Agriculture Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Sylvie Cloutier]

Education is obviously the number one aspect. We must collectively work to launch a campaign that will allow consumers to better understand product labelling, know what they are eating and decide what is good for them as individuals. That is the first thing.

There is also the whole aspect of the exercise. We tend to put a lot of emphasis on diet, and it is indeed a primary consideration, but physical activity is also part of an overall balance. We believe that physical activity needs to be re-established in schools and made part of an education campaign on healthy lifestyles.

That is an important element. People say that children don't get outside anymore and are spending a lot of time on electronic games. People must absolutely start moving again. I think that would be an essential part of a campaign that the government could launch.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Knezevic, do you have anything to add?

[Irena Knezevic]

Yes, I do. Most of our evidence shows that despite the great deal of information we have about food, we are not eating any more healthfully than we have in the past. The main determinants of what we eat are habit and convenience. In other words, in line with social determinants of health, we know that it is not a knowledge of nutrition but the food environments, cultural and physical environments—what kind of food we're surrounded with, what kind of people we eat with—that will influence our eating habits the most.

To that end, if we're thinking about the education of children and youth, and thinking about classes on nutrition, for instance, I would say it's more important to think about things like a national school food program, which I know you heard about from previous witnesses and will probably be hearing more about, and integrating education that is more broadly looking at food literacy with such things as cooking and gardening classes. Rather than just delivering information and transmitting it to our young students, we should be thinking about creating an environment where they integrate food into their lifestyle in a different way.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I love your answer.

[Carla Ventin]

Consumer education is extremely important. That's why five years ago FCPC launched the consumer education program in partnership with Health Canada. It was very successful. Basically, it educated Canadians on understanding the nutrition facts table on the back of the pack. Health Canada determined that there was a gap there and that people did not quite understand. It was very successful, and it showed a fantastic working relationship between industry and Health Canada. It educated consumers. It got them to understand about balance and to understand individual choices. For example, if I've just finished running a marathon, I'm okay with a little bit of sodium in my food products. If I'm a sedentary person suffering from some chronic disease, that may not be good for me.

We are very concerned, however, that Health Canada did cancel that consumer education program at the same time they introduced their proposals for warning labels on the front of food packages. That does not build on the consumer education efforts made to date.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I have a minute left.

Ms. Knezevic, you caught my attention with the right to food. Ms. Brosseau just spoke about it a little. In 50 seconds, could you tell us how you see this? Do you have one or two specific recommendations?

[Irena Knezevic]

First, we heard a great deal about income inequality during the June food summit, and I think that should be taken very seriously. A significant part of the problem with access to food in Canada is really about income. Many of the other costs in people's lives are inflexible, so they have to be flexible with their food budget and that is one of the big challenges for Canadians. I hope that the comments that came from Employment and Social Development and other ministries, especially Indigenous Affairs, during the June summit will be taken very seriously.

Another aspect is to think about rural community development in a more holistic way, and how small-scale agriculture and food enterprises can be integrated into community development to benefit particularly rural communities in Canada and help them realize that access to the right to food.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Now we have Mr. Bagnell for six minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.

I have two questions.

You probably know that people of the Arctic are the most starving people in the country, with the farthest access from food. My first question is a general one. Do you have any suggestions for improving the food security of the poorest people?

Second, when they changed the food mail program to nutrition north, they said it wouldn't really work. We are looking at improving nutrition north. Do you have any suggestions?

If there is any time left.... Irena Knezevic, when you talked about social policy and innovation, does that mean GMO foods to help increase food for the poor? There is a big movement about labelling GMO foods. Do you have any comment on that?

These are all the questions I have. Any one of the three can answer.

[Carla Ventin]

I'll touch on the most recent question you asked, on the GMO labelling of foods. We believe that the food packages should be reserved for health and safety labelling, since there is limited space. We can't put everything on the label. There is no health or safety reason to label GMO foods. Therefore, we would like the government to stay committed to the science-based approach to labelling.

It's important to point out, as well, that Canada has gained international, global recognition for food safety standards because we are committed to science-based labelling.

[Sylvie Cloutier]

I won't repeat what Carla just said on GMO foods.

With respect to remote areas, specific crop projects need to be tailored to different regions to allow people in remote areas to meet their needs in part. Greenhouses should be installed or agriculture suitable for their region should be adopted, of course, but they also have to be able to get supplies on a year-round basis. Animals may need to be moved from the east to the north. We really need to rethink how we feed our remote communities.

[Irena Knezevic]

I will not presume to have answers for the north, but from what I know, having talked to people who live in the north and do their research in the north, supportive initiatives are already happening on the ground. The Northern Farm Training Institute, for instance, has been delivering farm training to northern communities in a culturally sensitive way.

Thinking about moving farming, greenhouses, and gardens to the north is actually a very culturally sensitive issue for very significant historical reasons. Programs like the Northern Farm Training Institute and also programs that exist in northern communities that try to rebuild traditional access to country foods and to re-establish traditional diets are some of the critical points that are needed, in conjunction with the sorely needed reform of nutrition north.

With respect to your question about genetically modified foods, I'll reiterate that technologies are really, I think, a flawed approach to solving what are fundamentally social issues. We have social inequality and we're trying to resolve it through technology, and it's not going to work. If we want to realize that right to food, we need to think about social innovation, and we need to think about what the communities themselves see as a solution to their food access problems.

With regard specifically to GMOs, there is a scientific consensus right now that they're as safe to eat as any conventional food, but that does not eliminate the social and environmental consequences that are associated with genetically modified foods that are evidenced the world over.

