Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Hello, everyone.

I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on a food policy for Canada. This is our last meeting on the subject, which has taken up much of our time over the past few weeks. I thank you for being here.

Today, we have two groups of witnesses. In the first group, we will hear two witnesses via video conference, as well as another witness who is here in the room today. That witness is Ms. Christina Franc, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions.

Good day and welcome.

We will also hear Ms. Hilal Elver, the special rapporteur on Right to Food, from the United Nations Human Rights Council. She is testifying as an individual via video conference from Istanbul, Turkey, where it is 10:30 p.m.

Ms. Elver, thank you very much for making this small sacrifice to be with us today.

From Calgary, we also have a video link with the vice-president of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Mr. Casey Vander Ploeg.

Thanks very much and welcome.

I remind the witnesses that they will have seven minutes to make an opening statement.

Ms. Franc will start, and then we will hear our two witnesses via video conference.

[Christina Franc, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions]

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to allow me to speak today, representing the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions. I am representing 800 fairs, agricultural societies, and exhibitions across the nation, from the Calgary Stampede right down to the Havelock Fair, a one-day event in Quebec.

Fairs are living reflections of the life and times around them, rooted in agriculture and volunteer driven. They hold deep cultural, traditional, and emotional connections to the people of their local area, and define a sense of community. Fairs and exhibitions have been, for decades, leaders in innovation while upholding tradition. Communities have relied on them in the past to bring them the latest information and technology, from farming technology right down to the latest entertainment system.

While our fairs have recently seen a period of decline, we are now growing and expanding. This is because of a cultural shift. People want to know and understand where their food comes from. There is no better place to do this than at a fair, where livestock is exhibited, agricultural displays are presented, and food and farming education is a key component.

That brings me to my first point. In planning the national food policy, I strongly encourage you to engage and support the fairs and exhibitions across Canada. A 2008 study showed that we have access to 35 million Canadians each year. We are one of the few places where rural and urban life collide. Think about the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. Hundreds of farmers and farm businesses show up there each year, in downtown Toronto, a decidedly urban location. At least a few urbanites are going to visit that spot.

There are great agricultural and food education projects going on at these events, large and small. The Norfolk County Fair, in Ontario, has an agricultural passport for children, where they have prizes if they answer clues and questions on farming and agriculture.

Our events are almost always overlooked because we don't have the resources to represent ourselves and get our voices heard. Frankly, I'm sure this is the first, if not the second time, most of you have heard about my organization, despite the fact that most of you, I'm sure, have a local fair or a fair-like event in your own riding.

The point being, fairs and exhibitions have the tools, knowledge, and passion to support the national food policy and educate the public about it. It's something we have been doing for decades in partnership with a wide variety of stakeholders, which touches on my second point.

Developing this policy, it will be critical to focus on education. By that, I mean providing access to healthy and safe food is critical, and I fully support it. However, the saying, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” stands true here. Teaching people about healthy food choices and getting through all the noise and misinformation on social media and other media outlets will prove to be much more valuable in the long run.

Depending on the province, fairs and exhibitions are eligible for funding towards agricultural education, but this funding is constantly at risk of being cut, now more than ever. This is unfortunate because I have seen some really great projects come through this funding, including videos on local farm industries and local farmers, and interactive exhibits on the development and processing of crops and livestock, and more.

These have been extremely well received and incredibly successful in educating our visitors. Helping people understand their food through education will also encourage a cultural shift that once again will support farmers, as individuals will have a better understanding of where their food comes from. Therefore, strategic education is a key component of this policy.

Finally, this policy will have the opportunity to give the people what they want in an innovative and strategic fashion. More importantly, we can do this proactively rather than reactively. Too often we see the bad news stories coming out about farming, and we have been beaten to the punch.

This policy can help shape cultural perceptions before the bad news stories make the headlines. This can only work if, in developing this policy, the marketing component and how to appeal to the masses is considered. Yes, people are interested in where their food comes from, but generally speaking, they are interested in how the cows are taken care of rather than the implications of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In order to ensure the success of this initiative, I hope the government weighs heavily on what the population wants to know versus what information the government wants to get out. There is a balance to be struck where all parties can be satisfied.

