Agriculture Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

A minute and 10 seconds.

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

Farm renewal is an issue I care deeply about because a number of producers in my riding are over 55 and, in some cases, their children aren't interested in taking over the farm. They haven't invested in the operation for 10 or 15 years. At 60 or 65 years of age, they don't feel the return on investment is worth it and so don't make the investments needed to continue running the farm.

How could the new policy framework support young farmers who are interested in that transition?

[Caroline Emond]

That's an excellent question.

A bit earlier, I talked about ongoing investments as opposed to one investment every five years. The new plan should demonstrate a genuine commitment to agriculture given the important role it plays in our economy. It should also recognize the value of agricultural work, learning and training.

To use an expression that may not be entirely appropriate for a parliamentary committee, I would say that we need to make farming sexy again.

We need to highlight the value of agriculture and show young people the sector's important place in society. We mustn't turn our backs on them. The young people investing in new operations are incredibly dynamic. They are full of ideas and plans. Our job is to make sure forward-looking policies are in place so that these farmers can continue to invest in agriculture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Emond.

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Now we have Mr. Shipley, for six minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

I want to first of all say congratulations to the Dairy Farmers of Canada on the introduction of their new logo. I can tell you that the blue cow, around our home, is the one that gets looked at, so I hope this supplementation and this marketing tool are going to come along and just make a good thing better.

I wasn't going to say this, but you just mentioned something that struck me. In agriculture, as my good friend over here mentioned, there is a concern that the average age of farmers is 55 and that is because in the agricultural world, what we do is not very sexy. That's not right. I have to tell you that I disagree with that. I'm looking at this book about the agricultural workforce, and I'm looking at the farming around my area, whether it's supply management or not. Why is it 55? I can take you to farm after farm where the father doesn't want to leave, and he's my age or older, but the next generation is coming along. Why is it coming along? Because we've made the industry sexy, sorry to say.

I will be honest with you folks. I'd take the majority of our young entrepreneurs and farmers and stick them in a room with any CEO or CAO of a company, and say let's talk about business.

I'm not concerned about it being 55. I'm a long ways past that, but it was always 55. What we have is a brilliant, energetic, technologically advanced group of young people. I'll take you from farm to farm, and you'll see that the number of women who are involved in the management and the workings of them is really quite something. Why? I talk to students coming out of university, and I ask them what they're going to do. “What do you think about farming? Are you thinking about science? Are you thinking about chemistry? Are you thinking about engineering?” I tell them that agriculture has all of those. With regard to research and innovation, this is an industry in which you can have a job, and it will be a good job, because you're in one of the most progressive industries.

I think it's a sexy industry, and I tell that to the young folks, and I want to now try to relate that to the APF.

Any time we see an industry that in seven out of the 10 provinces is ranked number one or number two, then we have a great amount of dedication and respect for it. That's the way it is.

First of all, Dairy Farmers, can you help me? There's a new research facility in Elora. How does that work in terms of the five-year cycle and getting a research project at that facility? You say it's too restricted in terms of the flexibility, so can you give me an example of what we can do to use that as a facility? It is brand new and quite amazing, quite honestly. How can we improve so that the research that comes through that facility...?

Mark, I know you don't have your own, but help me with some of the ones that you have.

Research leads to innovation, which leads to productivity, which often leads to markets, whether domestic or international.

Maybe, Caroline, you could start and then we'll go to Mark.

[Caroline Emond]

Let me just say that the passion, energy, and dynamism of our agriculture industry are very well known by the people who know agriculture, but we need to talk to urban people now. They're the ones who need to understand our job and the hard work and devotion of farmers.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

If I have time, that will be my second question.

[Caroline Emond]

Exactly. That's why I thought we need to make it sexy to them, because we know that already. We're talking to converted people.

What can we do? There are a lot of things that need to be done, and I don't believe that we have enough time in this committee. As I said, we offer our help at any time to give you hints on how to improve.

When you go from one cycle of five years to another cycle of five years, there's always uncertainty. In our presentation, we talked a lot about transitioning, because from one cycle to another, we don't know how the rules will change. Will there still be money? Will agriculture still be important? I think there is the longer vision of commitment, and then, yes, you do have a program or framework that is for a shorter period of time, but that always creates uncertainty. When you talk about building facilities, investing, and building a team of researchers, that needs some continuum. You cannot plan for just the next five years.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Does it mean having more of a living document that is flexible with the times and the changes within the industry? Is that sort of what you are saying?

[Caroline Emond]

Yes, it's a living...a continuum.

