Agriculture Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Andrea Brocklebank]

It has typically not worked very well.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I think some of the questions that were asked by my colleague David about sound science and ways to improve the regulatory approval processes, to eliminate red tape, to not redo the work, and to recognize work that's already been done are really important. I think it's also important to see what CFIA is doing. I think you mentioned the importance of making sure that CFIA is adequately resourced. I think it would be important to do an audit to make sure enough funding and enough people are in place to ensure that the job is being done adequately.

I don't know if you have anything to add.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

We operate in a North American environment, and Bryan can speak to this from a feedlot perspective. If he can't be cost-competitive with his U.S. counterparts, cattle will move south of the border, whether that's to be fed down there, or slaughtered down there.

This is a huge concern for our industry. We have excess feeding capacity right now, and we have excess slaughter capacity right now, so to see the closure of a plant due to these types of issues, when we're just not getting products approved, or can't maintain competitiveness, that's a huge concern for our industry. It's really a combination: we need market access; we need timely product approvals; we need labour, and all of these things together.

Also, research does play a huge role in that product development to maintain our competitiveness.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We'll now go to Madam Lockhart for six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for being here today. I think you bring us some good information.

Being from Atlantic Canada, I often hear from constituents and from farmers that they are trying to work out that balance between food costs and safe products.

I was encouraged to hear you say that having public discussion on record like this is good, because I think we really do need to open those lines of communication and talk and connect consumers with their food sources so they understand what they're having.

When I had the opportunity in the spring to meet with some of the cattlemen from Atlantic Canada, I was very impressed by the efficiencies they brought to my attention. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the efficiencies that are currently in place and on how those are translating to food costs in Atlantic Canada or Canada as a whole?

[Bryan Thiessen]

I'll use the example of corn production in the States. That is a wonderful innovation. The yields have increased significantly over the past 20 years.

In western Canada, our cereal grains haven't had that same kind of increase, primarily because Canada is a small market. Barley is a very small market on the world stage, so companies do not invest in those types of products the same way they will with corn, which is used nationally. By producing greater amounts of corn, they have reduced their cost of feed going into the animal, which has then put Canada at a competitive disadvantage against the American market. We are trading a commodity across the border, and it is a commodity, so the price that is set is a North American price that we have to compete against.

One of the things that producers are running into is that they are not going to be competitive, in terms of costs, in the long run the way they're going, compared to the situation in the American market. From a consumer point of view, I would say that the utilization of those technologies has resulted in a lower price of beef being maintained, which we wouldn't have seen if we hadn't used them. Obviously, if we had been able to produce corn and use less land to feed the same animals, we'd be bringing our overall cost of production down.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

In terms of actual measurements, we spend a lot of time trying to demonstrate the value of our investments, not only to Ag Canada, who funds the science clusters, but also to our producers, who provide check-off. The biggest thing we've been able to see, through innovations in animal health and those types of things, is an increase in calf survivability. We've also seen a rise in crop yields and extended grazing, so producers are able to graze sometimes into January and February, which was unheard of when I was younger. We've seen all of these things, yet the average daily gain in feedlots continues to decline. All of these things are done through very incremental long-term improvements. They're not silver bullets. It's a matter of continued inventive research, whether that's on the farm or working with researchers. I think that's the biggest thing. We're not focused on just one silver bullet. It's all across the chain. I think we see that even with some of the food-safety innovations. We have to better trace these things and isolate these issues very quickly and expediently so that we don't have public confidence issues, which is a big concern for our industry.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

As we know, food costs for any commodity are generated through supply and demand. What are the projections for demand and supply for the industry?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

That's a tough one.

In our industry we export, in some cases, as much as 50% of our production, and we want to do that. A beef carcass has 300 parts, and we in Canada don't eat all of them. The value we get is from exporting those. Everybody here wants grind and loins. If we can export the rest, we're doing well.

Our demand situation is totally dependent on market access at this point. If we can grow that through markets like the EU and other markets, such as Japan or Asia, it's huge for us in terms of the long-term sustainability of our plants, our feedlots, and our cow-calf producers.

