---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, March 21, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the government response to the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods, tabled in the Senate on October 27, 2022.

Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning. It’s good to see everyone here today. I would like to begin by welcoming members of our committee and our witnesses that are the appearing before us today. My name is Rob Black. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I chair the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.

Today’s meeting is on the government’s response to the sixth report, interim, of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods, tabled in the Senate on October 27, 2022.

Before we hear from witnesses, I would like to start by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves around the table, starting with our deputy chair.

Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator McNair: John McNair, the province of New Brunswick.

Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, a senator for Ontario.

Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, a senator representing Prince Edward Island.

Senator Oh: Victor Oh, a senator representing Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

For our first panel, we’ll focus on the first recommendation that the committee put forward in its report, and that recommendation is as follows:

That the Government of Canada collaborate with the Government of British Columbia, other governments in the province and relevant stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan for flood control in the Fraser Valley. This plan should include both a timeline for dike upgrades and the establishment of a committee to examine flood mitigation measures, as well as emergency preparedness and response strategies.

We’ll hear from government officials from the relevant departments. Our witnesses on panel one include, from Indigenous Services Canada, Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector; and Robert Bellizzi, Acting Director General, Regional Infrastructure and Delivery Branch, Regional Operations Sector. From Infrastructure Canada, we have Gerard Peets, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Results Branch; and Erin Taylor, Director, Adaptation and Resilience. From Public Safety Canada, we have Mauricette Howlett, Director General, Programs, Emergency Management and Programs Branch; and Kenza El Bied, Director General, Policy and Outreach, Emergency Management and Programs Branch.

I invite you to make your presentations, and we’ll begin with witnesses from Public Safety Canada, followed by Infrastructure Canada and Indigenous Services Canada. Each department has five minutes for your presentations. At the end of four minutes, I’ll raise my hand just to give you a one-minute warning. When you see both hands, it’s probably best to start to wrap up, if you don’t mind. With that, the floor is yours, Ms. El Bied.

Kenza El Bied, Director General, Policy and Outreach, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, and good morning, chair and committee members. As the chair mentioned, I’m Kenza El Bied, Director of Policy and Program Development for Emergency Management at Public Safety. I’m joined by my colleague, Mauricette Howlett, Director General of Programs.

Our branch is responsible for a range of federal emergency management activities, among which include overseeing the Government Operations Centre which coordinates the federal response during emergencies, as well as administering the federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, which provides financial supports to provinces and territories when disaster costs exceed what they could reasonably bear on their own. I work very closely with my colleagues across the federal family, including those who are joining me today, to deliver on the federal government breadth of emergency management responsibilities.

I thank the committee for holding this special meeting to discuss the report and response to the British Columbia flood and recovery efforts.

Collectively, with partners in various departments across all levels of government, with Indigenous leaders, academia, NGOs and others, we are striving to create a more resilient and sustainable approach to emergency management that will help Canada prepare for, mitigate, respond to and recover from disasters. This has been evident in some of our most recent work to advance emergency management priorities, much of which you saw was captured in our response to the committee.

As you know, provincial and territorial governments have responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions. They identify their priorities in all dimensions of emergency management, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, and seek continuous improvement based on their knowledge of the territory, the population and stakeholders. However, the federal government works very closely with the provincial and territorial partners because continued collaboration amongst the government partners is a critical overarching step to strengthening resilience in Canada to minimize duplication of efforts and fill gaps.

In January 2019, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for emergency management approved Canada’s first‑ever federal FPT Emergency Management Strategy. This strategy identified federal, provincial and territorial priorities that will strengthen Canada’s resilience by 2030 and provides a collaborative, whole-of-society road map to strengthen Canada’s ability to assess risks, prevent, mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. The strategy was developed in partnership with provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, municipalities and the emergency management community.

Building on this, just last month, Minister Sajjan and the provincial ministers responsible for emergency management approved the release of Advancing the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Emergency Management Strategy: Areas for Action. This new evergreen action plan sets out the first-ever shared federal-provincial-territorial vision for strong resilient communities and calls for strengthening collaboration among all partners in emergency management in accordance with each government’s respective priorities, roles and responsibilities.

To further support all partners in understanding the risks that they face, Public Safety Canada released the first National Risk Profile report in May 2023, which focused on earthquakes, wildfires and floods, as well as the cascading impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these hazards. The NRP integrates both scientific evidence and input from stakeholders nationwide and provides evidence to identify, compare and prioritize which hazards are the most concerning while highlighting gaps in ability to prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from disasters.

As we speak about financial contributions, I would like to mention the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, which is the means through which the federal government can provide financial assistance to provinces and territories when response and recovery costs exceed what they could reasonably bear on their own. Through the DFAA, assistance is paid to the provinces or territories, reimbursing incurred costs that are eligible under the federal program.

In closing, I would like to reinforce that Public Safety officials are committed to supporting B.C. in their continued recovery from the devastating flooding, the unprecedented 2023 wildfire season, and in supporting all provinces and territories as we continue to face the increasingly devastating effects of climate change.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Gerard Peets, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Results Branch, Infrastructure Canada: It’s a pleasure and privilege to be here today to talk about resilience. Resilience to the effects of climate change is one of the top priorities of the government and one of the top priorities for Canada. This is underscored by the numerous weather events that take place all across the country every year.

There are various estimates out there, but by some accounts, an investment of $1 in resilient infrastructure can generate $13 in economic return. It’s hard to predict exactly where and when disasters and adverse weather events will strike, so we need to make these investments everywhere in the country. That’s what Infrastructure Canada does.

First a note on Infrastructure Canada: There is legislation as part of the budget legislation enacting the Fall Economic Statement that will create the department of housing, infrastructure and communities Canada, if passed. That is a major milestone for our department. It’s the unification of the housing priority and the infrastructure priority, all within the context of liveable, sustainable and vibrant communities. That is part of our role and where the resilience challenge really comes into focus. How do we protect our infrastructure stock, how does our infrastructure stock protect our housing stock, and how does all of that work together?

This is how we do that. First, we offer financial support for the National Research Council, or NRC, to develop building codes and standards. Building codes and standards are, of course, the baseline for how everybody builds. You can touch a few projects with project funding, but you touch every project if you can have better building codes and standards. The codes and standards we need are the ones for the next 100 years, not for the last 20, 30 or 40 years. Therefore, we support NRC financially as it develops those codes.

The second thing we do is this: We are in the process of building something called climate tool kits. This recognizes that leaders in, say, municipal and regional contexts want to make the right investments but lack the know-how, and they lack the practical guidance on how to do that. Therefore, we’re developing climate tool kits. In terms of the services we can offer, we are able to show them how to implement natural infrastructure and what the best practice is in making the kind of investment they are thinking of. We really try to help them develop that competency and capacity building.

The third thing we do is provide financial support for planning activities. The planning of projects and the planning of investments is something that project proponents do, and that’s municipalities, regional governments, Indigenous governments, provinces and territories. We can provide financial support to encourage that kind of activity to take place. We think those kinds of upfront investments do result in better projects.

The last thing we do is support capital investments in projects that build resilience. We have done this through our marquee program, the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. My colleague Erin Taylor is here. She is the director for Adaptation and Resilience, and she has more detail on all these things. I’m sure we’ll get into that in the questioning. That program invests in major capital investment projects that protect our infrastructure and communities.

All of this is done while leveraging data and evidence. All of this is done with a view to bringing to bear the best knowledge and science. Lastly — to touch on a point raised in the report — we do all our work in very close collaboration with provinces, territories and municipalities, which is, of course, essential.

With that, I will conclude.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Kwe kwe, hello. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered here today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. We thank them for welcoming us to their territory and allowing us to meet and have this discussion.

