from the industry for our work on trade; this not only strengthens our efforts, but also proves to me that we're on the right track. I also appreciate that this committee was very supportive of the market access secretariat in the report you did on competitiveness.
Farmers can only benefit from new sales on the world stage if their business is solid here at home. Since we took office, $7.5 billion has been directly invested to farmers through the business risk management programming. Most recently, when prairie farmers were hit with severe flooding, four governments came together and responded with an unprecedented relief package of $450 million that was made available to hard-hit farmers. This was the fastest and largest assistance package in history. The industry, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, and the Keystone Agricultural Producers, was very appreciative of the speed with which these dollars got to the farm gate.
We also gave our hog, cattle, and durum producers more breathing room on their advance payment loans. This was also very much appreciated. Ron Bonnett, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said, “This Stay of Default provides the critical extra time necessary for many producers to get products to market before having to make their APP repayments”.
These programs have been there when times are tough for Canadian farmers while our economic action plan is helping to build a vibrant farm gate. Through that plan, we are investing in long overdue upgrades to our laboratories and slaughter facilities so our farmers can have the tools and products they need to continue to succeed.
This government also knows that innovation is a key to competitiveness. Innovation allows our farmers to tap new value-added markets, ensuring they remain prosperous while also backstopping our environment.
Our new science and innovation programming under Growing Forward puts a strong emphasis on industry leadership and investment as the way to build a more innovative and competitive agricultural sector. Our investment of $115 million in research clusters and industry-led projects has leveraged an additional $42 million from our industry partners. That's also why we oppose Bill , which would stifle that innovation. As I said, innovation drives prosperity. It's critical that trade remain firmly based on sound scientific principles.
Safe food is also the foundation for growing market access and overall economic success. Of course, we are fully committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system remains one of the best in the world. We've delivered the resources needed for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to improve food safety and protect the health of Canadians.
Our ongoing actions to improve food safety will ensure that consumers at home and around the world can continue to have confidence in Canadian foodstuffs. We've increased CFIA's inspection staff by 538, or 13%, since March 2006. Furthermore, we've increased the agency's budget by 13% this past year alone.
Mr. Chairman, these investments, regulatory changes, and program improvements have paid dividends already. Among the 17 OECD countries, Canada is ranked number one for its superior recall regulations. Recent public opinion research shows that Canadians trust Canadian-produced food. In fact, more than a third of consumers are more confident in food safety now than they were five years ago. That is a trust we are committed to maintaining by making sure that Canada continues to have a robust food safety system.
We renewed this commitment again last September when our government announced that we would act on all 57 recommendations made by the Weatherill report. We delivered on that promise with an investment of $75 million to backstop Canada's food safety system. This investment is improving CFIA's ability to prevent, detect, and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks.
On the inspection side, CFIA has worked with independent experts to assess the compliance verification system, which is proving to be a strong and effective inspection tool. Furthermore, the government is providing 24-7 service to provide health risk assessments for food safety investigations. This supports a national initiative to improve collection, reporting, and analysis of a wide range of health information.
We are also informing the public through various means so they can get minute-by-minute updates on any food safety risk. We have a new food safety portal, which is a one-stop shop for excellent food safety information. We're also engaging with Canadians through national public information campaigns, Twitter, and Facebook.
More proof of our actions can be found in the government's recently released food safety progress report. That report clearly shows that this government is making significant progress on all 57 recommendations.
Today I'm pleased to announced that the government has taken yet another step to strengthen Canada's food safety system. Our government has appointed seven highly qualified advisers to the minister's advisory board, which fulfills another recommendation of the Weatherill report.
Today's announcement is just one more way in which we're improving an already world-recognized food safety system. This highly qualified and diverse advisory board builds upon our government's increased investments, hiring of more inspectors, and enhanced listeria testing.
The advisory board includes a diverse group of experts who will deliver advice on food safety and other issues related to the CFIA's mandate. This outstanding group of Canadians will be a vital external source that will advise on how to further strengthen our food safety systems. I look forward to receiving the advice of the board and, together, making Canada's food safety system even better.
