Agriculture Committee on Sept. 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone.

Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin.

Please take your seats, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to Standing Order 108, we are undertaking a study of a food policy for Canada.

During the first hour, we are hearing from the following witnesses: Gordon Harrison, President of the Canadian National Millers Association; Patrick McGuinness, Interim President of the Fisheries Council of Canada; and Jason McLinton, Vice-President of the Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs at the Retail Council of Canada.

We will begin with the Canadian National Millers Association.

Mr. Harrison, you have seven minutes.

[Gordon Harrison, President, Canadian National Millers Association]

Thank you.

Last week before the transport committee I spoke about just-in-time delivery. My apologies for being, almost, quite late.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

To date, our association has not prepared a formal submission. My comments today are intended to provide a broader perspective of elements of a national food policy that are already in existence and that need to be taken into account in consideration of what could be a more clearly defined new national policy.

In preparing my comments, I revisited the ministerial mandate letter addressed to Minister MacAulay in early 2016. That letter identified the following priorities, among others: attracting “investment” and creating “good jobs in food processing”; supporting “discovery science and innovation in the sector”; and developing “a food policy that promotes healthy living and safe food by putting more healthy, high-quality food, produced by Canadian ranchers and farmers, on the tables of families across the country”.

The current consultation on a national food policy translated that into the four themes of “improving Canadians' access to affordable, nutritious, and safe food”; “increasing Canadians' ability to make healthy and safe food choices”; “using environmentally sustainable practices to ensure Canadians have a long-term, reliable, and abundant supply of food”; and “ensuring Canadian farmers and food processors are able to adapt to changing conditions to provide more safe and healthy food to consumers in Canada and around the world”. These priorities and themes are not necessarily aligned, could possibly conflict with one another, and may actually not represent what is happening in Canada today.

I worked to try to capture seven or eight points that speak to this idea of looking more broadly at context and perspective. I really wasn't able to do a very good job of it, to deliver in seven minutes. I'll be able to touch on a few, and I will be preparing a written submission to the committee, to follow.

First, I would like to offer a comment about more food on the tables of families across the country, one of the themes. Canadians are actually being encouraged by Health Canada and non-government advisers to eat less food while making healthier choices and changing their dietary behaviour. This, combined with Canada's rapidly aging population and slow population growth—which is about 1.1% a year—suggests that we are going to see little growth in demand for food, in contrast with some of these objectives of the national policy. The rate of growth of Canada's capacity to grow and process food will actually outstrip growth in demand domestically.

The words “safe food” appear three times in the seven points I have mentioned so far. It should interest members of this committee to know that an organization called the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition—of which CNMA is a member—has been calling for the development and adoption of a national food safety strategy for over a decade. Mr. Albert Chambers, who is the executive director of the coalition, has requested an opportunity to appear before this committee, and I encourage you to invite him.

The key point is that a national food safety strategy is probably an integral part of a national food policy. The references to safe food might lead readers of the consultation document to conclude that we don't have a safe food supply today and we need to invest more resources in improving food safety. A key point I wish to make is that the food sector has been strongly advocating not just a strategy but modern, science-based food inspection and food safety legislation.

In the context of considering a national food policy, there is an urgent need to reconcile the messages being provided to Canadian consumers on the subject of food safety. CFIA and the Public Health Agency of Canada have on their website, and continue to tell consumers, that four million consumers will suffer a food-borne illness in Canada annually. That's one in nine residents of Canada who will have a food-borne illness. The actual number, based on surveillance that's been going on for several years, is less than 25,000. Food-borne illness is one of the least likely causes of death in Canada. At the same time, we're telling consumers here and in other markets that we have an enviable record of food safety and a reliable food supply that will always be safe. Also, I should add that consumers in Canada are spending billions of dollars annually on food safety, because the food producers and manufacturers are spending those dollars in getting food to market.

Where Canadian regulators and agencies need to invest more resources is in the education of consumers about safe food storage, handling, and cooking. Farmers, food processors, and retailers do not have control over what happens in home kitchens. That is where a great deal of work needs to be done.

We also need to reconcile the federal government messages about nutrition and health. There is insufficient time to speak to it, but I would ask members of the committee to note that Health Canada is in the process of changing the number of food labelling requirements that will depict some foods as good foods and some foods as bad foods. Historically, our sector has taken the view that all foods are nutritious and make a contribution to health and nutrition, but this is changing with proposals that are neither evidence-based nor science-based coming from Health Canada at this time.

