Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2017

[Dennis Prouse]

I think the key term there is “peer-reviewed”. The agencies themselves are looking at peer-reviewed science. You're absolutely right that in the daily bombard of social media, we're hit with a number of studies of varying quality. The good news is that we have regulatory agencies who have a statutory responsibility to review peer-reviewed studies. I think when we allow them to do that, generally the results are very good. Canada is a world leader in science-based regulation. We do well on that.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay.

Ron, you mentioned in your four pillars that one of the key things was to increase the eating of fresh fruits and vegetables. Can you elaborate a bit on how our food policy can deal with that?

[Ron Lemaire]

The target is key. We've seen best practice happen in Canada at the provincial level. British Columbia leads the way in establishing a target at the provincial level for the consumption of fruits and vegetables. That has enabled not only government programs but also industry to align and work together to achieve those targets.

We just need to put a number in play at a federal level that would then create a trickle effect across Canada. People could tap into that target. It would also enable existing programs, and even new programs, to help drive it.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay.

Dennis, you said something earlier that kind of intrigued me, that the food policy should not support niche markets to the detriment of the mainstream market. What do you mean by that? Does that refer to organics, or—

[Dennis Prouse]

It's making value judgments. Generally, we look to the food policy in the same way the government is approaching the NAFTA talks: first, do no harm. We just want to make sure that a food policy isn't giving a nod to one particular sector over another. If you allow agriculture to move forward, there's plenty of production room for everyone. Our concern was that there would be an attempt to pick winners and losers, to make a nod to one group over another, which we think would be incredibly detrimental.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I have a lot of organic farmers in my area, in Steveston—Richmond East. They're saying that the playing field is against them because government is not supporting their area. How would you respond to those folks?

[Dennis Prouse]

We would respectfully disagree. There's a market for everyone. No one is out there trying to denigrate one particular group or the other. What we're saying is that we don't want to see a nod to one group over the other, because that would harm growth. It would harm innovation. It would be the exact opposite of providing affordable, abundant food for Canadians.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Prouse.

Thank you, Mr. Peschisolido. Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for this first part with our witnesses.

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today: Mr. Davidson, Mr. White, Mr. Lemaire, and Mr. Prouse. It will certainly help us with our report.

We'll adjourn quickly for a minute or two, just to shake hands and grab a coffee, and come back with the second part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Would everyone return to their seat? We'll get going with our second hour, which is shortened already.

I would like to welcome the new witnesses we have at the table. For the second part of our meeting, from the Canola Growers Association, we have Jack Froese, president; and, of course, Ms Catherine Scovil, the director of government relations. Welcome again.

From the Dairy Farmers of Canada, we have Pierre Lampron, the new president.

Mr. Lampron, welcome to the committee.

We also have here Yves Leduc, the director of policy and trade.

Welcome, Mr. Leduc.

From the National Farmers Union, we have Ayla Fenton, the youth president.

Welcome to our meeting, Ayla.

We'll start with a presentation of up to seven minutes.

We'll give the floor to the Canadian Canola Growers.

[Jack Froese, President, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide the Canadian canola growers' perspective on a food policy for Canada. As recognized by this committee, the policy has the power to shape the future of food in Canada.

My name is Jack Froese. I am the president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. I farm 5,800 acres of grains, oilseeds, and special crops with my family near Winkler, Manitoba. The CCGA represents 43,000 canola growers from Ontario to British Columbia, and our mission is to help farmers succeed.

Budget 2017 recognized the potential growth of the agriculture and agrifood sector, setting an ambitious target of increasing agrifood exports from $55 billion to $75 billion by 2025. The canola sector has set equally ambitious goals of growing production from 18 million to 26 million metric tonnes of canola and 52 bushels per acre by the same year.

Canola farmers are up to the challenge and want to be part of this growth by increasing production and exports, and increasing our contribution to the Canadian economy. A food policy can create a formal platform to help us achieve this by providing consistent messages across governments and stakeholders. Farmers already produce high-quality, safe, and sustainable food, and with a competitive environment and the right tools, are well-positioned to further grow Canadian production for both our domestic and international markets.

To achieve this growth, it is critical the policy be built on a solid foundation that recognizes the value and importance of agriculture production and our export markets. The CCGA has three overarching recommendations as the government moves forward with the policy's development.

First, develop a strong set of guiding principles. These should centre on inclusiveness, evidence-based decision-making, and the adoption of a whole-of-government approach.

Farmers are the driving force behind food production in Canada. It is critical that farmers and farmer organizations be actively involved to get buy-in to the outcomes. An appropriate governance structure, such as a national food policy council, could be a mechanism to include a diversity of views in the development, refinement, and implementation of the policy. However, farmers and farmer organizations must be well represented, as the policy can and will directly impact their livelihoods.