In closing, I think everyone around this table shares my optimism about the future of this great sector; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. With innovation, Canadian farmers can look forward to a future with stronger trade partnerships, a more sustainable environment, and more profitable farmers, while making sure that families here and around the world continue to have access to our top-quality foodstuffs. Our government knows that when Canadian farmers succeed, they stimulate the economy, create jobs, and increase prosperity for all Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Welcome, Mr. Minister. Thank you for coming here.
I will proceed as I did the last time that you appeared before us. I will begin by presenting a few issues and then I will give you an opportunity to answer, if you will allow me to proceed in this fashion. I believe that this will be more useful and probably more effective.
I also have some questions on the Advance Payments Program. I questioned my colleagues from Quebec about certain matters in order to ascertain whether or not the agricultural producers in their regions had spoken to them about any problems. My colleague from , Mr. Marc Lemay, told me about a problem regarding the announcement made last August 6 on the Advance Payments Program. Initially, producers thought that they would not have to pay any retroactive penalties. This was clear in their mind following discussions with representatives from your department. A short while later, they realized that, in actual fact, producers who signed a repayment agreement would have to pay a retroactive penalty. In Quebec, at least 750 hog producers and 400 cattle producers are going to take advantage of the extension of the stay on repayment.
I would like to know whether or not you have been informed of this problem and if you have had discussions on the matter. Will there be a retroactive penalty?
I would also like to discuss your desire to enhance the income security programs. I know that currently, your department is conducting consultations about the business risk management programs. As you know, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec has already stated that the current programs has shortcomings. I would like to know whether you are open to the idea of making any changes, particularly to the AgriStability program. We heard a great deal about the problems with this program when the committee conducted its young farmers' tour. We would like to know whether you would consider the possibility of including costs of production in the AgriStability program. We heard that the AgriStability program and the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, the previous program, were more or less the same thing.
Are you prepared to enhance the envelope of the AgriFlexibility program? We have made several requests that the AgriFlexibility program be used to fund income security programs. In fact, we have asked that the AgriFlexibility program include income support. That is another request.
With respect to the programs, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business polled Quebec agricultural businesses in June 2010. I would like to provide you with some information about what producers are thinking and about the study that resulted from this poll. In its current form, the AgriStability program is unable to provide Canadian producers with an adequate long-term solution. In addition, we were told that the level of dissatisfaction with the AgriStability program is identical to that with respect to the CAIS in 2005. Mr. Minister, I made a mistake, this poll was carried out not only in Quebec, but also in Canada.
I would like to ask you one final question. If I have any time remaining, I may ask you some other questions. I know that the government is currently taking a great deal of action with respect to bilateral free trade agreements. There is the agreement with the European Union, India and Japan, but there is also the Asia-Pacific agreement. I know that your colleague from international trade has been quoted in the “Business” section of the newspaper La Presse. According to him, Canada, in the case of the Asia-Pacific agreement, was not prepared to abandon the supply management system. He also said that he was prepared to negotiate. I have two questions on this issue. We have already asked the former Minister of International Trade, Mr. Day, these questions right here, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade. He said that, with respect to the European Union, supply management was on the table but that it would not be touched. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that we left supply management on the table in this type of bilateral negotiation.
Have you spoken to your cabinet colleagues to inform them that it would be preferable to not include supply management whatsoever in this type of agreement? Does the government intend to get into the habit of leaving supply management on the table during all of these bilateral negotiations? Are you aware of the statement made by with respect to the possibility of negotiating supply management as part of an Asia-Pacific agreement?
That will be all for the moment.
:
Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. I'll try to cover as much of that as I can in my allotted time.
On the APP retroactive penalties, we've done as much as we can to mitigate that. Again by process and by legislation, we're forced to have a penalty situation in play to help drive repayment. Having said that, the penalty in this case is a quarter of one per cent. When I was at the hog producers' reception last night, I had a number of people come forward to me and thank me for keeping the penalties that low. It's sort of unprecedented to do that.
We're hopeful that no one gets into that situation, but if they do, we've reduced as much as we possibly can and still stay within the legal guidelines that we're under. A quarter of one per cent is the penalty.