Overall, I look forward to seeing where this policy takes us. It is a very exciting opportunity and capitalizes on a growing desire of the population.

Please keep us, Canadian fairs and exhibitions, in mind as you move forward, particularly for the education and outreach components. We look forward to working with you throughout this process, from farm to fair to fork.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

We now turn to Ms. Elver, for seven minutes.

[Hilal Elver, Special Rapporteur on Right to Food, United Nations Human Rights Council, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Distinguished members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, ladies and gentlemen, to begin with I would like to congratulate the Canadian government for developing the first-ever national Canada food policy discussion. Such an initiative, despite its policy importance, is rather uncommon among developed countries, especially those, such as Canada, that do not have significant food insecurity challenges and possess an established agricultural system.

Food insecurity, however, especially in relation to eliminating all forms of malnutrition, has recently become a universal challenge that pertains to developed countries and certainly to Canada, which is one of the world's largest food producers and ranks high among the wealthiest countries in the world.

A few facts underscore the relevance of malnutrition to the Canadian reality. One out of four Canadians is obese. Type 2 diabetes is rapidly spreading. As well, 1.15 million Canadian children go to school hungry because fresh, whole, nutritious food is either too expensive or unavailable. These forms of severe food insecurity are particularly prevalent in the northern part of the country, above all in remote communities where most aboriginal peoples live.

The standing committee should also be commended for adopting a holistic approach, which insightfully connects the health of people with the health of the planet. In this way, agricultural policy and food systems are addressed together, which is an important step forward, especially in view of the relevance of climate change and emerging resource scarcities.

I would like to take advantage of my opportunity to talk with you to underscore Canada's international commitments to uphold the right to food. As one of the fundamental principles set forth in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to food is by now considered a right embedded in customary international law principles that is obligatory for all governments, whether or not they have ratified the contents.

Canada is a leader with respect to confirming the obligatory status of the right to food, having ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights back in 1976, which legally acknowledged the right of everyone to adequate food and a life free from hunger.

Canada has also ratified several other international legal instruments that confer a right to adequate food on particular segments of society, such as women and children.

Most recently, Canada made a commitment to adopt a national plan for the realization of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Particularly relevant is goal number two, which affirms a commitment to end hunger, achieve food security and nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. This commitment is very central to Canada's evolving national and international food security.

Unfortunately, for a considerable period there was no effort made by the Government of Canada to internalize the international law commitments through national legislation with respect to the right to food. I consider this initiative an important opportunity for the Canadian Parliament to demonstrate the seriousness of its commitment to uphold its human rights obligations.

Let me discuss now some of the specific issues in relation to pesticides that I believe to be vital to include in Canada's food policy.

The four components of the national food policy are expected to address not just access to affordable food, health, and food safety, but also the way in which food is produced, which should always be treated as a fundamental component of ensuring food security.

The major inputs of desirable standards of agricultural production include clean and healthy soil, water, and air, as well as ensuring a variety of seeds and ensuring biological diversity. Monoculture is illustrative of the most intensive type of agriculture production. It is in effect an enemy of ecosystems and often wasteful of vital natural resources.

For these reasons, we should try to strike a delicate balance between agricultural production and sustainability. Such a balance allows for the planning of long-term food security and is not just a creature of short-term profitability.

Increasing production without thinking about future generations is selfish and short-sighted from the perspective of Canada's long-term agricultural national interests. Canada's diversity of agriculture is precious and should be carefully protected.

From this perspective, increasing excessive use of synthetic pesticides is one of the most critical and controversial issues of current industrial agriculture. Reducing reliance on pesticides is the best way to minimize harm, and for those that are shown to be dangerous to human health and the environment, outright prohibition is the only responsible course of action. In particular, farm workers, children, and indigenous communities living in remote rural areas are more exposed to pesticides and the harmful and chronic effects of them, which are often especially insidious because it is so difficult to diagnose this at an early stage of exposure.

The language barriers confronting migrant workers also mean that warning labels fail to help workers take safety measures, a situation aggravated by the tendency of farm workers to work under pressure for long hours to earn hourly wages, their highest priority. To avoid adverse long-term impacts on human health and the environment, the precautionary principle should be implemented with respect to pesticides that can and do cause harm.

