Evidence of meeting #70 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chicken.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, As an Individual
I'm familiar with some of the details.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Regardless of those details, what are your thoughts on institutions like Port Metro Vancouver purchasing farmland in order to develop space to drop containers on? I am a bit biased, so that's why I asked that question in that way.
On more of a policy approach, what role can the federal government play to ensure that farmland is maintained, and entities such as Port Metro Vancouver, or any ports, don't encroach on farmland?
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, As an Individual
There's never an easy answer. The problem with land-use planning is that it usually begins with conflict. It arises from conflict as a basis for its need, really. That's its purpose; that's why it's there. It's not as if we can just blow away conflict by having better policy. I think it's a matter of clarifying the position of farmland, farmers, and food within Canadian society, so making a much clearer, much more direct statement about the importance of farmland within the broader society. Those port decisions are generally made without those considerations, primarily out of an economic development, global-oriented system. I think we need a more comprehensive articulation of what the interests are and where agriculture needs to fit.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
Mr. Saul, from your presentation, I hear you want change. You discuss the problems with our system. I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but if you want to change something, you always have to put forth an alternative.
In my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, there is a burgeoning organic agricultural system developing. Some folks say it's too expensive. Others say it just won't meet the needs of agriculture writ large.
What would be your suggestions for a food policy that can be helpful in the development of organic farming?
4:30 p.m.
President and chief executive officer, Community Food Centres Canada
I think we have to invest in it. I should be clear. This is not an area of super expertise for me. I'm an anti-poverty activist at heart who is organizing in low-income communities through food, because food is a powerful way to connect people, and also work on some of the big, seemingly intractable problems of our time, as I said, climate change, public health, and inequality. I am not going to pontificate on the dimensions of how our national food policy supports a thriving organic system.
What I do know is that my experience with those who have tried to buck the trend is that it can be done, but there are practically no resources put toward helping it happen. Again, I haven't crunched the numbers, but when I talk to a person who is farming 100 acres of land and able to take $35,000 or $40,000 gross out of it, and get his kids together, off to school, family is good, and make money—and I pass rows and rows of farmland all dedicated to soy and corn, a lot of it for ethanol, a lot of it for livestock—when he talks to me about the land around him, he says basically, “I have sugar, meat, and processed food all around me.”
There is a burgeoning crew of young farmers who want to get on the land and grow in a very, very different way, and there is a market for that. My concern is, you know, the question that you raised around it: how do we democratize that good food? How do we make sure that all of us have access to more expensive food, because our food needs to be more expensive for it to take care of the environment and to ensure that it's healthy for us.
That's the dilemma. The more we can create supports by a government in a regulatory framework that pushes and encourages farmers to grow that way, the better.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Saul, if I may, you talk about young farmers. Actually, in East Richmond at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, there's a professor, head of the agriculture department, Kent Mullinix. He's devised what I think is a wonderful program where he brings in young farmers. There are 30 young farmers right now who are farming a plot of land and also working in the community on five- and 10-acre plots of land. He's trying to create, as you put it, the next generation of farmers.
Are there any proposals that we could put forth in the food policy to help post-secondary education institutions, as well as young farmers?
4:35 p.m.
President and chief executive officer, Community Food Centres Canada
I want to be careful about this. Does Evan or anyone else want to answer that question?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Arrell Food Institute, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I'm happy to engage in that conversation.
There's a tremendous amount of new stuff that universities, like the University of Guelph, can and are doing.
I'm leading an experiential workplace to education program for undergrads and graduate students. We work regularly with NGOs like FarmStart that is trying to create farm mentorship programs, and reduce barriers for aspiring new Canadians who want to establish agribusinesses.
I would be happy to share with you off-line a tremendously diverse range of things, if you're interested.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you very much.
This wraps up our first hour. I want to thank Mr. Saul for being here on time that's been a little shortened, and also Mr. Connell and Mr. Fraser, for your thoughtful insights into our report.
We are going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
We'll change the panel and we'll be right back.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Let's take our seats.
We are beginning the second hour of our meeting on a food policy for Canada.
