Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and our study on food policy.

Today, we have some guests again.

I want to remind the committee that we will go into the business section 15 minutes before the end.

We almost have a new committee today. Mr. Shipley, who was formerly on our committee, is back, replacing Mr. Berthold, I assume. Madam Cheryl Gallant is here for Sylvie Boucher, and Mr. Martin Shields for John Barlow. Also, on the Liberal side, Peter Fragiskatos is replacing Francis Drouin.

Again, we have to cut 15 minutes from the two hours, so I will probably cut seven and a half minutes from each side so we will have equal time for everyone.

From the Canadian Meat Council, we have Mr. Christopher White, president and chief executive officer; and Mr. Ron Davidson, senior vice-president. Welcome, both of you, to our meeting.

From the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, we have Mr. Ron Lemaire, president, who has been here before. Welcome.

From CropLife Canada, we have Dennis Prouse, vice-president for government affairs, who has also been here before.

Welcome to all of you.

We will get going with a seven-minute opening statement.

We'll start with the Canadian Meat Council. Mr. White, go ahead.

[Christopher White, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation.

Good afternoon.

My name is Christopher White. I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Meat Council, and to my right is my colleague Ron Davidson, senior vice-president, international trade and public affairs.

I'll start by telling you, very briefly, a bit about the Canadian Meat Council, and then I'll go into our specific remarks about what a food policy for Canada means to us, based on the four parameters that you've set out.

The Canadian meat packing and processing industry accounts for $28 billion of sales within Canada, $6 billion in exports, and 66,000 jobs, making the meat industry the largest employer in the food processing sector. Meat packers and processors provide a market outlet to feed grain and livestock farmers; support the economies of local communities in all regions of Canada; offer consumers an unequalled source of safe and high-quality protein; and export high-demand, value-added consumer products.

I'll take the four themes that you have outlined. Let me start with “increasing access to affordable food”. From our perspective, this encompasses two fundamental components: first, the ability of farmers and processors to produce food, and second, the ability of consumers to acquire food.

The two objectives, in our mind, are quite distinct. Adequate food requires a policy framework that permits farmers and processors to obtain a positive economic return on investment and labour. Affordable food requires a policy framework that includes access for that segment of the population which is unable to purchase food at a price that sustains production. The pursuit of affordable food should not be allowed to impede the production of sufficient food.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, there are people taking photographs in the room even though they're not allowed to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

On a point of order, photographs are not permitted in the hall, so I would ask that you delete the ones you've taken and hopefully not take any more.

Thank you so much.

Excuse me, Mr. White. You can continue.

[Christopher White]

I hope they got my good side.

I'll go back to the previous point.

From our perspective, the pursuit of affordable food should not be allowed to impede the production of sufficient food. In the absence of adequate food, affordability would be a moot point.

In terms of improving health and food safety, food safety is without exception the number one priority of the Canadian meat industry. New sanitation, processing, packaging, refrigeration, and laboratory testing technologies all contribute to continuous progress in food safety.

The meat industry, as you would imagine and as you would hope, is the most intensively regulated and inspected component of the food industry. International confidence in Canada's food safety system permits us to export to over 100 countries, including the United States, the EU, and Japan.

With respect to nutrition and health, most Canadians consume an abundance of foods, but many do not obtain the nutrients they require for good health. Overfed but undernourished is a rapidly expanding paradox that we live with.

Meat has been a part of the human diet since time immemorial and is recognized by the WHO as an important component of a balanced diet. A compact source of good nutrition, meat contains numerous wholesome and essential nutrients that are critical for good health and life. These would include protein, minerals, all the B vitamins, and vitamin D that we need. Unlike plants, meat contains all the essential amino acids that the human body requires and is a natural source of vitamin B12.

Canadians, on average, consume red meat at levels consistent with Canada's food guide. However, protein and nutritional requirements vary widely based on age, gender, and other factors. It is for this reason that generic statements such as “Eat less meat” are not only overly simplistic, but also in fact can be deleterious to the health of individuals.

