:
I do hear what you're saying.
We're going to vote on the motion, as amended.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Let us get back to our groups of witnesses.
Thank you for being here this morning.
In the first hour, we welcome representatives from the Canada Organic Trade Association: Tia Loftsgard, executive director, and Marie-Ève Levert, director of international and regulatory affairs.
We also welcome Guenette Bautz, general manager of the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum, and its Chair, Paul Glenn.
Welcome everyone.
We will begin with Ms. Loftsgard for a maximum of 10 minutes.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of this committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today to share our organization's perspective on Canada's next agricultural framework.
My name is Tia Loftsgard. I am the executive director of the Canada Organic Trade Association. I am joined by my colleague Andrew Hammermeister, who is the director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada and an assistant professor at Dalhousie University in the faculty of agriculture. Following my presentation, he will present on key policy needs for organic innovation in Canada.
I'll just describe who we are. The Canada Organic Trade Association, or COTA, as we are known, is a member-based organization that represents the entire organic value chain, including farmers, manufacturers, exporters, distributors, and provincial organizations.
Our mandate is to promote and protect the growth of organic trade to benefit farmers, the economy, the public, and the environment. COTA is the voice of organic trade. We work on market access via international trade missions. We have also been involved with the federal government on assessments of foreign organic standards. We also lead on industry and consumer awareness initiatives, as well as data collection for the organic value chain round table and on behalf of the Canadian organic sector.
Currently, organic is a booming business. It is an $80-billion industry worldwide, in U.S. dollars, and it's estimated to grow between 16% and 25% by 2020. In Canada, we are the fifth largest organic market, at $4.7 billion in sales. With more than 22 million Canadians buying organic food weekly, and with 5% of global food sales being organic, there are opportunities for Canada to take advantage of this emerging market at the domestic and international levels, adapt to this changing global environment, and stay ahead of its competitors.
Canada can stimulate clean and inclusive economic growth and take immediate action on climate change through signature investments in organic agriculture in Canada. The new agricultural policy framework could foster the growth of organic by providing tools to grow our supply chain across the country, supporting organic processors and developing programs for industry entrants.
There are two key components to ensuring that sustainable improvement of our production capabilities in Canada is fostered. First, the government should maintain its support for organic to develop new markets and trade opportunities for the sector. For example, the AgriMarketing program is valuable to our sector and our value-added processors. In the last three years, COTA has been using the AgriMarketing program funding to promote the Canadian organic brand abroad and to create export opportunities for more than 100 processors, traders, and growers across the country.
The next market development program should be as flexible as the present one in order to enable each agricultural sector to target specific markets and develop programs that are appropriate for its long-term international strategies.
To gain international market access, Canada has been working on equivalency agreements with other countries, our trade partners. These bilateral agreements are based on the mutual recognition of organic standards and reciprocity. We now have agreements with the U.S., the EU, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and Japan, and we are currently negotiating with Mexico and South Korea.
Organic trade is rooted in the industry's capacity to preserve the integrity of organic standards and to develop and maintain multilateral and bilateral equivalency agreements that benefit the entire organic sector.
Without timely maintenance of the Canadian standards and support for their enforcement and integrity, Canadian growers and processors are placed at a disadvantage in regard to their competitors. The next market development program should be flexible and support the tools developed by the industry to maintain the integrity of organic and facilitate its trade, notably the role that we play on the technical advisory committee for international trade equivalencies.
Second, as we showcased earlier, the demand for organic in Canada is growing, and in the next five years it's going to increase at a double-digit rate. Our biggest challenge, though, continues to be inadequate supply. We need more growers and more acres to be able to supply our manufacturers and processors.
In order to incentivize farmers to take advantage of the opportunities for higher incomes through organic premiums, mitigate risk by diversifying their production, and reduce their carbon and environmental footprint, policies need to be put in place to encourage more domestic production and sales.
We recommend that the next policy framework support the following:
A national organic certification cost share program should be in place. The organic industry development programs developed at the provincial level by Quebec and Prince Edward Island are models that could be adopted federally. These models include financial assistance for up to 50% of eligible expenses for transition, which is for pre-certification and post-certification costs to organic, up to a maximum of $40,000. Ideally we would have what our U.S. trade partner has, which is an organic certification cost share program that provides 75% reimbursement for certification costs up to a limit of $750 per certification scope.