On income security, you called it.... That would be the complete business risk management suite of programs, including Growing Forward and so on, the five-year program that we're about halfway through right now on the initial situation. That's a shared jurisdiction between the provincial and federal governments, as you well know, at 60-40.
There is some flexibility on the Growing Forward side. We do have national standards on the business risk side. Now, some provinces have seen fit to top that up or bring in a companion program, as is their right. We're always concerned about countervailability when you start to talk about specific sectors, specific herds, and so on like that.
We have done as much as we can in the shared jurisdiction, working with the provinces and territories within the parameters that are there for today's existing AgriStability and AgriRecovery, all of that, and we have made some significant changes.
Also, I'll tie in a further question. You talked about AgriStability being no different from what we had in 2005. I would argue that it is. We have much better coverage on negative margins, which was one of the problems people had. The rate of mistake was higher; we now have a much more targeted.... There are very few clawbacks in regard to what we saw under the old CAIS program. We are also able to offer advances on projected program moneys that were not there. We've done as much as we can to make it “farm gate friendly”, to make it bankable and predictable.
Can more be done? Absolutely. It comes down to fiscal capacity. It takes six of the provinces and territories with 50%-plus of the farm gate receipts to make changes. We've had ongoing discussions as to what we should do and how we should make some of these changes. There has never been a consensus to move forward.
Having said that, we've adapted and have backstopped under AgriStability now our supply-managed sector, which was never included under the old programming. If there is a case of avian influenza in the barn and it's cleaned out, we have now the capacity to replace their stock under the Health of Animals Act and different acts like that, as well as their business line with AgriStability. They're receiving coverage now that was never there in 2005; that's a whole new sector. There are other products that have been added and so on.
So I think we have made some significant changes to what was available in 2005. We're in the beginning of discussions on the next generation, the next five years that will start after this is done--in 2012 I think it is, John, isn't it?
Rita, I guess you would know.
Those discussions are well under way. The first and foremost thing is that we make sure representatives from every industry are at the table in regard to that. It's 2013, John corrects me. We're doing as much as we can to make sure these are bankable, predictable, and driven by industry.
On the trans-Pacific partnership, the Asian situation you're talking about, we have no idea if we'll be allowed to participate. At this juncture, the Americans have said they don't want us involved. Japan has said if they're going to be a part of it, they want Canada involved. So if we decide we want to take part, we have Japan as an ally. We have a number of other countries as allies too.
I guess what kept us out of the initial discussions on the TPP was that of the roughly 420 million people in that trading area, we already have negotiations and deals with 350 million of them, so is there a benefit to moving forward? We're not against trade and we're not against expanding the regions we deal with, but we can certainly do it in other ways as well.
As you noted, we've just begun discussions with India on a free trade agreement, which is a tremendous opportunity for Canada that would far supplant anything that TPP could do for us. But we want to make sure that Canada and all of our industry have access to every market they potentially could.
When it comes to supply management, this government has stood firm. Supply management has been on the table at the beginning of every discussion, at every bilateral. We've always been very successful in protecting our supply-managed system.
It's gotten to the point where I've had discussions with my American counterpart about how it works and the successful way it's handled here in Canada. Their dairy is in terrible shape down there. Last fall, they had to vote through some $350 million American. Also, the European Union had to vote through $450 million euros to backstop their dairy. In Canada we have a system that stands on its own. They look at that with envy. They recognize the validity of the system. We've always been able to make those arguments in every free trade agreement. At every table I sit at around the world, we talk about the success of our supply-managed system.
That has led to a tremendous call globally for the genetics coming out of our supply-managed system, because we've been able to develop the best with that solid bottom line for a number of years. We'll continue to be there for them.
It's good to be with you again, Minister.
I know that you know , who is usually here but was unable to come today. He is hearing from the cow-calf producers as well that the situation is quite dire for many of them. In response to my two colleagues who have also raised the issue, we're also hearing from producers that there are some difficulties out there. Notwithstanding the fact that you say there are always difficulties out there, I understand, I think it may be a little more than just someone who is having difficulties in managing their operation.