[Mark Davies]

I appreciate the comments on the concern of those who are 55. I'm so thrilled that I fall slightly under that. I'm still a young farmer, as they say, but my father is 82. He is still on the farm, because he loves it. Having said that, it's not as much of an issue in supply management. For that second generation, it's not that much of a conversation. It just happens, because of the stability—but because of the recent talks in trade, that is not as sure a thing as it might have been 10 years ago. It's about taking a second look, which someone should. I think it speaks well for supply management and the structure, reinvestment, and programs that different agencies have to encourage youth to get involved.

When it comes to the investment itself, in recent.... Just very quickly, off the top of my head, and Phil can correct me or add to any of this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I guess we are going to have to stop you. We're out of time, unfortunately. This will conclude this round about APF this morning. I want to thank you for coming here and being part of our discussion on this. I'm sure it will be part of our report and recommendations.

I'd like to thank everyone for meeting with the committee today.

We will take a short break to give the witnesses time to exit the room and give our next panel a chance to take their seats.

I'm sure we'll talk again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome to the second hour of our continuing study on APF. Today with us in this part of the discussion we have the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council with Doug Chorney and Portia MacDonald-Dewhirst, and also Canadian Organic Growers with Ashley St Hilaire, director, and Geneviève Grossenbacher.

In full disclosure, I've spent a lot of hours with Mr. Chorney and Ms. MacDonald-Dewhirst as part of the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, and they do fantastic work. Probably the good thing about it is I'm not going to be able to ask you questions and so it will be very much impartial, but I certainly want to highlight the work you've been doing for the past few years.

Also, on Canadian Organic, part of my farm is certified organic and so again I will not be able to ask any questions. I will be very neutral on this one, but I'm sure it's going to be a very good discussion.

We'll start with opening statements from Ms. MacDonald-Dewhirst for up to 10 minutes.

[Portia MacDonald-Dewhirst, Executive Director, Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here with you today to help you as you consider the new policy framework for agriculture.

We all enjoy the benefits of abundant, healthy, safe, and affordable food in Canada due to a world-class food system, one that feeds our 37 million Canadians, and as the fifth-largest exporter, one that feeds a multitude of people around the world.

This system relies on people—farm and food businesses and their workers—to grow, harvest, prepare, and package its delicious products. Unfortunately, the business of farm and food production is struggling to find enough workers, and its future is in jeopardy.

Our research clarifies that 10 years ago, the industry was 30,000 workers short. Today that figure has doubled to 59,000 workers, and there are clear expectations that it will double again in 10 years to 114,000 workers.

On-farm job vacancies are exceptionally high, at a 7% vacancy rate. The national average for other industries is only 1.8%, so this is a clear exception and a clear problem. It's costing the farm industry $1.5 billion in lost sales revenue each year. That's $1.5 billion on the primary agriculture side alone.

These vacancies exist despite extensive efforts by business owners to recruit and attract workers. There are lots of reasons for this. The work typically happens in rural Canada. A lot of it is seasonal. And many Canadians are that much more removed from farming backgrounds and so don't even think about working in this industry.

This is certainly something to be worried about. Not only is this an industry that supplies the food we eat, it's also a huge driver of Canada's economy, as you well know, accounting for close to 7% of Canada's GDP.

What's good for you and me, our families, and Canada as a whole is to ensure that this industry thrives. Right now, the sustainability and growth of our food industry is at risk. As you contemplate the next policy framework for agriculture and agrifood, it's critically important that this risk be acknowledged and mitigated in an intentional and strategic way. We can't put our heads in the sand and 10 years from now be in a position where we realize that we have a shortage of 114,000 workers.

However, at this point, there's no overt mention of the workforce issue in the next policy framework. This is true despite the fact that farmers and producers have been clear and have indicated that it's the number one risk to business success moving forward. What is required in the new policy framework is that we specifically address the workforce shortage and support Canada's food systems' competitiveness and growth.

This can be accomplished with the addition of a seventh priority on labour, business development, and competitiveness. It's actually a title Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has used in its own consultations with industry on the next policy framework, recognizing that this component was missing.

This seventh priority area would support key recommendations of Canada's national labour task force, which many of you are very familiar with, to strategically implement the workforce action plan. A labour, business development and competitiveness priority could achieve great things.

First, it should involve building a national career awareness initiative, a campaign to clarify the extensive and exciting work opportunities the industry has to offer. Building public trust is now recognized as an important activity for the industry, and when we clarify how food is produced, we have an opportunity to also clarify who's involved and what a great industry this is to work in.

