Agriculture Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Good afternoon, everyone, colleagues and guests.

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

With us today are Irena Knezevic, of the Canadian Association for Food Studies, and Sylvie Cloutier, chief executive officer of the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec.

Good afternoon, ladies.

Also with us is Carla Ventin, vice-president of Federal Government Affairs at Food and Consumer Products of Canada.

Again, welcome.

We will start with your opening remarks. You will have seven minutes each.

Ms. Knezevic, you may go ahead.

[Irena Knezevic, Vice-President, Canadian Association for Food Studies]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Association for Food Studies, I want to thank you for inviting us here today. We are a network of about 600 individuals across Canada who conduct scholarly research on food. Our members come from a wide array of disciplines, from nutrition science and environmental science to cultural studies and geography.

In existence for over a decade, our network is a web of current and rigorous knowledge and practices regarding food systems and social conundrums related to food. Many of our members work in and with communities that are the most affected by various challenges associated with the contemporary food systems in Canada, so our collective body of knowledge is very practical as well as theoretically sound. The challenges we identify greatly reflect the four themes that are guiding this policy consultation and we thank you for taking such a comprehensive approach to this undertaking.

We call on the standing committee to consider the following three recommendations that we have, which are related to innovation, adaptable policy, and food exports.

The current economic agenda in Canada rests on the view that our secure economic and democratic future hinges on innovation. Investments in the agri-food sector pay a great deal of attention to innovation. Innovation is crucial to pillars two, three, and four of the food policy as proposed by the government. We welcome this but we implore you to take a wide view of innovation, a view that looks beyond technology and profit and that includes social and environmental innovation. This entails holistically valuing the work of small and medium-scale producers, processors, and harvesters, whose revenues obscure the type of social, natural, and community capital they generate through their work.

It also entails valuing the work of countless civil society initiatives across the country that are already addressing nutrition, food access, environmental sustainability, and the livelihoods of those who bring food to our tables. Innovation can mean thinking creatively about engaging citizens in food activities to increase food literacy. It can mean running a social enterprise that helps build skills and social networks for persons who experience social isolation and marginalization. It can mean reviving agro-ecological practices that build soil and regenerate our ecosystems with old technologies and practices.

As a nation, we invest millions in new technologies. Social and environmental innovations require the same kind of deliberate and substantial investment. Supporting community-led initiatives that are already creating better food environments and improving food literacy will be key to making this policy effective, so will supports for new farmers, fishers, and processors, as well as supports for farmland protection and transitioning to ecologically sustainable practices.

In the long run, an improved food system will generate substantial savings in health care costs and environmental remediation, making such investments wise, even from a monetary standpoint.

Next, we ask you to ensure that the policy is adaptable so that it encourages place-based and scale-appropriate solutions. This point was raised repeatedly at the June food summit, but we want to reiterate how important this is for all four proposed pillars. Different communities have different ideas about health, and for many of us, cultural and social well-being is as important as physical health. Our researchers find over and over that when those dimensions of health are ignored, physical health suffers as well. While evident across urban, rural, and remote locations, this is most evident in northern and indigenous communities, as we know you have already heard from others who have testified before this committee.

We also have plenty of evidence that the regulatory frameworks have difficulties accommodating agri-food enterprises that operate on different scales. In general, regulations err on the side of working for industrial-sized operations and they present significant barriers for small businesses, social enterprises, and community-based initiatives.

Lastly, we heard at the food summit that part of Canada's role on the global stage is to ensure that we help feed the world. This underpins proposed pillars two and four. There is an abundance of evidence that the world produces more than enough food, and that hunger and malnutrition are not a result of food scarcity but of uneven distribution. While food exports are essential to our economy, we ask you to ensure that the export agenda is not advanced at the expense of the most vulnerable in Canada or elsewhere but rather in line with the sustainable development goals and the global commitment to leave no one behind.