But let me do what has done and sort of get a few out there. In some cases, you may not be able to respond, but to come back in writing is fine.
The CFIA actually briefed this committee a couple of years ago and said that when it came to animal transport regulations, we would see something happening. It has now been two years. When do you think the regulations will be brought forward? If there's a holdup, what is it, and could we know about that?
In the tree fruit industry, which is in my neck of the woods, in the peninsula, we've just witnessed clingstone peach trees being pulled out of the ground because of the lack of a canning facility, which closed two years ago. When they replant, especially if they go back into tree fruit, it takes anywhere from four to seven years for those trees to come into production. The real question for them is, how do they survive that period of time when really there is no production? In a lot of cases, what they're asking is if this government going to consider a cost-of-production based program, which perhaps will be the answer to their margin issue, because they are being attacked by exports from outside.
As to apple and peach producers, if you buy canned peaches in this country from CanGro Foods Inc., turn to the label, and you'll find they're Chinese peaches. They're not Niagara peaches. Yet CanGro used to be the major canner in St. Davids in the Niagara peninsula. Folks out there who think they're buying Canadian peaches in a CanGro box or bottle or jar aren't. They're no longer grown there. That's what is really happening. Those folks have to figure out what's next; that was the business they were in.
In the same vein, with CFIA when it comes to tree fruits, we see apples coming in and perhaps being refused in the U.S. market because of pesticide residue. Are we speaking to the USDA from CFIA's perspective and sharing information so that we know that shipment of applies doesn't land on Canadian shores? In other words, when it gets redirected, when it's coming from China, it's not headed back; it's going to be headed somewhere else where they can sell it if possible. So if the USDA refuses entry of a shipment, are they talking to us? Are they saying to us, “By the way, shipment X was denied here because of...?” Why? Are we actually hearing about that?
Staying in the same vein with CFIA, Minister, there was an audit done by USDA in 2009. They do spot checks of plants processing ready-to-eat meats. They came in and reviewed paperwork. They found that in 25% of the places they spot-checked, immediate action needed to be taken for enforcement, mainly in sanitation. Three of the plants were delisted. Now, I understand that they've been re-listed, but they were delisted immediately. My understanding—and I can be corrected on this—is that this audit is not on the CFIA website. Now, I understand that we didn't do the audit, but these Canadian plants that don't just send meat to the U.S.--they send it into the Canadian market.
Here's my question. If the U.S. is saying, “Don't send us your product”, why aren't Canadians aware of that fact? At the very least, Canadians ought to have the information, because I believe that what CFIA said after the listeriosis crisis of two and a half years ago was that they would provide all information to Canadians so that they could make informed decisions. If the USDA is saying to these Canadian facilities that it is delisting them immediately, not in 30 days, but now, so that they can't ship to the U.S., why aren't Canadians allowed to know these facts so they can make the proper decisions when it comes to their choices?
The other piece is the issue of recommendation 7 that Sheila Weatherill made in her report. That was under your auspices, Minister. You brought in a very competent woman in Ms. Weatherill. I think she did a comprehensive review. She did an excellent job. I will quote recommendation 7. It says:
To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors—
I repeat: “the number of required inspectors”.
—the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants—
I repeat: “how many plants”.
—an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.
Now--
:
Thank you, Mr. Allen. I see a number of issues there.
I'll begin with animal transport. As you know, we just announced recently the increase of penalties on anyone handling animals in an inhumane way. I'm talking about penning or transport or whatever it is. The final package on animal transport per se is in the final consultation phase with industry. It should be available to everyone early in the new year--that's my best guess--barring any unforeseen things.
Certainly, we're hopeful that we can get that out as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure that industry is involved. They're going to have to be the ones that measure up to these new rules and regulations. We want to make sure that it's not going to be overly onerous, but that it still gets the job done that we see is needed out there.
On tree fruits, yes, it was unfortunate that the canner closed. We did work with the local growers. We were talking, hopefully, about a cooperative could be established and do something in that vein.... Farmers themselves decided that peaches weren't the future and they were going to pull out and go into grapes, and so on, and we're not going to interfere with management of a farm-by-farm situation. I understand the costs of production and so on. There are discussions ongoing on how you do an insurance-based programming that would allow that to happen and not be countervailed. That's still a body of work that needs a lot of work.