Mr. Chair and honourable senators, it’s a pleasure to be here today on behalf of Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC. My portfolio includes the Emergency Management Assistance Program, the infrastructure programs and the regional offices. My colleague, Robert, has responsibility particularly for the structural mitigation program. I think there will be some interest in that area as well.

The 2021 atmospheric river in British Columbia led to widespread flooding, infrastructure damage and economic disruption and required support to affected communities, highlighting the need for proactive measures to mitigate future risks. ISC is working closely with First Nations across British Columbia, as well as with provincial, federal and municipal partners and Indigenous organizations to plan, address and mitigate flooding impacts on reserve. Since 2021, Indigenous Services Canada has provided over $49 million in emergency management assistance funding to support British Columbia First Nations in responding to and recovering from these flooding events.

The Emergency Management Assistance Program centres on supporting the restoration of communities and assets on reserve in a manner that reduces the vulnerability of First Nations communities to disasters and strengthens First Nations community resilience. As an example, Shackan Indian Band, in the south-central interior of British Columbia, located along Highway 8, was devastated by the 2021 atmospheric river. They experienced impacts to housing, cultural sites and community infrastructure. ISC has been working with the Shackan Indian Band on recovery projects since 2021, including a recent flood mitigation and bank stabilization project along the Nicola River to limit future impacts to housing and cultural sites.

ISC’s First Nation Infrastructure Fund supports the hazard mitigation and prevention pillar of emergency management by investing in structural mitigation projects that reduce the threat of natural hazards and build infrastructure resilient to natural hazards. This includes projects such as dikes, seawalls and erosion control measures. Since 2016, ISC has invested over $43 million to support 39 structural mitigation projects across British Columbia. As an example, ISC is working with Skwah First Nation and Shxwhá:y Village in support of new flood protection works, including dikes and pump stations in the Fraser Valley. This project also includes support from and partnership with the City of Chilliwack and Infrastructure Canada. ISC is supporting Leq’á:mel First Nation, also in the Fraser Valley, with a flood and erosion hazard mitigation project that will reduce the risk level of flooding for this community. This is in close partnership with the Province of British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

In British Columbia, an emergency management bilateral service agreement between ISC and the Province of British Columbia has been in place since 2017. Through this agreement, First Nations have full access to provincial emergency management services and programs on-reserve. In 2019, a tripartite memorandum of understanding was signed between the First Nations Leadership Council in British Columbia, Indigenous Services Canada and the Province of British Columbia aimed at enhancing First Nation participation in emergency management. Discussions are currently advancing on a First Nations emergency management multilateral agreement and support for a First Nations emergency management model led by First Nations.

When First Nations are equipped with the tools they need to deliver emergency management services, the results are clear. With funding from ISC, the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society of British Columbia is supporting First Nations to deliver emergency management services that integrate cultural and traditional practices. In addition to regular program funding to the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society of British Columbia, ISC provided the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society with over $4 million in 2021 to assist with the emergency response and recovery efforts for impacted First Nations due to wildfires and the atmospheric river. In the following year, ISC provided $5.8 million to support increased capacity for First Nations in British Columbia across the four pillars of emergency management. As an example, the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society used this funding to purchase mobile fuel and flood protection trailers that can be moved to communities when needed. In addition, ISC funded structural mitigation projects. We invested additional funds this year to advance feasibility studies for 34 projects in partnership with the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society.

These are concrete examples of an approach that is inclusive of First Nations as full and equal partners and supportive of their right to self-determination. ISC will continue to work with external partners, including First Nations communities, Indigenous organizations, the Province of British Columbia and other federal government departments to support on-reserve communities in preventing, preparing for and responding to flood emergencies in British Columbia.

I will be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses.

We’ll proceed with questions from senators now. Colleagues, you all have five minutes for your questions and answers, so I would appreciate you keeping your questions and responses tight. We’ll go into second and third rounds if necessary. We have lots of time for questions. With that, I’ll ask our deputy chair to begin.

Senator Simons: First, Ms. Hadden-Jokiel, I want to thank you for that comprehensive and very concrete description of the very practical things that your department is doing. I say that not just Paula to Paula — when your name is Jennifer, you never get the special thrill of only very rarely meeting somebody with your name.

I’m a little more concerned with what the other witnesses have told us because I think one of our frustrations is that, when we presented our report and received responses from government, our most critical recommendation was that we need a plan to deal with the failing dikes in British Columbia. We heard from our witnesses, and it’s in our report, that responsibility has primarily downloaded to municipalities who simply do not have the resources or expertise to bring those dikes back up to where they need to be to prevent future disasters. The response we got back from government was that the government is committed to advancing existing areas of work in collaboration — blah, blah, blah — including working towards an overarching vision.

I think what we really want to know is whether we have a plan to stop the dikes from failing. What do we have to do to get to that plan? It sounds like ISC is working in close collaboration with First Nations on practical plans to fix the dikes. I don’t want to hear about funds. I don’t want to hear about visions. I want to hear whether we actually have a plan to fix the dikes.

The Chair: Who are you directing that question to?

Senator Simons: I’m sorry, to Mr. Peets.

Mr. Peets: Thanks very much for the question. I fully take on board the importance of it.

Our department does have a piece of the puzzle, so I’m going to invite Ms. Taylor to talk about that piece.

Erin Taylor, Director, Adaptation and Resilience, Infrastructure Canada: We are working in close partnership with the Government of British Columbia and also with communities in the Fraser River Valley. We are co-chairing a space with the Government of British Columbia and other provinces and territories, the Resilient Infrastructure Working Group, where we talk about best practices, share common learnings and try to advance toward more resilient infrastructure.

One of the findings of the atmospheric river event that was spoken to in your report as well was that when we often talk about infrastructure management, we are talking about assets as if they exist in isolation from one another. A number of your witnesses spoke specifically to this. The Mayor of Abbotsford, the Chair of the Fraser River Regional District and a representative from the BC Pork Producers Association talked about the disconnection of certain key transportation assets, the disruption of supply chains and the inability to get product to market during those types of events. As a result of those types of issues, we have worked with the Government of British Columbia to advance our thinking and learning on systems-based approaches to how we manage infrastructure, and we have produced a guide for how to take systems-based approaches to looking at infrastructure systems —

Senator Simons: I have to stop you there. Is there a plan to fix the dikes?

Mr. Peets: Perhaps I can address that question. Infrastructure Canada is a funding entity. We are not an asset manager or asset owner. Our job is to support other organizations that are asset managers and asset owners and to give them tools and financial resources, but we do not take the lead, for example, on developing a plan to upgrade infrastructure. We receive proposals, but we don’t do that in a passive way. We attempt to work with partners, tailor our offerings and fill in gaps. I’m trying to position our department as a part of a puzzle, and others have other parts of the puzzle.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for joining us this morning.

I want to follow up on the questions from Senator Simons. Is there someone who is actually getting a plan going and working on it, or is it just passing the ball around?

Mr. Peets: I think Ms. Taylor started to talk about the efforts ongoing in B.C. involving the province, municipalities and First Nations, which we are supporting.

Ms. Taylor: There are a number of projects that we have funded under the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, the DMAF funding program that Mr. Peets spoke about earlier, which is kind of our flagship program to support projects on the ground. There are four projects that have specifically been funded in the Fraser River Valley that support flood mitigation. Those projects are focused on enhancing dike infrastructure and pumping stations that will better protect communities. Some of those projects also involve planning to support those types of infrastructure investments. Overall, there has been approximately $140 million invested in those projects in the Fraser River Valley since the atmospheric river event, in addition to a whole suite of other projects within British Columbia that are focused on other climate impacts or other events like fire, heat, drought or earthquake, for example. Those projects are helping to create a better understanding of flood protection in those regions.