In other words, it is imperative that this agenda not overshadow the first proposed pillar: access to affordable, nutritious, and safe food. We ask that the growth of exports does not further jeopardize our environment or Canada's capacity to sustainably feed all who live here now and in the future. We urge you towards ensuring that the right to food is fully realized for everyone who lives in Canada, and that this agenda is prioritized over export expansion.

In closing, please allow me to reiterate our recommendations. First, include social and environmental innovations equally with technological innovation. Second, engage policies that can adapt to place and small-scale enterprises. Third, ensure that we consider the needs of people in communities with vulnerabilities over the desire to grow our exports.

Our recommendations are broad, as we represent a wide range of research. We are not submitting a brief as some of our members are already testifying and delivering more specific recommendations on behalf of their research teams and organizations. However, we invite you to continue to call on us and our research as you develop the various components of this policy and roll out the resulting programs.

Thank you for your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Knezevic.

We will now move on to Sylvie Cloutier of the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec.

Mrs. Cloutier, you have seven minutes.

[Sylvie Cloutier, Chief Executive Officer, Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all committee members for this invitation.

The CTAQ, which I am representing here today, has over 550 members, which makes it the largest group of food processors in Quebec.

The Canadian food and beverage processing industry is the second largest manufacturing industry in Canada and the largest in Quebec. It is the largest employer in the Canadian manufacturing sector in terms of the production value, and it is the key link in the agri-food system because it is one of the major buyers of Canadian primary agricultural products.

Recently, the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, chaired by Dominic Barton, recommended several measures to the government that would benefit the Canadian economy as a whole.

The council established agri-food as a key sector of the economy, one that presents untapped potential, as well as significant global growth prospects, and will require some attention to benefit from it.

To realize this potential, the council recommends an approach that uses carefully chosen strategic measures to eliminate obstacles, including excessive regulation, interprovincial trade barriers, forms of inefficient subsidies and market-related challenges.

The four pillars proposed in the new food policy are commendable, and are: increasing access to affordable food; improving health and food safety; conserving our soil, water and air; and growing more high-quality food.

However, the main thrusts laid down in this policy do not speak of strategic measures and do not encourage the creation of winning conditions to promote the growth of the sector.

In addition, the messages launched by this policy suggest that the food industry is deficient, heedless, and does not do enough. For example, when we talk about improving food safety and health, or producing more high-quality foods, there is doubt about the integrity of our Canadian food system, which is recognized as one of the best in the world.

The same comment applies to the environmental aspect. The food industry is already very active in many sectors, including water, recycling, recovery of waste material and organic waste, and energy consumption.

We all want greater accessibility to food in Canada, but the government will have to recognize its role and responsibility to ensure that it is accessible.

The food policy, in its present form, omits important actions and axes, such as ensuring the sustainability and growth of the food industry, promoting a culture of innovation within the food industry, encouraging local purchasing, ensuring the reciprocity of our standards for imported products, ensuring market access, addressing labour and productivity challenges, and so on.

On the one hand, the Government of Canada invites the industry to become the world leader in food production, and to invest in innovation to stimulate economic growth and meet global demand, which, is expected to triple by 2050. On the other hand, the government offers nothing in this new food policy to support these demographic and economic realities.

The industry is willing to take on the challenge, but is concerned that because of the many ongoing regulatory modernization activities, capital needs to be invested in regulatory compliance rather than innovation and growth. The introduction of new food inspection regulations, combined with new food labelling requirements and marketing restrictions, imposes a significant additional burden and additional costs on food manufacturers in Canada. The committee should also examine the impact of these new regulations on the competitiveness of the food industry.

In conclusion, we wonder how the government will reconcile the food policy as proposed with the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. We wonder how the government will ensure that its food industry will become a pillar of Canada's economic prosperity and meet the social demands of its new policy.

Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Cloutier.

Now from Food and Consumer Products of Canada, we have Ms. Carla Ventin for seven minutes.