It is also critical that the food policy be built using the best available evidence and scientific data. Science-based decision-making is the backbone of the agriculture sector and is the foundation for future innovation and growth. It drives farmers' production and marketing decisions, ensures access to innovative new production tools, fuels investment in our sector, and helps maintain global access.

A key strength of a policy is the opportunity to drive a more coordinated whole-of-government approach to food in Canada. Any new activity must build on existing initiatives, and not duplicate efforts or create burdensome new requirements on the agriculture sector. There are numerous ongoing initiatives—federal, provincial, and private—aimed at enhancing agriculture's competitiveness, strengthening Canada's food safety framework, improving the health of Canadians, ensuring sustainable production practices, and safeguarding the health of plants and animals.

At the same time, a whole-of-government approach can help prevent a patchwork of initiatives and mixed messaging. Ambitious export targets and free trade agreements must be coupled with the resources needed to address market access problems as they arise. Desires to increase food literacy must be coupled with plans and targets. Government proposals from one department should not impede the goals of another by eroding the competitiveness of the sector or create unnecessary uncertainty. A whole-of-government approach will also ensure that one stakeholder group is not harmed at the expense of the other.

Second, select appropriate baselines when determining policy goals and activities. This is particularly true when it comes to conserving our soil, water, and air thematic area. Advances in plant breeding, and in how farmers grow canola have softened farmers' environmental footprint, and have helped canola farmers become world leaders in sustainability.

A good example is the widespread adoption of zero or minimal till farming, which keeps carbon in the ground and promotes healthy soils. In 1991, only 7% of western Canada was seeded with no till practices. Today, this number has grown to 65%, allowing Canadian farmers to sequester millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases in their fields every year.

Beyond the benefits of sequestering GHGs, it is important to understand that this change in practice has also resulted in improved soil health, which means the soil can now support a healthier crop, and possibly more importantly for farmers, leaving our soils in better condition for the next generation.

While there is always room for improvement, current environmental practices must be recognized when determining targets and actions. I am personally vested in working to continually improve my farming practices, not simply for now, but to ensure that the farm and its land are in even better shape when I pass them on to my children, or some other generation.

Third, we need to boost Canadians' food literacy and public trust. Increasing Canadians' knowledge of how food is produced, how our world-class regulatory system ensures a safe food supply, and what constitutes healthy food choices crosscuts and underpins the four established thematic areas. We recognize that the vast majority of Canadians no longer have a tie to the farm and there is a growing disconnect between farmers and consumers. Food literacy will be key to help consumers make more nutritious food choices and be more aware of modern agricultural practices. We need to build understanding between consumers and farmers.

As a farmer, I want Canadians to be as proud of the food they consume as I am of the food I produce. Without an increase in food literacy, the policy will continue to struggle moving forward in achieving its desired outcomes.

In conclusion, a food policy can help provide a coordinated and strategic approach that can benefit all Canadians. We recognize, though, that there is a very diverse group of stakeholders and views to be considered in the development of the policy, and we are ready to work together with all stakeholders in identifying and working towards our common goals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Froese.

We'll now give the floor to Mr. Lampron and Mr. Leduc, the Dairy Farmers of Canada representatives.

You have the floor for seven minutes.

[Pierre Lampron, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to share our organization's perspectives on a food policy for Canada.

[Pierre Lampron]

Dairy Farmers of Canada, or DFC, is the national policy, lobbying and promotional organization representing Canada’s farmers living on 11,000 dairy farms. DFC strives to create stable conditions for the Canadian dairy industry, today and in the future. Our objective is to maintain policies that foster the viability of Canadian dairy farms and to promote dairy products and their health benefits.

The Canadian dairy sector is a consistent positive contributor to Canada's economic stability. In 2015, the sector’s economic contributions amounted to $19.9 billion towards Canada’s GDP, and $3.8 billion in tax revenues. In addition, the dairy sector sustains approximately 221,000 jobs in Canada, while providing Canadians with fresh, high-quality and nutritious products without any of the direct government subsidies provided in other jurisdictions.

In its project entitled A Food Policy for Canada, the government of Canada highlighted four pillars. The pillars are to increase access to affordable food; improve health and food safety; conserve our soil, water, and air; and grow more high-quality food.

While DFC supports the development of a national food policy, it's important to ensure coherence among the four pillars. For example, the first pillar, which aims to increase access to affordable food, could easily be in conflict with the fourth pillar, which aims to grow more quality food. While farmers remain committed to efficiently producing high-quality food, their capacity to do so affordably can be limited by many factors, including their costs of production. Ensuring that all Canadians have access to affordable food is something that all farmers take to heart. However, it’s also a complex socioeconomic issue. Canadian farmers have always been willing to do their part in this regard, but it can’t be their responsibility alone.