In fact, if adopted, the new dietary guidelines will discourage consumers from eating enriched white bread, hamburger buns, hot dog buns, and other bakery products made with enriched flour. The folic acid that is added to enriched flour by regulation since 1998 has reduced neural tube defects, otherwise known as spina bifida and hydrocephalus, in Canada by 50% annually since the year 2000. This is a population health outcome lobbied for and advocated by our industry in conjunction with the Baking Association of Canada and others. These kinds of subtle things need to be taken into account.

Finally, other proposed regulatory amendments that are out there will prohibit the advertising of food to children, “children” being defined as those under 17 years of age. If these are adopted in Canada, a 16-year-old will be able to drive a car and make his or her own choices about health care decisions but will be prohibited from receiving advertising about food.

These are real proposals that are out there now. They are accessible on Health Canada's website. My colleague Paul Hetherington, president of the Baking Association of Canada, would be delighted to appear, I'm sure, to explain the implications.

Overall, I think what we have to understand is that a great deal of work has been done by industry and government on elements of a robust food regulatory framework, advertising standards, and food safety in the supply chain. All of these elements are present; they need to be drawn into the consideration of developing a policy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

Now we go to Mr. McGuinness for seven minutes.

[Patrick McGuinness, Interim President, Fisheries Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I think this is the first time the Fisheries Council of Canada, and in fact the seafood industry, has been invited to this committee, and we're very, very thankful for it.

I noted Gordon's comment that the government is basically advocating eating less food, but what it really is trying to communicate is eating healthier food. I assume that's why you've invited the seafood industry here today.

In any event, what I thought I'd do is give you a short oversight of the Fisheries Council of Canada. We've been around this town for a long time. We started in 1915 and in 1945 we changed our name to the Fisheries Council of Canada. Our association has members from coast to coast, right from British Columbia to Nunavut. Our companies are primarily what we call vertically integrated. That means they have their own harvesting vessels, they have their own processing, and most of them are doing their own marketing.

We're also very happy that, as part of our membership, we have what we call fishermen's co-operatives. Fishermen's co-operatives are simply fishermen who have fishing licences issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but they've gone a step forward and basically either built or invested in their own processing plants. We are very pleased that they're part of our organization.

I also want to talk about the indigenous situation. Of course, that's quite important these days. We had a significant Supreme Court ruling in 1999 that basically defined indigenous fishing rights. Since then, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and our industry, the Fisheries Council of Canada, have been adjusting to that. I can say right now, in terms of British Columbia, 30% of the fishing licences given by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are given to indigenous people. We're happy, as the Fisheries Council of Canada, the leading seafood organization in Canada, that three Inuit members in Nunavut are members of the Fisheries Council of Canada, as is the only indigenous company in Labrador. That's just a bit of a capsule of that.

In terms of our industry—I imagine you focus much more on agriculture than you do on seafood, and that's understandable—we're an $8-billion industry, and $6 billion of that goes into exports outside of Canada. We are now the eighth largest seafood exporter in the world. In terms of Canada, we are the highest export-oriented food sector in Canada.

To comment on food policy, what the Fisheries Council of Canada and the seafood industry are really focused on is food safety. I know you have three other elements, but food safety is one that we feel most comfortable dealing with. I have to say we have our credentials on that because the seafood industry of Canada was the first food sector to adopt mandatory HACCP as food safety requirements, and that was in 1992. Basically what we've been trying to do is make sure that type of food safety regime goes across Canada.

In terms of food policy, I'll pick up on a note that Gordon mentioned in terms of having a national food safety regime that is a HACCP-based regime. I say national because that's different than federal, provincial, and municipal, and it's important that we have a national regime as opposed to just simply a federal. A federal regime basically only applies to a company that's processing in Toronto that exports its production into another province or overseas. In Canada, this is a particularly important issue. That's simply because, if you look at a city such as Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, you can have a fairly substantive food processing company in Toronto just basically selling its products in Ontario, and it doesn't have to be federally registered. It can be provincially or municipally registered. That is a deficiency in our food safety regime.

That is also a deficiency of which other nations take note. Fortunately, if you want to be in fishing industry processing, you have to be part of the mandatory HACCP program. There's no loophole in that.

I think we have to be careful about our definitions, and we're talking nationally, not just for CFIA. It's going to be a hard negotiation. I press you to move in that direction.

The other thing in terms of HACCP is this: don't give any exemptions. There is no question: if this rolls out across the country, you're going to get people or companies coming in and saying that it's going to be costly and all that sort of stuff. In 1992 we established our HACCP program. There's no question that there were small, medium-sized, and large companies that were part of it. It was all mandatory.