[Carla Ventin, Vice-President, Federal Government Affairs, Food and Consumer Products of Canada]

Food and Consumer Products of Canada would like to commend the government for its leadership in developing a national food policy, and I welcome the opportunity to provide our comments today for consideration.

With the rapid growth of the global demand for food and the recent recognition by this government of Canada's potential to meet this need, this is a critical and timely issue. FCPC is committed to continuing to work in close collaboration on a national food policy to help position Canada to play a leading role as a trusted leader in the production of safe, high-quality, and affordable food.

FCPC is Canada's largest national industry association. It represents the companies that manufacture and distribute the majority of food, beverage, and consumer goods found on store shelves, in restaurants, and in people's homes. Our membership is truly national. It provides value-added jobs for urban and rural Canadians in more than 170 federal ridings across the country.

According to the chair of the advisory council on economic growth, Mr. Dominic Barton, food is going to be one of the biggest businesses in the world. Canada is well positioned to play a vital role in feeding the world with its made-in-Canada products. This strategy hinges on a competitive manufacturing sector.

For the first time, budget 2017 singled out agri-food as one of three key strategic industries with great potential for growth and job creation. The government's commitment to diversify and move Canada beyond our reliance on commodities towards growth in value-added production is significant and unprecedented.

As food processing is the largest employer in manufacturing in Canada, with facilities in every region of the country, our industry plays a critical role in linking rural and remote Canadians through economic opportunity. Canadian farmers and food manufacturers work interdependently to produce some of the most trusted food in the world. In addition to providing a market for the food that farmers grow, food manufacturers provide off-farm employment opportunities for rural residents and countless indirect jobs across Canada.

I'll briefly highlight our engagement on a national food policy and follow up with eight recommendations.

FCPC has been actively engaged in the development of a national food policy in close contact with several groups as they have pursued their own sound strategies, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.

Back in 2011, I was pleased to present at the annual meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of agriculture and agri-food, in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, in support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's food strategy.

I'll move on to our recommendations.

A lot of good work has been done to date, and this leads me to my first recommendation, which is to build on the work that has already been done in the development of an NFP.

Second is that, to ensure success, an NFP must integrate the entire value chain, from farm to fork.

Third, an NFP must ensure that our rural communities are sustainable and prosperous. As the largest manufacturing employer in rural Canada, food processors play an important part in making this happen.

Fourth, in developing an NFP, we should not lose sight of the fact that we have a lot to be proud of in Canada. We have some of the safest food in the world. The made-in-Canada food brand is globally recognized, and for good reason. We need to know our starting point before developing an NFP to understand where we're at and where we're going.

Fifth, the government should consider the report completed by the advisory council on economic growth, chaired by Dominic Barton, as an anchor to an NFP. This report discusses the potential of the agri-food sector and the opportunity to grow and process more of our own food in Canada, rather than letting other countries do this for us. In the report, Mr. Barton recognizes room for further growth that can be achieved with the development of value-added products. He points out that we add value to only 50% of what we grow in Canada and that this represents an enormous, untapped opportunity.

An NFP must help position Canada to achieve its agri-food export targets, as identified in the federal budget.

Sixth, we need to adopt a whole-of-government approach. While we commend the federal government's intent and efforts to coordinate between departments, more work needs to be done. An example of misalignment is Health Canada's proposal to place warning labels on food at a time when other departments are working closely with the agri-food sector to meet ambitious growth targets. We share the serious concerns of national farm groups regarding the proposal to place warning labels, such as stop signs, on iconic Canadian products like cheese and maple syrup. An NFP could help play a coordinating role.

Seventh, decisions need to be based on evidence, transparency, inclusiveness, and open dialogue.

We welcome the federal government's political commitments, but we continue to have serious concerns with the process and approach that Health Canada officials continue to take towards the placement of warning labels on the front of food packages. There are other ways to improve public health, like education, that take a more informative approach to how people eat. Our own research shows that consumers prefer a more informative approach than warning labels. There's no evidence to suggest that Health Canada's proposals will improve public health outcomes.