For example, while iron deficiency anemia is the most common nutritional deficiency in Canada, iron in meat is more easily absorbed and utilized by the human body than iron found in grains or vegetables. As per capita meat consumption has been falling, obesity has become an increasing concern. Meat supplies significantly fewer calories and more nutrients than many plant proteins.

Many Canadians would obviously benefit from eating more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and this can be accomplished by choosing empty-calorie foods less often. While fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are underconsumed, discretionary sugars and fats are overconsumed. In short, there is no need for the average Canadian to change the amount of meat they enjoy, but everyone should be mindful of balancing their diets.

Not only does food production contribute to climate change, changing climate also makes food production that much more difficult. The challenge for humanity will be to satisfy the increase in global food demand while decreasing the environmental footprint per unit of food production. Reducing greenhouse emissions and improving environmental performance are already priorities for the livestock and meat sector. The greenhouse gas footprint of Canadian livestock and meat production is among the lowest in the world, and the value chain is committed to continuous and further improvement.

It would be counterproductive should livestock and meat production become subject to policies that impede Canadian producers and processors to a greater extent than those incurred by foreign competitors. The perverse outcome of this scenario would be reduced meat production in this country in favour of increased meat production in countries with a higher environmental footprint.

Speaking now to the growing more high-quality food component, two characteristics of Canadian society are a relentless reduction in the number of farms and ever-increasing urbanization. While the population has increased by 400% since 1921, the number of farms in Canada has decreased by 77%. In the absence of increasing productivity and scale, it would not have been, nor will it be, possible to satisfy either the increasing population or the low food price expectations of most consumers. Farm consolidation and an increased capital and technological investment will continue to be propelled not only by the retirement of current operators, for whom the average age exceeds 55 years, but also by the paramount necessity of ever-increasing productivity.

The production of more high-quality food must be pursued not through the increased use of land, water, or energy, but primarily by intensified research and incentives leading to increased productivity, efficiencies, and scale by all links in the value chain. Its achievement will require the adoption of underutilized existing, as well as still to be discovered, technologies.

Any policy, program, or decision that reduces competitiveness or constrains the development or the adoption of new technologies will have negative implications for consumers as well as for the world's food security, the environment, and global stability.

International competitiveness is an absolute necessity for the sustainability and growth of the Canadian livestock and meat sector. The Canadian market is already quota- and tariff-free for pork imports, and increasingly so for beef and veal. Should Canadian meat production and prices fail to remain globally competitive, this country would lose not only its exports markets, but production for the domestic market would quickly be at risk as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. White, could you complete your presentation? We're just about out of time.

[Christopher White]

Sure, Mr. Chair. I have maybe 30 seconds left. Thank you.

The Canadian Meat Council supports the endeavour to create a food policy for Canada. However, if this effort is to be successful, it is of paramount importance that the process include balanced representation of all interested stakeholders, including producers, processors, scientists, and consumers.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. White.

Now we'll go to Mr. Lemaire, from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.

[Ron Lemaire, President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to speak today regarding a food policy for Canada.

In Canada, the fresh produce industry has an economic impact of close to $16 billion on GDP, supports over 181,000 jobs across the country, and plays a significant role in supporting the health of Canadians. This initiative has tremendous potential to strengthen our food system, increase consumption of healthy, safe, and nutritious foods, and ensure that we have a sustainable, integrated food supply for generations to come.

As you all have recognized throughout the consultations, food is complex and brings together social, economic, academic, and community actors who have all voiced the importance of their roles within this new policy.

I'd like to focus on three broad themes that CPMA believes are vital to the success of a food policy. These themes are an integrated food systems approach to both design and strategy; the need to drive population health and industry prosperity; and the establishment of a robust multi-stakeholder governance structure that reflects the entire food supply chain and its system partners.

