Agriculture Committee on Sept. 26th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I want to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on a food policy for Canada.

Today's guests will certainly help us in our study.

We welcome Mr. Shawn Pegg, Director of policy and research at Food Banks Canada.

Welcome, Mr. Pegg.

We also have with us Ms. Diana Bronson, who is the Executive Director of Food Secure Canada, as well as Ms. Amanda Wilson, Policy Analyst and Coordinator of Community Engagement with the same organization.

Welcome, ladies.

We also have with us the Chair of the Union des producteurs agricoles, Mr. Marcel Groleau.

Welcome, Mr. Groleau.

Finally, we welcome Ms. Annie Tessier, who is the Coordinator of the Food Sovereignty Coalition.

You will all have seven minutes to make your presentations. We will then have a question and answer period.

We will begin with Mr. Pegg, from Food Banks Canada.

You have seven minutes.

[Shawn Pegg, Director, Policy and Research, Food Banks Canada]

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak before you today.

I'd like to begin by saying that food banks across the country are very pleased to see the federal government develop a new national food policy for Canada. Food banks have changed with the times. They have changed their approach to food, including the types and diversity of food they're able to provide, and they want to see the federal government changing with the times as well.

We commend the federal government on the inclusive structure of the new national food policy framework, and we also commend the inclusion of household food security as a prime focus of the new policy. In a country where food is relatively inexpensive but where farmers have trouble making ends meet, where farm workers constitute some of our most vulnerable residents, where four million people are food insecure, and where more than 860,000 people access food banks each month, clearly new ideas are needed.

I'd like to address two major points this afternoon. First is the idea of the affordability of food, and second is northern and indigenous food insecurity.

First is affordability. Groceries account for about 10% of southern Canadian spending, 14% if you count restaurant food. This is one of the lowest proportions spent on food in the world. When we see the federal food policy consultation document talk about increasing affordability, we get a little nervous, because it would be difficult to make food any more affordable for the average consumer. If you try to make food cheaper, you're very likely going to be taking money out of the hands of farmers and food workers in Canada and across the globe.

In many ways, food insecurity is not about food at all. The main way to increase access to nutritious and safe food among low-income Canadians, in particular, is to increase incomes, which is a responsibility that clearly falls under the forthcoming poverty reduction strategy.

We were very happy to see that there are close linkages between the development of the national food policy and the poverty reduction strategy. That's very good news.

Food Banks Canada has released a new report about poverty reduction. We released it today. It's called “Nowhere to Turn”. This report takes a close look at the 1.3 million working-age single adults who live in poverty and struggle to afford food in Canada, and it puts forward recommendations to bring this group into the economic mainstream. This is one of the things Food Banks Canada looks at in its advocacy and government relations efforts.

Because it can't be stressed enough, I'll repeat that only increasing incomes will improve access to nutritious and safe food on a broad scale. When a single adult on social assistance is living on $8,000 a year—as hundreds of thousands of people in Canada do—we are very far, indeed, from affordability.

Of course the situation in the north is quite different. The cost of food in the north is more than double what it is in the south, and levels of food insecurity are much higher. One in five people in the territories are food insecure, with much higher figures among indigenous populations. Nunavut has the highest level of indigenous food insecurity of any high-income country in the world.

Conversations about northern food insecurity tend to focus on nutrition north Canada, and we're pleased to see that the federal government is planning changes to this program. We're looking forward to seeing what that looks like. However, nutrition north Canada is a small and limited initiative of about $120 million, an amount that is really dwarfed by the size of the problem. If we are to truly address food insecurity in the north, we need to look beyond nutrition north Canada.

Increasing incomes is obviously an essential part of this, but only a part. I would encourage the committee to look closely at the ways many northern communities are addressing their problems with food through traditional practices including hunting, trapping, and fishing, as well as the ways the federal government could support these initiatives.

In research that Food Banks Canada has done, we have found that grassroots, community-level programs struggle mightily in the north just to stay afloat from season to season. There is a pressing need for new sources of funding for something that has demonstrable and outsized benefits for communities.

Thanks very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Pegg.

I now give the floor to Ms. Bronson, from Food Secure Canada.

[Diana Bronson, Executive Director, Food Secure Canada]

Thank you. I thank you very much for having invited us to appear before your committee today.

I am representing Food Secure Canada, a national alliance of organizations and individuals who are committed to achieving three goals: zero hunger, healthy and safe food, and a sustainable food system for all Canadians. We see these objectives as being interrelated.