Following a meeting on September 18 with Health Canada and other stakeholders, we were very disappointed that the department communicated broadly in writing, on September 27, that we had arrived at an agreement on criteria for front-of-pack labelling, which we had not. This was a clear misrepresentation of the record. Health Canada's criteria is so narrow that it would actually exclude exploring labelling options adopted by our major trading partners. It's important to get this right.

Finally, eighth, we therefore jointly request, with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for this committee to study front-of-package labelling, including the approaches taken by our major trading partners in North America and Europe to determine the best approach for Canada. It is critical to study how a front-of-pack approach will, number one, impact the objectives of a national food policy, and number two, impact the ability of the agri-food industry to meet the growth targets identified by Mr. Barton and the federal budget.

In conclusion, I think we should build on Canada's strengths. We have the potential to become international leaders in food production and innovation, and a national food policy can help get us there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Ventin.

We shall start our questioning round, but before I do that, I would like to welcome Ms. Cathay Wagantall, who is replacing Luc Berthold, and also Mr. Larry Bagnell, who is replacing Francis Drouin.

The first round of questions will go to Madame Boucher.

You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Before I ask my question, I would like to speak to the motion that I tabled two weeks ago. I will read it to you:

That the committee invite the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance to provide a briefing on the government's consultations titled “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” and how this will impact family farms and the Canadian agriculture and agri-food economy.

Could we please take two minutes to talk about this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Are there any comments on the motion?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I would just like to take the time to reread the motion; it won't be long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Excuse me, we are going to wait a moment.

You have the motion in front of you. It says:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance to provide a briefing on the government's consultation titled “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” and how this will impact family farms and the Canadian agriculture and agri-food economy.

Are there any comments on the motion?

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

This is unfortunate. We have witnesses here who I really want to talk to.

As the last time a motion like this came forward, we had just completed consultations. We don't have a policy that we can look at. We have a study going on in another committee, at finance, so I don't see duplicating that study as worthwhile. We're at the end of the consultation period, but we don't have a policy to discuss at this committee, so I won't be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Are there any other comments?

Mrs. Boucher, you have the floor.

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

I tabled this motion simply because we are hearing a lot about affordable food in our committee these days.

It's important to talk about it, given the new tax and everything that is currently going on in agri-food. Our current study is on ways to make food affordable. Should the taxes we don't understand be added, the monologue must become a dialogue. Some witnesses who have appeared before us are, themselves, stuck in this situation.

I think it's a very good motion. We should at least discuss this matter at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just really quickly, I want to assure you that my colleague is being forthright here. My colleague is using her question time to do this motion.

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

Yes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's not taking up any time at all for you to question the witnesses.

In terms of your being concerned about duplication of studies, Health Canada is doing almost the exact same study that we're doing, and there doesn't seem to be an issue in terms of duplicating this study. I think the implications of these tax changes are quite profound, and I think it really is important for us to take a look at them and the impacts they will have on the agriculture industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Are there any other comments?

I guess not.

We'll proceed with the vote.

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

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You have a minute and a half left, Mrs. Boucher.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I found the testimony of Ms. Ventin of the FCPC very interesting.

You said that, despite your disagreement with labelling, you agreed with the government's moving forward with this.

Could you tell me a little more about front-of-package labelling?

[Carla Ventin]

Yes, and thanks for the question. At Food and Consumer Products of Canada, our position is that we do support Health Canada's healthy eating strategy, part of which is the objective of front-of-package labelling. What we think is important to do is to engage with stakeholders in an open and meaningful manner, in a way that is respectful of different views.

What we are concerned about is Health Canada's approach to the process, the timelines, and most recently, a lack of representation of a meeting we had with them, a misrepresentation of the public record.

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

Thank you.