Agriculture Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Dale Adolphe]

I certainly agree that education has to be a big component, and in three aspects. We heard today that consumers are the most wasteful: 40%, or something like that, of the food waste is from the consumer. Food poisoning happens in the home more than it happens any place else. That's consumer education. The last part is a basic lack of understanding of modern-day agriculture.

I'll use myself as an example. My parents farmed in southeastern Saskatchewan. I grew up and worked on that farm. My kids visited grandpa and grandma on that farm, and their kids might never be on a farm. In four generations you have a total disconnect with primary agriculture.

That disconnect can result in regulating urban myths, and that is not where we want to go. We want to remain science-based. To remain science-based, it has to channel or parallel that education activity.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Ross, would you like to add anything?

[Scott Ross]

I would very much echo many of the comments I've already heard. I think education has to be a big focal point of a national food policy. Speaking to the issues that Mr. Adolphe just raised as well as those by Jean-Charles earlier, one area in which we see a significant opportunity is education, in addition to the issues around food waste and food literacy, and all the benefits it could afford in terms of nutrition and food safety.

More than anything, however, I think there really is an opportunity to raise awareness around the agricultural sector. This has a number of benefits, one of which is closing the gap that was just referred to between many Canadians and their experience with hands-on elements of agricultural production and the entire food value chain. Furthermore, I think the issues around agricultural labour remain major concerns for our members.

One of the benefits of increasing awareness of the sector is in pointing to the many opportunities that exist for careers in this sector. Career promotion and skills development is a huge piece and an area in which a national food policy can play a critical role by identifying the opportunities that exist in the sector, making Canadians more aware of what actually takes place in food production and looking to ways in which we can match the labour demands that exist in this sector with supply from within Canada to meet those needs. That is certainly another critical element to education and a national food policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

On that note, unfortunately this is all the time we have for this first hour.

Thank you, Mr. Ross, Mr. Adolphe, Mr. Masciotra and Mr. Le Vallée. This meeting was very interesting.

We'll take two minutes to change, and then we're back for the second hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome to the second hour of our study on food policy in Canada.

With us in the second hour we have the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, with—not a stranger—Mr. Dan Darling, and also Mr. Brady Stadnicki.

Welcome to both of you.

As well, from the Canadian Organic Growers we have Ashley St Hilaire, director of programs and government relations, and also Mr. Jim Robbins, president, Organic Federation of Canada.

Welcome to both of you.

We will start with a seven-minute opening statement. I'll leave it to you, Mr. Darling.

[Dan Darling, President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you today. As stated, my name is Dan Darling, and my family and I farm and raise cattle near Castleton, Ontario. I am currently president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and on behalf of Canada's 60,000 beef cattle producers, we are pleased to share our views on Canada's food policy. With me today is Brady Stadnicki, CCA staff here in Ottawa.

Earlier this year, the Government of Canada outlined its objectives for Canada's food policy, stating that it will set a long-term vision for health, environmental, social, and economic goals related to food, while defining actions that can be taken in the short term. CCA has been actively engaging in the food policy consultations and will continue to collaborate in this policy-making process.

Before getting into the proposed themes the food policy will focus on, I'd like to make a few overarching recommendations regarding the policy's development.

First, the governance structure or council that provides guidance to FPT governments developing the policy must have strong representation from agricultural producers. CCA believes it is important for this process to be collaborative and inclusive of civil society, but farmers and ranchers are the foundation of Canada's food system and it is critical that we play a meaningful role in developing this policy.

If designed and implemented properly, Canada's food policy has an opportunity to bridge the gap between the Canadian public and modern Canadian agriculture. As an industry, we understand that building public trust is very important, and that we need to reconnect with consumers and the public. This initiative has the potential to bring the public and farmers and ranchers together to find shared values in Canada's food and agricultural systems.

It is also imperative that Canada's food policy be science-based and utilize the best available data and research. Clear goals, priorities, and baselines need to be established to build the food policy into a road map that is truly useful to guide actions. It has to be flexible and updated regularly to account for changing market and environmental conditions, and should leverage and complement current federal initiatives rather than duplicate them.

