Agriculture Committee on Nov. 16th, 2022

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that.

Just to follow up, 10 years ago, the previous special rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter, visited Canada on a mission and produced a really great report, which I've read extensively and for numerous years, actually, because I've gone back and reread it. He said:

Since the 1950s, Canada has been moving to large-scale, input-intensive modes of production, leading to increasingly unsustainable farming practices and higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, soil contamination, and erosion of biodiversity.

He also noted that trade liberalization in agriculture via free trade agreements has had the effect of decreasing net incomes for farmers and has led to increased debt. He said that “depression of farm-gate prices in relation to input prices and the cost of living means that margins are constantly tightening, forcing farmers to raise production levels simply to maintain income levels.” He actually outlines this extensively.

Would you say that this trend of larger-scale, input-intensive agriculture with corporate concentration, rising input costs, decreasing farm incomes and rising debt—necessitating “bigger is better”, essentially—runs counter to a real solution for global food insecurity?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Indeed, I think I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

Again, to give you a specific example, the problem with fertilizers and genetically modified seeds from a market perspective—there is an ecological problem, of course, and we can talk about that—is that it creates a dependency on a shrinking number of corporations.

Based on that report from 10 years ago, until today, more and more, companies are buying each other out, so that power is concentrating in the hands of a few. Farmers and people and food systems around the world are all at the mercy of a small number of people. It's hard to break that small circle of power.

On the ecological issue, to transition away from fertilizers is not just a matter of emissions. It's a matter of soil depletion. Fertilizers ultimately deplete nutrients from the soil. There are techniques that are more regenerative, but it takes conscious choice and a strong policy to commit to that and to help farmers and workers transition. Governments have to start today, to start that transition into the future.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes.

You talked about resilient solutions. I note that on November 15, I think, you made a delegation to the General Assembly, if I'm not mistaken, or at least that's when it was published on your website. You pointed to “resilient solutions such as localized markets, public food reserves and public food distribution systems, as well as agroecology”.

Could you speak to this? Again, it's about contrast, because I think what you're playing to is resilient solutions versus solutions that essentially are “business as usual” and almost continue to exacerbate the vulnerabilities we have in our food system today. Can you speak to those?

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Answer in about 35 or 40 seconds, if you could.

Thank you.

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Okay, will do.

I agree that business as usual—producing more by any means necessary—is not the way to go. Generally, on a global scale, we have produced more than enough food. The problem is, how do we produce?

There are solutions to point to. I provide those specific solutions, backed up by science and backed up by policy. It's already happening. The question is about how to scale it up, how to connect all these different things and how to both feed people nationally but also think in terms of how to export. There is an export dynamic, which one can figure out, but we cannot continue business as usual. We cannot just add more money to the existing problem. We always have to think about power. Who has the most power? Who doesn't have enough power? Is it indigenous peoples, small farmers and, for that matter, workers?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, both of you.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Fakhri, you said it is still important to protect the power of small farmers and to avoid excessive globalization. That is an interesting perspective.

Do you think that Canada, for instance, would do well to preserve a system such as supply management for the sectors that are affected and that manage the price and quality of their products, without undermining the export of products, which are managed in a different way?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

I'd agree in terms of focusing on small producers, but I would add that, ideally, it's the small producers who are committed to practices that enhance biodiversity and that also respect human rights, such as workers' rights, women's rights and indigenous peoples' rights. It's not just any small producer. Those are the small producers who are the most resilient because they act as stewards of the land. Those are the small producers I have in mind.

To your point, for over a hundred years people have been demanding stable prices. Historically, Canada has been really good at maintaining stable prices through systems of supply management. Today, one can advance in terms of thinking of stable and fair markets not just as supply management—that still plays a role and it's becoming more popular, globally—but also as strong labour rights. I think that provides some stability and resilience as well.

Supporting those local supply chains, I think, is also quite right—

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Fakhri. I have to interrupt.

You said that supply management is becoming increasingly popular internationally. I gather it is a concept that we could perhaps share. Instead of gradually destroying supply management, perhaps we should export it to developing countries. That could help create an agricultural base, and would not prevent similar products from reaching international trading markets.

Have I understood correctly?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

I would add, Monsieur Perron, that I think it's not just supply management, but stabilizing prices more broadly.

There are a lot of tools. Supply management is an important one. I think the Canadian experience is something that can be shared. More importantly, what has been missing ever since the 1980s is an international system of stabilizing prices and supply management. From 1930 to 1980, international agricultural policy was an internationally coordinated system of supply management.

I'm not calling for another system of just supply management. I think, in today's terms, we have to think of international coordination that includes an element of stabilizing prices through different means. The idea of having stock holds of food isn't just supply management; it's a source of food as well—

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

Thank you very much. I'm sorry to cut you off, but we do not have much speaking time and I have other questions for you.

You touched on another point that I am very interested in, the debt level of farming enterprises. In order to preserve international food security, and first and foremost national food security, we have to make sure that our farm products are viable. You seem to be sounding the alarm about the debt level of farming enterprises. Do you think our farming enterprises receive enough support as compared to other countries?