There are other activities under way led by other departments. As Mr. Peets said, we are a funding organization, and we’re the recipient of the thinking that’s required in those spaces to advance those projects and to develop those plans. As a result, it’s difficult for us to be involved in the development of that thinking and the development of those plans as eventually the potential recipient or the request to fund those types of initiatives. There are, as I said, other initiatives under way. Environment and Climate Change Canada, for example, which is the lead agency on the National Adaptation Strategy, is working collaboratively with provinces and territories to develop federal‑provincial-territorial bilateral action plans that highlight priorities of those governments that they want to advance collectively with the federal government. Those activities are taking place with British Columbia. I expect that flood mitigation, specifically in the Fraser Valley, is a key priority and a key topic of discussion in those meetings. Other agencies also have roles to play and can help support communities and the Government of British Columbia in developing those overarching flood mitigation plans.

Senator Oh: In terms of funding for the projects, has it been fully utilized? Is it properly used so that, tomorrow, if a flood comes in like the one before, the valley is protected? Is it safe?

Ms. Taylor: Of the four projects I mentioned that were funded under DMAF, the one most recently announced was a project that the City of Abbotsford had advanced. It’s an enhancement of the Fraser River bank. There is a dike in that space, the Matsqui dike, that protects the Matsqui First Nation and the Sumas First Nation, and the $7 million project that we’re supporting is going to enhance the dike infrastructure in that space so that those two communities will be better protected from an event like the 2021 atmospheric river event.

In addition, there are other projects with the City of Surrey, with the Squiala First Nation and the City of Richmond that will better protect them from an event like the atmospheric river event.

Senator Oh: Can you tell the committee how much funding has been spent?

The Chair: Can we move that question to the next round, please?

Senator Oh: Okay. Thanks.

Senator McNair: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today and appearing in front of us. It’s a huge issue, as you can tell by the size of the panel that we’re dealing with today. It’s cross-departmental responsibility.

My question is with respect to a recent CBC News article that indicated the federal government estimates that it needs to pay almost $3.4 billion in disaster recovery bills for flooding and landslides that devastated B.C.’s Fraser Valley. The article goes on to talk about the fact that, after two years, only 40% of the aid has been delivered, and the funds take an average of seven years to be paid out. I’m curious to know whether you agree or disagree with that statement, starting with Infrastructure Canada or Public Safety.

Mauricette Howlett, Director General, Programs, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question.

For the most part, that would fall under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program. The monies are actually disbursed based on request for payment by the provinces and territories. Because of the increasing number of climate-related emergencies in particular, what we are seeing over recent years is that the ability of the province to recover and come back from that event is actually hampering their ability to let us know how much we need to pay. We are getting to a point where there is a little bit of a backlog for provinces and territories to do the paperwork they need to do for us so that we can make a payment while they are in the midst of recovering from a major event.

For the payment to be processed, there is normally a financial audit done, so our folks go on the ground and look at the paperwork, sit beside the province or territory and work with them to get those invoices and bills to make sure we can make the payment. We can only go as quickly as they request us to go, and because right now we are having back-to-back events, that ability to work with us in order to make that payment is slowed down a little. We work as closely and quickly as we can, but we can only go as fast as they can.

B.C. is a perfect example from flood to landslide to wildfires. It’s just continual. There is a capacity issue at all levels of government in terms of keeping the machinery going. With the modernization of the DFAA program, we hope to be able to make payments more quickly, but again, there will still be a role that the PT will have to play in terms of giving us that paperwork so we can process the dollars that are owed.

Senator McNair: Thank you.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, all, for being here this morning.

I have a question for you, Ms. Hadden-Jokiel. It’s not much of a question but more that I really liked your introduction and would like you to dive in a little more when you were talking about the different recovery projects with First Nations and the partnerships. You mentioned partnerships. I am interested in knowing more about the nature of those projects but also the nature of the partnership. Is it First Nations-led? I’m trying to get a sense of how it works on the ground.

Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Thank you for the question.

Definitely for responding to emergencies on reserve, there are two program areas within ISC that support that. One is the emergency management program, and one is the infrastructure program. On the emergency management program, there is support for prevention and mitigation. Those resources are limited and don’t nearly meet the needs of communities in preparing for disasters. We also have response and recovery. The response is the immediate phase, and the recovery is the rebuilding phase, and that goes on for years. Even this year we paid out $22 million in recovery costs from the 2021 atmospheric river because the rebuilding takes many years. Then, within the infrastructure program, the structural mitigation projects are funded through the infrastructure program.

In terms of the partnerships, often, as Ms. Taylor mentioned, and especially in the Fraser Valley, these First Nations are located in very close proximity to other municipalities, and the impacts are shared impacts with their neighbours. In British Columbia, we have seen very willing partners both at the municipal levels and at the provincial level to have these conversations. There are also very strong governance models in British Columbia, so the First Nations Leadership Council has come together, and they are the body we work at the table with the Province of British Columbia. There is also a strong First Nations-led emergency management organization, the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society, that helps coordinate activities across the province and harness the work of the emergency management practitioners on the ground.

There is a good model there to bring people together. There are willing partners on all sides, which also makes the partnership easier to advance. As Ms. Taylor said, for many of these projects it’s the First Nations, the local municipalities, the federal partners and the province coming to the table. There are a lot of good criteria for success to make those partnerships happen.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Burey: Thank you so much for coming. I’m learning a lot.

This coincides with me listening to a program which talked about insurance risk disasters and the fact that many private insurers no longer want to insure certain regions in the whole world globally with what’s happening with climate change. If we don’t really address this issue urgently, will the Fraser Valley be uninsurable? No one wants to insure it if it’s not fixed and if there are no concrete steps to get there. Since 2021, what has the federal government done to improve the suite of business risk management programs to help farmers mitigate natural disasters? The alarm bells are ringing. Will you be able to insure it to any degree if we don’t get moving on this? I think all the senators have been asking about the urgency of it. That’s for everyone.

Ms. El Bied: Thank you, senator, for the question and raising the insurance as a key element.

As you know, Public Safety is working on the new flood insurance program. The federal government is working alongside provinces and territories and industry partners on finding tangible and sustainable flood insurance and potential relocation solutions to help with the recovery and the protection of homeowners against flooding events. For those at high risk of flooding, our work is focused on expanding the suite of flood insurance options that are available and affordable to Canadians. For those not at risk of flooding, our work is focused on increasing market penetration for a viable insurance arrangement in all circumstances.

Our government will be reconvening the Task Force on Flood Insurance and Relocation to further discuss the implementation of this program, which is happening in the upcoming weeks. The task force is composed of representatives from federal, provincial and territorial governments and the insurance industry. As this work continues, high-risk Canadians continue to be eligible for federal assistance through the DFAA arrangement for now. We are still working on this program, senator. As you know, the government has made an announcement on implementing and working on flood insurance, and we are at the stage of developing this at the moment.

Senator Burey: Thank you. Are there any other comments?

Ms. Taylor: I know our colleagues at Public Safety are also involved in the development of flood hazard mapping so that across the country we can better understand where those risks are, and that can better inform insurance companies as to how to manage those risks. I know that is an active file for Public Safety as well.

Infrastructure Canada is requiring that resilience be a part of all projects we fund going forward in our programs so that, when those projects are designed, they have risk mitigation incorporated to better enable insurers to support those spaces, knowing that they have been built, designed, will be operated and maintained with current climate and future climate conditions in mind so that those assets remain insurable and the risks are known to the insurers and to the asset owners on an ongoing basis.

Senator Robinson: I would like to build on Ms. Taylor’s answer with a question. You had mentioned the flood zone mapping across the country. My question strays from the B.C. focus here. Mr. Peets, you had explained how your department is responsible for funding, and I’m thinking in particular in Atlantic Canada we have a vulnerability in the dike system in the Annapolis Valley. With this mapping and the hot zones that might be identified, how comfortable are you that the people who need to make assessments and applications for funding exist within each of these areas? Hopefully we can learn from what we experienced with the atmospheric river and apply those learnings across the country. How robust are these systems across the country to ensure that people are assessing and seeking out funding from your organization?