Unfortunately, synthetic pesticides are being more widely used, suggesting the need for greater security and regulation. This can be difficult in the face of strong resistance of powerful interest groups, especially in the context of the genetically modified organisms that are now prevalent in monoculture agriculture. Actually, overuse of pesticides over time is bad for agriculture, as it decreases the yield rather than increasing it. This has now been scientifically proven.

In Canada, fertile soil has significantly decreased due to dysfunctional pesticide use. It is increasing problems in watersheds, posing threats to aquatic life, as well as endangering the quality of drinking water. Declines in pollinator populations such as bees and butterflies due to exposure to synthetic insecticides, directly and severely affects the future of food security—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Unfortunately, Ms. Elver, your time has almost run out. I see that you still have many pages to read, but I will give you 30 seconds to wrap up your statement. Could you conclude quickly? I am sure that the members of our committee will let me give you a few extra seconds to do so.

[Hilal Elver]

Coming back to my most recent report in March of 2017 to the UN Human Rights Council, I introduced several recommendations designed to reduce pesticide use worldwide and develop a framework for banning and phasing out highly hazardous pesticides and for promoting of agroecology.

I would suggest members look at these recommendations and try to introduce not all of them but those relevant to the Canadian reality.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank your for your understanding.

Mr. Vander Ploeg, you have seven minutes.

[Casey Vander Ploeg, Vice-President, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you very much, and good afternoon.

I'm Casey Vander Ploeg and I serve as the vice-president of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I thank the committee for this opportunity to share our perspective on the development of a national food policy.

NCFA was established in 2007 to serve as a national voice for Canada's cattle feeders. Our activities are centred around three focus areas: first, securing growth and sustainability for our sector; second, increasing our national and international competitiveness; and third, providing leadership for Canada's beef industry. This trio—growth and sustainability, competitiveness, and leadership—is mirrored to some extent in the themes identified in the documents for a national food policy.

I'd like to focus my comments this afternoon on three points: first, what I think the current documentation around the national food policy has gotten right; second, what any national food policy must get right if it is to succeed; and third, what I believe might be missing. On the first point, in July 2017 we communicated to Minister MacAulay that we fully supported the concept of a national food policy and that the four pillars enunciated by the government are all objectives that NCFA definitely supports.

In the documentation, there are two other points that are raised, and while they're not necessarily pillars, we do believe them to be equally important. It is noted, for example, that a policy can serve as a vehicle to “address issues related to the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food.” To the extent that a national policy can aid agriculture in resolving some of our unique challenges, that's all to the good.

The documentation also notes that sufficient access to affordable, nutritious, and safe food is, in and of itself, not enough. Canadians also, and again I'll quote from the documents, “require information to make healthy food choices”, and with that we absolutely agree. That also explains why we have jumped into the consultations with Health Canada around the new Canada food guide.

However, in order for a national food policy to be successful and meaningful in the lives of Canadians, there are several things we believe it must get right. First is that agricultural producers must be foundational for any food policy. It is not enough that producers be a “pillar” or that they simply be “consulted”. Producers are foundational. Without Canada's base of tens of thousands of Canadian farmers producing safe, quality food in a competitive and sustainable way, we don't have much of a food policy beyond figuring out exactly how we would go about feeding 35-plus million Canadians.

We were somewhat concerned by the lack of agricultural representation at some of the consultation round tables and some of the tone around that dialogue. When we hear things like agriculture should not drive a food policy, it does make us wonder whether the foundational role of producers is, indeed, being recognized.

Second, it's quite important to acknowledge that agriculture producers recognize and respect the views of other stakeholders and while there may be some natural tensions here, everyone must understand that producers are already deeply committed and deeply invested in all four of the pillars. For example, we all want access to affordable food. Today's beef industry is highly innovative and sophisticated, using a number of safe and proven production technologies, such as growth implants, vaccines, carefully crafted rations, specialized feed supplements with vitamins and minerals, radio frequency tags, leading-edge management approaches, and even chute-side computers with animal tracking software. All of that boosts our efficiency and productivity and keeps production costs down, and that allows us to grow more high-quality beef using less resources and to do so in a safe way that is affordable.