We worked with the small companies. Funnily enough, what we found was that the small companies had probably the easiest transition into the HACCP program, because what you have to identify is a critical control point. What part of your processing is going to be a potential significant health problem? In a small company, you pretty well know it. If you don't know it, you shouldn't be in the food industry. For example, in the fisheries, often that one critical point was probably just in terms of the fish being entered into the company.

So I'm saying no exemptions, and the next item I'm going to focus on is that basically in the seafood industry and the food industry, some food-processing jobs are unattractive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. McGuinness, can you can quickly wrap up? We're out of time.

[Patrick McGuinness]

All I'm saying here is that the answer is not importing temporary workers: it's innovation and automation. That's where we have to go.

What I'm going to say is that in terms of Growing Forward, you have three great programs: AgriMarketing, AgriInnovation, and AgriCompetitiveness. The seafood industry has access to AgriMarketing. We don't have access to AgriInnovation and AgriCompetitiveness, and that's important to us. That's our future. We hope we can get that voice to you in terms of having that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinness.

We now go to Jason McLinton, who is the Vice-President of the Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs at the Retail Council of Canada.

Mr. McLinton, go ahead.

[Jason McLinton, Vice-President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs, Retail Council of Canada]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss a food policy for Canada with you.

I want to begin by saying that the RCC is highly supportive of an overarching food policy to provide direction when developing future Government of Canada policies, programs, and regulations.

I will briefly introduce the Retail Council of Canada, RCC.

In the private sector, the retail industry employs the largest number of people in Canada. More than 2.1 million Canadians work in our industry. In 2016, the sector generated an estimated $73 billion in wages. Furthermore, its sales were $353 billion, without taking into account vehicle and fuel sales. RCC members account for more than two-thirds of retail sales in Canada.

The council is a non-profit organization funded by the industry. It represents small, medium and large retailers in communities across the country. Recognized as the voice of retailers in Quebec and in Canada, RCC represents over 45,000 businesses of all types, including department stores, grocery stores, specialty stores, discount stores, independent stores and online merchants.

I should point out that 95% of food retailers are RCC members. They provide essential services and are important employers in communities, large and small, across the country. They have a variety of recognized private labels and offer products in all food categories.

The important point there is that we represent both retailers as sellers of all types of food products, but every one of our members also has private-label brands and therefore has an interest from a food manufacturing perspective as well.

I am the vice-president of the grocery division for the Retail Council, and I manage RCC's food safety and regulatory committee. I'm here today because our members have a unique perspective in that they offer food types from every food category and they have direct interface and interactions with Canadian consumers. Healthy lifestyle is something that is very important to members and they promote it. They have a number of activities. For instance, through their private-label programs they have a strong record of product reformulation, product redevelopment, and innovation, to provide products that contribute to a healthy diet. They're also active in providing nutrition support and education to consumers through in-store dieticians, nutrition rating programs, and in-store support for health conditions that require special diets, such as diabetes and hypertension.

Our members also provide products and information that promote food skills development in support of healthy eating, from partially prepared meals that help consumers gain cooking skills and confidence, to in-store kitchens and cooking classes, to recipes and tips on preparing healthy meals and snacks at home. In addition, our members have proudly partnered with Health Canada to support important collaborative consumer education programs, including the Eat Well and Nutrition Facts education campaigns. These programs were successful in educating Canadians on both nutrition fundamentals and how to use the nutrition facts table.

Specifically with regard to comments on Canada's food policy, in order to ensure that our food system continues to be the world leader that it is—in fact, I'm sure members of this committee are familiar with a 2014 Conference Board of Canada report that actually tied Health Canada in first place with Ireland for the world's safest food safety system—the food policy must contain the following seven elements.

One, as a basis it must start with a recognition that Canada's food system is indeed among the safest in the world and provides some of the most affordable food to Canadians.

Two, it must recognize the role that government has to play in further increasing access to affordable food and further improving health and food safety, and that these are critical for all Canadians.

Three, it must include provisions to ensure that industry is consulted in order to ensure that any new policies, programs, and regulations are not only achievable, but actually promote industry growth.

Four, it must look to the requirements of our major trading partners and allow for differences only under specifically listed circumstances, such as differences in language or in climate, so as to maximize consumer choice and minimize additional costs that are associated with regulatory misalignment.

