Agriculture Committee on Nov. 16th, 2022

[Charles Stevens]

On the labour component, when we order up our our men and ladies from the islands, it used to take a month with Service Canada. We used to put our orders in, and it was done in a month. Now it's six months. We have to organize for six months to get it through Service Canada. Service Canada is not getting their job done in time for us to get the job done.

The other thing is that the unions have put lots of negative news out there, because they want to unionize the 17,000 workers in Ontario, plus the ones in the rest of Canada, so they can get the union dollars. They take us to court every three to four years, and we win every time. But we need to stop the negative things about what's happening. I treat my workers like my local workers. Almost all farmers treat their workers as well as their local workers, or they'd be out of business. I have a man who's been with me for 34 years. They are vital. We would not have a horticulture industry in Canada without this labour.

I know the government put an audit system on. I've been audited many times—never a problem. They may pick a little thing that happened, but at the end of the day, it's not doing its job.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Why is there no financial protection yet?

I would ask you to answer my question in five seconds because I think my speaking time is up.

[Charles Stevens]

I didn't get that. I'm having trouble here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm sorry, Mr. Perron, but your time is up.

I am usually generous with the speaking time each member is allowed, but we have to move on to someone else now.

Mr. MacGregor, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Fakhri, I'd like to turn to you.

It was very concerning and sobering to listen to your opening remarks about the major increase in child labour that is coming about as a result of food insecurity. I've actually been quite troubled by the role that international finance plays in this kind of exploitation. I know, from when I did some research, that our own Canada pension plan has been found to have had holdings in companies that score in the low single digits on the responsible mining index. We have also been invested in food and beverage companies that have forced labour somewhere in their supply chains.

In your opinion, if we're going to tackle this—because the forced labour or the child labour, how it's linked.... We also know that those people are at such a vulnerable state, and they are just ripe for exploitation. Do you have any thoughts on how Canada can be a leader in combatting that?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

I'll talk in terms of policy and maybe leave it to you all to find Canada's role.

What often happens in these supply chains is that corporations will rely on child labour, but because they're not directly hiring the children, they say, “Well, we don't know. We have no control.” That's not necessarily true. I think increased scrutiny and corporate accountability across supply chains.... This is the question everyone's asking.

The other thing is that the best way to reduce child labour is to support their families. No one wants to send their kid to work that way. They do it out of necessity, so supporting workers, supporting families financially and with social protection, and ensuring that workers have the right to unionize.... Time and time again, I've seen it across all different countries: When workers are able to organize and unionize, this provides them with the social protection they need. This increases their wages, gives them job stability, gives them a safe workplace. They don't have to send their kids to work. There is a direct correlation: The more you allow workers around the world to unionize, the more it reduces child labour. There is also, then, supporting them through school. Schools aren't just places of education. They are where we feed children, where we take care of our children.

So, supporting the families and supporting the schools are the best ways to keep children out of work.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We have a little bit of time, and then we'll go to drafting instructions. I know we're a little bit beyond the hour, but I think it's most important to hear from our witnesses.

Mr. Barlow, you have no more than five minutes, but you have up to that time if you would like.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

There's been some great testimony from our witnesses today.

Mr. Carey, you talked about the importance of innovation and technology when it comes to improving yields in agriculture and soil health. Last spring, Health Canada deemed that gene editing was safe, but now it appears that the Minister of Agriculture has had cold feet and has paused the rules and regulation development around that.

How important is that when we talk about new seed varieties that, again, help us in terms of food security, and also about food sovereignty in other countries that would be able to use some of these new seed varieties for their own food security? How important is it to get this across the finish line?

[Dave Carey]

I'll come at it from two perspectives, the farm perspective and the competitiveness perspective.

Health Canada has released its guidance around gene editing for food, but it also requires the CFIA to release the guidance for biosafety and for feed. Typically, food is what we actually anticipated taking the longest. That's done. We are now, I believe, essentially waiting for signatures from the CFIA, two pieces. However, there are three legs to that stool.