The second thing the seventh priority should involve is improving diversity in the sector, including the full participation of women in the industry. If we want this industry to thrive and grow, we need to ensure that it's filled to capacity with the brightest people who are willing to push innovation and success.

That means we as an industry need to do better, to encourage more Canadians, young and old, those from rural and urban backgrounds, men and women, and new Canadians to consider working in this sector and ensure that there are no barriers to entry or advancement for anyone in the industry.

Third, the next policy framework's seventh priority should also involve the development of affordable and accessible training including online learning options to ensure that workers in the industry get access to the latest and most effective production techniques as well as the latest and best practices in human resource and management techniques, no matter how busy or how remote their location is.

A strategic plan has been well researched and documented by the labour task force to tackle this labour challenge. The agriculture and agri-food workforce action plan should also be managed and implemented as a seventh priority. It includes clear short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure the industry can get ahead of this challenge and address it in a meaningful way to advantage the industry to grow and thrive into the future.

So before you take your next bite of whatever it is you're going to take as a snack or lunch, think about those extensive job vacancies and that 7% job vacancy rate. Think about the stress those empty positions have on our businesses in this industry and the role of government in labour policies, immigration policies, and agricultural policies. Think about what's at stake for you and me, our families, and all Canadians if we don't work together to solve this in a meaningful way.

That's it for me.

[Doug Chorney, Vice-Chair, Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, CAHRC, to be here today. I'm here as a producer from East Selkirk, Manitoba, where I produce grains, oilseeds, and vegetables. I'm a member of the Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba, which is an implementation partner of the Canadian agriculture and agrifood workforce action plan. I'm also the vice-chair of CAHRC.

CAHRC has quantified the labour gap farmers are facing today and in the future. Portia also identified for you the current vacancy rates. At this juncture, industry stakeholders are requesting that our government policies be responsive to their needs as employers, in order to fill positions and run their farms and processing operations.

We eat three times a day. Canada depends on the agriculture and agrifood industry, our Canadian consumers, our trade exports, our workforce, and our Canadian economy. The industry is seeking to work with the federal government on a whole-of-government approach.

This is where Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has an important leadership role to play. Agriculture labour needs to be the concrete seventh priority of the next policy framework, because workforce shortages are affecting all of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's proposed priorities: innovation, public trust, sustainability, and international markets and trade. It's the number-one business risk issue and is severely affecting our capacity for value-added agriculture and agrifood processing.

Under the new seventh priority for labour, business development, and competitiveness, there are four initiatives that could be actioned to address the inadequate supply of workers. These priorities will help position Canada to become a future food superpower with a strong, highly skilled, and trained agri-workforce.

Number one is improving diversity. We support women's inclusion and participation in the workforce. Women currently make up 30% of the agriculture workforce, and outreach initiatives are needed for under-represented groups, including women.

Second, we need to grow the agri-workforce, and we need national career initiatives. We know we need to get Canadians engaged in agriculture, and agriculture offers quality career opportunities with competitive wages. A national career campaign is needed to raise awareness and to disseminate agricultural career opportunities to media influencers, educators, and the public, increasing industry's access to labour with under-represented groups such as youth and the unemployed.

Third, we must increase training. We need to improve the knowledge and skills of workers through the development of affordable, accessible training, including online e-learning to ensure that farm and food workers in rural Canada have access to training support.

Finally, we have the Canadian agriculture and agrifood workforce action plan, a strategic road map for jobs and growth in rural Canada. The action plan is a collaborative industry effort. It is the culmination of over four years of work by 26 members of the agriculture and agrifood labour task force, 13 AAFC value-chain round tables including seafood, and 77 agricultural groups and companies supporting its implementation. It is critical that this strategy be adequately funded, allowing the plan to be actioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Chorney, I'm going to have to cut it here, because we're already past your time.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Organic Growers.

Ms. St Hilaire, you have a maximum of 10 minutes. Go ahead.

[Ashley St Hilaire, Director, Programs and Government Relations, Canadian Organic Growers]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of this committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today about Canada's next agricultural policy framework.

My name is Ashley St Hilaire and I am a director with Canadian Organic Growers. I am joined here today by Geneviève Grossenbacher, who runs an organic farm in Quebec and was the vice-president of Canadian Organic Growers for many years.

Canadian Organic Growers is Canada's only national organic charity with supporters and chapters in all regions of Canada. Our focus is on education. We produce a number of textbooks on organic agriculture. We publish a national magazine and host a national organic lending library, and we offer a suite of programs and courses on organic production and the Canadian organic standards.

Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to the benefit of the environment and our economy. Organic production systems are becoming more efficient and more productive, and our government has played a big role in improving our techniques through funding of the organic science cluster.