Over the past decade, we have spoken directly with thousands of Canadians in all regions of the country about their vision for food policy. An overwhelming conclusion from our work is that we need a whole-of-government approach to food policy.

We need to work with all partners to build a common vision, common goals and common priorities. We congratulate the Department of Agriculture for having brought together 16 government agencies and departments for the development of a food policy.

Why is this whole-of-government approach so important?

We are a leading global food exporter. However, as Mr. Pegg just pointed out, four million Canadians are food insecure. Chronic-diet related diseases cost an estimated $26 billion annually in direct and indirect costs. Canada ranks 37th out of 41 countries when it comes to children's access to healthy food. I could continue to quote statistics but I would prefer to move on to our recommendations. By the end of this week, we will table a complete brief containing many detailed recommendations for the federal government. I think that it is more relevant today to give you a broad overview of the main thrusts.

The first thing we would like to see in the national food policy is a formal recognition of the right to food. It was back in 1976 that Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and yet we have still not attained its objectives or implemented the recommendations that the UN special rapporteur on the right to food made when he came to Canada in 2012.

That's number one: let's have a formal recognition of that.

Two, it's not just a question of belief, it's a historical fact that food has been used as a weapon against indigenous peoples throughout Canada's colonial past. You just need to take a look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and read the testimonies to find that denial of food, suppression of indigenous cultures, and forced labour were all part of that story.

Food also brings people together and has a great potential to repair that relationship by making sure that indigenous peoples in this country have more sovereignty over the decisions that affect their food security.

Three, we also think that a food policy for Canada needs to prioritize youth and young people. I mentioned the UNICEF report, which placed us 37th out of 41 high-income countries. We still do not have healthy school food for kids in this country, even on reserve, where the federal government has clear jurisdiction. Along with the Coalition for Healthy School Food, we are calling for a cost-shared federal program that would support all children's right to learn well by eating well in school.

Four, we think that Canada needs to support more strongly the next generation of farmers and support more clearly a diversity of farming practices. We have more farmers over the age of 70 than we have under the age of 35, and 92% of them have no succession plan. There are huge challenges for young people or new immigrants who want to enter farming or our fishing industry to access the land, the capital, and the training they need. This should be a fundamental orientation of our new food policy.

Five, we are calling for a new institution, a new national food policy council.

There is a lot to be said about this, and you'll be hearing a lot more about it over the coming months, because a lot of us have been talking with some senior officials in government but also across industry and civil society networks. We're not going to solve everything that needs to be solved in this new national food policy. It's expected to be wrapped up by about next May. There are going to be a host of issues we're not going to have time to deal with, but for various reasons, some of us feel that all stakeholders need to be sitting around the same table, not simply with the Department of Agriculture, but also with Health, and Social Development, Indigenous Affairs, and Fisheries and Oceans. All of these players on the government side need to be around the table, as do industry, civil society, the best academics, and funders.

We've been working with our partners, Maple Leaf Foods, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian agricultural policy institute, the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph, and a number of others to try to formulate clear recommendations in that regard, and I'd be happy to answer your questions about them.

Six, I know that innovation is a really important theme for this government, and the government has, on our behalf, given considerable resources to innovation in the agrifood industry. We applaud that. Innovation is not only about technology; it's also about social innovation. We believe that just as the $65 million investment was made in the agrifood industry, we should make an equal investment in the social innovation that goes on in our food system. My membership is composed of people who are transforming food banks, who are experimenting with new agricultural techniques, who are finding new ways to get people the food that they need, and who are doing innovative programs in schools and campuses and hospitals. I think that's the kind of work that needs your support.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Bronson.

I now give the floor to Mr. Groleau or Ms. Tessier, from the Union des producteurs agricoles.

[Marcel Groleau, Chair, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Good afternoon.

I am chair of the Union des producteurs agricoles, but I am also co-chair of the Food Sovereignty Coalition.

This coalition has existed in Quebec for nine years, and also has members elsewhere in Canada. Currently the coalition has 62 member-organizations. Several of our members also represent sectors that have just spoken here. Our coalition is very interested in all of the aspects of a future food policy for Canada.

We believe that this food policy for Canada should be prepared in co-operation and jointly with the provincial governments, because agriculture and food are matters of shared jurisdiction. Interprovincial agricultural trade is under federal jurisdiction, but everything that concerns agriculture falls under provincial jurisdiction.

In discussing a national food policy, one question comes to mind immediately. I would like someone to explain to us how Canada, with the provinces, will be able to fulfil its commitments and execute this food policy in the context of the Canadian federation; this is an important question.