Our sector needs the development of organic production insurance products that recognize premiums for organic and products that are transitioning to organic, and make these available in all provinces and territories. Currently in Canada we only have it offered in six provinces and does not cover all product categories.
We also need the development of incentive programs that encourage best management practices to support all farmers—not just organic farmers, but conventional and organic farmers—to meet the needs of soil and water quality, biodiversity, and climate change. We recommend that 30% of the budget for rural development programs be allocated to greening through agri-environmental measures and support for organic farming or projects with an environmentally friendly investment or innovation measure.
Finally, COTA strongly endorses the new addition that you put into the next policy framework, which is the value-added agriculture and agrifood processing priority area. We have more than 1,500 organic producers, processors, and handlers in the country. They play a pivotal role in supporting the local economy, and they should benefit as well from targeted support to increase their productivity and competitiveness.
I'll hand it over to Andy now.
Thank you all for this opportunity.
The Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada is the national leader and facilitator of science related to organic in Canada. Our primary role is to lead the national organic science cluster program in collaboration with the Organic Federation of Canada.
Today I'll briefly introduce how the science of organic agriculture contributes to increasing environmental sustainability and improved business risk management, which ultimately can lead to high public trust.
We need to recognize that agriculture is multi-functional. It goes beyond just being a business case. Our current science cluster includes over 200 scientists working on projects at 36 institutions across Canada. What is clear from research in Canada and from around the world is that production practices that are emphasized within organic agriculture can contribute to addressing many of the issues that our country faces, as well as around the world, including climate change, biodiversity, water quality, and soil conservation.
Organic standards specifically emphasize practices that maintain a healthy soil, and healthy soils are critical for organic farming systems to maintain productivity and sustainability. That's why organic farmers pay particular attention to this. Healthy soils hold more carbon, which is helping to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. They help to reduce pressure from drought or excess water, which is a common issue in agriculture these days. Healthy soils also have an abundance of micro-organisms in them that hold nutrients in the soil and cycle them so that they're available for future crops and prevent them from being lost from the ecosystem and contaminating water supply.
The benefits of expanding crop rotations are widely recognized by organic and non-organic scientists alike, but in organic agriculture, farmers are heavily dependent upon crop rotations to build healthy soils, minimize pest pressure, and promote biodiversity. This means that organic farmers are strategically designing the sequence of crops grown on a field to maximize the efficient use of nutrients, to minimize risk from weeds, insects, and diseases, and to promote income stability.
Nitrogen fertilizers are an essential part of non-organic agriculture to achieve really high yields, but in organic farming systems we don't have access to these nitrogen fertilizers. We rely on manure and legumes like alfalfa and peas to capture the nitrogen naturally from the atmosphere. This nitrogen accounts for about 50% of the energy costs in crop production in conventional agriculture. Replacing that nitrogen by using legumes and manures, and recycling those nutrients is really important, and it can contribute substantially to climate change emissions.
Perennial legumes like clover and alfalfa are really important, and they can achieve these benefits, as well as add diversity to the landscape and build soil quality. As an international leader, Canadian agriculture should be constantly endeavouring to improve practices and minimize the risk and the burden to society. This is essential for maintaining public trust.
Organic agriculture is a model of production that is developing unique solutions that benefit all of agriculture. For the next policy framework, I would encourage programs that support science related to soil health and crop rotations; long-term studies; programs that transfer the science of agriculture to practice, so taking that science and translating it into something that can be used; research that quantifies and compares the carbon balance in whole agriculture systems; incentive programs that encourage the use of legumes; perennial forages; and cropping systems that have long rotations. We also encourage policies that encourage transparency as to where the agricultural issues are in the science and practice that are proactively addressing these issues.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation and the opportunity to share our opinion with you today.
I am Guenette Bautz, the general manager for the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum. We were established in 1997, and we will celebrate 20 years next year.
Our organization has 11 young farmer provincial organizations from coast to coast. We represent young farmers age 18 to 40. Our role with the youth and young farmers falls between 4-H and the Outstanding Young Farmers Program. The 4-H program starts youth in agriculture; the CYFF builds them, giving them the tools and education and training; the Outstanding Young Farmers Program celebrates their success.
Our focus and activities include providing education on various topics, through various methods. Our goal is to build leaders, to represent young farmers of Canada, to provide networking and mentorship opportunities, to connect young farmers to peers and mentors, and address industry issues, most recently, succession planning, business management, and any other relevant topic.