It's critically important. What's actually interesting is that genetic modification is very expensive. There aren't that many companies that do it. Dr. Fakhri is correct in that assertion. It costs millions of dollars to do genetic modification. There are only a few crop varieties in Canada that actually are GMO, so the vast majority of the acres planted are not. However, what's interesting is that gene editing is very inexpensive. Actually, what we anticipate in the canola sector is that we'll have more seed companies, smaller seed companies, start-up seed companies, that can use a CRISPR-Cas9 technology and do things differently, which we think is really interesting. Could canola fix its own nitrogen? Could it become more efficient with nitrogen, more drought-tolerant, more disease-tolerant?

Getting clear gene-editing guidelines is good for farmers. It's good for Canadian innovation. We'll also probably see more start-up companies. Canada has over 200 seed companies alone, and we're a relatively small global market. What is also interesting is that these will also potentially have knock-on environmental benefits as well. Getting that across the finish line.... The rest of the world is there, with the exception of the EU. Argentina, Brazil, South America, the U.S. and Australia have clear guidance when it comes to how to take a product from R and D to commercialization. We just need that clearly spelled out for the companies so that they can invest here in Canada and so that canola farmers have more options for what they want to buy when they go to their local retailers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Stevens had a chance to answer this. I want to give Mr. Carey a chance to answer this, and then I have one question for Mr. Hemmes.

There has certainly been a lot of discussion with a lot of ag stakeholder groups here this week and the previous week on the impact of the fertilizer emissions reduction policy. When it comes to canola, what would be the impact in terms of lost production and yield and your ability to meet your commitments? If you reduce fertilizer use, what will the impact be on the soil health and economic sustainability of your members' operations?

[Dave Carey]

The canola plant is one of the best fuel crops for sequestering carbon. For canola, it's water and then nitrogen. Canola cannot produce its own nitrogen; it needs nitrogen. Nitrogen is the key thing that gets yield. Thirty-five years ago, say, canola yields in Alberta were 20 bushels an acre. Now they're 50 to 60 bushels an acre from allowing the use of nitrogen.

There are other efficiency nitrogens coming online. They're very expensive, and they're not readily available yet, so there are efficiencies being made, but taking out a tool like that, an arbitrary target, would be incredibly detrimental, not just to canola but to all sectors.

Again, for farmers it's that innovation continuum in crop protection products and fertilizer that allow for precision agriculture, so that when our farmer members are driving their combines using the GPS and GIS to plant seed, the right seed goes in the right place with the exact amount of nitrogen. If the nitrogen isn't needed, farmers don't use it. For canola farmers, typically their biggest bill is nitrogen. They do it because they have to. They're trying to become more efficient.

The knock-on effects of moving away from innovation, GM, biotech and crop protection products are not good on the farm for environmental sustainability. Farmers have a choice in where they buy their products from; they certainly do. They see value in it, which is why they sign technology use agreements to access biotechnology. It's not forced on them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Carey.

I guess, again, it's just misinformation given in some other testimony that the soil has these nutrients in it. For example, with the Holland Marsh, in many cases the nutrients aren't there without the fertilizer. That is putting the nutrients there, which allows you to grow some of these products.

Mr. Hemmes, I have a quick question for you. I learned today an interesting stat that, out of the 400 ports globally, the port of Vancouver is ranked 396 or something like that in terms of efficiency.

In terms of the supply chain, I know rail is your expertise, and I certainly appreciate your knowledge on that. This is a big question, maybe. Is the port of Vancouver a critical pinch point when it comes to not only our supply chain of food security here in Canada but our role in food security around the world?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Hemmes, Mr. Barlow is right at five minutes, but I'm going to be generous and allow you about 30 seconds. Anything that you don't cover you can put in writing to us.

I apologize, Mr. Barlow. Mr. Hemmes is no longer on the line, so we don't have to worry about that.

We'll go to our last line of questioning from Mrs. Valdez. We did borrow a little bit of time with Mr. El-Khoury, so I would say to keep it at four and a half minutes.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses who have joined us today.