There is also the regulation of markets to be considered. We are a coalition for the exemption of agriculture and food. There are two ways governments can intervene, either through regulation, since they are legislators, or financially. The government can offer support, investment and guidance. Those are the two ways in which a government may intervene.

We think that when it comes to regulation, government must better regulate agricultural markets to see to it, as was mentioned earlier, that prices are fair and equitable for all citizens, regardless of their incomes or location. Access to food as such is not sufficient; it must be affordable for all Canadian citizens.

The right to food has been discussed and I won't belabour that. Rather, I will talk about the multisectoral aspect of that policy.

This does fall under the Department of Agriculture, but it should really become a government policy, that is to say that each department and state organization should take it into account when any decision is made that could have a impact on food and agriculture in Canada.

I am going to use the words “agriculture and food” often, because we consider that they necessarily belong together in our thinking about a food policy.

I will now talk about the producers. Citizens are also consumers. Surveys of citizens reveal that they are very demanding: they want to live in a healthy environment; they want agricultural practices to be as clean as possible; they want water, the water table and rivers to be protected, they want a diverse agriculture, and so on and so forth.

However, when we analyze the behaviours of consumers, we see that they are not always aligned with what citizens are asking for. Prices are often what determine citizens' behaviour. Governments intervene with producers according to the will of the citizens, but sometimes we, as producers, have trouble meeting the consumer's primary objective: paying as little as possible for food.

You must take this dilemma into account. Stringent agricultural practices are imposed in Canada, but we allow imported products from places where these practices or requirements are not respected. This puts Canadian agriculture at a disadvantage with regard to its competitors.

I will now talk about the strategic framework. This is the year the actual agricultural strategic framework comes to an end. In 2018 we will have a new agricultural policy. A federal-provincial agreement was concluded in July. However, the Canadian government has already determined that the amounts allocated to the future agricultural framework will be the same as they are now for the 2013 framework. In addition, with regard to the strategic framework adopted in 2008, there was a $260-million yearly cut in 2013. People are patting themselves on the back about the implementation of a new food policy, whereas our main agricultural policy, the strategic framework, will be receiving less support than it did in 2008. Consequently, I am worried about the capacity of agricultural producers to meet consumers' demands in the context of that new agricultural policy.

The labelling of food is another important element in that policy. I think that labelling needs to be national so that consumers can make sense of it. Currently there is a lot of pressure concerning GMO labelling in Quebec. The Union des producteurs agricoles and the Food Sovereignty Coalition are in agreement with the labelling of GMOs, if it is national. We can't have very different labelling from one province to the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Groleau, could you wrap up your presentation? Your seven minutes are almost over.

[Marcel Groleau]

I will conclude by saying that the expectations of citizens are very high, the concerns of producers are real, and the needs are very specific. The previous speakers outlined them.

The government has an interesting project here, but it will have to take a multitude of factors into account if it wants it to be successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Groleau, for raising all of these interesting points.

We will now proceed to our question and answer period.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I could easily spend half an hour with you, particularly with Mr. Groleau, who is the chair of the Union des producteurs agricoles, of course, but also a resident in my riding. This is also the case for the provincial Minister of Agriculture. Mégantic-L'Érable is the centre of agriculture in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I simply wanted to point that out to my colleagues.

I was struck by a good number of your comments. It is indeed unacceptable that Canadians not have access to quality food, whatever their social rank or location. I have worked a great deal with the food banks in my riding, and I find the extent to which these banks are meeting a primary need of the population quite horrible. This is a real issue.

You often referred to the problem of access to food. I appreciated that you pointed out that price is not the only aspect to be considered, and that revenues must also be taken into account. In the context of this future food policy, we hear a lot about the requirements and the many standards we want to impose on farmers. The fact is that all of that has a cost. The more standards we add, the more we have to increase the cost of that food. That is a perverse effect. I think this requires a lot of thought.

I know that currently the department is carrying out an exhaustive study on the food policy. We are doing the same study, at the same time, and I hope that one day we'll meet. I would like to obtain a copy of your report and recommendations.

I would also like you to send us your documentation, Ms. Bronson.

Personally, I think we are putting the cart before the horse, here at the committee. We should have waited to receive the results of the department's analysis, and then studied all of their recommendations. Then we could have benefited from all of the department's consultations.

I would now like to speak to Mr. Groleau about a timely subject.

We spoke about access to food. There is another issue of concern to farmers at this time, which is the survival of family farms. This issue is related to the tax change proposals made by Minister of Finance. The time allocated to consultations was very short, and we ran out of time. Producers have not yet been made fully aware of the situation. I know, because I attended UPA meetings, that most people are not really informed about what is going on.