Five, similarly to international regulatory harmonization, it must promote interprovincial harmonization as well as within the federal family. The policy touches on issues that span the work of many federal departments, and also provincial and municipal jurisdictions. In many cases there is existing significant work being undertaken in these areas, such as nutrition and food waste, for example.

Six, it must recognize programs that industry already has in place, for example food waste management, and avoid regulating in these areas in order to avoid duplication of effort. Of course, by definition, regulations are intervening in the marketplace, so if something's already being done voluntarily, we don't want to limit innovation and flexibility.

Seven, it must acknowledge that imported foods are an integral part of Canada's food system. After all, we do live in Canada and there are seasonal considerations. In order for us to enjoy the products that we also in enjoy in December, January and February, we need to recognize the role that imports play in our access to these foods at affordable prices year-round.

These seven elements will promote industry growth and I'd be pleased to take your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLinton.

I would like to welcome Raj Saini, who is joining the committee today, and welcome back Ruth Ellen Brosseau.

Welcome, everyone.

We'll now start our question round with Mr. Luc Berthold, for six minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank all the witnesses for joining us to testify.

I want to begin by saying that the government is currently studying several aspects of the new food policy. The department is holding consultations, the minister's office has held its own, and it is now the committee's turn to do the same. So we are seeing an overabundance of consultations, and we don't know whether the outcomes of each of them will come together and result in the testimony from different consultations being reflected in Canada's new food policy.

I am a new member of the committee, but this is an issue I am very concerned about, just as I am concerned about the proposed changes to the tax reform that will affect small and medium-sized businesses.

Our internal consultation period is very short, and hardly anyone will be consulted. However, those consultations will have an impact on each of your industries.

Mr. McLinton, you talked about affordable food. What is the proportion of SMEs in your organization?

[Jason McLinton]

I will answer your question from a food trade perspective.

I believe we have 10 grocery members. They prefer to define themselves as independent members as opposed to small and medium enterprises. Exactly how we define that is challenging, but roughly a half, maybe five of them, would be described as independent members, and then five would be the larger, more recognizable chains that you would know.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

You have seen that one of the challenges of the food policy will be to keep the cost of food very low. Every cost increase will have an effect on product suppliers.

Mr. Harrison, I can ask you the question in English, if you want.

[Gordon Harrison]

Practice is always important.

Go ahead, please.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I would like to know how many small enterprises you have in your organization.

[Gordon Harrison]

Nationally, the industry has about 53 milling establishments. I should have said that the companies mill wheat, oats, and barley into wheat flour and other mill wheat products like oatmeal. Of the 53, our members account for 29 or 30 establishments. The other 23 are typically very small enterprises, a number of them family-owned. Some do business only within their province, as is the case in some parts of Quebec and New Brunswick, and in Alberta.

Among our members we have two that I would describe as small enterprises. By virtue of the national definition of a small business, each one of our facilities would not employ more than 100 people, and some fewer than 50. As individual establishments, they're not large. A number of our members are large corporations affiliated with U.S. facilities as well. We're really a North American industry, but about half of the establishments would meet that category.

[Patrick McGuinness]

Our organization certainly does have the major seafood processors or corporations in Canada. At the same time, as I mentioned, in fishermen's co-operatives, we're very happy having them as members. We're very careful in our board of directors. We have boards of directors based on provinces. We have members of our boards from Newfoundland and Labrador, and we try to have at least one small or medium-sized member as a board member from the provincial side.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay, so you add it up. We're interested in this question because all these changes proposed in this period are a great concern to us.

Mr. Harrison, before I go on, you tell us that the food guide will put some food in the bad sector and some in the good sector, not based on science. How can they do that?

[Gordon Harrison]

I will provide some submissions to the clerk that explain this. They're not ours. They're from the Baking Association of Canada, but we've had input. The Canadian Community Health Survey provides extensive data on dietary intake. That most recent data was not applied in Health Canada's current consultations on nutrition. Ironically, in other elements of Health Canada's purview in the realm of food safety, that survey is being taken into account.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

So we have to look at your numbers and at your survey.

[Gordon Harrison]

We have to look at the Government of Canada's numbers carefully and incorporate them into a food policy, and that survey is completed about every 10 years.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, as I don't have much time left, I would like to use it to move the motion I submitted last week, which is the following:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study on the proposed changes to the tax system in order to assess their impacts on small farm businesses, particularly family farms and the inherent risks in the proposals on transfer of ownership; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 1, 2017.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You all have a copy of the motion.

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

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Yes, of course.

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

Does Mr. Berthold want to defend his motion, or does he just want to call the question right away?