Producers are working with these four pillars each and every day. That's not to say we can't improve, but improving means Canadians must remember that agriculture and agrifood is also a business, and the food policy must not economically disadvantage producers. If it does, we put the nation's food production at risk. If we want to grow more food and keep it affordable, then we need to focus on our competitiveness, and that means continuing to invest in research, development, innovation, and technology, and it means resolving a number of competitive challenges, whether that's access to labour, the regulatory burden, or even investing in rural infrastructure.

Finally, we must ensure that all policies across the federal government, and even provinces, are aligned. We have a clear emphasis on agriculture in budget 2017. We have the Barton report. We have the new Canadian agricultural partnership program. We have Canada's new food guide, and now the idea of a new national policy for food. All of these initiatives must work together, and they must align.

In thinking all of this over, we may be missing a fifth pillar—it was mentioned earlier this afternoon—and that relates to education, information, public trust, and social licence. The great majority of Canadians have little to no idea of how their food is produced and why it is produced that way. There is a tremendous disconnect here that I believe a national food policy must address.

Government has largely abandoned the role of consumer education when it comes to agriculture, but this could be picked up again as a unique focus of a national food policy. Canadians should have a choice when it comes to their food, but that choice also needs to be an informed choice.

I just want to quickly point to two examples before I close.

For example, some Canadians believe that grass-fed beef is somehow superior or more natural than grain-finished beef. However, do these Canadians know that grass-fed cattle produce five times the methane that grain-fed beef does? Do they know that methane has 25 times the potency of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas? Do Canadians know that in the 1950s it took 10 units of input to produce one unit of beef, and today it's six units of input for one unit of beef? Do Canadians know that if we used the technologies of the 1950s to produce the beef we produce today, we would need another 45 million acres?

All of these things are important information that leads to informed choice. In late September—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Vander Ploeg, unfortunately, I have to interrupt you, but I am sure that some of my colleagues here would be interested in hearing your second example and the conclusion of your statement.

I do have to allow time so that the parliamentarians may ask you their questions. Thank you very much. I will now turn over to Ms. Sylvie Boucher, for a first six-minute round of questions.

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

Thank you.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Martin Shields.

I have many questions to ask you. I am new to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and I have received quite a lot of information. There is one thing that is troubling me. People talk a lot about affordable food.

The new generation, the one that is just a bit younger than us, is short on time, what with children, school and sports, and it buys quite a lot of frozen products. This is common in our communities. We want affordable food, but the government imposes numerous taxes. I represent a rural riding, and farmers are worried about the new tax. What can we do to fix this?

When you go to the supermarket, healthy food and fruits and vegetables always cost a bit more than chips, chocolate and cola. We therefore have to teach young people, but how do we go about it? What can we all do to ensure our food is healthy and affordable?

People are turning more and more towards organic foods, but they are much more expensive than the usual products. The price of an organic carrot and that of an ordinary carrot is not all the same. What can we do to have food that is healthy and affordable, and suited to today's lifestyle, what with harried parents who buy more and more frozen food? I would like to know your take on this.

You can all answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Ms. Franc, you have already spoken about the importance of exhibitions.

[Christina Franc]

I am going to wear my millennial hat for a bit here. People are actively making a choice to have better experiences with their food. Yes, they are buying fast food and junk food, but what we are seeing, at the fairs and exhibitions even, is that a lot more people are interested in buying the artisanal food, the organics, and they are willing to make that investment. It is a matter of budgeting.

In terms of the education component, if you add a component where we are teaching them how to manage their money in terms of food, there is.... I can't remember the day in February, the national day of how much food has been.... Your entire grocery bill should be spent. You can use those education tools to say, “How can you better use your money to spend it on better foods?”

The trend is continuing. Costco is now one of the leading producers of organic produce. Because they are producing more, and they are known for wholesale and better prices, prices are slowly going down. It's a trend that is coming and starting to change. It's going to be a cultural shift, and I think it's going to be a mix of education and a bit of supply and demand as well.

I don't know if that helps, but hopefully it does.

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

Yes, your answer has helped me a little.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Is that all?

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

Yes, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Shields, over to you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly, I think the education piece has been referred to, but partnerships are critical to make this work. I know for the National Cattle Feeders' Association, for example, your code of ethics policy for feedlot operators is world class and is being used. That was a partnership you worked to develop. Now to get out the educational piece, like the fairs say, "how and where?"