One of the situations that we brought in based on how we saw that type of thing happening was product of Canada labelling, to make sure that when it said “product of Canada”, it was. The level that was targeted was 98%. There's been some discussion around that: whether that's too much, what can be exempted, how long the exemption list can be, and whether that has to be on the label. Those discussions are ongoing. We've done some tremendous work on that in the last little while.
I'm still very bullish, personally, as the minister, to maintain the 98%. I think there are a lot of other labels that can be used, such as “manufactured in Canada”, or “processed in Canada with foreign ingredients”. There are a lot of things that could be done to still maintain that truth in labelling. Like you, if it says “Canadian”, I want it to be Canadian, I really do. Our farmers agree with that. Our processors have some concerns. Some of them have been using foreign product to bolster their capacity. Good for them, but I think they should note that on their label.
On the situation with apples refused in the U.S. but accepted here, do you have a specific case? I'm not aware of one where we have accepted a rerouted shipment of any type of fruit, but if you have a case, we could certainly look into it. As was done in the case of Dutch peppers, which were being brought in here at what we felt was less than the cost of production, it takes an intervention by the producer groups of that commodity through CBSA, Canada Border Services Agency. Then we certainly would do everything we could to make that happen.
Paul or Carole?
I don't know of any particular situation at all, but if you do, please let us know because that is not on.
We are working to increase our communication with the USDA on many, many different levels, right from the pesticides that are used on through to harmonizing some of the science that we agree on and moving forward in a more comprehensive manner so that we can actually do more with less, as could they, in recognizing each other's science. The U.S. constantly audits us on a number of different fronts in the processing sector, as we audit them. We have actually delisted plants in the U.S., the same as they have delisted plants here from time to time, depending on the issue.
As you said, in this particular audit--and I'll have Carole or Paul fill in the blanks on this--25% showed problems varying from “the drain wasn't this...” or something as innocuous as that, down to three that they did delist, which came back on stream very, very quickly. Why it's not up on CFIA's website probably has something to do with privacy laws in the U.S., but perhaps Carole or Paul want to explain that and why we don't make that information available to Canadians too.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Minister, I have two questions I'd like to ask, both related to trade, so I'll ask them both at the same time.
The first has to do with international trade. I think everyone around the table would agree that the more markets our farmers have to sell into, the better it is for our farmers. Of course, we have our domestic market and domestic consumption, but we also have international markets. You mentioned it in your speech, but not in much detail.
I know that you've travelled with these farm group organizations, these representative organizations. Sometimes Mr. Easter doesn't value their opinion; however, I do. These people in these organizations, these leaders in these organizations, are producers themselves or were producers for most of their lives, and they certainly do represent producers on the ground.
You've travelled with them to other countries to open markets, so I'd like to know if you could just provide a bit more detail to the committee on some of the markets you've opened and the feedback you've received from these groups, particularly in terms of feedback they're receiving from farmers on the ground.
The second question I'd like to pose to you again has to do with trade, but it's trade within Canada. Minister, you're aware that this committee travelled out to B.C. last spring as part of our young farmers study. I was also back there this summer making an announcement for the grape-growing sector about money to help them with research and development and help fight crop loss, etc.
I visited a number of wineries and certainly one of the concerns that was brought forward was on the point that our Canadian wines are excellent wines. They're highly competitive and win awards in other countries. One of the vineyards we visited had just won a top-level award in Europe, yet the producer said that here in Canada, he is landlocked in B.C. He's not able to sell his wine openly and freely into other provinces. This is because of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act of 1928, which places restrictions on the ability of our wine producers to move their product throughout Canada. The Canadian Vintners Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and others are calling for the ability to move wine freely between provinces.
Minister, I wonder if you could comment on international markets, international trade, and how that's impacting the farm sector here in Canada. Also, could you tell us what kind of action you might be taking or what kind of progress you've seen on these trade barriers, these provincial trade barriers for vintners?