I think the recent report, which you mentioned earlier, by Olivier De Schutter—the former UN special rapporteur on the right to food who led the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems—called “From Uniformity to Diversity”, is one of the most significant reports on food systems in the world right now. It really emphasizes that those new technologies that promote large-scale monoculture growth of basically three crops that form half of our world diet represent the most troublesome trend in food systems right now. It states that we need to look at diversifying, in terms of the types of practices that our food production entails, the scale, and the kinds of social organizations, including things like co-ops and thinking about the food industry as something that isn't just about business and corporate entities but also includes social enterprises and co-ops. It will be a really significant step if we want to take that seriously.

I hope that answers your question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You all support the innovative-type greenhouses and the funds we're giving to aboriginal people to train their people in agriculture in the north.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Now we'll go to Ms. Wagantall for six minutes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

I'm from Saskatchewan, and my riding is very focused on agriculture and agri-foods. Obviously, this topic is really important to me on a number of different levels.

When I look at these four key themes, the one that I would like to focus on is conserving our soil, water, and air. I was able to attend an Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, APAS, prairie agriculture summit on carbon this summer. With a number of the topics—for example, the science of carbon sequestration, nutrient management and rotations—I was able to see cover crops this summer that just amazed me with how they can quickly improve the quality of the soils.

Also, there was a topic entitled “Frontiers of Research in Carbon and Agriculture”, and for that particular section the speaker was Maurice Moloney, Ph.D., executive director and CEO of the Global Institute for Food Security. He was also an agri-sciences research professor in the department of biological sciences at the University of Calgary. These are high-quality people bringing their perspectives. He commented on the reality that, in Saskatchewan, we already have 25 years of documented research on how best to do this, and we are already doing it. We're the best carbon sequesterers in the world, actually. Many other countries are now coming to us to learn about zero tillage, how we take care of our pasture lands, and that type of thing.

Saskatchewan has been doing this already for 25 years. The incentive is there because of the love of the land and because, of course, we need to take care of it if we want it to yield the yields we want to see. He also indicated that, moving forward already with what's being innovated and done naturally here, we will within the next decade take care of any carbon sequestering related to the oil sands from what Saskatchewan does already.

When we're talking about access to affordable food and the cost of food production, do you have any comments on what imposing a carbon tax will do to the production of food in Canada and how that will impact food insecurity—I myself faced food banks at one point in my life, as a student—and that type of thing? I'd just like some comments on that, Irene, if you'd like to respond.

[Irena Knezevic]

I'm reluctant to comment on a specific tax because I represent a really wide network of researchers.

What you're commenting on, though, these practices that have to do with carbon sequestration and regenerating the soil, take our approach to sustainable agriculture a step beyond the pillar that just talks about conservation. It brings the lens into something we discussed at the June food summit, which is regeneration of our ecosystems.

There is real promise in thinking about those agro-ecological approaches that not only minimize the damage we're doing to our soil and the rest of the environment, but can also help us rebuild the soil and ecosystems. The pillar also requires us to think about biodiversity, so what kinds of species of insects and soil microorganisms exist in the soil. Those are the things that can not only benefit the larger society but the farmers as well, because in the long run it minimizes the cost of inputs they need to use in the soil.

I am reluctant to comment on the tax.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I appreciate that. Thanks.

[Sylvie Cloutier]

I can't answer you with respect to agriculture, but in terms of food processing, it's an industry that is currently emitting low levels of carbon dioxide, because we are using energy that is considered clean, especially in Quebec and Ontario. Food processors work according to the field-to-table chain, and they work very closely with scientists and environmental groups to improve the condition of soils and agriculture, at least in Quebec.

Our industry is also upgrading all of its organic and other wastes. Our industry is taking charge because we know very well that sustainable development will allow us to survive in the next hundred years.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you.

Quickly, we're talking about educating and encouraging people to eat healthier. My husband was diagnosed as diabetic, was told it was a progressive disease, and was started on medication. He said, “No, I'm not going to do it this way.” Basically, he controls his own diet. That involved removing pretty well anything that had a sugar or a simple carb in it, eating real foods, and exercising. Much to his doctor's amazement, that controls his diabetes—when he's behaving.

However, it took an awful lot of effort. At the same time, the majority of Canadians don't want to go to that effort. How do we educate a younger generation and yet have all those yummy things in their faces all the time?

Diabetes is a huge issue in Canada. We don't want to comment on these things, yet in reality it's costing our health system.

[Irena Knezevic]

Pat Vanderkooy from Dietitians of Canada is going to speak in the next session. She's probably better equipped to answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Unfortunately, we're out of time, Ms. Wagantall. You might have a chance in.... No, I guess not, this is the last speaker.

This is all the time we have for this session. I want to thank all of you for being with us today.

Ms. Knezevic, Madame Cloutier, and Ms. Ventin, thanks for being here.

Before we break, we will be suspending at 5:15. There's a vote, so at 5:15 sharp we will go. I request that we perhaps move the business section to Thursday, if it's okay, since both Monsieur Drouin and Monsieur Berthold are not here.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We'll suspend for the change, and thanks again to the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome to hour two of the meeting. Actually, this hour will be reduced to 45 minutes because of a vote.

We will begin right away.

During this second hour, we will hear from Cam Dahl, president of Cereals Canada.

We have Dietitians of Canada, Pat Vanderkooy, manager of public affairs, food and nutrition. Also, with Pulse Canada, we have Gordon Bacon, chief executive officer. Welcome everyone.

We'll start with an up-to-seven minute presentation, if you want, Mr. Dahl.