Agriculture Canada will not return to federal co-funding of provincial companion programs despite pressure from some provinces to allow them that flexibility, the department told MPs on the House of Commons agriculture committee.
It will not resurrect the annual Outlook Conference nor create a national advisory committee on farm policy development, as recommended last June by the committee.
And it is studying proposals that labelling be changed to allow a “made in Canada” designation for food products that contain at least 51 percent Canadian product.
The federal assertions, contained in a largely unannounced recent government response to a June committee report, represent the first indication of agriculture minister Gerry Ritz’s policy agenda.
Read Also
Agritechnica Day 3: Hybrid drive for a combine, data standards keep up to tech change and tractors of the year
Agritechnica 2025 Day 3: Hybrid drive for a combine, data standards keep up to tech change and tractors of the year.
It comes as he prepares for his first meeting with provincial ministers Nov. 16-17. Several of the federal positions could play out in federal-provincial discussions, including the continued hard line against companion program funding.
The issue will be forcefully put on the agenda by recently re-elected Ontario minister Leona Dombrowsky.
The federal response said Ottawa plans to support national programs while respecting the right of provinces to create and fund programs in their own jurisdictions.
“The federal government is of the opinion that funding companion programs puts Canada at risk of increased countervailing duties and could potentially distort production and marketing decisions,” said the department. “The federal government is also mindful of the potential this may have to discriminate against other sectors and commodities.”
The department was cool to the committee request that the government create a national farmer advisory committee and resurrect the December Outlook Conference that once was the premier national gathering of farmers, lobbyists and government where plans for the new year were unveiled and debated.
It said the outlook conference and a national advisory committee would be more limited than existing consultation processes.
It also rejected a proposal from the opposition majority on the agriculture committee that the government continue to support orderly marketing agencies including the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.
As in the past, the Conservative response was to insist supply management and the CWB should not be mixed up. Supply management is broadly popular and is made up of provincially organized marketing boards. The CWB is regional and controversial.
“The government remains committed to finding a way to allow western Canadian farmers to sell their wheat and barley to any foreign or domestic buyer, including the CWB,” said the response. “The government recognizes the right of the provinces to establish orderly marketing structures as a tool.”
Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter complained last week that the department’s response was basically an exercise in ignoring the committee recommendations.
“He (Ritz) is brushing us off and we’ll have to discuss how we respond.”
It could signal that the Commons committee will begin the new parliamentary session as it left the last, deeply divided between the Conservative minority and the opposition majority. The committee limped into the summer barely able to conduct business as Conservative MPs regularly gave long speeches to delay votes the government would lose.
Government responses to other committee recommendations included:
- An assertion that Agriculture Canada is on an aggressive recruiting campaign to replace retiring employees and may create a departmental alumni program that would allow retired managers to work with new recruits “to retain corporate knowledge.” It did not address the committee complaint that existing employees are increasingly disconnected from producers.
- A promise that the next generation of agriculture policy will serve all links in the industry chain. The committee had recommended more emphasis on farmers and primary production.
- The acknowledgment that the government is considering proposals from the committee and several farm organizations to create a “product of Canada” label to inform consumers that the majority of the product ingredients had been grown in Canada. Now, a “product of Canada” label signifies only that the majority of the cost was incurred in Canada, so it could be a label on imported food that was processed and packaged in Canada.
But the government said it has to be careful that new labelling rules do not violate trade law.
- A refusal to accept a committee recommendation that food purchases for government institutions be primarily Canadian products. The department said trade deals do not allow discrimination against imports in government procurement.