The proposed themes of the food policy are increasing access to affordable food; improving health and food safety; conserving soil, water, and air; and growing more high-quality food. While we can definitely support all of these principles, it is important to provide context. For example, we all want access to affordable food. However, the food policy must recognize that innovation and technology help our industry and other commodities to remain efficient in using resources as best as we can while keeping costs of production down. This in turn allows food to be affordable to the consumer.

It is important that Canada's food policy recognize productivity-enhancing technologies like growth implants, feed additives, and even bio crops. This will help us towards the goal of keeping food affordable, as well as meeting other goals like soil conservation. Recognizing that raising cattle and supplying beef to consumers can play an important role in achieving the goals outlined will be essential in a food policy that we can support.

We already know beef is a nutrient rich and healthy food that can improve people's health when eaten with a variety of complementary vegetables, whole grains, and dairy.

Canada already has one of the best food safety systems and records in the world, but we know that the continued efforts to improve health and food safety are critical for public confidence, maintaining the Canadian beef advantage, and enhancing the health of all consumers. The Canadian beef industry has placed a strong emphasis on health and food safety in its research priorities and through the development of on-farm food safety programming for cattle producers. This focuses on training producers and verifying on-farm practices through an audit.

We know cattle can be used very well to conserve soil, improve grassland health, and ensure the preservation of important rangelands. Keeping grasslands that are utilized by cattle intact also provides public goods such as carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, increased biodiversity, and improved water quality.

In regard to growing more high-quality food, the Canadian beef industry and all of Canadian agriculture is a strategic growth asset and is well positioned to play a vital role in feeding the world with its safe, high-quality products.

It will be imperative that Canada's food policy places a strong emphasis on creating the most competitive business environment possible in order to grow more high-quality food and meaningfully increase agriculture's contribution to the Canadian economy. This also includes an emphasis on market access, research, labour, and a competitive regulatory system.

In closing, I would like to say that Canada is already in a position of strength to achieve the food policy's themes and objectives. Canadian agriculture has made great strides over the past half century in terms of conserving soil, air, water, and biodiversity. Thanks to productivity improvements and research, Canadian beef's GHG footprint is one of the smallest in the world.

Consumers in Canada also have access to some of the most affordable, high-quality, and safe food in comparison to the majority of other countries in the world. Given our abundance of fresh water, feed grains, and grazing lands, along with committed and innovative producers, Canada is well positioned to grow more high-quality food to feed both local and international consumers.

There is always room for continuous improvement. That is something our industry is committed to, but it must be recognized that we are starting from a strong position.

Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Darling.

Now, with the Canadian Organic Growers, we have Madam St Hilaire.

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

Hello. Thank you to the members of the committee for having us here today.

My name is Ashley St Hilaire, and I'm the director of programs and government relations with Canadian Organic Growers. I am joined here today by my colleague, Jim Robbins, on behalf of the Organic Federation of Canada.

Canadian Organic Growers is a national charity and organic farming membership organization. We are very pleased to be here today to talk about the importance of this government's initiative to develop a national food policy for Canada. We'd also like to announce and remind the committee that it is Canada's National Organic Week, which is an annual countrywide celebration of organic food, fibre, and farming. We're in our seventh year.

It's a very fitting time of year to discuss a national food policy for Canada. As Canadian crops are in their final weeks of harvest and abundance appears all around us, we are reminded by our work today that too many Canadians live with food insecurity. At the national food policy summit, we were shocked to learn that food bank usage continues to rise across the country despite Canada being ranked eighth in the world for food affordability. We support the work of this government and of Food Secure Canada to lead the development of a national food policy that will address these issues head-on. Every Canadian deserves the right to access culturally appropriate and nutritious food so they may live with dignity.

We feel the priority areas within this policy are appropriate and should be equally weighted. Organic food and farming span all of these priority areas and enhance food security in Canada, because the core principle of organic agriculture is healthy soil.