When you talked about environmental transition, I liked what you said about it being important to recognize good practices by establishing positive incentives for producers. Can you elaborate on that?

[Dr. Michael Fakhri]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Unfortunately, I can't speak too specifically to the debt level of Canadian producers. What I can speak to is the debt level of governments all over the world.

I do agree with your point. The only way transformation is going to happen—the only way food systems are going to transition to a system that is fair, stable and sustainable—is with active, explicit government support through incentives, through direct programs and through direct support. It can't just be a hands-off approach. That hasn't worked for the past 30 years, and governments around the world realize that the only way you can have a viable agricultural sector, and food sector more broadly, is with very conscious, coherent food policies that support the right kinds of producers.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Fakhri.

I have a quick question for Mr. Carey.

Hello, Mr. Carey. It is always a pleasure to see you.

We are talking about the debt level of farming enterprises. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Could you please answer the question I just asked Mr. Fakhri?

[Dave Carey]

I don't have the exact numbers, Mr. Perron, but on-farm debt is at an all-time high. Farmers are over-leveraged, certainly, and I think farmers' liquidity is also a big concern. Farmers tend to be cash-poor. They have a lot of money tied up in acres and equipment, but when it comes to liquidity, on-farm debt is at an all-time high. Anything that would increase that would not be a good food policy.

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

I would like to talk about the direct support the government can provide for the environmental energy transition. How important is it to recognize the positive steps taken by our farmers? How should they be rewarded?

[Dave Carey]

Absolutely. I think farmers are also looking for credit for the things they've done. If you look at other jurisdictions around the world, say the United States, our level of conservation, no-till acres, is far higher than in the United States.

I think what we need to look at is incentivizing farmers to do more things on farm, absolutely. Some of that would be offsetting costs when it comes to soil sampling, as it's extremely expensive. The costs associated with custom and precision agriculture equipment are very high. So, yes, but they need to be incentive-based. There needs to be a carrot as opposed to a stick.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Carey and Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor now has the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

Mr. Carey, I'd like to start with you. I'm glad you brought up the subject of fertilizer because we certainly noticed a lot of confusion out there. I think the way the government rolled out its policy, it didn't take the time to properly explain it. I know that, given the volatility in the price, farmers are certainly going to do everything they can to minimize their use.

We've talked a lot about the 4Rs and how we can't really have food security unless we have farm security. We already touched on the high debt levels. We know the input costs are pretty horrendous for a lot of producers. In addition to 4R management, a lot of farmers are also leading the way with ecological intensification. They're really paying attention to the soil microbiology. They're paying attention to trying to mimic nature as closely as possible.

How can the federal government try to put those farmers who are leading the way up on a pedestal to really try to get more of their compatriots and comrades to adopt the same practices?

[Dave Carey]

Absolutely, even if you look back two generations, when it came to weed control, you plowed the land, you tilled the land, you plowed the land. Any time you had a drought, you had soil and dust flying everywhere.

I think when it comes to the realities, we need to make smart, sensible federal agriculture policies that allow farmers to be innovative and competitive on farm, because the cost of doing the things we're speaking of here is incredibly expensive. For example, the cost of a precision agriculture drill, with which when you're planting you can plant your seed right into the stubble from last year and you're not tilling it up.... You can plant your seed, which has been treated with pesticide so you're not spraying and you can apply your fertilizer at the exact same time, so one pass of diesel. The cost of that is about $600,000.

Our vice-chair is with us from central Alberta, and his farm is 5,000 acres. His fertilizer bill in 2020 was $316,000. This year it was $670,000, and he anticipates next year it will be over $700,000. As an example of that, he's being as judicious as possible with his use of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We have a bit of a challenge with translation.

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

There, it is back now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll go back to you, Mr. Carey.

[Dave Carey]

Yes, it's about incentivizing farmers to do the things on farm, and if we're going to roll out money, farmers need to actually be able to utilize and deploy that money. The programs need to be operationalizable on farm.

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

Thank you for that.

I want to get to Mr. Stevens next.

Many years ago, when I was a teenager, I worked at a blueberry farm for four summers in a row, and I can remember the panic that set in when you got those really hot weeks in July and you had to get the crop off the bushes really quickly.

Your growers deal with the problem of food waste on a daily basis. It's a problem because of the perishable nature, so you really do have to be very efficient. You have to rush.

We know that food waste has always been a massive problem in many different sectors. In your opinion, what would you like to see the federal government do to step up and help your industry address this? I know some members of Parliament in other Parliaments have tried to establish a bill with a national food waste strategy. Do you have any opinions or thoughts on that?

[Charles Stevens]

Yes, thank you for that.

The blueberries that don't get picked go down in the ground and they produce the energies and everything. I don't consider that a total waste. It's a waste for people and their energy for sure, but sometimes that's the fertilizer. It's a waste for us and getting food to eat, but not as far as the product and the soil are concerned.

With fruit and vegetables, Mother Nature doesn't give us any breaks. Our biggest bill in the fruit and vegetable industry is labour. We need consistent labour that we can call on so when the rainstorm is coming we can get the crop off.

Also, there are machines now that pick the blueberries, but that's only for certain markets.