Ms. Taylor: Thank you for that question.

As some of you know, because we have spoken about it before, the committee began — I have come from Charlottetown to be here with you today, so I am quite familiar with the circumstances on the ground in Atlantic Canada. There are some wonderful resources available to Atlantic Canadians to help ensure that infrastructure assets are designed and built to consider climate change. In Atlantic Canada as well, we’re very accustomed to some of these impacts, what they can mean and the disruptions they present.

One of the things that I think is relevant not just to Atlantic Canada but to other parts of Canada is that we have many small rural and remote communities that may struggle to access some programs. They may not have the capacity to navigate the complexities of program offerings. That’s one of the things that we’re aware of, and we want to make sure that communities can secure funding for projects because we know that climate change will impact all communities. This isn’t just about the Fraser River Valley or urban centres; it’s about all communities impacting these assets. Those communities need to have infrastructure that will be able to withstand those impacts and continue to deliver service to Canadians during and after those impacts.

Mr. Peets spoke earlier about our efforts to develop climate tool kits. This is intended to really help support some of those lower-capacity communities in being able to not just understand their risks but to design and build infrastructure and access programs so that they can secure the necessary resources they need, just like other communities across Canada.

Senator Robinson: Specifically with the Annapolis Valley, I just look at that, and I think we’ve suffered so much in the Fraser Valley. I’ve had producers tell me from that region in the Annapolis Valley that they have great concern about the condition of those dikes. Do you know if there is a project under way and what that might look like and, to the question earlier, are those dikes being repaired?

Ms. Taylor: There is a project that has been funded through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund in and around the Annapolis Valley. There are a number of kilometres of dikes that are being repaired and rehabilitated as part of that project. It involves, I believe, about 30 different communities in Nova Scotia that will benefit from those investments that are taking place in that space.

Senator Robinson: Do you feel that, in particular, for farmers and producers in food processing and our food’s value chain that would be impacted by a failure of any of those dikes, are those people satisfied that the repairs will give them the protection they need? To your point about looking forward 100 years instead of back 20 or 30, are they comfortable?

Ms. Taylor: It’s hard to say whether they are comfortable or not. Part of the challenge in saying whether anyone, producers or other types of infrastructure asset owners, will be comfortable is because of the unpredictable nature of the impacts that we are facing. We may take all of our best efforts to adequately build and protect infrastructure for what we consider to be reasonable and then down the road experience a type of storm that we hadn’t anticipated or didn’t feel was expected and have damages still occur as a result of that storm, despite best efforts to try to prepare for and mitigate those types of impacts.

Senator Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: I have a few questions.

I will direct the first one to all three departments. We invited the ministers to come and join us as we discuss the response of government to our report. Should we take as an indication of their interest the fact that they chose not to join us and engage with the Senate of Canada? I’m just interested.

Mr. Peets: I can certainly speak to our minister’s and our department’s commitment to resilience and the priority that he and we all place on it. He has spoken to that a number of times in terms of connection with the priority of making sure that Canadians have adequate housing. Resilience is a big part of that. As Ms. Taylor mentioned, we have resilience as a criterion and a condition of every single investment that we make. This is something that we have committed to in the National Adaptation Strategy as part of the government’s overall plan for dealing with this issue. It is pervasive in our planning, and it is front and centre for the minister.

Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Thank you for the question, chair.

I would say our minister is absolutely committed to advancing infrastructure on reserves across this country and very seized with our commitment to supporting communities through emergency management, both mitigation efforts as well as response and recovery. The minister meets regularly with communities from British Columbia. Actually, we are having our gathering of British Columbia communities in mid-April, and the minister will be there to meet directly with communities. Emergency management is always a key concern, as are infrastructure and investments, so we will be hearing about that from our partners face to face shortly.

Ms. El Bied: Thank you, chair, for the question.

On behalf of Minister Sajjan, I would say he is committed to addressing all of those issues. As minister responsible for emergency management, his role is to oversee all the emergency management situations that are happening across the country, working with other federal departments and working with federal-provincial-territorial authorities in responding to emergency management in general. He is responsible for emergency management in response to the four pillars. He is committed to responding to all emergency management across the country and serving Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you.

My next question centres around the fact that, for the last 18 months, we have been dealing with a soil study in this committee, the health of soils across Canada. While we have wrapped up the study, I am still thinking about the health of the soils in the flooded areas of British Columbia and farmers and producers whose farmland and grazing lands and barns full of animals were negatively impacted by the flooding. Are you aware of any specific work around enhancing soil health in those areas that were flooded in British Columbia? I will likely ask that question of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as well, so be prepared. I’m just curious. Has there been any Indigenous work or anything?

Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Not that it’s obvious to us, and perhaps my B.C. colleagues will text me if there is anything they are familiar with. Not on the soil side. I would say one issue that we are familiar with is ongoing impacts or some of the impacts on fish habitat around Seabird Island, and Cheam First Nation have also indicated some challenges around sediment and impacts to habitat there, but no soil impacts.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Peets: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could add in terms of taking the opportunity to situate Infrastructure Canada’s role. The kinds of investments we make are traditionally in public infrastructure, the kind of infrastructure that people use, have access to and rely on a day-to-day basis as opposed to private. Secondly, our department invests in preventative measures rather than responsive ones, so we are looking to occupy that space.

The Chair: Thank you. If any of you have anything else to add because of texts, you can send it to our clerk down the road.

My last question centres around the fact that the federal and provincial governments have pledged up to $228 million in 2022 for disaster relief for farmers, ranchers and food processors because of the B.C. flood in 2021. I’ll be asking this to the next group as well. Do you know the number of farmers, ranchers and producers who have received monetary compensation through any of your funding programs with respect to disaster relief?

Ms. Howlett: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your question.

The Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements funds the province or territory directly. That money is then distributed through their own relief program, so we wouldn’t know the exact amount that would be going to farmers through the program, but it is clearly an eligible category. That is something we could actually follow up on with the province.

The Chair: We’d appreciate knowing. Thanks very much.

Senator Simons: It’s not fair for me to take my frustration out on you, but it seems that these departments each have only one small piece of the puzzle. If Infrastructure, Mr. Peets, is only providing money on a grant basis to individual communities who ask for it, it perforce means that no one is looking at the overall picture. If Public Safety is only providing emergency support after the disaster happens, you’re not as involved in the upfront preventive work. ISC is doing it’s excellent work with First Nations communities, but then they are being helped, and maybe down the road their neighbours’ dike will fail, which will have a knock-on effect on them. No one is taking a holistic look.

It really concerns me that our number one recommendation seems to be something that has no place to go. There is no government perspective that provides that kind of oversight on what I think everyone recognizes is a major problem. Those dikes are failing and will continue to fail unless steps are taken. Ms. Taylor, you described this project in the Annapolis Valley. Why isn’t that same kind of overall vision — I said I hate the word “vision,” but you know what I mean — why isn’t anyone fixing this problem in the Fraser Valley? I guess that’s the question.

Mr. Peets: I will start and then invite others to jump in.

Absolutely, the investments are interdependent. The challenge is one that requires strategic and joined-up thinking, and there are a number of players with important roles to play.

I guess the first thing I would urge the committee to keep in mind is that the assets in question — the land, the dikes and the water systems — are provincially and municipally owned assets for the most part.

Senator Simons: That’s the problem. It was downloaded to the municipalities, which absolutely do not have the capacity to fix the problem.