Alberta Open Farm Days have been around in Alberta for about five years. The Toronto world fair was classic and as a kid I remember it, but nobody knows about it anymore. That's not working. We have to find a different mechanism. Alberta Open Farm Days is when you get the people out to the farms, and they come by the hundreds.

Casey, is there any response to send to the producers and how that could work in your industry?

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

We actually, for the last two years, have started down that road with our communications manager, Shannon. She is organizing tours, primarily at this point in time, for students in schools across Alberta and getting them out to a modern cattle feeding operation, and showing them how it works and what the farmers do. Those children are absolutely fascinated about what goes on there.

Industry is reaching out to the extent that it can, and we're seeing some successes there. We'd certainly like to expand on that and, in the future, hope to do so. It's just one small way of trying to connect the Canadian farmer to the consumer and to increase that understanding about how and why we feed people the way we do.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I think that goes back to the partnership. You developed an industry standard with a partnership with the federal government. You did that with some funding.

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

That was the development of a Canadian standard for the care of animals on Canadian feedlots. We know that consumers are increasingly concerned that livestock animals are well cared for on farming operations. We know that our farmers are committed to that, but how do we demonstrate that commitment? We thought what we should do was develop a standard, a protocol, that is fully auditable and Canada's feedlots could then be tested against that protocol. That program is now completed. We did do it in development in partnership with the federal government.

Interestingly enough, that program is being picked up by feedlots now in the United States who see that it is an excellent program. That's a good news story for Canada's cattle feeders to be sure.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you, Mr. Shields. Unfortunately, you have run out of time.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Vice-Chair. It is good to see you here today.

I would to thank the witnesses for their statements.

Ms. Elver, I just wanted to touch on a few points that you've mentioned in your speech. It has to deal with preserving soil and water and protecting our environment with regard to agriculture. You just mentioned—I'm not sure if I heard you well—but you don't see a role for GMOs to play in there as the food production increases in the world?

By 2050, I think it's the FAO that says we need to increase our food production by at least 50%. You don't see a role for GMO or...?

[Hilal Elver]

Let me explain this. First of all, food production basically makes more and more available food, but this food is not accessible. According to FAO—there is a kind of calculation because of climate change—we need 50% more food, but this doesn't mean that we are really dealing with hunger and malnutrition. You can have even more wheat, more corn, more rice, which is more than 60% or 70% of the agricultural production, but this doesn't mean that this food goes to the people, or that it's accessible, actually healthy, or affordable. GMO has a certain kind of role. This is acceptable, but GMO basically is used for maize or more soy, which is animal food—and also some other foods too.

There is a claim that GMO will sort of solve the problem of climate change, but so far there is no significant scientific data about it. More production is good, but it's not going to help us because it will not be sustainable. GMO means you have to use certain kinds of pesticides, which are systemic pesticides, which over the years make the soil much more tired and cause it to lose the major minerals. Sustainable agriculture is certainly not going to use GMO.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I guess there's this theory out there that as soon as you use GMO you have to use more pesticides, but there's also the other side of it, which is that you need to use less water. As you know, climate change means that we have longer, drier periods. You either have to use less water, or your crop requires less sun to grow. If we have wet periods, it can be beneficial, or if we have dry periods.... Where I'm from this seems to be the case. Last year we had a dry period; this year we have a wet period. It seems to play a role. I've spoken to some of the farmers. I've spoken to industry, obviously. GMO alone is not going to solve it, but once you include precision farming, once you include.... Fertilizer also plays a big role. I know Bill Gates believes that fertilizer will play a big role in ensuring that food production is available.

I agree with you that food production alone is not going to solve the issue. In Canada, 50% of our food waste is done at home, so whether we produce more food or not, we're not going to solve the issue.

Christina, in terms of the roles that the fairs could play, we can legislate anything we want to stop food waste at home, but it would be unenforceable and so unpractical from our side. How do we teach society and how do we give them the right tools to reduce food waste at home? How could we use the fairs to do that? CNE is almost in downtown Toronto now, and that's the population we need to target because they don't know where food comes from anymore.