Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'll quickly introduce myself. My name, as stated, is Mark Davies and I'm the chair of Turkey Farmers of Canada. I have a farm in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia where I raise turkeys, and I've done so for 25 years. I'm also a second-generation farmer. The farm itself has been around since the first year of supply management for the agency. We bought our farm then.
Once again, thanks for inviting us to present our comments on the next APF.
I'll give you a bit of background on our industry. TFC represents 535 farmers across our great country, in eight member provinces from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, who generated farm cash receipts of almost $400 million in 2015. Over the last five years, farm output has grown by 12%, driven by a growth in production for value-added activity of 19% over that same period.
Across the chain, the turkey sector generates 14,000 jobs and adds economic activity in the amount of $3.3 billion per year, providing Canadians with 95% of their demand for turkey meat and related products. The sector imports $37 million in turkey meat, and exports are valued at $32.4 million per year, based on the 2015 statistics. Canada is also home to a globe-leading turkey genetics sector, specifically supported within the domestic quota system for many years.
Turkey farmers operate, as you well know, within a supply management structure and view supply management as a significant component of Canadian agriculture, including from the standpoint of a business risk management program in and of itself. That's how we view supply management. This has been recognized by parliamentarians and governments and was reinforced in the July 2016 Calgary ministerial statement, and we believe that it will continue to be a strong plank in the next policy platform.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which we are a board member, presented to the committee last week. The CFA has put significant work into contributing to the development of the next policy framework. As you develop and finalize recommendations, we encourage the committee to give the CFA a heavy weighting on their presentations and their objectives.
Our experience at TFC has been largely focused in two areas: research cluster funding through the Canadian Poultry Research Council, and the development, implementation, and review of our on-farm programs specifically dealing with on-farm food safety and flock care. In both cases, our sector has seen benefits from the current and previous framework. This experience shapes our comments for the next policy framework in light of the current and emerging influences on the Canadian agricultural and agrifood sector.
Moving along to the objective for today, which is the next policy framework, the Calgary statement sets out the key areas of focus for the next policy framework, but we will focus our comments on the following three elements today: first, research and innovation; second, the link between agriculture/agrifood and the public; and third, growth in the domestic value-added activities that it supports.
First is research and innovation. We support the cluster funding process that has been in place for the last two policy frameworks. The approach has created opportunity for our sector specifically linked to our TFC research strategy. We see the language of the Calgary statement as a positive indication of where ministers would like to go, at least directionally.
In particular, there are two key pieces to which we would like to draw your attention. First, the strengthening of science, research, and innovation capacity is needed, and the need to address it is not without urgency. The second piece is the supporting of research activities that require sustained commitment. Both of these objectives need attention and further development as Growing Forward 2 ends and the next framework comes into play.
The cluster funding model has been helpful to us and our partners in the Canadian Poultry Research Council, and this five-year model is helpful to our sector and to the researchers. We wonder if there is a way to create a longer-term span on the funding side. This would allow for a more flexible approach to ongoing research and addressing the needs as they emerge.
Finally, on the question of capacity, as you know, there are no federal research facilities for poultry at this point in time. It's very concerning to our industry as a whole. It is very important that the poultry sectors do not get overlooked as federal funding targeted to existing facilities increases now and into the new framework. We believe that it's worth a very considered discussion when it comes to the funding of research for poultry.
The second element is public trust. We all know that this has been in the public eye, especially in the last three to five years, where it has really come to the forefront for a lot of people in understanding how things work in the agricultural world.
As we're all aware, the agriculture and agrifood sector is facing a challenge as well as an opportunity, as the public and consumers rightfully want to know more about production of the food they consume and the consequences of food production and processing on our national resources and our environment. As noted by others, there can be a trust gap—and it is sometimes significant—between the science-based innovation that we use and the consumer acceptability of that innovation. We believe it can be bridged by an understanding of this innovation. Creating that understanding will maintain and deepen the public trust in Canadian agricultural production and food processing.
We've also engaged in the public trust network that was initiated about one year ago. This is an important priority for us. We would support an integrated approach between governments and industry in terms of reinforcing confidence and building trust, as per the Calgary statement, but this has to include consistency of standards applications on product coming into the Canadian market. That's not a new position for anybody in agriculture. Continuing support of programs that work towards, amongst other things, addressing consumer confidence and support for initiatives that bring improvements to practices is certainly warranted.
The last point is value-added growth. The further processing or value-added segment of the market, as I noted in my opening comments, has been the driver of growth in our sector. The value-added activity is strong, and farmers are meeting the needs of the sector through a flexible and market-driven approach to setting our turkey supply. We have also developed and implemented programs that focus on food safety and flock care. Both are important to customers and consumers. These should include an emphasis on value-adding in the next policy framework and they are of high importance to our farmers, especially if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is implemented. Our sector will face high import access and we expect that access will be used to import meat processed to a secondary level—I am referring to boneless meat, which is really the economic driver, and what is mostly imported into Canada—that will be used to a finished level. This represents an area in which a well-informed and integrated approach along the domestic supply chain, with the support of governments, is critical to maintaining and increasing domestic output.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you all today for the opportunity to appear. We've been able to hit only the very high points on three major areas of focus, three areas that overlap with our business plan, which, coincidentally, we just completed in Calgary in May. We see a real dovetailing here of initiatives. It's really no surprise, given the ongoing changes within Canadian agriculture and agrifood. We all have the same focuses now. We're ready to engage collaboratively with you on the committee, with the government, and with officials as required. Thank you for your time.