:
Sure. Certainly, Canadian farmers and processors have proven that they can grow it and process it as well as anybody in the world, if not better. We have some tremendous products that we do export. On average, we export 50% of what we produce. In some instances, like canola, we export between 85% and 90% of what we produce, so it depends on the sector and the region of the country as to where that market is seen.
On the international stage, I guess the best report card we've had is that our exports of agricultural products are up some 8% this year already. That's a tremendous response to the work that's been done by industry and government officials around the world. Our market access secretariat is certainly punching above its weight in a number of those situations. The trade secretariat under Agriculture Canada, and of course, backstopped by tremendous CFIA people, has been able to re-invigorate and rejuvenate some of those markets that had either closed or gone stagnant with regard to Canadian product.
Without exception, on first blush, in the first run of countries that we identified, working with industry, one of the first lines we always got from the agriculture or trade people was: where have you been? The Australians are very aggressive traders. The Brazilians are stepping up. The U.S., of course, is always there trying to dominate a market, and good for them, and even Europe is in certain sectors.They were quite surprised that Canada had not been there. There was almost a decade where Canada had gone quiet. We're happy to get out there and do that. We've had a tremendous response. As I said, it's up 8% this year alone.
The international markets are a tough nut to crack, but once you get that foot in the door and industry has the ability to prove what it can do and get that good Canadian product on the shelf, we know we can succeed. There's a tremendous and growing respect for Canadian products around the world, for the safety of those products, and for the sustainability to supply those markets even in tough weather conditions like we saw this year--we're still able to do that with the quality of product. There are some marketing lessons to be learned. We have to do more. We have to attend more international food shows. We have to be there showcasing what we have so that people know and can buy it.
Domestically for products, it has always been a bit of a thorn, but the provinces have stepped up. Of course, everyone identifies Alberta beef, Ontario pork, and the different areas that really work hard on market branding and selling that product. As it turns out, you can sell a piece of beef to Montana easier than you can sell it to Saskatchewan from Alberta. It's ridiculous in the extreme. There is a rejuvenated recognition of that. The provincial and territorial premiers signed a new agreement on internal trade, and we're moving forward, I hope, to some good positive results in moving that product east to west as easily as we move it north to south and outside the country.
On interprovincial trade of wine, as you said, it's based on an antiquated situation going back to 1928. Certainly, our wines and spirits have improved a lot since then. Some of them have aged that long waiting to go across borders.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Hon. Gerry Ritz: I'll have to buy that first case. It would be pretty good stuff.
But there is agreement that we should be starting to move forward. There are still some kingdoms that want to maintain themselves. I think there's a good amount of work being done and that needs to continue to be done. It's one of those real anomalies that with the advent of the Internet--which Al Gore says he invented--people can see it online and I can get on an airplane and buy Canadian wine anywhere around the world, but I can't buy B.C. wine in Saskatchewan, which is absolutely ridiculous to me. If I fly out to Vancouver, I can buy it and bring it back, but I can't.... It's one of those anomalies that makes no sense at all. Certainly, there are some taxation issues that provinces need to work out reciprocally, and I know they will take that work on and get the job done.
:
Let me start with the last one first. I think the best way to mitigate that threat is for farmers themselves to make the decisions on what they want to grow, based on sound science, and they will do that. That being said, there's a growing reception in the world that biodiversity is the future, that if we want to really secure our food supply and make it sustainable, we have to start talking about biodiversity, biotechnology, and moving forward.
I've had some tremendous discussions in Europe, which has been a GM-free zone. They're now starting to talk about low-level presence in a different way, as we got caught with Triffid in our flax, and so on. They're starting to look at ways to mitigate that, because they recognize the validity of moving forward with biotechnology in order to feed their own people and export to the world market.
I think farmers themselves are the best ones, in the final result, as to whether or not they're going to grow any product that's GM, whether it's alfalfa, wheat, or canola. I mean, if we didn't have the ability to modify a product and move forward, we would not have the canola industry, which is now king in this country. It used to be that wheat was king, but now it's canola and the processing sector that has developed around it.