In terms of class of production, it's variable. If you have a drought, your feed costs skyrocket. We know our industry is currently facing challenges in terms of those types of things, but at the same time, I think generally producers are very innovative and resilient. We need to support them and make sure they're not heavily impacted by higher labour costs, higher input costs, and those types of things. That's what we need to do. We need to give them the right environment so they can handle those droughts, those ebbs and flows that they do handle.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Great.

From that perspective, I have a quick comment, I guess, more than anything. When we're talking about exporting and the expectations of these countries that we want to export to, I think that's part of the reason we want to look at the regulation around this as well.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lockhart.

I'll move now to Mr. Drouin for six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming today. I really appreciate your spending some time with the committee to inform us and educate us. This is actually our first meeting on GMOs. I share your views in terms of proper education. I think there is a lack of scientific and evidence-based education in Canada. The minority is loud, but we have to ensure that we give the right information. I know that Canada recently fully restored beef exports to Mexico, and we've reopened exports to Taiwan, and I know we've recently expanded beef access for China.

You talked about competitiveness and genetically modified feed. How important is that? Market access is important, but at the same time you have to remain competitive. Can you talk a bit about genetically modified feed and how that plays into your competitiveness?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

It's a delicate balance. We need market access. Absolutely we need to continue to grow that, but we need it to be based on science. To fundamentally alter production practices and to not have access to those technologies can severely hamper our industry. I go back to the fact that we're a North American industry. If we negotiate something that means we can't use genetically modified corn in feed for our animals, those animals will move south of the border. If the U.S. has a more favourable trade agreement, they'll go to that country, just not under a Canadian label.

I think that's the one thing we're always cognizant of. First of all, we need to ensure that we negotiate things based on sound science. It may take a bit longer, but we hope that it prevails.

That's why it's so important for us to present sound science as we move into discussions with the EU. Demonstrating the animal transport outcomes that we've achieved through research is huge in order to answer some of the animal welfare questions they have around travel distance times. Having the science to support those things as you go into a discussion is much better than trying to defend production practices either when you're exporting or when you're near to signing a deal.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I want to congratulate you on your animal care program. It's important. Urban Canada does worry about it, but it's important to inform them that the way we treat animals has evolved and there's a lot of innovation in the sector now.

With respect to horns—the change for farmers but also for the animal—not needing to have their horns cut off anymore is a good thing.

I want to make sure I heard you correctly. In your opening statement, you said that even though beef may consume GMO feed, there is no trace of GMO in the beef. Is that correct?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Yes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

So when my mother tells me you are what you eat, she's wrong.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I think the big thing there is, first of all, that genetically modified feed is safe. We eat it. We eat it as consumers when we're eating these things, when we eat corn, so there are no adverse effects. Of course, to deal with some of the public concerns, we look at whether there are residues and whether we can see any measurable differences in the meat. There are no residues. “Residues” is a negative term because it's often linked to something like antimicrobials. The point is that a billion animals have been looked at and the meat looks the same whether it's coming from feed that is non-GMO or GMO. l think our industry is really well positioned to look at that. In western Canada, we feed barley, which is not genetically modified, and we feed corn in other areas. The beef is the same.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

How can Canada ensure that we inform our international partners? I'm afraid that certain countries will block us based on “Facebook science” or “Google science”.

How do you think Canada can improve that education process on an international basis?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I think it involves a combination of things.

I think it's having the sound science to present to our negotiators to ensure they're very aware of it and to present to those countries. We've also found that it's even a matter of having our beef producers being active within those countries and getting to know their industry and their systems to provide some of those reassurances, because, frankly, sometimes it also helps to have that come from producers themselves.

The producers—many of them behind me—feed the same products to their kids. I feed it to mine. I think there is some value in that advocacy effort around these types of discussions of putting a face on people. This isn't about factory farms; this is about family farms. They're large farms in many cases, but these people produce a safe high-quality product.

I think it's a combination. You have to have the science and the marketing, but there's this advocacy piece that I think our industry is increasingly understanding, whether it's domestic or internationally. We need to put a face to our product and make sure that people are comfortable with it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

You have about 10 seconds, but I know that doesn't work.