As a food industry, we are no longer able to work in silos. Our success is based on diversified domestic and international partnerships that enable innovation and support consumer needs and demands. I would urge the government to develop a food policy using an integrated food systems approach that takes into account all actors involved in the production and delivery of food, including primary producers, health professionals, social actors, and others. While primary production is immensely important and foundational to a systems model, we need to recognize the importance of the entire system to allow Canadians to enjoy the fruits of our labour, excuse the pun. An integrated food systems approach will ensure that all actors involved know the role they play within the food policy and how they can engage in cross-framework interactions with diversified players in the system to meet the policy goals together.

A key component of this food systems approach is the recognition that imported fruits and vegetables are important and necessary, given current demand. While Canadians will continue to support local and in-season products, imports of fruits and vegetables that we cannot produce in Canada or products that are out of season are crucial to our integrated food system and meeting consumer food needs. To feed Canadians, a national food policy must not only look at an integrated food model that supports a strong domestic supply, but also to one that recognizes our significant reliance in Canada on imported produce to meet our consumer needs for year-round safe and affordable fresh fruits and vegetables.

As a final point on adopting a food systems approach, industry and provincial and territorial buy-in to the policy is essential. The draft food policy information provided throughout the consultations connected many social issues affecting communities and Canadians around the country. Alignment of these social concerns within a food policy must also be supported with aligned provincial tools and a realistic economic strategy at the federal level.

To that end, all strategies and recommendations within the food policy should be aligned with the goals of the new agrifood economic strategy table and with the government's objectives of increasing agrifood exports to $75 billion by 2025. These final two elements support the fourth pillar under which the policy focuses on growing more high-quality foods within Canada.

Working in isolation, these goals, objectives, and strategies run the risk of duplicating efforts at best, or being contradictory at worst. Together, these policies could launch the agrifood sector into a new age of growth and prosperity.

Let me now turn my attention to a core focus of our membership: connecting population health and industry prosperity. In short, how do we increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables within this food policy? According to a recent study published by the Canadian Journal of Public Health, three-quarters of Canadians do not eat the recommended number of daily servings of fresh fruits and vegetables as proposed by Canada's food Guide. This same study found that Canadians' lack of consumption of fruits and vegetables creates an economic burden of over $4 billion annually. The research is clear: increasing consumption of these by 20%, or one serving a day, would mean we would be able to reduce the economic burden by approximately $880 million annually over five years.

At this time, Canada is the only G7 country not to have some form of national fruit and vegetable health or nutrition policy.

We believe that the creation of a new food policy is an opportune time for Canada to finally set a benchmark or target for increasing consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. This target would not come without rewards. Increasing consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables is good for the health of Canadians, and also has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy and agriculture.

While this consumption goal is ambitious, it would support and address many cross-cutting social and health issues facing Canadians. To that end, our industry recognizes that access to fresh fruits and vegetables varies across the country and by community, especially those communities in remote regions with harsh climates. As an industry, we are committed to working with government, civil society, and academia to try to resolve the issue of improved fresh fruit and vegetable access, both physical and financial, in these communities.

Additionally, as further support for these challenges, we have signalled our willingness to engage with the government's new working group on the development of the food sector in the territories, as outlined in the recent Canadian Free Trade Agreement.

Finally, I would like to address the theme of governance of this new food policy. CPMA has been working collaboratively with other stakeholders within industry, civil society, and academia to discuss how this new policy can be governed. We propose that the government establish a new, permanent, national food policy council, comprising stakeholders from each of the groups that I just mentioned, as well as government representation. Furthermore, a whole-of-government approach to governance and implementation must be established, with a centralized secretariat to support the council, measure success, and to help coordinate departments across government. Indeed, the success of this policy will be directly tied to the strategies for implementation or lack thereof .

Again, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me today to discuss this initiative. I would be pleased to answer questions during the question period.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemaire.

Now from CropLife Canada, we have Dennis Prouse for up to seven minutes.