On intergenerational transfers, certainly, we will make that moving forward, as the farm groups do themselves: arm's length, non-arm's length, and those all those types of things. We have made some significant changes to capital cost allowance and intergenerational transfers. That work continues on through Finance. Again, it comes down to fiscal capacity.
But I had a great opportunity earlier this week to speak at the luncheon for future farmers, young farmers, who were in Ottawa. A panel was set up from across this country and across every type of agriculture you can think of. I'll tell you that the energy and dynamism that was around that table gives me hope for the future. These young people are ready to take over the reins. They're ready to take over on the farm and move forward. They want less government. They want to make sure that regulations help them move forward and don't restrict them. They're committed to the environment, food safety, and a solid future in agriculture.
We have a tremendous opportunity to learn from them. I give my colleague, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who's been handling that file, a tremendous amount of respect for the work he has done. It was a great group that he brought together that day. The next step is to start to introduce the value-added processing to these young farmers. They know they can produce, but they also want to be two or three steps up on that ladder. They don't want to just see it disappear at the end of the farm gate; they want to control it a little further and drive some money back to the farm from it.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, thank you for coming today.
Last week, I took my yearly journey to Farmfair in Edmonton, and I had the opportunity to make an announcement on your behalf. As I was there announcing the carbon offset protocols, I took in a heifer show and a cow-calf show. I talked to several producers there. They wanted me to pass on two general messages to you, directly from producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta who were on the ground at that Farmfair.
They wanted to say thank you for the great work you've been doing in opening up markets. They also wanted to stress, to you and our government, the importance of sound science in our agricultural sector, and how scary it is when they hear the opposition parties supporting a bill that would reduce the role of sound science in our agriculture sector.
That being said, Bill is heading back to the House for third reading. Our government's position has been principled and clear on this from the beginning: we oppose it. But we've been having real problems with Mr. Easter and the Liberal Party. Now, he wants to talk about backroom deals.... I mean, everybody in the industry knows that when they go to his door, he tells them, “Don't worry, we oppose this bill”. But in the House, he supported sending it to committee. In committee, he supported extending the study. In the House once again, he voted for it. That's an awful lot of support for something he's supposedly against.
With Bill hopefully behind us, the committee is looking at taking an in-depth look at the biotechnology sector here in Canada. This is something that I'm hoping we can all agree to move forward with. I was hoping that you could do two things for us today: talk about the consequences of the support from the Liberal Party on Bill C-474, and also outline some of the initiatives that our government has invested in and anything you'd like to see come out of our study in the biotechnology sector.
:
Well, I think everyone agrees. As I said, there's global agreement that the sustainability and security of our food supplies around the world, globally, are going to depend on biotechnology. They are, whether you throw in the mitigating effects of climate change and weather-related systems or the higher cost of inputs, it's going to take biotechnology to offset a lot of that and actually let farmers continue to do what they do best here in Canada and around the world.
On Bill , you know, if you think with your heart, you think this is a good idea, that it will protect somebody, but I think farmers are best suited to protect themselves. If you think with your head at all, you end up thinking like JoAnne Buth, the Canola Council of Canada president, who said, and I'll quote it, “You wouldn't have canola in Canada if 474 went through”. It would completely drive that innovation right out of the country. It would go to some other jurisdiction.
That would be unfortunate, because canola, as I said, is king and now has supplanted wheat as the crop of choice in western Canada. Love the Wheat Board or hate the Wheat Board, you still grow more canola than wheat. You simply do. Wheat has become a rotational crop.
Even the president of the Manitoba Flax Growers said, “There's a legitimate concern that markets can be affected by the new technology...but at the same time we are concerned about frivolous claims...that...block technology for the people who want it”. Even the flax guys, who faced the hurt out of this.... Now, we were able to redirect the flax and were able to do different things with it, so that the flax was still moving and the price stayed reasonably good. Having said that, the people who lost the most in that dispute over flax were the processors in Europe and the value-added folks. Further down, they needed it as a feedstock and so on.
There's always that ripple, that trickle-down effect. Certainly there are certain parties who would love to put a wall up around Canada and we would only do so much and we would manage our supply so we.... It's very shortsighted. This country was opened and settled by agriculture and it continues to be an agrarian-based society, as are a lot of other countries. No one is an island, not even Australia, when it comes to foodstuffs. We all have to trade.