We have with us Ms. Claire Citeau, the Executive Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.
I welcome you once again to our committee, Ms. Citeau.
We also have with us Ms. Rebecca Lee, the Executive Director of the Canadian Horticulture Council, and Ms. Linda Delli Santi, Chair, Greenhouse Vegetable Committee.
Welcome, ladies.
And finally, we have with us Mr. Mike Dungate, Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada.
Welcome again to our committee, Mr. Dungate.
With that, I will start with a seven-minute opening statement from each of your organizations.
Ms. Citeau, you may begin. You have seven minutes to make your presentation.
4:40 p.m.
Claire Citeau Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
It will be my pleasure.
I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, CAFTA, to speak on the subject of a food policy for Canada.
CAFTA is a coalition of national organizations that have a major stake in international trade and seek a more open and fair international trading environment for Canadian agriculture and agrifood products.
Our members represent producers, processors, and exporters from the major trade-dependent sectors: beef, pork, meat, grains, cereals, pulses, soybeans, canola, as well as sugar, malt and food industries. Together, our members account for over 90% of Canada's agriculture and agrifood exports, which last year exceeded $55 billion, and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in communities across the country.
Canada is one of the few countries that can not only feed its population, but also has an obligation to produce, trade, and sell food to the rest of the world for its agricultural sector to thrive and grow. Canada's agriculture food processing industry is much larger than if we were only serving our domestic market. In Canada, nine out of 10 farmers rely on exports for their livelihood, which is a result of production exceeding domestic needs and consumption. One in two jobs in crop production depends on exports, and it is one in four in food manufacturing.
Canadian agriculture produces what the world needs and is well positioned to continue to do so, but Canadian agriculture cannot be competitive without commercially viable access to export markets. CAFTA welcomes the four pillars proposed by the government for a food policy for Canada, but believes that success will require commitments that extend beyond the mandate of Canada's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. International trade is crucial for Canadian agriculture and agrifood as 58% of its total value is generated through exports. We export over half of the agrifood products that we grow, and Canadian agriculture has already made great strides over the past 10 years as our exports have grown by over 100%, from $30 billion to over $60 billion, boosting farm cash receipts by 61% over the same time frame.
An effective food policy should include a strong trade component and outline the conditions that will allow Canadian agriculture to thrive and build on the export growth forecast by the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Economic Growth of $75 billion in exports by 2025. This is an ambitious goal, but one the industry believes is completely achievable, given the immense potential for growth.
The policy should include a focus on negotiating and implementing free trade agreements with key markets and the markets our competitors are also after, as well as removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to enable more production and exports.
We offer the following to the committee for consideration:
First, the policy should ensure that proper resources are allocated to departments and agencies in charge of negotiating free trade agreements, specifically maintaining the free and fair trade we have through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and improving it where possible; implementing free trade agreements with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, like the TPP, the trans-pacific partnership. This remains today the best option for Canada to secure favourable market access to Japan and many fast-growing countries in Asia.
Second, the policy should also ensure that proper resources are allocated to the functions in charge of implementing free trade agreements. Specifically in the European Union, while there is a huge potential to make greater inroads in that region, in particular through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which was implemented exactly one week ago, the results for many of our sectors won't be felt immediately as technical issues remain outstanding.
Third, the policy should also ensure that adequate funding is allocated to functions in charge of resolving market access issues, so the Government of Canada can continue its work of minimizing technical barriers to trade and ensuring real access for exporters. The proliferation of non-tariff barriers in agriculture over past decades has significantly increased the number of market access barriers our exporters face as they diversify their export profile, and for farmers, producers, and exporters of all sizes, this has a direct commercial impact on export revenues, risk management, and predictability of operations.
Our fourth recommendation for the policy is to allocate proper resources to the network of Canadian representatives abroad, notably embassies and trade commissioners, because Canada's ability to build a competitive industry depends in large part on how well the country opens doors abroad.