Through organic management practices organic producers are enhancing the health of our agricultural soils all across the country, ensuring that these lands can produce food for future generations of Canadians. Healthy soils enhance yields and the quality of what is produced. When we don't look after our soils, we turn to inputs, which increase the cost of production for farmers and cut into their profitability, making it harder and harder to make a living growing food for Canadians and the world. Farm profitability and food security in Canada are inherently linked.

We also urge policy-makers to recognize that a balance must be struck between the productivity of our crops and environmental degradation. Achieving ambitious agricultural export goals of $75 billion by 2025 should not come at a cost to the environmental health of our agricultural lands, as this would only further exacerbate food insecurity in Canada.

Organics is an industry that has always championed this balance and continues to be an agricultural leader in sustainability. Consumers from all walks of life support our industry every day when they purchase organic products at the grocery store and at farmers' markets. Their desire to access sustainably and locally produced organic food should be backed by this policy and by a commitment from the government to permanently fund the Canadian organic standards.

I'd like to turn it over to Jim to speak to that point.

[Jim Robbins, President, Organic Federation of Canada, Canadian Organic Growers]

Thank you, Ashley.

I'm an organic farmer from Saskatchewan. Together with my family, I raise cattle and grow cereals, pulses, and forages—all organic—on 2,500 acres in Saskatchewan. We farmed conventionally for 21 years, and we are now almost finished our 19th organic harvest.

I'm proud to be representing today the Organic Federation of Canada, which oversees the maintenance of our national Canadian organic standards. The organic standards connect agriculture with the environment. It defines good agricultural practices that target productivity, profitability, and preservation of our environment.

Decades ago, producers from across the country came together because they wanted to change the way they farmed. They wanted to reduce their environmental footprint and become more sustainable. The Canadian organic standards provide a framework for their agricultural practices and allow them to define what they do as organic agriculture. The standards are not only a measure to ensure public trust in organic, but are also an industry benchmark for achieving and standardizing environmental sustainability on a farm. The standards are a public good, and all Canadians benefit from the practices organic farmers use on their land.

Our Canadian organic standards were established in law by the Government of Canada in 2009, and are referenced by Canadian federal regulations. However, the Canadian organic sector has been operating under the constant risk of losing the backbone of our industry, which is our standard, our assurance system, our standards, our brand, and our public trust. This is because, unlike our competitors, such as the U.S. and the European Union, whose governments fully and permanently fund the maintenance of their organic standards, the Government of Canada has yet to do the same for its own organic industry.

The Canadian organic standards, owned by the Canadian General Standards Board, require our industry to review and update organic standards on a five-year cycle. The price tag of this work is about $1 million, the majority of which goes to paying fees to the Canadian General Standards Board for overseeing the review and publishing of the revised standards. It also includes the cost of paying for national consultations to ensure that the standards reflect the needs of organic stakeholders.

Reviewing the standards is absolutely critical for maintaining not only the Canadian organic brand, but also all of our government-negotiated international organic trade arrangements, which we have with 90% of our major trading partners: the EU, Japan, and the United States.

The Canadian organic brand and the Canadian organic standards are all owned and backed by the government, so when the Government of Canada prepares budget 2018, with a national food policy and its 2025 agricultural export goal in mind, we strongly urge you to eliminate this competitive disadvantage that we suffer in Canada: get rid of the risk to our industry and include permanent funding for the Canadian organic standards. They will need to be fully revised and updated by the year 2020, and that work needs to begin in 2018.

To conclude, we remind the committee that organic agriculture is an example of a successful, clean-growth industry that offers a model for promoting climate-friendly food production. As the Government of Canada develops this national food policy, we hope it builds a policy that both incentivizes and rewards sustainable agricultural production, which we know contributes to food security in Canada. We also urge it to look for opportunities to eliminate competitive disadvantages for our organic producers. Permanently funding the Canadian organic standards would be the way to start.

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to speak on this topic today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Robbins and Madam St Hilaire.

We will start our question round with Mr. John Barlow for six minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you to our witnesses for being here this afternoon for this important discussion.