I love the idea of eating locally, making sure you're backstopping your local people, but there are a lot of cups of coffee sitting around this table. That's really hard to get in Canada. We just don't grow it, so we have to trade wheat or beef with Colombia to bring in the coffee beans. We do different things like that to augment our food supplies.
When you walk around in a store now and look at the amount and the variety of produce that's available to Canadian consumers, it's astounding. It is. And it happens on a daily basis, with boatloads and truckloads and trainloads, and so on. This has put a tremendous amount of strain on CFIA and public health at both the provincial and the federal level to stay on top of all of that, but they're doing an excellent job.
We continue to know that it's going to take science-based solutions to feed the future. We know it's going to take science-based solutions to keep that farm gate solid. As a government, we'll be there for them.
I just want to take a second here first before I start with questions of the witnesses. I always find it very frustrating when we have our Liberal agriculture critic, Mr. Easter, across the way, who often tries to portray things as much different than they really are. Certainly he was talking about the Interlake region and obviously the issues that they're dealing with there right now, and he mentioned talking to a few people just recently.
I want to point out that our Conservative member for Selkirk—Interlake, James Bezan, has been working very hard on the situation to support his producers and to deal with the situation. I know that he has been talking to us, certainly, as members of the committee, and he has talked to the minister many, many times. Mr. Easter, kind of Mr. Johnny-come-lately as he always is, talks to a few people and then somehow tries to claim that he's standing up for farmers.
Well, I'll tell you that I certainly don't ever see him do much to stand up for farmers. Certainly we can only look at the gun registry vote for an example of that. He claims to support them and then he flips and flops and doesn't do anything for them. I just want to make sure to make the record is clear on that one and make it very clear that our member in Selkirk—Interlake has been working very hard in support of the producers there to help them with the situation they're dealing with. I know that they're very appreciative of it, and I know that I am as well as a colleague of his in the Conservative government.
Let me just go on to the issue that I want to discuss. That's the biotech and research and science issue and how important that is to the future of farming. I know there are many farmers out there who certainly understand that. We certainly heard that when we toured the country on our study on the future of farming. Many of the young farmers in particular understand the role that needs to be played by research and by science. Biotechnology is a big part of that. I hear that all the time from farmers and from those in the industry: they really do understand that it's an important part.
Certainly, we've had bills, like the NDP bill that was brought forward, that many farmers are very concerned about. We heard the Liberals of course making their position once again a flip-flop position on the issue, like we always get from the Liberals. But I just wanted to have a bit of an update from you on where things are headed in the future here, because I know that certainly over the last couple of years there has for sure been a bit of an emphasis on trying to find ways to team up our research with specific commodity groups.
I'm just curious to hear if you can give us some details and an update on how things are progressing in that area in terms of science and research, on how that will be beneficial, and on how it has been beneficial at the farm gate.
Indeed, we completely agree in terms of the issue of reciprocity. In fact, it is a fundamental expectation within our system that products imported to Canada meet Canadian requirements: those same requirements that our domestic producers have to meet.
With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we look at the system in the international context as it relates to foods. There is an international organization, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which establishes the international standards that countries trading in foods rely upon in basing their standards. Canada's standards certainly take full account of Codex Alimentarius, as do the countries with which we trade.
Our specific domestic standards, as reflected in the various acts and regulations that govern the safety of foods, must be complied with. The CFIA, of course, has offices across the country. We certainly encourage any industry player that is aware of a product that they believe does not meet Canadian standards to bring that product to our attention, because that serves as a very useful complement to the comprehensive inspection and compliance program that we operate in relation to imported foods. If, in addition to the program that we operate, a particular industry player believes there is a product that it is competing with and that does not meet Canadian standards, then we will be happy, if they bring that to our attention, to immediately investigate.
It may be prudent, if you agree, Mr. Chair, if I ask my colleague, Dr. Dubuc, to briefly overview the testing and laboratory capacity that we employ in terms of assuring ourselves that imported foods indeed are meeting Canadian requirements.