We work on social media outreach, educating consumers, speaking positively for the agriculture industry and representing young farmers on various agriculture boards across Canada. We have also been involved in international collaborations, and have been called upon by various agriculture and agrifood organizations to help lead and be active in international projects with the U.S., Mexico, and recently an outreach from Nigeria. The work that we do as the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum is very important. We focus on working towards the future in agriculture.
Our ultimate goals are to help young farmers be successful by providing the necessary training and education, connecting producers to create those peer-to-peer support relationships, and building our international trade partners. How do we do this? The CYFF relies on support from AAFC through the AgriCompetitiveness fostering business development stream, as well as through industry, support either by funding or in-kind contributions, and collaboration.
We were asked to come and speak about recommendations to consider for the next policy framework, so I welcome the opportunity to share with you our comments on that.
While the CYFF and many other national organizations are very thankful for the support that we receive, the CYFF believes that through working together we can achieve greater success, and that we are ultimately a team, as a not-for-profit organization, working with our government representatives for the betterment of agriculture and the future of young farmers in our country.
I'd like to recommend for consideration for future funding on the federal and provincial initiative that the committee think about the reporting of value for in-kind contributions of recognition. At this point, under the funding module, in-kind contributions are not considered, and we would ask that this be a consideration moving forward.
We would ask for support that would enable projects and programs to advance when the opportunities arise even during a mid-agreement or contract. At times we get into a five-year agreement for funding, and as we go about our business and activities, opportunities will arise for us. We become restricted within our current agreement, and we have a bit of an inability to grow and change the course and meet some of the new opportunities that arise among the work that we're doing throughout our programming.
We would also ask that there be some consideration on the administration requirements. Going from GF1 to GF2, there was a huge shift in administration requirements and demands, which enabled the organization, in some capacities, to focus on the work of the activity versus the reporting of the activity.
Other considerations would be the flow of funds for the agreement. Sometimes there's a delay in the allocated funds being distributed, which causes a bit of a hiccup in executing our activities and keeping our activities on track because of cash flow.
We would like a reduction in matching requirements. Right now it's a 50:50 matching requirement, and we would look for your support to help us advance the agriculture industry by reducing the requirement of 50% cash to 50% matching.
Further, we would just look for some support to give us the ability to make adjustments to our projects as they arise, and support for emerging opportunities that do come about in our work throughout our contract agreement.
I will turn this over to my chair, Mr. Paul Glenn, to speak on our behalf as a young farmer.
It's good to see everyone.
I'm glad somebody touched on succession planning and the complexities with children. In the transfers, regardless, it's just a very difficult situation that everyone goes through, particularly with the number of transfers that are going to be happening over the next decade or so. One person told me that fair is not always equal, and when you get to the transfer of farms with a number of children, that's likely true.
I want to touch a bit on the access to capital for young farmers. We see the Farm Credit Corporation as a major lender. I'm quite honestly concerned with the amount of debt load, regardless of whether you're organic or conventional, in the agriculture industry.
I wonder if you have some thoughts, quickly, of what we might consider for the long term in terms of the sustainability of agriculture. Should there be a change in markets and/or interest rates?
Paul, I'll start with you, and then I'll go to Tia.
:
Good morning, Chairman and committee members. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the next agricultural policy framework.
The Canadian Horticultural Council is a national association that represents producers across Canada who are primarily involved in the production and packaging of more than 120 fruit and vegetable crops. Members include provincial and national horticultural commodity organizations as well as allied and service organizations, provincial governments, and individual producers. Since 1922 we have worked collaboratively with our members and government to advocate on issues and policies that are important to the Canadian horticultural sector. We represent members on such key issues as crop protection, access to a consistent supply of farm labour, food safety and traceability, fair access to markets, research and innovation, and government programming that ensures a more innovative, profitable, and sustainable industry for future generations.
The horticultural sector is one of Canada's largest agrifood industries. Today farm-gate sales with additional processing, supply chain, and induced impacts create an economic footprint of over $11.4 billion in real GDP. With over 27,500 horticultural crops in Canada covering close to one million acres of land and providing over $4 billion in annual direct farm cash receipts, horticulture farming is a valuable sector within Canadian agriculture. It has a direct positive impact on rural economies across the country and further positive impacts across industry as a whole.