The development of A Food Policy for Canada presents a unique opportunity to establish a dialogue and find common ground across a diversity of stakeholders. As such, the consultations undertaken by the government are important to clarify the values, principles and objectives of a national food policy. This requires government departments, industry and other non-governmental associations to work together to identify specific targets, actions and priorities. While it’s important to give stakeholders from across the spectrum a platform in these discussions, DFC urges the government to afford special consideration to the expertise that agricultural stakeholders hold in the production of food. This ensures that any food policy reflects the realities of the agricultural sector.

A national food policy should be based on a vision shared by all government departments and explicitly stated in their respective mandates. DFC strongly supports a whole-of-government approach, including the participation of the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Furthermore, collaboration between government departments and the harmonization of priorities will be vital. It will be equally important to ensure that all sectors are well-represented, and that the role and responsibilities of the agricultural sector are well-considered and clearly defined.

Finally, scientific principles and data are essential to establishing a common understanding of the concepts among all the parties concerned. The national food policy should include a science-based analysis of Canada’s strengths and opportunities. This approach will allow the Canadian agri-food sector to quantify its strengths, define future innovation and, subsequently, to better communicate its own reality to Canadians consumers.

I would end this presentation by adding that DFC is supportive of the broad goals of A Food Policy For Canada. We were also pleased to see the Canadian government identify agriculture as an economic driver and area for growth. However, there are other policies currently under consideration that could put the sector at risk. These include the government’s new proposed taxes; the proposed removal of dairy products as a category in the Canada Food Guide; and the consideration being given by Health Canada to demonizing our healthy dairy products by characterizing them as unhealthy, and branding them with labels designed to warn consumers away.

Canadian dairy farmers want to do their part to support positive strategies such as A Food Policy For Canada. However, it’s hard not to be distracted by the challenges we face in the current climate. We certainly continue to appreciate the government’s support in the international arena through ongoing challenges, such as the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

However, we want to remind the government that Canada’s domestic policies are completely within its control.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lampron.

We'll now give the floor to Ayla Fenton, the National Farmers Union representative.

[Ayla Fenton, Youth President, National Farmers Union]

I'm a new farmer. I'm here today representing thousands of farmers from across Canada. NFU members produce a wide variety of foods, and we sell our products in every way, from farmers' markets to supply-managed markets to export markets. The one common goal of all of these diverse farmers is to advocate for policies that will realize food sovereignty in Canada. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sustainable and sound methods and, even more importantly, the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts food producers and eaters, rather than the demands of markets and corporations, at the heart of food systems and policies.

In contrast to this vision, the Canadian government over the past several decades has pursued a pretty much exclusively export-oriented agricultural policy. This has resulted in Canadians consuming food that is primarily not grown or raised by Canadian farmers or processed by Canadian workers. We export low-priced bulk commodities and import higher-value fruits and vegetables and processed foods that could easily be grown and processed in Canada.

Our food system is not only becoming more export-dependent but is losing its diversity and complexity and becoming ever more brittle in the face of inevitable economic and climate stresses.

Minister MacAulay was given a mandate to put more healthy, high-quality food produced by Canadian farmers and ranchers on the tables of Canadian families. We certainly welcome the emphasis on food “produced by Canadian ranchers and farmers”, which is in line with the fact that 80% of Canadians say that they want access to more local food. However, we are facing a demographic crisis in agriculture that urgently needs to be addressed if we are to meet these goals. The number of farms and farmers in Canada has been declining for over 70 years. The average age of farmers is now 55, and the number of farmers under 35 has declined by 70% since 1990. Seventy-five per cent of farmers are planning to retire in the next 10 years and only 8% have a succession plan in place.

The declining profitability of farming is what has led to this crisis in intergenerational transfer. Since the 1930s, the value of farm products has steadily gone up while farmers' share of that value has gone down despite the fact that yields and efficiency have increased considerably over this period. Why is this? Well, since 1985, agribusiness corporations have captured 98% of farmers' gross revenues. These globally dominant transnational corporations have made themselves the primary beneficiaries of the vast food wealth that's created by Canadian farms. They have extracted almost all of the value in the value chain and they have left Canadian taxpayers to backfill farm incomes. Over $100 billion has been transferred to farmers since 1985. This massive extraction of wealth is the cause of an ongoing farm-income crisis, and it is no wonder that generations of young people have left family farms in search of better opportunities.

The NFU is very much concerned about the contradictions between the national food policy's stated goals and the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth led by Dominic Barton. Following Barton's recommendations, the 2017 federal budget's innovation and skills plan sets a target to increase Canada's agrifood exports by 33% to at least $75 billion annually by 2025. The Barton report urges Canada to ramp up food exports by increasing scale, reducing regulations, and automating production. It suggests that this transformation be led by corporate executives. If this advice is followed, we will have even fewer farmers, higher greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fewer workers, more unhealthy processed foods on the shelves, and less protection for our soil, water, and air. This is a blueprint for corporate rule that does not include governments, farmers, and eaters in the decision-making process.