[Dennis Prouse, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of CropLife Canada and our member companies, I will say that we very much appreciate the invitation to appear today.

CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers, and distributors of plant science innovations, including pest control products and products of modern plant breeding, for use in agricultural, urban, and public health settings. Our mission is to enable the plant science industry to bring the benefits of its technologies to farmers and the public. Those benefits manifest themselves in many different forms, including driving agricultural exports, creating jobs, strengthening the rural economy, increasing tax revenue for governments, improving environmental sustainability, and increasing access to safe and affordable food for Canadians.

We believe that any discussion about a food policy for Canada should include agriculture. After all, agriculture is the industry responsible for food production, and Canada has built a reputation for producing some of the safest, highest quality food in the world. In order to continue to build on this success, a national food policy must encourage science-based decision-making around food and agriculture that enables innovation. This will help drive Canada's economy and build on Canada's position as a global leader in high-quality food production.

If we take a look at history, Canadian farmers have always been among the early adopters of technology. This has helped make them leaders in producing safe, affordable, and sustainable food for Canadian consumers and the world. Technologies like pest control products and biotech crops have played an important role in sustainably increasing agricultural production in Canada while maintaining the high safety standards we have established in this country. These advancements have resulted in economic gains, environmental protection, and cost savings for consumers. For example, plant science technologies alone contribute $9.8 billion to Canada's GDP every year. These technologies have also allowed farmers to be more productive on existing farmland. In fact, without pesticides and biotech crops, Canadian farmers would need to cultivate 50% more land to produce what they grow today. This would be devastating for Canada's biodiversity.

Consumers benefit from these technologies also. Without plant science technologies, Canadians would pay about 55% more for food on average. That's roughly $4,400 a year per family. Thanks to modern agriculture, Canadians enjoy better access to a nutritious, affordable, and abundant food supply nowadays, more than at any other time in our history. It is important that a Canadian food strategy enables this to continue.

We think it's very timely that the Government of Canada is consulting on a national food policy in light of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth's recent report to the government. A national food strategy can and should play a role in supporting some of the recommendations set out by the council. The report highlights the agrifood sector as an important area of potential growth for the Canadian economy. The report points out that Canada's potential agricultural output greatly exceeds the needs of our own population. This is our opportunity to become an even greater source of high-quality food for the world's growing middle class, while continuing to supply our domestic population with affordable, nutritious, and healthy food.

According to the Barton report, innovation is the key to unleashing agriculture's potential. Canada is not the only country pursuing innovations in agriculture, however. As others pursue advancements in data analytics, automation, and genomics, Canada must act quickly or risk being left behind.

The Barton report identifies several barriers to success for the Canadian agrifood sector, one of which is the challenge of how to increase productivity. Agriculture must continue to adopt new technologies and innovations, such as pest control products and products of modern plant breeding, to increase productivity.

One of the other key barriers to success identified in the report is the need to expand Canada's trade capacity. Canada lacks preferential trade agreements in several markets with high potential. Without access to these markets, Canada cannot successfully leverage one of its major competitive advantages: its large agricultural land base. A national food policy can help position Canada to achieve the agriculture and agrifood export targets that are outlined in budget 2017 and in the Advisory Council on Economic Growth's report.

When it comes to agriculture and food, Canada is respected around the world for its strong science-based regulatory system. This commitment to science-based regulation must continue, and we must seize opportunities to improve efficiencies and streamline regulations where possible to drive greater innovation and competitiveness. As you'll see in our full submission, when it comes to products of modern plant breeding and pesticides, there are various opportunities available to modernize and streamline regulations to drive innovation while still protecting human health and safety.

It's also critically important that a national food strategy guard against attempts to promote niche sectors of food production at the expense of the innovative and sustainable crop production systems that are responsible for providing the vast majority of safe, high-quality, and affordable food that Canadians enjoy. This is the same production system that is helping to drive Canada's agricultural exports and boost our economy.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, a national food strategy should build on our accomplishments to date and recognize how far we've come. Technological advancements, such as those in crop protection and plant biotechnology have helped to create an agricultural production system that is more sustainable than it has ever been before. Canadian farmers' adoption of technology has also driven greater food production than ever before, which has spurred economic growth throughout the country. It has also helped ensure that Canadians face some of the lowest prices and have access to one of the safest food supplies in the world.