Members from the horticultural sector have been in Ottawa this week having discussions with members of Parliament on some of the key issues facing the industry. We thank you for the meetings we've had with many of you. We are grateful for the support and interest shown in our meetings.
To allow time for discussion, I will focus my presentation on some of the key areas that will support our sector as we move forward.
The next policy framework must help position Canada's produce sector for success by ensuring that policies and programs are well informed, practical, and beneficial to the produce supply chain. Business risk management programs are very important to our producers, and need to be effective and responsive to help manage the impact of severe events on operations and incomes.
The AgriStability program is designed to provide support when experiencing a large margin decline. It has now been three years since funding was reduced for this program, and savings achieved by these cuts have exceeded targets. This is an important program for our sector. We need to see the level of coverage offered through AgriStability returned to the levels that preceded Growing Forward 2. We would like to see the AgriStability trigger threshold restored to 85% of the producer's reference margin, up from the 70% level under Growing Forward 2.
In the next policy framework, we would also like to see changes to the AgriInvest program, a self-managed producer-government savings account that allows producers to set aside money that can be used to recover during small income shortfalls. This is a simple and low-cost program to administer, with high uptake by producers. We are requesting an increase in the basic contribution rate for matching contributions to 4.5% of the allowable net sales on eligible commodities, and an elimination of caps on government payments. Producers also need more flexibility on removing their own funds first on pre-approved investments.
Innovation is critically important to producers. The next policy framework must include increased support for research and innovation with an enhanced commitment to the produce sector. This is vital to ensure that Canada maintains its reputation as an agricultural leader. This includes expanded research and financial support to biotechnology, paying particular attention to good pest management practices while reducing long and complex regulatory processes that negatively impact competitiveness.
The AgriInnovation program has provided the horticultural industry with nearly $7 million in support of industry-led research, with an additional $2.6 million in industry contributions. Under the next policy framework, there is strong industry support to continue cost-shared funding at the current 75% government and 25% industry levels.
The horticultural industry has had great success within the Canadian agri-science cluster for horticulture 2. Collaboration among industry, private research, universities, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers has demonstrated successful partnerships and has helped move industry priorities forward. The shift to cost-shared research has resulted in researchers being more engaged with industry to find priority areas for research.
The CHC supports the broadening of the number of projects approved under the horticulture science cluster that receive support. We would also like to see open consultation with industry on the nature of funding and associated restrictions with respect to eligibility at the onset of the future agri-science cluster programs.
With regard to the environment, our sector understands that climate change is a global challenge facing industry and government. Climate change impacts many areas of production, such as access to water, pest management, and energy sources. The horticultural sector plays a significant role in ensuring a sustainable sector as well as a secure food supply. We recognize that the federal government has been taking steps to address the challenge.
The CHC asks that climate change measures not place the horticultural sector at a competitive disadvantage. In the next policy framework, we want to ensure that there is federal funding that will address adaptation programs and ensure adequate support towards the resilience and environmental sustainability of the industry.
Public trust is a collaborative effort between government and industry. We must continue to build trust and have programs that best support industry in meeting the increasing demands of consumers and retailers seeking quality assurance and access to markets. This will require continued financial support for innovation to ensure the integrity of domestic food safety and working with our trading partners to achieve food safety outcomes that are comparable to the Canadian level of quality. It will also require improved alignment and integration of federal and provincial food safety assurance systems to make them more scalable and sustainable.
I am pleased to let you know that I have been nominated to be part of the steering committee to work on public trust and social licence.
The horticultural sector benefits enormously from trade. In 2014, 52% of Canadian fruit and vegetable production was exported, representing a farm-gate value of over $2.1 billion. We continually look for opportunities to increase markets for our high-quality produce. The next policy framework must facilitate growth in exports, remove barriers to competitiveness, and work on improved integration regarding plant health, customs, and food safety systems.
I am again pleased to inform the committee that I've been asked to be part of the steering committee to develop the plant and animal health strategy.
I would like to briefly touch on the issue of labour. As committee members know, labour is an ongoing challenge in agriculture. The horticultural sector is significantly impacted when you consider that horticulture represents 50% of the labour gap in agriculture, which translates into a gap of 29,000 workers. Growers always seek to fill vacancies with Canadian workers first; however, with the increasing demand to meet production targets and avoid fruit and vegetable rot on farms, temporary foreign workers play a critically important role in our sector.