Mr. Peets: But working together, the various players do have the capacity to fix the problem. The key player in terms of setting the agenda, planning the investments and prioritizing them is the Province of British Columbia in most cases. That’s in the case of provincial and municipal infrastructure, of course, not First Nations infrastructure or private infrastructure. Private could imply a number of people. But the onus falls on all of us to work together. There are mechanisms for the federal government to collaborate closely with the B.C. Government. There are mechanisms internally for officials at Public Safety, Infrastructure Canada, Indigenous Services, Environment and Climate Change Canada and others to work closely together. We can talk about some of those. I don’t want to take up time unnecessarily, but if there is an interest in that, we can certainly talk about those mechanisms.

Senator Simons: Ms. Taylor, why has this worked in Annapolis but not in the Fraser Valley?

Ms. Taylor: The project in the Annapolis Valley was advanced by the Government of Nova Scotia because it involved many different communities that would benefit from this type of infrastructure.

The Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund’s most recent call for proposals was last summer. The department is in the final stages of evaluating projects. There were a number of projects advanced by the communities in British Columbia and the Government of British Columbia, so there are potential future projects coming down and out of that funding program which may be able to help address some of these challenges. But there is certainly a role, as Mr. Peets said, for the Government of British Columbia to play in trying to coordinate that space, as well as our federal departments working together. We are doing that.

Senator Oh: I just want to say that you both are doing a great job. No one in the world could challenge the power of nature. You can only do so much, and you are doing it today with engineering work, projects and spending. But in the end, the power of nature is in control of all of us. There could be another big flood. A dike that hasn’t been used could go on for another 200 years without anything happening. Climate change is important. The bottom line is that no one can challenge nature. Thank you so much for all the hard work you are both putting into this.

The Chair: Seeing no other questions from my colleagues, witnesses, I want to say thanks very much for being here today. I know you have come from various places across this city and beyond, and have flown in. Your testimony and insight are certainly appreciated. We appreciate you being here on an early Thursday morning.

For our second panel, we will focus on the second recommendation of the committee’s report:

That the Government of Canada ensure that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Public Safety Canada, as well as other federal entities, have sufficient financial and human resources to support individuals, firms and communities affected by natural disasters, including floods. In this context, attention should be paid to the AgriRecovery, AgriStability and Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements programs, among other relevant federal measures. The Government should make certain that, both generally and in situations of a natural disaster, federal support — including financial aid, humanitarian relief and personnel — can be accessed easily and in a timely manner.

With that, we’ll hear from officials from the relevant departments. In addition to our panel one witnesses who have remained from Public Safety Canada, our panel two witnesses include, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch; Liz Foster, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch; and Francesco Del Bianco, Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate.

Having heard from Ms. El Bied when she delivered the opening remarks in the previous panel, we’ll ask Mr. Rosser to start with your presentation.

Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Mr. Chair, my colleague Liz Foster will be delivering the remarks on behalf of the department. I will turn to her, if that’s agreeable.

The Chair: Thank you.

Liz Foster, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for inviting AAFC to participate in today’s discussions.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people here in Ottawa. I am joined today by my colleagues, as already mentioned.

I would like to recognize the extraordinary hardship experienced by the affected farmers in B.C. who suffered damages in the devastating 2021 floods. These floods were the largest agricultural disaster in B.C.’s history, affecting more than 1,100 farms, 15,000 hectares of land and 2.5 million livestock. Severe losses were incurred across the board — dairy, poultry, swine, beef, horticulture, fruit and vegetable, land-based fish producers — and infrastructure was damaged such as fences, farm equipment and machinery.

Government supports are a key element to help farmers affected by natural disasters. The federal-provincial-territorial suite of business risk management programs, commonly referred to as BRM, are the first-line defence of defence for producers against risks that threaten the viability of their farms. These programs provide producers with protection against income and production losses, increased input costs or severe market volatility. They also complement other available federal and provincial programs and private insurance by providing support to producers who suffer damage and income loss due to natural disasters. Together, BRM programs have provided over $1.8 billion per year to producers on average over the last five years and were most recently renewed until 2028 under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. BRM programs were instrumental in enabling B.C. producers to overcome the impacts of the 2021 floods.

AgriInsurance helps to stabilize producers’ incomes by minimizing the economic effects of production losses caused by natural hazards. As insurance is a provincial jurisdiction, each province designs their own plans specific to their regional needs. The federal government contributes towards the premium subsidy offered to producers. While it’s not possible to determine the payments triggered specifically by the 2021 floods, B.C. producers received a total of $40 million in AgriInsurance indemnities in 2021 and $28 million in 2001-22. In comparison, B.C. producers received $5 million in 2019-20.

AgriInvest allows producers to save a portion of their farm’s proceeds, with a matching government contribution, to help them manage smaller income declines. Producers may withdraw from the AgriInvest account at any time and for any reason. In 2021, B.C. producers withdrew a total of $11.3 million, representing 10% of the total funds available.

AgriStability provides support to producers who have experienced a net income decline for reasons such as production loss, increased costs and market conditions. In response to the 2021 floods, interim payments available to producers were increased. In addition, the implementation of late participation enabled B.C. producers who had not yet enrolled to do so. While, again, it’s not possible to determine the amount that went to producers directly impacted by the floods, B.C. producers received $26 million in support from AgriStability in 2021, the highest amount they have received in more than 10 years.

AgriRecovery is a framework through which governments can work together when a natural disaster strikes to assess the impacts and determine if additional support is needed beyond the support available through the existing risk management tools. Such an assessment is initiated by the province and, if needed, an AgriRecovery initiative is delivered to provide producers with financial assistance for the extraordinary costs they incur to recover from the disaster and return to production.

AgriRecovery and the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements programs under the purview of my colleagues from Public Safety Canada were jointly leveraged to respond to the 2021 floods through the Canada-British Columbia Flood Recovery Program for Food Security. This program provides support from both levels of government through a single window that minimizes the application burden for producers.

In conclusion, BRM programs have contributed to the effective delivery of support to producers impacted by the 2021 floods to the full extent possible under existing program authorities. We continuously work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to evaluate and improve these programs to ensure that we continue to support producers through the challenges they face.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. We are happy to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we’ll proceed to questions from senators, again with five minutes for questions and answers. We’ll then move to second and third rounds as may be necessary.

I’ll just pose that one question that I posed before around the fact that we did invite the minister to join us, and he chose not to do so. Is that an indication of his interest in our report and his engagement with the Senate?

Ms. Foster: I’m happy to start answering this question and then invite my colleagues to weigh in.

I would echo my colleagues from the first session in saying that Minister MacAulay is quite committed to farmers, as you well know, as well as to environmental sustainability and all of those other supports, and how we can be as creative and generous as possible within our existing authorities in our supports for farmers.

Mr. Rosser: I would only add, Mr. Chair, that the minister actively engages with yourself and many other members of this committee and is, as my colleague indicated, very committed to agriculture and advancing agriculture and working with parliamentarians towards that. He does appear several times a year in front of committees, but inevitably officials wind up representing departments on a significant number of issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Ms. Foster, for that detailed rundown of who got what, where and how.

I’m curious to know, I guess picking up from a question that Senator McNair asked in the first round, if you can give us a sense of the average timeline in between the time farmers would have applied for these various programs and when they would have been paid out. Did people get their money in 2022? Did they get it in 2023? Are they still receiving it?

Ms. Foster: I’ll start the answer to this question and then ask colleagues to weigh in.

The Canada-British Columbia Flood Recovery for Food Security Program is worked on jointly with the province. It’s actually delivered by the province. In terms of the specific timelines, there have been activities throughout, and there continue to be activities. That program is, in fact, still open to receive claims. A very large amount was announced of $228 million for that program. Since 2021, we do know that $80 million has flowed out to date, but as I said, that program is still open.