The science clusters are a fantastic program that provides a crossroad for industry and government to partner on research. The funding ratio of 25% industry and 75% government for this program was an achievable cost-share ratio for our burgeoning sector that otherwise lacks consistent funding sources. We have been informed at consultations that the cost-share ratios would change from what they are now to a possible 60/40 government-industry cost share under the new framework. Should this cost share change to this proposed 60/40 split, not only does that put a greater burden on industry to fundraise for Canadian agricultural research, but it incentivizes industry to fund research that only benefits proprietary projects and not projects that focus on public goods, such as sustainability and pollution reduction. Thus, to this committee, we recommend a flexible cost-share ratio that maintains a 75/25 cost share for projects that generate a public good, limiting the 60/40 cost share to projects that only develop proprietary products and techniques.

In the next agricultural policy framework I have also read that the government plans to enhance knowledge and technology transfer. I very much hope this to be true, because the entire $1.1-million budget for knowledge transfer that was included in the organic science cluster application was cut completely. I strongly urge this committee to not let knowledge transfer activities fall to the bottom of the priority funding list in the next policy framework.

Moving to the topic of the organic marketplace, I want to share some facts with you. As of 2015, there were over 5,151 operators with organic certification in Canada. This includes producers, handlers, and manufacturers.

Canada has the fifth largest organic market in the world, valued at $4.7 billion a year; and this is up from $3.5 billion in 2013.

Recent consumer studies show that 56% of Canadians buy organics every week and that 80% of these consumers plan to maintain or increase their organic purchases.

The demand for organics in Canada is increasing at a rate of 16% per year and domestic supply is not keeping pace.

Organics in Canada remain a burgeoning sector still representing less than 2% of Canadian agriculture. However, with the support of our government, we have established ourselves on the global market and have negotiated organic equivalency agreements with 90% of our major trading partners.

You may ask me to provide some trade data on organics. Unfortunately, that is not something I can do at this time because our government rarely segments out organic data from any data it collects on agriculture and trade in this country. We need more data so our sector can continue to measure our success and the success of the investments made by government in organics, and to understand the challenges and risks our industry faces. In the next agricultural policy framework we would like to see organic data segmented out from all agricultural data that the government collects. A good starting point would be to add an organic question to the next census of agriculture.

Returning to the topic of trade, it is important that this committee recognize it is the rigour and reputation of the Canadian organic standards that allows for organic trade agreements to exist. As you know, our Canadian organic standards, which are developed by industry, are owned by the government through the Canadian general standards board, and Agriculture Canada pays $39,000 a year to the CGSB to keep the Canadian organic standards a public resource.

It's important that this committee recognize that the Canada organic brand is owned by the government, and every five years the Canadian organic standards must be reviewed and revised in order to keep them relevant and compliant with our international equivalency agreements.

The cost to do the most recent review, completed just this year, was over $1 million, which included $600,000 in fees to the CGSB paid by the Treasury Board, $300,000 from the agri-marketing program, and $100,000 fundraised by industry. The review process is onerous and time-consuming, but it is absolutely necessary.

Our sector is facing a new risk. We're being told that government funding for our standards revisions will be cut. I must point out that the maintenance of the organic standards held in other countries, such as the United States and the European Union, is fully funded by government.

If our government chooses not to fund the next review of the Canadian organic standards in 2020, this would likely lead to a collapse of the Canada organic brand and would invalidate all our international equivalency agreements. I urge this committee to not let that happen, and secure support for the maintenance of Canada's organic standards in perpetuity in the next agricultural policy framework.

Another important topic to cover is the expansion of the organic products regulations, the legislation that governs the Canadian organic sector and is now part of the Safe Food for Canadians Act. The scope of the organic regulation is limited to food products, animal feed, and seed, but the organic marketplace, in reality, includes many other agricultural products, such as organic pet food, personal care products, plants and flowers, textiles, and a new emerging opportunity, organic marijuana.

That means, as a result of their regulation, that imported non-food organic products are being sold in the Canadian marketplace, while Canadian organic operators are restricted from certifying these same products with the Canada organic brand. A step in the right direction within the next agricultural policy framework would be to work with the organic sector to expand the organic products regulations to include all agricultural products. This was done in the United States and has worked well in creating new domestic and export opportunities for organics.

Why organics at all?

Organic agriculture is an example of a successful clean-growth industry that offers a model for promoting climate-friendly food production and allows farmers to command a higher premium for their products. Organics are less dependent on non-renewable resources and manufactured inputs, and build resilience in the face of climatic extremes.