The federal government must continue to work with industry to ensure an accessible and reliable workforce. It is important to note that temporary foreign workers generally come for about six months. Most Canadians are looking for full-time employment. Also, our studies have shown that, for every foreign worker we bring in, two full-time Canadian jobs are created within the value chain.
These are some of the key areas that are at the forefront of the horticultural sector as the federal government develops their plan for the agriculture sector for 2018 and beyond. We look forward to continuing the dialogue on these important challenges and opportunities as we work towards a more innovative and sustainable industry.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
[English]
committee members, I want to thank you for inviting me to present DPAC's perspective on the next agricultural policy framework. I'll make my presentation in both official languages and will entertain your questions in French or in English.
[Translation]
First, I would like to take a moment to speak about my organization, the Dairy Processors Association of Canada. Our membership is made up of medium and large processors whose business models vary from multinational, publicly traded companies, to cooperatives and companies with closed capital.
Our processors purchase more than 85% of the total milk produced in Canada.
[English]
The economic footprint of the dairy processing sector is significant in Canada. Dairy processing has a material presence in every province, with a revenue exceeding $17 billion in 2015. Dairy processing directly generates $3.7 billion in gross domestic product. When indirect and induced effects are considered, the Canadian dairy sector generates a total GDP of nearly $18 billion. We support over 23,000 direct jobs, with an aggregate payroll of over $1 billion annually. When taking into account direct, indirect, and induced jobs, the dairy processing sector is the bedrock for over 211,000 jobs in Canada, with wages and benefits of about $9.6 billion.
More important is where the dairy processing jobs are located. Many of the plants are in rural areas where there are few other opportunities of employment. Although we may not be able to assign and add value to that factor, for the communities where those plants are located, they know the value.
With the next agricultural policy framework, Canada wants to ensure that it can have a vibrant agrifood sector for generations to come. For this to happen, agriculture and food processing must be in lockstep. In the dairy industry, dairy farmers and processors operate in a supply management system. Most recently, we have concluded an agreement in principle with dairy producers, which will result in the modernization of supply management here at home. This sets the stage for both sectors of our industry to tackle opportunities, but also face threats. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about some of those threats.
Although we, too, await the promises of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, the threats that come with it are real. The import tariff-free of some 18,000 tonnes of European cheese will likely displace cheese produced here at home. According to our estimates, absent of mitigation measures, the potential loss to our economy is $720 million annually and some 2,900 jobs. That said, the dairy industry in Canada is resilient. We'll roll up our sleeves, and we'll find a way to adapt under the new environment created by CETA.
Let me be clear. It's first and foremost our responsibility to adapt, but we will need some support from governments. The recent announcement by the of a fund for the modernization of the industry was seen as a positive first step. However, before you can prepare for the future, we first need to mitigate our losses. This is why the allocation of new cheese tariff rate quotas, an integral part of the CETA negotiations, represents the next step for government to take in helping the industry adapt.
Both dairy processors and producers share the opinion that these licences should be assigned to dairy processors. We're the only sector in the supply chain, other than dairy producers, for whom losses are real. Others see this as a new business opportunity, but in reality, they have no skin in the game. We're counting on the to make the right decision.
[Translation]
Your work as part of the next agricultural policy framework is crucial in charting the course for the future of the dairy industry in Canada. As part of the stakeholder consultations, we have heard officials and participants highlight the importance of innovation. In this area, dairy processors are committed to innovation, be it as part of a sustainable development approach, improving processes, developing new products or through efforts that go beyond our sector. I look forward to speaking about innovation at greater length during the question period.
[English]
Currently, investment in food processing innovation within Agriculture and Agri-Food represents about 5% of the total budget of the department. This historical trend must be redressed if the overall sector of food processing, including dairy, is to thrive and further contribute to the job market in Canada and the overall economy. Although some have suggested that the food processing sector would be better represented under the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, we're still reflecting on the implications of such a recommendation.
Notwithstanding, DPAC recommends that the Government of Canada, pursuant to the mandate letter of the and the Calgary statement, formally recognize farmers, ranchers, and processors as the foundation of the Canadian food sector. Accordingly, that should grant a higher priority to the food processing sector in the next agricultural policy framework.
We also believe there is a need to have a broader food strategy that rests, in part, on the need for a robust food processing sector, including dairy. The broader strategy is necessary in order to have an integrated approach throughout the industry.