Senator Simons: That’s a big difference. Why is there so much money left, and then what becomes of it?

Ms. Foster: That’s another really great question.

I’ll speak to the AgriRecovery aspect of that initiative. Those assessments, which ultimately lead to an AgriRecovery initiative when warranted, are often conducted based on estimates. As I mentioned, AgriRecovery is a framework rather than a statutory program, so every time an initiative is triggered, we have to go and seek authorities, and we often do so with incomplete and estimated information, so the estimates are often high. We know that frequently the payments in response to a disaster don’t quite reach the level that was initially estimated.

Francesco, did you want to add anything?

Francesco Del Bianco, Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: AgriInvest, as described, is immediate. Producers can withdraw the monies from their accounts. With AgriStability, there is a process to apply essentially after they file taxes, but there are measures in place — for example, interim payments — where they can get an advance on the anticipated payment. Under AgriInsurance, like any insurance policy, once they have been able to assess the damages, they are provided an indemnity, so it’s fairly quick. Then with regards to AgriRecovery, as described, it’s ongoing. We have made three amendments to the program to ensure that producers who have applied can submit their claims. We amended it in June of 2022, February of 2023 and then in October of 2023. Ms. Foster mentioned it is administered by our colleagues in British Columbia, but given the severity of the event, it’s taken a long time for farmers to be able to repair their premises, and then in some cases, also in terms of plant loss — for example, to purchase blueberry plants — it’s taken them numerous years to be able to acquire the plants to resume their operations.

Senator Simons: There is still a lot of money left in that fund. How much more of that money do you expect to pay out to farmers? What will happen to the residue?

Ms. Foster: We will continue to make the contribution towards that fund as those claims roll in, so to speak. Where we end up we will determine when we end up, when we wind that program up, but as long as the support is still required, should it be to complete infrastructure changes or, as my colleague Francesco mentioned, to purchase new plants or new farm equipment, we will continue to make that available. We can provide a figure once that initiative is closed and all of the financial aspects have been paid out.

Senator Simons: If you could follow up with our committee and, as each of these things reaches its conclusion, provide us with a summary, that would be great.

Ms. Foster: We can certainly do so when this one reaches its conclusion. We wouldn’t be able to put a time frame on that necessarily. We will continue to amend —

Senator Simons: We’ll still be here.

Ms. Foster: Excellent.

The Chair: Speak for yourself.

Senator Simons: As an institution.

The Chair: Yes, thank you.

Senator Burey: Thank you so much for coming, and thank you for explaining, Ms. Foster, about the 1,100 farms that were affected.

You may not have this information, but I’m concerned, as Senator Simons, with the amount of money, and you talked about how things roll in over time and the number of programs that you have. I’m a pediatrician and am having a really hard time thinking of all these programs.

I’m trying to find out how many people went out of business. That’s one question I want to ask, but the next question is about accessibility. I heard some very encouraging words from you when you said that the government and the province of B.C. had a program where there was a single access point for applying for some of these programs. Can you gauge the awareness of the programs and the accessibility for farmers? I want to know how many people went out of business, if you have that information, and how accessible the knowledge is of what is really out there for farmers to access.

Ms. Foster: I’ll take a crack at this one. Thank you very much for the question, both about the number of farms that have recovered versus going out of business, as well as the accessibility of the program information.

Senator, as you suspected, in terms of the number of farms that went out of business, that’s not information that’s available at the federal level at this time. I would have to look into where we could even provide that, and my colleague Tom might have something to add on that question.

With respect to the availability of program information through a single window, like myself and my colleagues from Public Safety Canada mentioned, we do work with the provinces on that front. They do administer that single window. Again, we wouldn’t necessarily have metrics in terms of awareness and accessibility. We did try to simplify to the extent possible, put all of the information in one place available for farmers and simplify the application process at a very difficult time for them so that they had as minimal a burden as possible to access public funds.

Do you have anything to add, Tom?

Mr. Rosser: I would only add in response to the first question. It’s not a perfect indicator of farms exiting as a result of the atmospheric river, but when you look at farm cash receipts and farm incomes in British Columbia, they did dip in 2021, presumably in part as a result of the damage from the atmospheric river, but of course, that year there was also the wildfires and the heat dome as well that affected the province and the producers in that province. Subsequently, 2022-23 farm cash receipts and income did recover. We do not yet have final 2024 numbers, but our departmental forecast suggests that they will continue that recovery process, which suggests there was some resilience in the overall agricultural sector in the province.

Senator Burey: Thank you.

Ms. El Bied, regarding the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, I understand there have been some adjustments to that program. Could you expand on that? Who was consulted during this review of the program?

Ms. El Bied: Thank you, senator, for the question.

Actually, for the last couple of years, the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA, has been going through DFAA modernization. As you indicated, there was a panel with which we did a lot of engagement with PTs. A task force led some of the work, but also Public Safety Canada officials have been engaging with PTs, looking at the terms and conditions of the program and how we can make this program simpler and more accessible for the PTs.

We will launch the new program in the upcoming months, so we are about to finalize it. It will be launched only in April 2025. The intent is to have the new terms and conditions by April 2024. We will be working with the provinces and territories for a full year of transition that will allow them to take the new terms and conditions and create their own framework and DFAA and present it to their own cabinets, too. From there, it will be implemented in April 2025.

The intent of the DFAA modernization is really to have a simpler and more accessible program. I will just leave it there at the moment, but this is why it’s called DFAA modernization. I’m pretty sure it’s going to bring a lot of positive notes on that front.

Senator Burey: Thank you very much.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

According to a recent CBC News article, the federal government estimates that it will need to pay almost $3.4 billion in disaster recovery for the flooding and landslides that devastated British Columbia’s Fraser Valley in November 2021. The article also states that more than two years later, only 40% of the aid has been delivered, and the funds take an average of seven years to be paid out. My question to you is this: Do you agree with CBC’s article? Also, what is the federal government doing to accelerate payment on the remaining 60% of the aid?

Ms. Howlett: Thank you for the question, senator.

Under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, the provinces and territories receive their funding on a reimbursement basis. We actually have 10 active files with B.C. going back as far as 2017. The monies that are owed for events are all based on reimbursement when the province is ready to give us the paperwork in terms of the cost they incurred in terms of response and recovery for that disaster or climate-related event.

For example, in the case of the atmospheric river of 2021, the province had estimated that their costs would be in the range of $2.9 billion. The federal share for that would be roughly $2.6 billion, and of that, we have already paid them $1.3 billion. The remainder will be based on their ability to provide us with the information required on what costs they incurred, and then we will make the payment. Based on the regular conversations we have with them, they are likely not going to be sending us those costs until 2025-26.

As you can see, these events take many years, and it is really dependent on the capacity of that province or territory to provide us with the information required so that we can reimburse them. Because of the back-to-back climate-related emergencies we have been experiencing in this country, we are seeing that it is putting a strain on provinces and territories and their capacity to be able to provide that information because they are barely out of one event when another one happens. Therefore, there is great strain.

As my colleague Ms. El Bied mentioned, with the modernization, we do hope to be able to do things more nimbly and more quickly. However, it will always hinge on their ability to give us that information in terms of what it cost them in terms of that response and recovery before we are able to make a payment.

Senator Oh: Any other comments?

Ms. Foster: I can certainly add some information to this as well.

In terms of the various business risk management programs — that core program suite of AgriInvest, AgriInsurance and AgriStability — those payments will already have been made. It’s the AgriRecovery initiative that remains open. Because of the nature of some of those payments, as I mentioned, some of those are harder-to-get items or take longer to complete and then have the funding be claimed. That information is really related to the 2021 floods. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are always looking at ways to continuously improve BRM programs. One of the aspects that we look at is how we can make programs respond more quickly and get payments more quickly in the hands of farmers.