Environmental services are also inherent in organic production and are well documented. Organic systems store higher levels of carbon in the soil. They promote biodiversity, enhance soil health, reduce pest outbreaks, reduce nutrient leaching, prevent contamination of water, and use energy efficiently. Organics are attracting new farmers to our rural communities, and many of these people are women. On top of this, organic certification uses a third party assurance system that is monitored and enforced by the CFIA.

When you put all this together, you can conclude organics in themselves are a business risk management tool that can help all farmers mitigate against price and input volatility, negative environmental impacts, energy use, and public trust issues. On top of that, consumers in Canada want organics, however our domestic supply in this country is not keeping pace.

The Canadian organic opportunity is waiting on our doorstep, and much more can be done in the next agricultural policy framework to support the organic approach to producing food. This approach spans all sectors of agriculture and goes all along the value chain. That's what makes us unique.

What I've had time to discuss today is only the tip of the iceberg. I can list a few more recommendations that I would be happy to discuss with this committee.

For the next policy framework, we recommend that this government consider developing an environmental goods and services tax credit that rewards and incentivizes environmental stewardship on farms. Metrics measured for a tax credit could include reduction in energy use, increases in carbon soil sequestration, and prevention of nitrogen loss.

We recommend that a revenue-neutral system for carbon pricing be developed that reinvests revenues from agriculture into the industry. These revenues could be used to fund an environmental goods and services tax credit.

We recommend that the government perform a life-cycle assessment and energy audit of the entire Canadian agriculture and agrifood system. The assessment would look at each sector in detail, with a focus on embedded energy use on farms, in transport, processing, retail, and in the kitchens of Canadians.

The U.S. and the United Kingdom have completed the same assessments, which should be looked at as an example for Canada.

We recommend that, in the next policy framework, flexible business risk management tools be developed, which could include and should include comprehensive production insurance for organic operators that recognizes diversified operations. We support the maintenance of the AgriInvest and advanced payments BRM tools. We recommend that public trust programs, should they be included in the next framework, focus on assisting industry and building transparency and assurance systems to better address consumer demand for these pillars of social licence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Now we'll begin our round of questions, starting with Mr. Anderson for six minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. It's exciting to hear from groups that are really looking forward to the future and see very strong opportunities for agriculture. I don't have a lot of time, but I have a number of questions.

I was wondering, for the organic folks, what provinces have effective organic promotional research programs and whether you see a way that APF could tie the federal programs together with the provinces. Who's doing a good job provincially and is there a way that we can tie that into APF?

[Geneviève Grossenbacher, Organic Farmer, Canadian Organic Growers]

Thanks for that question. It's an excellent question.

Indeed, we do see that some provinces have better support promotion. You're particularly curious about that, right? I know that Quebec, for instance, is a great province to look at. For instance, under Growing Forward 2, they have invested $10 million over three years to support the growth of organics. That started only a year and a half ago and already there are reports that we could share with you showing the increase in transition that has meant and the increase in certified organic production that has led to.

It has increased production and there are a lot of studies coming out now that also show that they've budgeted money for promotion within the public, and that has also translated to weekly sales of organic products. So that's definitely one to turn to, but also I know that in B.C. and the Maritimes there have been a lot of successes, as well as in Ontario.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can I ask you a question? This is changing direction. Is there something that we can recommend in terms of export market development for you? You talked about separating out the organic trade data. I think that's a good idea and an important component, but are there other things that APF could do for you to develop our export market and trade? That's one of the components and one of the things we've been talking about over the last couple of weeks here.

[Ashley St Hilaire]

Yes, and there has been some progress made in that. The CFIA and the market access secretariat are working together to make that process more transparent and to allow industry to participate more in those discussions, because, for the most part, they have been very much happening. The equivalency agreements are happening behind closed doors, so industry has not participated. The equivalency agreements are complicated. Oftentimes not all of the products qualify for the equivalency.

With every different country, there's sort of a different equivalency agreement and it makes it a bit complicated. For that reason, it's imperative that our industry be consulted on those agreements. Up and coming right now is Mexico and, it looks like, South Korea. So it's necessary to hold the CFIA and the market access secretariat to those promises to engage industries so that we can negotiate fairer organic equivalency agreements.

The U.S. one is particularly problematic, and we could submit some very detailed comments about what needs to be rectified there.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Do you find yourself being invited on the trade trips and those kinds of things? Are you part of the group of people who are typically invited along or could the government do better than they've done with that?

[Ashley St Hilaire]

No, we're not invited. I've never been invited.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Is that something you'd recommend?