I thank you for your time and look forward to the questions from committee members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Prouse.

Now, we'll start our question round beginning with Mr. Shipley for six minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate every one of you coming out today on this topic. I'm not on this committee now, but just before we broke for the summer, this issue was dropped on our plate. On top of that came the Canada food guide recommendations, which have a significant directive effect on our national food policy.

Then, of course, on top of that came the hit to what was called in the minister's letter, “strengthening our middle class”, which is our farmers, and a direct hit against our business people. Not only is it being made really difficult to pass on farms within a family, but there is also another tax being added.

I'm wondering if all of you can answer this. Do you know what the consultation timeline for this is?

No? I don't either, so maybe my Liberal friends can help us, because when it came to the tax, they gave us 75 days of consultation for a major overhaul of a tax system that affects every small business across this country. Now we're dealing with a national food policy. I don't know who to ask here, but have the provinces and the municipalities all been a part of this? Have you heard anything through your associations, through any of those contacts?

Ron.

[Ron Lemaire]

We have engaged some of the key provinces and asked some of the questions, and they are watching closely, from what they're telling us, with regard to where and what the policy will be. That's the big question from everyone: what is the policy? While we see the buckets, and we recognize that these buckets are very important in how they could support the agriculture sector and multiple other sectors across the country, the question is how will they be framed under the umbrella? And, to your point, are they going to be framed in the right way in the tight timelines that we're working in? We are working under a timeline to provide all of our information and to be prepared to see something go into government in December. As a fruit and vegetable industry, we understand that we could see some outcomes in 2018. I don't know what those would be, but we understand that the timelines are very tight.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chair, quite honestly, my concern is that further down in the minister's letter, it says that we want to raise the bar of openness and transparency. That didn't work that well on the tax issue, so this is significant to my industry, your industry, and everyone around this table. If we take that same openness and transparency, I'm afraid that you're going to get consultations behind locked doors and that those that are out in the open....

I actually had a meeting, and, I tell you, they came, and many said, “I don't know what it means, but there's an indication that we're not getting any credit for what we're doing on the environmental scene.” I haven't seen anything with respect to what we're already doing. It leaves the impression that actually we need to do a lot better to get more safe food. We have some of the safest food. When I talk about exports, we can't eat everything that we grow, and the interesting part is that what we don't eat, between our livestock and what we consume as consumers, we export.

Can you tell me how significant the export market is in terms of our protein and particularly in terms of livestock? I know we've talked about the vegetables and the fruits, but I'm talking about....

Let me just focus on the livestock, because when we go to the food guide, it's a direct hit against them. Just how important are the protein exports that we have in Canada?

[Christopher White]

I'll let Ron jump in as well, because he runs this for our office, but it's pivotal, frankly. Certainly with regard to the negotiations around NAFTA and any export market and with the cancellation of the TPP, there is a concern about those markets because, clearly, we produce more than we can consume, so we're always looking for increased markets.

That said, we're getting some pretty positive signals from Minister Champagne that he is willing to try to negotiate something with Japan in terms of a free trade agreement. They're looking at China. They're looking at markets that Canada has historically exported to, but in smaller measures because of the advantage of NAFTA. However, with NAFTA one day looking like it's in good shape and the next day not, because of a tweet, it's very hard. It's really prudent on the part of industry to make sure that they have other markets.

While that is taking place, next week, for example, some of us are travelling with Minister MacAulay to Germany and the EU. He's going to Italy. We're looking at other markets that we can tap into, but certainly anything that government can do to open up the markets in Japan, in particular, and in China, because the Americans are there already, would be very beneficial. With the collapse of the TPP, that's a challenge for us.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You have 20 seconds.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'll turn it over, and let my colleagues across the way have a go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Thank you, Mr. White.