I’ll mention two things quickly. One is that as part of the renewal of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, one of the aspects that federal, provincial and territorial ministers agreed to work on together and offer as an option to farmers is a new model for AgriStability. One of the elements is faster payments to the farmers. I’m getting my signal, so the last thing I’ll mention is that we are also in the midst of looking at AgriRecovery initiative responses from recent years to look at lessons learned, some of which relate to how we can better leverage the entire BRM suite as well as AgriRecovery to get support to farmers as quickly as possible.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Robinson: I had a couple of follow-up questions from earlier questions, and one was this: Mr. Rosser, you had mentioned that farm gate receipts had recovered to 2020 numbers. We went through a fairly significant adjustment in costs — for example, fertilizer increased 100% — and we saw quite a difference in the farm gate receipts as a result of that cost adjustment. I’m wondering, are those 2020 number comparisons actually apples to apples, or did we take into account that change in base?

Mr. Rosser: I thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair. As you can imagine, I have answered many questions from her before. This is my first opportunity to do so in her new capacity as a parliamentarian. I’m very pleased to do so.

Senator Robinson: I gave you something easy.

Mr. Rosser: My earlier response referred to both farm cash receipts and farm incomes in the province of British Columbia. It is absolutely the case that, particularly in 2022-23 in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we saw significant increases in fuel, fertilizer and other input costs for producers that at least partially offset very high prices for some agricultural commodities, particularly grains and oilseeds. There was some offsetting effect. The net effect at the national level was an increase in farm incomes in that year, as I recall. That, of course, doesn’t mean that it was a strong year across all agricultural groups, commodities and regions. However, in aggregate, that was absolutely the case. High revenues were absolutely offset by higher input costs. I might add that, in the case of fertilizer as well as grains and oilseeds prices, we have seen those prices come down fairly significantly over the past 12 months or so.

Senator Robinson: Commodity prices are down, for sure. I think we could say that fertilizer took that double hike, and we’re probably going to see prices come down 20% this year, just to put some substance within that.

My question, really, is about whether we are comparing apples to apples with those dollars. I don’t know if I really understood your answer to that direct component of my question.

Mr. Rosser: Mr. Chair, my apologies if I wasn’t clear. At least conceptually —

Senator Robinson: I’ll just interrupt. What I’m saying is that the pre-2020 dollar receipts and recovery numbers you are mentioning — are those dollars to dollars? Those have not been adjusted, taking into account the shift we have seen in the base?

Mr. Rosser: Mr. Chair, I would just say that, absolutely, the farm cash receipts will be revenues. In theory, farm income should measure income, so that would be revenues net of expenses. Now, within that income will be program payments that are a part of farm revenues, but when the income figure increases from year to year, it suggests, even taking into account higher input costs, that incomes have increased in the sector.

Senator Robinson: Okay. I will leave you alone Mr. Rosser.

Ms. El Bied, I had a question as a follow up to Senator Burey’s question. I didn’t understand, when speaking about the DFAA program that’s coming out, whether farmers, ranchers and processors were directly consulted in the building of that? You mentioned the PTs were consulted. I’m wondering if the actual producers, the ranchers, farmers and processors, were consulted.

Ms. El Bied: I will need to take that question back and send a written follow-up response, if you don’t mind, senator. I need to confirm and don’t want to mislead anyone with the answer.

Senator Robinson: Sure, that would be great. Thank you.

Senator McNair: To Public Safety, it’s nice to hear, subject to Senator Robinson’s question, that the DFAA modernization is under way. We look forward to April 2025 as much as you do for getting money efficiently into the hands of those who need it.

My question is probably for Agriculture, and it has to do with the BRM programs. It may be more of a comment than a question. I was curious as to how often you or the government review the effectiveness of the programs in light of the ever‑continuing and frequency of weather extremes. I’m pleased to hear, for example, of revisions and changes being made to AgriStability with the goal to get money into the hands of those affected as quickly as possible. Our committee encourages and congratulates you for continuing to do those updates.

Ms. Foster: I’m happy to start this one and then will pass the mic over to my colleague Francesco.

Having effective BRM programs is extremely important for farmers, so we do a couple of things. The first is continuous improvement. There is nothing that prevents us and our provincial colleagues bringing forward new ideas for how we can improve programs at any point in time. This really is a continuous dialogue between ourselves and our provincial counterparts. As well, we also, every five years, have the opportunity to renew our Canadian Agricultural Partnership. The new one is the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. We do take another opportunity there to look holistically at the whole package as well. We do the long-term changes on a longer cycle, looking at that every five years when we have to make bigger adjustments to our programming authorities, but as we go along, we are always looking at ways we can improve our programming. Whether it is piloting a new way of doing things, whether it’s researching new approaches, we are always looking at those opportunities.

I will pass the mic to Francesco if he would like to dig into more specifics.

Mr. Del Bianco: Mr. Chair, I may mention that there is also a commitment under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership to do a review of the BRM programs in the context of climate change. We are conducting that with our provincial colleagues, in consultation with industry, with the intent, as Ms. Foster mentioned, to be able to incorporate some of those findings as we negotiate the program design and delivery for the next framework.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Simons: It occurs to me that, as terrific as these programs are in the aftermath, one of the challenges we heard in testimony when we spoke to farmers is that they had very immediate needs, things that sometimes even couldn’t be made whole with money after the fact, especially because the flood also affected transportation infrastructure and they couldn’t get things like feed and fuel. I’m wondering if there is a fund or a system or something that could be more nimble to help people in the immediate crisis instead of making them whole 6, 18 or 24 months after the fact. There were really practical things that people needed right then and there. AgriStability is not the right modality for that, but is there something else that we could be doing that would give people more immediate relief in the very apex of the crisis?

Ms. Foster: Thank you for the question, and I am happy to start the answer to that and will pass it to my colleague.

Senator Simons: And then I would like to hear from Ms. El Bied.

Ms. Foster: Absolutely.

In terms of the initial support to farmers, as I mentioned, the existing suite of business risk management programs really is the first line of defence. Farmers have access to their AgriInvest balances at any time and for any reason. They can immediately withdraw. AgriStability has some existing features related to interim payments and targeted advance payments. Both of those can be accessed rapidly. As I mentioned, insurance is also there. Those that have purchased insurance will have immediate or rapid access to their insurance payments as well. As I mentioned, AgriRecovery is a framework that comes in afterwards and looks at all the supports, including DFAA, provincial supports and private insurance, so that does take a little bit more time, but there are those immediate supports available.

I wonder if I should pass it to my colleagues at Public Safety to talk about immediate supports and then to Tom to speak about emergency management.

Ms. El Bied: Thank you, senator for the question.

As I indicated, the modernized DFAA will be designed to target funding in building resilience, reducing risk and supporting people. The new terms and conditions will be available very soon. This new program will be launched in April 2025. The new program will enable rebuilds to climate and disaster resilience guidelines instead of pre-disaster conditions and will create incentives for risk reduction and mitigation.

One of the key elements that this new program and the modernization will be pushing, as my colleague Mauricette indicated, is processes and increased efficiencies. This will ensure payment can be made in a more timely manner and support PTs in delivering their disaster financial assistance program.

Senator Simons: But that won’t be for more than a year.

Ms. El Bied: Senator, the new terms and conditions will be available this April. We are targeting this upcoming April.

Senator Simons: In two weeks, you mean?

Ms. El Bied: In the short term. We need to work with PTs, with provinces and territories. The new terms and conditions will be shared with them, but they will need time to update their DFAA directive within their own provinces and territories. Provinces and territories asked for the 12 months, so the 12 months is not just the federal government that decided that target time. During the engagement and consultation we did with PTs, it was clear from them that they would need time to implement it. This upcoming wildfire season, we all know what is waiting for us, so they will be busy with other stuff. Public Safety will be helping guide provinces and territories to take on this new DFAA modernization and be ready to be launched in April 2025.