In closing, Canada's food policy should place a strong emphasis on creating the most competitive business environment possible in order to continue to grow high-quality foods and meaningfully increase agriculture's contribution to the Canadian economy.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Rebecca Lee Executive Director, Canadian Horticultural Council
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members. Thank you for having me here today.
Given that there are new members of Parliament on the committee since I last appeared, allow me to first introduce the Canadian Horticultural Council, or CHC, and give context for our remarks today.
CHC is an Ottawa-based voluntary not-for-profit national association that represents fruit and vegetable growers across Canada involved in the production of over 120 different types of crops, with farm cash receipts of $6 billion in 2016. Since 1922, in collaboration with our members, growers, and the government, CHC has advocated on important issues that impact Canada's horticultural sector, promoting healthy, safe, and sustainable food, and ensuring the continued success of our industry while providing nutritious food to communities across Canada, which brings me to our focus today, the national food policy.
Let me begin by saying CHC supports the mandate of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to develop 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. How the policy is implemented is where CHC is pleased to have input as an active stakeholder.
Please note for the purpose of this presentation I'll use the term “Canadians” to represent all those who call Canada home.
The national food policy is a big undertaking, which requires a multi-faceted approach by government and buy-in from all Canadians and key stakeholders, including farmers, as the policy will inevitably impact and influence Canada's agricultural industry with ripple effects throughout communities across the country. CHC supports a policy that focuses on the accessibility of nutritious food to all Canadians, particularly to northern and remote communities. At the same time, CHC advises the government to avoid a focus on the affordability of food and consider the broader picture to ensure the policy is also sustainable for farmers and the communities they feed.
With higher costs of production, including labour, carbon pricing, and implementation of safeguards for food safety assurance, among others, CHC suggests a policy based merely on the affordability of food would not be sustainable, nor would it help in reaching the federal government's goal in budget 2017, which set out to increase agrifood exports to $75 billion by 2025.
In tandem with accessibility, there needs to be more food literacy available to educate Canadians and make healthy choices. Effective educational programs can lead to folks choosing more whole foods, which are often more affordable than processed meals, and learn how to cook with whole, nutritious ingredients.
I'd also like to address the government's call to increase the production of high-quality food, which touches on national food security issues as well. While in theory this sounds good, in practice Canadian growers need effective tools in order to continue to provide and increase high-quality food in a sustainable production system. Currently Canada has enough high-quality food to feed our country, based off current crop protection products available. If or when these products are removed, farmers need to have access to new tools to maintain the same level of high-quality food at the same level of production, let alone grow more food. Therefore, CHC urges Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, to maintain their commitment to continue registration of crop protection products when there are no viable alternative products that the horticultural industry deems effective. CHC encourages PMRA to work with growers in cases where risks are identified for human health or the environment, and to work together to implement practical means of mitigating identified risks to ensure continued access to tools to control pests and diseases. If growers lose essential crop protection tools, not only would there be less high-quality food production, but food loss in the fields would increase exponentially and there would be further food waste throughout the value chain. Again, this goes hand in hand with government departments working together to ensure the sustainability and growth of Canadian farms to continue to feed our communities.
Last, I'd like to note that the small business corporate tax changes that were proposed in July will heavily impact Canada's farms. Without the farms it will be harder for Canada to produce food locally and be able to feed the nation, which would have a ripple effect on the economy and on the environment. As you may know, the average age of a farmer is over 50, and the farm owner is usually a generation older, so we will see quite a few succession plans in the years to come. The proposed tax changes will severely impact how these farms will switch hands and if it is viable to pass along to family members. You can see how these changes would be counterproductive to getting young people involved in the farm. We strongly encourage the government to take more time to review the corporate tax changes and make adjustments as necessary to continue to promote and grow Canadian agriculture.
A favourable business environment will ensure there will be Canadian growers for decades to come. As the food policy helps set the stage to grow more high-quality food and increase access to it, CHC suggests that the Government of Canada needs to encourage healthy economic conditions so farmers can continue to provide Canada with locally grown fruit and vegetables.