We're now going to move into our second round, and I'll go to Mr. Gourd, for six minutes, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a great deal of respect for beef producers out west. In my previous life, before becoming an MP, I was a beef producer. I saw the developments and all the efforts made by associations out west. The issue of genetics was often provided as an example. Many of my producer friends purchased cows from western Canada to improve their herds. Biotechnology in the feeding domain has resulted in feed being more digestible today.

About 20 years ago, or 20 to 25 years ago, when an animal gained 2 to 2.2 pounds a day, that was a good result. I still have many friends who own feedlots in Quebec. Today, they speak of four pounds a day. I don't think we've focused enough on the advancement of biotechnology, the quality of the animal, the quality of the meat and the time saved. There's no doubt that the North American beef industry is very competitive. Without these advances, I think Canada would have major problems.

Three weeks ago, I heard some bad news. A French-language show, RDI économie, reported that interest groups were exerting pressure and wanted a $0.45 per kilo tax imposed on Canadian beef because people find there's too much beef in Canada. They want less beef because they consider that, on an environmental level, we produce too much beef. I was shocked by this news. RDI économie raised the issue with Marcel Groleau, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec. He was also shocked by the statement. This type of tax would have a bombshell effect on the Canadian industry.

Do you hear these types of statements out west? RDI économie is a Radio-Canada show. Where there's smoke, there's fire. If the media is already starting to talk about it, the reason is that people are exerting pressure. Does that worry you?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

We've seen various proposals. I can't speak specifically to that one, but we've heard this before. I think that's why, as an industry, we've invested a lot more heavily to demonstrate how we've been able to reduce our environmental footprint. We've been able to reduce water use, manure production, and all of these things.

The other area, though, that I think is important for us as an industry, and something we've previously not done, is to measure our contributions to the environment. We're often positioned as negatively impacting the environment. Eighty percent of an animal's life is spent on grass and forage. The big thing there is that it is converting grass into protein, which other proteins can't do.

If you're from my area in Alberta, you'll know that we can't grow grain. We grow grass. When we're doing that, we're converting it into a high-quality protein, contributing to biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and all of these things.

This is where we have to change the conversation. There are a lot of people who aren't aware that without cattle production, that land will be tilled up and eventually crops will be grown on it and it won't be to the benefit of anybody on our globe.

The other thing is that I think we're trying to put this into perspective. Canada's contribution to global greenhouse gases, I believe, is 2%. The cattle industry's contribution to Canada's greenhouse gas production is 2%. Papers have come out on methane-producing, burping cows and how horrible they are. It's 2% of 2% globally. When we put that into perspective against the benefits we contribute to wildlife, habitat, and all of these things, we need to better measure that so we can demonstrate that moving forward.

I'll be honest: that's something the industry hasn't necessarily done. There was a lot of focus on investing in productivity improvements and all of these things but not on demonstrating the benefit that they're leading to reduced environmental impacts for our industry, reduced water use, and those types of things.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

The Canadian beef brand is recognized worldwide. People often use photos of Canadian herds when speaking of Canada here and abroad.

What is your association's vision for the future and what are the most significant challenges it will encounter in the next 5, 10 or 20 years with the new biotechnologies and genomics? In the future, what challenges will Canadian beef producers face in the global market?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I think relative to genetic modification, it's ensuring that product approvals are timely and science-based and that they don't impede the use of those technologies.

Any time we develop a new technology, if industry can't use it to achieve those outcomes, we've lost, especially if other countries that are also exporting can use those technologies. That's an important differentiation. If technologies or animal health products are approved in one market and not another, that's a challenge for us.

I think that in terms of this, that's the biggest challenge we have, but we also have to keep ahead in developing those innovations to continue to help our industry as we move forward. We operate on costs at this point.

[Bryan Thiessen]

I'd like to just add quickly that I believe our population base in the world is growing. We're going to have to utilize technologies to feed the population going forward. I think educating the consumer to see the benefits of these technologies rather than to fear them is something we will need to do going forward.