Mr. Groleau, for food to be affordable, costs do indeed have to be a part of the equation. Taxes are an important cost for producers.

[Marcel Groleau]

No one can be against the principle of fair taxation. I won't speak for other economic sectors in Canada, but as regards the agricultural sector, the difference is that you need very high-value agricultural assets to produce one dollar of income. Eight dollars of investment are needed to produce one dollar of revenue. And so there is no doubt that tax measures that affect agriculture are an important consideration for family income, which is by and large relatively low compared to the average family income in Canada.

Recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made representations to Minister Morneau and the UPA. We submitted certain questions during this consultation. This is particularly important because of the value of assets. A lot of small farms are incorporated. The tax measures are used to pay family members. This is very important to us.

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

During my own consultations over the past weeks, I heard a lot of small farm owners express grave concerns as to the next generation of farmers. You raised that issue. There is indeed a problem. I was told that these measures could in fact hinder the transfer of a farm to a family member.

Does the UPA feel that it is important that Quebec farmers be able to pass on their farm to a member of that same family? Those who live in the regions know what goes on. They know the families in the area, and which young people actually want to take over the farm. This is important, and access to the products produced by regional farms is what ensures, in part, the survival of our public markets in various regions.

[Marcel Groleau]

I spoke about the regional agricultural framework, in fact. I think that the cuts made to the agricultural strategic framework, to risk management and the support for various programs such as AgriInvest, have had more impact these past few years on small farms than any of the measurable tax changes, for instance.

As I explained, there were cuts of $260 million. In 2018 we'll have a budget smaller than the one we had in 2008 to offset agricultural risk in Canada, whereas risks are increasing due to climate change and the greater volatility of prices in the markets.

Small farms that have to deal with these greater risks and less state support will certainly see their situation deteriorate. It's obvious.

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

In any case, as I mentioned, I'm hearing a lot of comments on this. I think that what is happening right now is causing grave concern, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. I will be following this carefully over the next weeks, Mr. Groleau.

Thank you very much for your presentations. As I said, if you have other information for us that you may have provided for the department's analysis, we would be happy to receive it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Breton, you have six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here today.

Your comments and concerns are extremely important to our current study.

I will begin with you, Mr. Groleau and Ms. Tessier.

You spoke about the next strategic framework. It's certainly an important element, for 2018 and the subsequent five years. You referred to an agreement with the provinces made in July 2016, correct?

[Marcel Groleau]

It was in July 2017.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

July 2017, I'm sorry.

What funding do the provinces provide under this? You say that it is a bipartite file.

[Marcel Groleau]

These are federal-provincial shared-cost programs. The federal level contributes 60% and the provinces provide 40% with regard to federally funded programs.

However, provinces remain free to institute their own programs. In July, we worked out the framework for the next agreement, which will begin in 2018. Now, a bilateral agreement still has to be signed by each of the provinces with the federal government by 2018.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Have the provinces already put money on the table?

[Marcel Groleau]

The money from the provinces will follow when the federal-provincial agreement has been concluded.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Very well.

There is much talk about buying local, and the expression is very trendy.

Ms. Bronson, perhaps you can answer my question.

The simple fact that buying local is being discussed in our communities, and that efforts are being made to make people aware of this, does not mean that people will suddenly start to buy local products.

What could the government do to encourage this? What could it include in its food policy that would really incite people to purchase local agricultural products?

[Diana Bronson]

The most important thing the government could do is encourage public institutions to source locally. Local sourcing is being done by countless hospitals and university campuses. This could be tried in government buildings, and why not by Parliament?

We have to encourage local purchasing. Perhaps Mr. Groleau would have more to say about it, but one of the challenges local producers face is to find a regular market for their products.

I don't mean just any local product either, but organically produced product and healthy foods. We do not produce enough fruit and vegetables in Canada. When the American dollar goes up and the price of fruit and vegetables shoots up as a consequence in Canada, that makes us very vulnerable. This is a big concern for consumers, citizens.

The most important thing you could do would be for the Minister of Health to put incentives in place, either through setting prices or making regulations, to have the health sector source locally. This is in fact what the Montreal Heart Institute does.

Various initiatives are afoot in this regard. There is Nourish, for instance, a collaborative venture between the McConnell Foundation, Food Secure Canada, and other organizations. There are 25 such initiatives underway.

Meal Exchange is another; it is a group made up of university students who are putting pressure on their respective universities to have them provide better food. This is being done at the University of Toronto, Concordia University, Ryerson University, and on many other campuses from one end of Canada to the other.