We'll now hear from Mr. Breton for six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. We're proud to count on partners such as you and your organizations to help us present the food policy to Parliament.

One of the main themes of the food policy is the improvement of access to affordable food. I know that you're always working very hard with your different associations to provide this access to consumers. We know that food is one of the factors that represents a significant burden for families. However, the fact remains that we must produce affordable food and deliver it to consumers on a daily basis.

Can you each describe how this policy could ensure that nutritious and affordable food is available to all Canadians?

[Dennis Prouse]

I guess one of our ongoing questions when we have looked at this is how much of this is agricultural policy versus social policy? That's obviously a question that everyone will have to wrestle with. We obviously can't speak to social policy; we can speak to the agricultural policy. The greatest outcome we would like to see from the policy is its making sure that we continue to have a competitive, innovative food sector so that Canadian farmers can continue to do what they do best, which is to improve productivity. We have that now. We just need it to be able to continue.

There are some other social policy questions to be asked, and that's going to be a challenge in making this policy. How much of it is pure agricultural policy versus how much is social policy? I think those are two very separate questions.

[Ron Lemaire]

That's a very good question. I am glad you asked it because we were very clear about the process and the consultative mechanism to make sure the policy developers were well aware that the discussion should not be about expensive or affordable food, but about how we enable people to afford food.

It's a very different nuance. We grow and sell the cheapest and most cost-effective food in the world. Our food is affordable, and we cannot go down the rabbit hole and have a discussion about how our food is expensive, because nobody will win if we do. The growers cannot afford to grow food any more cheaply than they do today.

There is a reason our export strategies are so successful: our growers make more money exporting their food. Here we are trying to look at export strategies, and we're asking how we can develop a strong domestic strategy. The food policy could do that, but in doing that, as my colleague, Dennis, mentioned, how do we create the combined, integrated social and agricultural policies to connect them?

The food policy has that power if it's done in the right way, because the social agenda does want to find solutions and does want to work with the agricultural industry. It's just learning how, and we're learning how to work with it. The key is how we drive the connectivity to enable Canadians to afford food and enable farmers to grow food with the right technology, the right tools, and the right efficiencies to remain competitive domestically and internationally.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lemaire.

Mr. White, do you have anything to add?

[Christopher White]

From the packers and processors' perspective, because they are not the producers, they are working in the continuum of the food chain. One of the challenges the industry has is how to work more efficiently and more effectively.

I'm very new to the industry. I have been here only five months, and I came from a background that has nothing to do with this sector, so I'm really struck by how integrated the industry is, but how fractured it is at the same time. I'll give you an example. We had a meeting earlier this year, when I first started, with Paul Glover, the head of CFIA. He said that he was happy to meet with us, but that he'd heard from six other trade associations that were essentially saying to him the same thing, but with a very small nuance.

As for what you are asking, what the industry needs to do, broadly speaking, is to be less fractured. You always hear people say that they want to be more integrated, that they need to be more integrated, but that seems to be—certainly to somebody who is quite new to the industry—quite a bit of jargon, frankly. In the industry I represent, for example, while there is consolidation, if you look at the number of trade associations in Ottawa that advocate on an issue, you see that there is a very narrow bandwidth.

If you ever got together and did what the Americans did when they formulated the North American Meat Institute, it would be far more effective, with far more clout and far more precision that it can give to decision-makers to say, “This is where the industry is really going, and this is what we need from government”—as opposed to your hearing a bit from us, and a bit from Ron, Dennis, and all the other witnesses you've had. It's a real challenge.

What would be very beneficial is if government, particularly Ag Canada, could give more precision, as opposed to these really broad thematic approaches, to narrow down the scope and make sure there is a very clear economic element to it, and not to diminish the economic importance of what we are trying to do from an export perspective as well.