In addition to Finance Canada's quickly approaching consultation deadline for the small business tax changes, there are numerous complex government consultations happening this year. CHC trusts that the government will ensure that the resulting food policy is coherent with other consultations across departments, including Canada's healthy eating strategy and the proposed safe food for Canadians regulations.
CHC looks forward to working with the federal government, growers, and other key players to develop a national food policy that will benefit all who call Canada their home.
Thank you. We are happy to take questions.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Madam Lee.
We will now hear from the representative of the Chicken Farmers of Canada.
Mr. Mike Dungate, you have seven minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Mike Dungate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chicken industry in Canada is a growth and value-addition success story. Production has increased 12% over the last four years, and will increase another 4% this year.
Just to give you a sense of what the sector comprises, there are 244 hatching egg farms, 40 hatcheries, 125 feed mills, 2,800 chicken farmers, and 191 processing plants across the country. They contribute $7.2 billion to Canada's gross domestic product; they sustain 95,000 jobs, and they pay $2.3 billion in taxes. We're making significant capital investments as we're growing our business: new feed mills, new hatcheries, and expanded processing plants. For example, in Ontario alone there are 100 new barns under construction. These innovative barns have changed from what you think of as the typical farm. Our barns have changed, but our values haven't. We still care about our fellow Canadians. That's why this food policy is important to us, and why we are focused on a secure, affordable supply of safe and nutritious chicken that is raised with care.
As we present before you in terms of a national food policy, I think it is important to acknowledge that Canadian farmers and their agrifood partners first and foremost provide food for Canadians. The issue of affordability is a complex one. It is one that's driven primarily by low incomes, not by the value that we provide in the industry. Canadians, on average, only spend 10% of their disposable income on food. I think we do a good job across the whole agrifood sector.
Chicken is the most affordable meat protein. I think that's a key reason it is Canada's most consumed meat, but the challenge before us is to make sure it remains affordable. Right now, for us and all of animal agriculture, the real threat to affordability is the security coming from activists who are masquerading as consumers. These activists are extorting our restaurant partners. They're maligning our farmers. They're campaigning against the humane transportation of animals. They're campaigning to take chicken and other meats out of Canada's food guide. Their ultimate objective is to dictate to Canadians what they can and cannot eat, and they are trying to reach their goal by driving up the cost, and that's the affordability issue of nutritious food for consumers.
As chicken farmers, we are not in a position to address issues related to low incomes; that is a broader context than we're able to address. That being said, we fully support food banks—all our partners across the country. We think it's a stopgap measure. I think food banks would tell you it's a stopgap measure. Every one of our provincial boards has programs. In Ottawa, we've been a partner with the Ottawa Food Bank for the past 10 years. We've provided $500,000 over the last 10 years in both chicken that goes out as protein sources to people and in donations. Many of you have participated in our recipe contests and earned contributions to your own food banks across the country.
A national food policy needs to recognize the choices that Canadians make toward healthy eating. The Canada food guide is a key part of that. Chicken is nutritious and contributes to the health of Canadians. It needs to be maintained in the Canada food guide. Canada's chicken farmers are already addressing the food policy's goal regarding food safety. In 2013, we were the first commodity to have an on-farm food safety program that was officially recognized by the CFIA. We want to move so that there is a program in place for on-farm animal care as well.
We're also responding to concerns from consumers on antimicrobial resistance and use. In 2014, we eliminated the use of class 1 antibiotics. Earlier this year we agreed to eliminate class 2 by the end of 2018, and class 3 by the end of 2020.
In terms of the environment, we've recently expanded our “raised by a Canadian farmer” program, and we gave you the little blurb in terms of putting it out to the public to incorporate sustainable practices.
Our supply management system for chicken production ensures that chicken production is spread out across the country. Chicken manure is a valuable resource for crop farming. With it being spread out, we make sure that it's put out and provides fertilizer in a sustainable manner.
We are also at the finishing stages of a life-cycle assessment, looking at sustainability in our industry from an economic, social, and environmental perspective. We think that a 360° view would allow us to focus on where we can get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of environmental improvements. We are all about continuous improvement. I think we are much farther along than others would give us credit for.
