Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 7 of 7
View Lyne Bessette Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
My questions are for you, Mr. Davies. I took note of your remarks. You said that, with its 30 years of experience, Olymel has a successful business model based on a large workforce that requires foreign workers. We know that labour is a major issue for food-processing plants.
Can you explain why hiring temporary foreign workers is necessary and beneficial for your business?
Second, I want to know what other measures should be taken to support the hiring of workers in processing plants, particularly in the regions.
Third, in your opinion, what limits growth in the processing sector?
These were my questions. I'll give Mr. Blois the rest of my time.
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chris and Christine, once again, for being here today.
I want to talk a little about the departmental plan. In the 2018-19 AAFC departmental results report, on page 13.... I'm not sure if you have that there for reference.
On page 13 you're using an average annual growth rate between 2017 and 2025 to calculate the percentage change in the economic performance of the agriculture and agri-food sector as well as the percentage change in agri-food products sold. The same criteria were used in the 2019-20 departmental plan on page 10 of that same report.
However, in the 2020-21 departmental plan report, which was just released, you've changed the criteria on both categories. Specifically, you're now using a compound annual growth rate rather than the average annual growth rate to calculate the targets between 2017 and 2025. Furthermore, this change to using compound annual growth rate changed the actual results for the previous years.
Not only that, but to calculate percentage change in economic performance of the agriculture and agri-food sector, you've now gone back to 2007 as the beginning year rather than 2017. To calculate the percentage change in agri-food products, you've gone back to 2012 as the beginning, rather than 2017.
I'm wondering if you know what the reason was for the change in the department's calculations from using average annual growth rate to compound annual growth rate.
Chris Forbes
View Chris Forbes Profile
Chris Forbes
2020-03-12 16:39
The basic answer on that is that those should be synonyms, basically. It may have been just a clarification language that when we call it a compound annual growth rate.... When we calculated an average before, it should have been the compound annual growth rate—
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
It was calculated differently, though. When you look at it, the numbers are completely different. Why would the average annual growth rates for the percentage change in the economic performance of the agriculture and agri-food sector be different in 2018-19?
Chris Forbes
View Chris Forbes Profile
Chris Forbes
2020-03-12 16:39
There are a couple of things. To be fair, I'm not looking at the numbers, so I apologize for that. The changes in the numbers could have come about for a couple of reasons. One could be historical revisions to data, like new date that becomes available. Sometimes Statistics Canada will revise back a couple of years.
To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure I can answer the question around the start date, but that may have been about better availability of data. I'm happy to come back if there's more information you'd like on the specifics of the calculation.
I'll just say that overall the average that we were calculating before should have been a compound annual growth rate as well, because that's sort of the way we would try to calculate. There must be, I would think, some data change in there, some historical revisions, that might have driven some of that.
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2020-02-20 16:37
I think it was Brian who mentioned that under NAFTA we went from $9 billion to $45 billion in trade. That is pretty impressive. Now with the concessions that we're giving here, do you see a similar kind of growth, or is there even potential for much more growth? Is that even a possibility? I'm asking whoever wants to answer that question.
Brian Innes
View Brian Innes Profile
Brian Innes
2020-02-20 16:37
Yes, we do see opportunity for growth, not just in trade in North America but also in trade from our North American value chain to the world.
On the first part, within North America, expanding access for processed products like margarine and sugar-containing products does represent incremental growth opportunities that weren't available in the original NAFTA. For example, the original NAFTA was created at a time when the way we made margarine worked with the agreement, but now the technology has evolved and we no longer use hydrogenation. It was no longer possible to produce margarine in Canada and trade it to the United States without having tariffs on it.
That was not extended, unfortunately, to other products like shortening, so there are still a number of areas within NAFTA, or the new CUSMA, that are not tariff-free in agriculture, but the areas that were tariff-free remain tariff-free, and that enables us to continue to grow in the world. Being integrated makes us more competitive in exporting, whether it's to China or Japan or elsewhere.
Results: 1 - 7 of 7

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data