I want to pick up on a couple of themes from our first questions, and I know some of you were here but I think it's prudent for these witnesses.

I appreciate the sentiments of my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Longfield, in talking about how important our family farms are to our economy and how they've heard from farmers about their concerns on these potential tax changes, but I find their comments to be a little disingenuous, because we've heard over the last couple of weeks that there's been no movement from our current Liberal government in terms of extending that consultation. I think if you were really genuine about wanting to ensure that these are not going to impact our Canadian farmers, then you would extend that consultation period. I think to end that consultation period right in the middle of harvest shows just how much of a priority the feedback and input from our Canadian farmers truly is.

I again ask the Liberal government to consider extending that consultation period, and if it was a priority you would have agreed to our motion today, which would have asked us to study the financial implications of these tax changes on agriculture. You did not want to do that, so I think your concern about protecting our small farms is maybe a little misled.

One of the things we've talked about in this study is about ensuring that we have affordable food, but everything our colleagues across are talking about, in my mind, would do the opposite. I took note of a few things today. On transportation, they're not extending the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. There's the carbon tax, and eliminating the deferral on cash grain tickets. Those types of things, in my mind, would make agriculture more expensive and our access to food less affordable.

I'd like your opinion on what you see as some of the implications of the tax changes that the current government is making and the impact it is going to have on our access and our ability to access affordable food.

[Dan Darling]

First, I'd like to say from the Canadian Cattlemen's point of view, we'd like a little more time on the proposed tax changes for some studies that we're having done to be finished so that we know whether or not there are going to be some huge changes for our producers. I think one misconception as far as family farms go is that if it's a limited company, it's no longer a small family farm, and that couldn't be any further from the truth.

My operation is a limited company as well, which consists of my brother, me, my three daughters, and my wife. You can't get too much smaller than that, but we are a limited company. We would like the time period extended so we could get some studies done just so we know where we stand on it.

As far as some other changes that you mentioned are concerned, for example, I'll use the transportation regulation changes, and some of the changes in the length of time that cattle can be on a truck are not science-based. I guess it's trying to align us with a European model that we can't be aligned with because of the different sizes in the country, and it will make a huge cost for producers in layovers on cattle. You were discussing earlier about getting food to people in a timely manner. This does everything against that.

That's right off the top of my head.

Ashley.

[Ashley St Hilaire]

Perhaps I could jump in here before I run out of time. On the topic of carbon pricing that you brought up, carbon pricing is a tool to motivate producers to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint. One of the most energy-intensive inputs in agriculture is nitrogen-based fertilizers. They contribute 70% of Canada's nitrous oxide emissions, which is the worst of all greenhouse gases.

Being a very energy-intensive input to produce, the implications are that carbon pricing should increase the cost of these nitrogen fertilizers, which makes it more difficult for farmers and their profitability and increases their cost of production. However, there needs to be sufficient time for industries to adjust to these pricing changes. We know in organic agriculture we don't use these nitrogen-based fertilizers. We use green manures. We use crop rotations. We use a number of organic management practices to build fertility in our soils, so we have practices and techniques that are available for these farmers that they can adopt. However, you need time and support for farmers to adjust to these changes, so that comes down to research and extension.

On the topic of extending consultations, I think we always need more time to review and do the research that's necessary so that industry's voice is accurately reflected in the policies that are developed.

I'll just leave it at that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I appreciate your comments on carbon pricing, but that doesn't impact cattle liners and fuel and those types of things that are still going to increase the costs of the operation.

I have a last question for both of you.

One of the concerns I see in this study and the initial first draft of Canada's food guide—I think this is going to form the basis for that—is that it clearly picks winners and losers and is pitting sectors against one another in terms of encouraging Canadians not to eat red meat and, in dairy, taking it away from being its own section. To me, it's trying to tell Canadians what they should and shouldn't be eating, which are all healthy choices, and is pitting one agricultural sector against another. I'd like your input on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow. I'm sorry.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That's okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Peschisolido, for six minutes.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming here to discuss our national food policy.