In conclusion, our industry is focused on innovation and value addition. We grow and process all our chickens in Canada. We further process and add value in Canada. We are investing in our future, making capital investments, and the immense growth of the industry speaks to the trust that Canadians have in the chicken they consume.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Dungate.
I can say that I purchased pelletized chicken manure for my organic farm at home, so it's a fully recycled product.
I want to apologize. I forgot to mention that Mr. Carrie is here with us today, replacing Monsieur Berthold.
Welcome, Mr. Carrie.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Now we'll go to our question round. To lead us off is Mr. Barlow, for six minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today.
I know you had an opportunity to listen to some of the witness statements prior to your hour as well. You've heard a lot of the discussion through this study about access to affordable food. That's going to be a pillar to the study. All of you touched on it a bit in your testimony as well, and how difficult it's going to be to maintain that access to affordable food with some of the changes that are being implemented by the current government.
I would like to ask you to take a look at implementing a carbon tax and eliminating the deferral on grain cash tickets, now with these potential tax changes, and the implications this could have for passive income and succession plans.
We can start with the Horticultural Council. What is going to be the impact of these changes?
We heard at the finance committee earlier this week that if these small business tax changes go through, the typical farm will see an increase in its tax bill of about $70,000 a year. I know the farmers and ranchers in my constituency. They are certainly not wealthy, and they go on a very small margin. An additional $70,000 a year to their operation...and that's just on those tax changes. Some of them have told me that their fuel costs alone would be another $25,000 when you include the carbon tax. With those two tax changes alone, a typical farmer is looking at more than $100,000 in additional expense. How do we, then, come up with a food policy guide saying that one of the pillars is affordable food?
I would like your comments on how we can possibly harmonize those two things, with one side saying, “We need to access affordable food” and the other side of the federal government saying, at the same time, “We are going to be implementing some pretty punitive taxes on you.”
5 p.m.
Linda Delli Santi Chair, Greenhouse Vegetable Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council
That's an interesting question. Thank you.
On the carbon pricing, for example.... I am from the greenhouse vegetables sector, in British Columbia. As you know, we get an 80% rebate of carbon tax paid at this time, but we did pay the carbon tax for three years prior to having our rebate. The carbon tax is one reason why I have the job at the BC Greenhouse Growers' Association, because we stopped growing. I have five acres of greenhouse and the cost of the carbon tax to my operation was $50,000, which meant I didn't draw a salary for the last three or four years of our operation.
I don't know how you reconcile it, but we would ask that the government and anyone related, like this committee, look long and hard at whether or not they want food sovereignty and food security from Canadian producers. Then there are the enabling policies that can be used to reach our mutual success in growing the agrifood sector. The greenhouse sector is definitely poised and ready to move forward in meeting the export goals of Agri-Food Canada, but we need a recognition that there is a demand, and an understanding that agriculture does need recognition as being important to our economy.
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
I find it a bit ironic that, with the growth in the greenhouse business.... You are making food more affordable, because it's local and we don't have to import a lot of those products, whether it's tomatoes, cucumbers, or peppers. We are able to grow those things locally and reduce the carbon footprint, because we are not bringing them in from further afield, but again, we are punishing those industries with these additional taxes.
Maybe Mike as well on the chicken farmer side.... I thought it was interesting. You talked about 100 new barns being under construction in Ontario alone. I am wondering if those potential new small business owners are having second thoughts about building those barns, if these small business tax changes are implemented. Have you talked to your membership about the potential impact these taxes would have?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
I know there's a concern. As I said, we paid $2.3 billion in taxes. I don't think one of our members will say they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes, and I think they feel they do. They have some concerns about trying to understand the impacts of this proposed legislation.
We are working with all farm communities and organizations through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to make sure we understand fully and we're not an unintended consequence of an impact on farmers.
Our key point on a carbon tax perspective, as we've said, is it is centred in Alberta. If there's a carbon tax, we need to make sure there's consistency in how it's applied across provinces and between commodities. That is the biggest issue we have in those terms.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