Senator Simons: But available next month if necessary.

Ms. El Bied: The new terms and conditions will be available next month.

Mr. Rosser: I will try to be brief. One of the lessons we’ve drawn from the various shocks that the agriculture and agri-food world has lived through — not just the atmospheric river but COVID, Fiona and others — is a greater focus on emergency preparedness. We have tried to increase our resources dedicated to that. We also are in the midst of updating our existing emergency management framework, which dates back to 2016. It was heavily focused on animal disease events. We are working with provinces, territories and industry to come up with a broader, multi-event framework that hopefully will leave us better prepared to respond to emergencies of various kinds in the future.

Senator Simons: It’s true, from avian flu to BSE to foot-and-mouth disease, but we’re in a whole new world now.

Senator Robinson: I’m wondering about AgriInvest. I heard it mentioned a couple of times that producers could access their AgriInvest account immediately. Not all producers have money in AgriInvest. Some have lots, some have a little, and some have none. If you are a newer entrant to agriculture, you don’t have an AgriInvest account to access immediately. Is that correct?

Ms. Foster: We do see a very high rate of participation by members of the sector in AgriInvest. That said, their balances would build over time, yes.

Senator Robinson: When a producer accesses their AgriInvest account, there are two funds within that account, correct? They have their contribution and government contribution. When they access that, they take their own money out first. Is that right? No?

Ms. Foster: They have two separate accounts: one which is their money, one which is the government contribution. The government contribution is accessed first.

Senator Robinson: It is?

Ms. Foster: It is accessed first, yes.

Senator Robinson: And it’s taxable?

Ms. Foster: It is taxable in the hands of the farmer. That would be in a year where presumably their income would be lower, which would reduce that.

Senator Robinson: Yes, because it is designed to offset small declines in income. It’s not designed to respond to a disaster situation that is beyond someone’s control. That wasn’t the reason it was born. It was born for declines in income.

Ms. Foster: And immediate cash flow needs.

Senator Robinson: Great.

I appreciate the questions and the responses on the timeliness issue. If we compared crop year 2020 to crop year 2023, and if I had triggered an AgriStability payment on my farm, when would I have received my payment for those two crop years? From when I trigger the payment, how long does it take until I have it? My sense is that, by the time the money gets to the producers, frequently it’s gone to secured creditors because they have not been able to cash flow the time difference between the two. Can you quantify the improvement that you have spoken about?

Ms. Foster: In terms of the new AgriStability model that I mentioned, it’s being put in place in certain provinces beginning only in the 2024 program year. It is being offered as an option in the provinces that the federal government administers. That’s a small selection of the provinces and territories.

In terms of the differences between the 2020 crop year and the 2023 year that I believe you were asking about, you would see a similar time frame to payment.

Senator Robinson: What would that estimated time frame be?

Ms. Foster: I would have to confirm with colleagues in terms of the exact time framework, but it can take over a year to get that payment into the hands of farmers. It depends on accrual information and information that comes around when they file their taxes.

Senator Robinson: My last question is this: Can you tell me how much time passed from the time that the atmospheric river hit until B.C. triggered AgriRecovery?

Ms. Foster: I will ask my colleague Francesco Del Bianco to respond to that.

Mr. Del Bianco: The event happened mid-November. We received a formal request from B.C. on November 19, and we announced the response on February 7.

Senator Robinson: Thank you.

Senator Burey: I’m going to dig a little deeper, Mr. Rosser, on the question that was followed up by Senator Robinson.

I happen to be on the Agriculture Committee. Although I am not from this industry, I do know a bit about farm revenue receipts. You are right that they did go up. One of the statistics that I was most troubled by was that 10% of farms generate more than two thirds of all revenues, hence the question that Senator Robinson and I are trying to follow up. In fact, half of all farms are reported by the PBO to be losing money or barely making it. I wanted to dig deeper and say that this superficial look indicates that farm receipts have gone up, but we don’t have an idea of how many farms went under. Can you dig a bit deeper, or could you get any of those figures for us?

Mr. Rosser: Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question. I will offer a few comments and, if there is additional data that the senator or the committee wishes, I am happy to do our best to respond.

It is absolutely the case that a relatively small number of large farms account for a large portion of agricultural revenues. It is also absolutely the case that, with about 190,000-odd farms in Canada, those aggregate numbers that I cited, whether at the provincial or the national level, mask a whole lot of variability underneath. It is also true there are a large number of relatively small farms in Canada. Many of them are what one might characterize as hobby farms and not the primary source of income for the farm operator. While it is generally true that the larger farms tend to be the more profitable ones, that is not universally the case. There are examples of small-scale operations that successfully find niches and are lucrative.

Again, we are happy to get a more quantitative overview of that issue if the committee and the members so desire.

Senator Burey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You’ve heard my question, but I will ask it again. We have undertaken an 18-month soil health study. With respect to the flood in B.C., are you aware of any work or funding being supported either to check the health of soils where the flooding took place or to support the betterment of soil health as a result of the flood? Any thoughts?

Ms. Foster: Thank you for the question, senator.

Soil health, as you know, is important for farmers for both the sustainability and the competitiveness of their farms. I will speak generally to the supports for the agriculture sector with respect to soil health and how that fits in rather than specifically to the floods.

Soil, water and biodiversity are all pillars of sustainability for farmers, and we do address that from AFC’s perspective in a couple of ways. First, through some of our existing environmental programs, such as the Agricultural Climate Solutions program, there is both the Living Labs program under that umbrella as well as the On-Farm Climate Action Fund. The On-Farm Climate Action Fund, as an example, supports beneficial management practices such as cover cropping, nitrogen management and rotational grazing, all of which can have elements that are supportive of soil.

As well, through the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, we work with provinces through the cost-shared portion. Provinces design programs that are impactful in their regions. That can include support for environmental sustainability as well as soil health and other sustainable programming that is on the federal side, including AgriScience, as well as the foundational science component with my science and technology branch colleagues where Agriculture does some of the research itself.

The last thing I will mention before opening it to colleagues to add is the Sustainable Agricultural Strategy that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is leading the development of which looks at the pillars I mentioned related to sustainability, including soil health, and looking at basically putting in place a long-term plan for climate mitigation, adaptation and resiliency of the sector.

With that, I will see if my colleagues have anything that they would like to add.

Mr. Rosser: First, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you and the committee for your work on soil health. I know the committee had done an earlier study on that issue that I understand was very well received in terms of the number of downloads and requests for the report. It was unprecedented in the history of the committee, if not the Senate. We very much look forward to responding to that report.

Liz touched a bit on this, but we do have very robust — like a billion and a half dollars — in environmental programming, much of which is intended to increase soil sequestration on farms, in ag soils and the like. It’s important to note the kinds of things we do to promote increased carbon sequestration very often increases moisture retention and climate resiliency. Even if that isn’t the policy intent of the program, that is often the effect of these program supports.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rosser.

Senator Burey, I might have cut you off with a follow-up question. Did you have a secondary question?

Senator Burey: I think Mr. Rosser will follow up with some information, if he is able.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have no other questions to be asked.

Witnesses, I want to thank you very much for your testimony and participation here today. Your testimony and insight are very much appreciated. We do appreciate your making an effort to be here.

I want to thank my committee members and colleagues for your active participation and thoughtful questions. I often get comments from outside talking about the questions that my colleagues ask and how insightful they are, so thank you very much.

I also want to take a moment to thank the folks who support us, our office staff, the folks sitting behind me here, the interpreters, the Debates team transcribing meeting, the committee room attendant, multimedia service technicians, the Broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD and, of course, our page. We couldn’t do it without you folks, so thank you very much.

(The committee adjourned.)