Furthermore, establishing the framework and a broader strategy is only part of the job that lies ahead. While we recognize the importance of ensuring value for dollar for taxpayers, many programs are plagued by administrative burdens, offered through a patchwork of programs and regulations, and frankly, are not user-friendly. These hurdles stand in the way of moving from policy to successful implementation and ultimately reaping the full-value potential of the food industry. Often, the administration of programs is such that they seem oblivious to the competition that exists for international investment dollars.
In this area, DPAC's recommendation is that the federal government include a “one-stop shop” approach to the delivery of its programs in the agriculture and agrifood sector. In other words, our sector has demonstrated that it is willing to invest here at home. We're asking for your support to make it easier for us to do so. I encourage you to mobilize the sector as well, in helping government design the criteria for future programs.
I will take a moment to talk about three programs that were part of Growing Forward 2: Agrilnnovation, AgriMarketing and AgriCompetitiveness.
First, I'll talk about AgriInnovation. Although we're supportive of the objectives of the program, red tape and its financial design prevent it from fully leveraging the opportunities of the sector. Beyond the administration of the program, DPAC recommends adjusting the envelope of the program to be more in sync with the costs of R and D and improving flexibility in the design of contributions associated with the program. Furthermore, the existing food processing science cluster under this program excludes dairy processing. We recommend that a cluster be created specifically for dairy processing.
As for the AgriCompetitiveness and AgriMarketing programs, we recommend that they be reconducted. In the case of the latter, we would offer that the market development stream should allow companies with more than 250 employees and annual sales exceeding $50 million to be eligible.
[Translation]
Finally, the dairy industry faces a growing concern with access to talent and skills. As part of the new framework, we recommend developing an AgriSkills program which would leverage the expertise of dairy processors, producers, and the Canadian Dairy Commission, and fund initiatives such as expanding co-op programs in universities and colleges, internship programs, and food processing programs in colleges and universities.
[English]
Mr. Chair, there is much to say about our industry and the dairy processing sector and leveraging its full potential as part of Canada's economy. I look forward to pursuing the discussion during the question period.
Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses for their important and very interesting presentations.
Mr. Lefebvre, I'm a strong supporter of our supply management system. When we talk about transition plans, we're talking about assistance for the dairy and processing industries.
Last week, I had the honour of participating in a wine and cheese party in my constituency, in Berthierville. The cheese came from the Domaine Féodal cheese factory, which is known around the world. It wins awards everywhere and it's still beating European cheeses.
In the past two to three years, the cheese factory has invested about $1 million in improving its facilities. Its investments are extraordinary.
As you mentioned earlier, the plan announced by the government does not necessarily cover the industry's losses. The annual losses are much higher than the losses predicted in the plan. The government announced $100 million in financial assistance for the processing industry, but we don't yet know the details of the assistance. I know that you're part of the group that will be consulted and that will work on implementing criteria. Do you think the small producers of fine cheeses in Quebec, such as the Domaine Féodal cheese factory or the Ferme Vallée Verte in Saint-Jean-de-Matha, will have access to this compensation? Are you expecting the government to provide other forms of transition assistance?
:
Ms. Brosseau, thank you for your question. I will provide a two-part answer.
All small and large dairy processors should have access to the funding announced. We will establish the access criteria. However, we think the funding must be available to everyone. You spoke of small and medium processors, but you must understand that large processors will also be significantly affected.
Suddenly, the fine cheese industry must deal with the tariff-free importation of 18,000 tonnes of fine cheeses from Europe. This will certainly affect both small and large processors. There's a growing myth that the large processors won't be as heavily affected. I think there's some confusion. The large processors will also be heavily affected.
If a Brie de Meaux enters Canada, there are strong chances it will take the place of a locally produced Brie cheese on the shelves. The consumer may also choose the imported product. In this case, what will a producer do with its production line? Will the producer continue to work at a loss? No. If the producer closes its production line, jobs and investments will be lost. It's a bit of a myth that only the small processors will be affected.
Of course, given the range of their products, large processors may decide to invest in other segments. If a large processor produces fine cheeses, the processor may decide to close that production line and invest more in yogurt production. Nevertheless, it's important to understand that larger processors will also suffer significant losses. All stakeholders in the industry will suffer losses.
That was the first part.
Now, to answer the question of how the amounts will be allocated, I would say the entire industry should be supported. This includes the small, medium and large processors.