If a national food policy is to meet its stated goals, it must limit the power of corporations in the food system and support the next generation of food producers by adopting a food sovereignty framework. A food sovereignty framework that focuses on local and domestic procurement of food is important not only because it supports farmers' livelihoods but also because it presents solutions to many of the crises our society is faced with today.

These crises obviously include human health. We know that obesity and diet-related disease are the leading causes of death and disability in this country, and the annual economic costs of unhealthy eating are estimated at $6.3 billion annually. This is a direct result of the corporate food system providing cheap and universal access to processed foods rather than to healthy whole foods.

We are facing a crisis of increasing economic inequality. The profits from food production are increasingly concentrated amongst the corporate elite rather than cycled through local communities. In Canada, one in eight jobs is in agriculture and agrifood, yet the industry is consistently criticized for poorly compensating workers and exploiting vulnerable populations. This exploitation includes an increasing reliance on migrant labour.

We are also in the midst of a crisis of climate change and environmental destruction. Over 30% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide are attributable to industrialized agriculture. At least three quarters of that is the result of the production and use of nitrogen fertilizers in the industrial methods of raising livestock, which are the cornerstones of the corporate food model. It is estimated that for every calorie of food energy that reaches our mouths, we consume 13 calories of fossil fuel energy, which makes our modern food system the least efficient in history.

We believe that all of these problems can be addressed by simply shifting to a food system based on agroecology, which means promoting more direct marketing of whole foods between farmers and eaters, and incentivizing farmers to implement more sustainable practices. It also means encouraging farmers to produce a variety of whole foods, rather than exclusively incentivizing the production of commodity monocrops for export.

The good news is that the 2016 census showed the first uptick in the number of young farmers since 1991. Our research shows that around 80% of new farmers do not come from a farming background. They are people like me who grew up in the city and are getting into farming because they see it as a career that will allow them to address the crises that I just mentioned. They are primarily starting businesses in small and mid-scale ecological production, and are practising direct marketing, which allows them to earn a fair return on their labour. Creating an economic and regulatory framework for direct marketing to thrive will ensure that new farmers can supply healthy food to local markets, create meaningful jobs, and regenerate land and ecosystems. New farmers also need support in accessing land, financing, and training.

We urge the government to start building a food system that prioritizes the interests of Canadian eaters and farmers, rather than the interests of transnational corporations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fenton.

We will now begin the round of questions, and we'll start with the opposition side.

Mr. Shields, I have to apologize. I don't think I introduced you at first. I know there are two new people. Mr. Martin Shields, thanks for being here with us. You have six minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the panel that is here today and the opinions they are expressing.

First I'd like to go to Mr. Froese.

When we talk about the whole of government, it's interesting because the transportation committee is out there working and has done a lot of research as it goes through the transportation act. With respect to moving commodities in your industry, what would you suggest to accomplish this as far as transportation goes? I know I'm going in a different direction than you anticipated, but we're talking about the whole of government here. You have a product to get to market, so what would you say about moving it? What changes from the whole of government would work best for you to support that?

[Jack Froese]

There has to be interaction between all the different ministry positions. You need the ministries of agriculture and agri-food, trade, transportation, and so on. Those are all critical links to make it happen. You can make all the trade agreements you want, but if everything doesn't go back to the farm—such as implementing a transportation system, for example—then what good is a trade deal to you? Then, if you don't have assistance with the phytosanitary certificates, MRLs, and so on, all those things will line up and impede trade. These issues cross into different ministries, and these ministries have to work together to facilitate trade.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

So, it's the whole of government, and transportation is a piece.

If we were to talk about short-line rails, are you familiar with them? Do you have any suggestions about supporting short-line rails?

[Jack Froese]

Looking back, we probably shouldn't have gotten rid of all those rails, and we're probably not going to get them back now. It's very unfortunate because rural infrastructure is taking a beating. This should be supported because it's an integral part of the whole agro-industry.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

When we talk in the sense of whole of government, I think that is something that does take that whole piece, so when we're talking about agriculture, it needs to include transportation and trade, as you mentioned.

The second point I have is about the food literacy piece. I'm somewhat familiar with Ontario and people going to the farm gate. I'm familiar with Alberta and its open farm days. Are you familiar with any other province that works at getting people out to see the agriculture producers?

[Jack Froese]

We're very strong supporters of Eggs in the Classroom, 4-H, and so on. They help, but we need a literacy program that starts in the education system so that people who have no farming background can get an education on where our food comes from. Most people couldn't tell you where the food comes from in the first place because they lack the literacy, and yet we're expecting them to make important decisions about food.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

So, your solution to that would be to include food literacy in the education system.

[Jack Froese]

Yes.