Dr. Fakhri, I'm going to send some questions over to you. Can you share with us how the right to food guidelines have assisted in closing global food insecurity?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

The right to food, if looking at the international treaty and the guidelines, focuses everyone's attention—and we've heard stuff like this today—on the importance of sharing knowledge and technology and of international co-operation, but, most of all, it focuses on who has the power and who should have the power.

I think everyone is in agreement today that ultimately the power needs to be in the hands of the producers, the small farmers and the workers in terms of distribution and consumers. They should be able to decide what counts as good food, not just in environmental terms but in cultural terms.

The right to food provides a very specific framework and, ultimately, it's a legal obligation; it's not just a policy choice.

I also want to highlight the point, from a human rights perspective and from a scientific perspective, that fertilizer depletes the soil in the medium to long term. You might get a boost in a couple of years, but the run-off creates a human rights violation because—and we've seen it time and time again—it violates the right to health and the right to environment. It creates more problems in the medium to long term.

The right to food provides a systemic understanding of not just agriculture but ultimately human existence in that systemic way, the food system from all points.

Thank you.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

You provided several recommendations in your opening that could be done in the short term. Given your expertise, what is the most feasible option you've asked for today that we could execute right now?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Thank you, Mrs. Valdez.

The one that I've seen work time and time again is universal school meals for children, providing free and healthy meals for all children in schools without some system of choosing who is worthy and who is not worthy. To really make it work, connect schools with local producers who are committed to biodiversity and human rights. That way, you have a procurement system that creates a relationship between local producers and our schools. We're supporting both local food systems and our children.

We've seen this work. It worked amazingly in Brazil, under a previous regime. It's been proven to work really well. It takes work, but I think that is one way.

The second way in times of need is direct transfer payments that give people cash when they need it the most, not systems of vouchers or food stamps, as they do in the United States. What we have seen work is this: When people need access to food, give them money. They know how to feed their families. They know how to spend their dollars. That seems to work.

Those are the two that jump out the most. I would also add another: Find ways to directly support local producers who are committed to biodiversity and human rights.

Thank you.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

It's over to you, Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have just over one minute, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No problem. Thanks.

Mr. Fakhri, thank you again for your testimony today.

I will end on the fact that our Minister of Families, Children and Social Development announced today public consultation on building a national school food program in Canada, which we haven't had before. I'm very excited by that. I know that there is a coalition of the willing right across Canada that will be working on informing the build-out with the federal government funding commitment that's been made. I think your testimony today speaks to that.

I wanted to ask you more questions, but I don't have the time. Perhaps your report, which you've mentioned several times, could be tabled with this committee, if you are willing. It would then allow us to benefit from some of your observations and expertise. I think we could all benefit from that.

Thank you again for appearing today. I really value your perspective and your work.

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I had sent it earlier, but I will resend it to make sure you all have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Fakhri, and thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I'm going to exercise one quick question from the chair.

Mr. Carey, we've talked a lot about fertilizer and the fertilizer emission reduction goal by the government. I'm on record in the Globe and Mail and in the House—along with your thoughts—that this has to be a voluntary measure. I believe the government to date has said that it is exactly a voluntary measure, but there is merit in trying to reduce nitrous oxide emissions.

In the conversations you've had through your many stakeholder meetings and the groups you work with, has the government been really resolute in making sure that it will be a voluntary target? I believe Minister Bibeau is on record as saying that it is. I just want to see if that is indeed the case.

[Dave Carey]

Yes. That's accurate. All our interactions to date with the government, including with Minister Bibeau—today we had her at our board meeting—indicate that it is still a voluntary target. We haven't seen any change in that. We do know that things change, but right now there is no regulatory legislative attachment to that goal.

You're correct in your assertion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carey.

Colleagues, that ends our session today.

On your behalf, let me thank Mr. Fakhri, Mr. Carey, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hemmes, who unfortunately had to drop out a little bit early, for their work in agriculture and for their testimony today. It is very valuable to all of us.

Colleagues, we will be moving in camera in order to have some conversations and to provide feedback on what we've heard from our witnesses, both today and before that.

[Proceedings continue in camera]