I try to eat organic. I think it's healthier, and I think it's healthy for the environment, but it costs a lot. I'm blessed that I have a certain income and assets whereby I can actually eat organic. I don't think your average family could do that. Can you talk a bit about the help you would need in order to actually have...? Organic is sustainable when it comes to the environment. How can we, as a government and as a society, help you make organic sustainable by having it affordable for all Canadians?

[Jim Robbins]

Organic is usually more expensive at the store, but not always. That price difference varies. Primarily, it's more expensive because it's scarcer. It's as simple as that.

I'm an organic farmer. I'm anxious to have the industry grow. Being anxious to have the industry grow means that I want more organic farmers in the marketplace. If there are more organic farmers in the marketplace, those prices will moderate. It's simply a supply and demand situation.

What do we need to expand the industry and to have that marketplace lower costs to consumers over time? We don't get our fair share of research. We don't get our fair share of extension. We've made the centre of our brief today the Canadian organic standard. It's a standard that is owned by the Government of Canada, but the Government of Canada does not pay for its maintenance. All of our competitors, the important ones—the EU and the United States—do pay for the maintenance of that standard. That standard is absolutely key. It defines those sustainable practices, and is an absolutely necessary part of the industry.

[Ashley St Hilaire]

I'd like to add that recent consumer polls conducted by Ipsos and carried out by our partners at the Canada Organic Trade Association have shown that there aren't any visible trends in the types of consumers who purchase organics. They looked at income and at ethnicity, and what we're seeing is that Canadians from all walks of life truly do purchase organics.

That said, we recognize that marginalized Canadians who are already having a hard enough time affording anything at the grocery store would be precluded from purchasing organics. As Jim mentioned, it has a lot to do with scarcity.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Dan and Jim, both of you may know Bill Zylmans. He's a cattle farmer in my neck of the woods. He has a small operation in Richmond and a larger operation in Delta, in the valley.

I'm intrigued because I'm assuming, Dan, that most of your folks do not do organic cattle farming, and Jim, you mentioned that you have an organic operation. Bill is trying to get away from the traditional farming industry for cattle, which is kind of unique in B.C., because we operate with Alberta. We have our baby cows until about six or seven months, and then they're shipped off to Alberta to feedlots.

I'd like to get your comments. I don't have a specific question, but I'd like your thoughts on how we can have a more organic-driven cattle industry. Also, to tie into your comment on public trust, Dan, you commented about bridging the gap between the public and the industry on cattle. I don't eat much beef, but others do, and I think Canada should have a robust cattle industry. I'd love to have your thoughts on all those points I've made.

[Jim Robbins]

I'll start.

Yes, I'm an organic cattle producer. I used to be a cow-calf producer, but now I finish all of our calves to market weight, which is possible to do organically in the prairie region. It's not difficult to do finishing. I was told when I started that it was an art form, but it's an art form that's not difficult to master.

Yes, it's certainly possible. It's an important part of our farming operation. It's doable. I receive a pretty modest premium for my organic beef. When I direct market it, there's about a 20% premium. When I market cattle to a buyer, to a plant that kills, my premium is in the 35% range.

It's a doable thing, and a lot of what I do probably you do too, Dan. You grass your cow herd in the summertime. I do too. I grass my yearlings as well, and I don't finish until after that yearling grass period is done. I imagine we do many of the same things. I doubt very much whether you spray your grasslands either.

[Dan Darling]

We do similar things; however, when it comes to grassing yearlings, as Jim mentioned, we tend not to. We think it's more cost effective—and this gets shown right down to the consumer, or should—if we produce those animals as quickly as possible from birth to slaughter, thus lowering not only the cost but our carbon footprint. One of the reasons Canada's carbon footprint keeps dropping is due to the fact that we produce cattle so fast. In Brazil, for example, it's much higher than ours even though they grass everything, but those cattle are around for so much longer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

Madam Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for being here.

I am new to this committee, as are my two colleagues. I am very pleased to be here today because I have a number of questions for you.

My colleague Mr. Barlow asked a question and I would like to know your opinion.

I too, when I heard about the new—