Agriculture Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

I will start with a few reminders: Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday November 2, 2023, the committee resumes its study of Issues Relating to the Horticultural Sector.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses who will be here with us for the first hour. With us today is the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec, Ms. Stéphanie Forcier, acting executive director, who is joining us by videoconference.

Welcome, Ms. Forcier.

We also have, from the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, George Gilvesy, president, and Mr. Richard Lee, executive director. From Rollo Bay Holdings Limited, joining us by video conference is Alvin Keenan, owner-manager, from beautiful Prince Edward Island.

Thanks for joining in as part of the committee proceedings here today.

We're going to allow five minutes for opening remarks from each witness and each organization, and then we'll turn it over to questions.

Before I go too much further, I was reminded that February 27 is a big day for this committee, not just because we're studying horticulture, which is important, but also because Ms. Rood and Mr. Steinley have birthdays on the 27th.

We won't sing happy birthday because we don't want to proceed with that, and I didn't get you a cake, Lianne, but I'll distribute these cookies around the table. We'll do it that way.

Happy birthday, Lianne. Happy birthday to Warren when he gets here.

Without further delaying proceedings, let me turn it over to our witnesses.

Ms. Forcier, you have five minutes.

[Stéphanie Forcier, Acting Executive Director, Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec]

Judging by what I am seeing, I should have gone to Ottawa in person to enjoy some cookies. Happy birthday.

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today as the acting executive director of the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec.

The Association represents close to 350 businesses of all sizes in every region of the province. In 2021, the value of the sector was estimated at more than $85 million.

Quebec is the leading producer of strawberries in the country and the third-largest producer of raspberries. Horticulture, and more specifically the strawberry and raspberry industry in Quebec, is a key component of our farming economy and our cultural heritage, even our identity. Strawberries are visceral in Quebec. Our farmers are passionate about and dedicated to providing exceptional quality fruit to our citizens and even beyond our borders, with some now exporting to the United States.

However, despite efforts, passion and innovation, our industry is facing many challenges that are threatening its long-term sustainability. Relying on the resilience of the farmers has gone on long enough.

First, I would like to note the importance of supporting our businesses in the face of increasing climate challenges. Extreme weather variations, sudden temperature changes and unpredictable weather phenomena have had a major impact on our crops. The 2023 season is going to leave a scar: frost, drought and excessive rain, all that in one year. Last season has been described as a disaster many times, and it was. We are therefore calling for meaningful measures to help farmers adapt to these changing conditions by improving risk management programs.

Crop insurance is a perfect example. In 2023, two out of three farmers did not sign up for crop insurance. In July, we applied for the AgriRecovery process. Here we are on February 27, and, unfortunately, I have yet to see the result of any analysis of our file. Exceptional situations call for exceptional means, but it is clear that there is no safety net.

My colleagues from the Quebec Produce Growers Association, whom you received on February 15, spoke to you about the need for an “agri-disaster” program. Allow me to reiterate the need for such a program, whatever it may be called. Allow me also to propose adding “agri‑complicated”, as we call it in the business, “agri‑adaptability” and “agri‑fast”. Two years to process an AgriStability file is too long, especially when there is a note at the bottom of the bill that says “payable within 30 days”.

There is talk about climate change adaptation and that adaptation will be done on several fronts, including through financial support for adopting technologies or new growing methods. Take soilless crops, for example, which have become standard for our European counterparts. Investments in our farming infrastructure are needed to secure our food supply. Research development into varieties that are resistant to extreme climate conditions is another component of this adaptation.

Second, I want to address the critical issue of farm labour. Our industry relies heavily on seasonal work, and the recruitment of skilled, reliable labour is a constant struggle. Labour accounts for 52% of our production costs and 80% of labourers are foreign workers. Unfortunately, automation is still progressing too slowly to make up for the labour shortage, hence the need to modernize programs and recognize the value associated with the support and mentoring services offered by our farmers.

I also want to shed light on the importance of promoting environmental sustainability in our industry. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of environmental issues and farmers are meeting their expectations by adopting sustainable farming practices. However, we need to be consistent with our societal choices, by having the power and will to apply the principle of reciprocity with respect to standards. By standards I also mean social standards.

This brings me to the biggest challenge we are facing right now: the business environment. Recrimination in the old country against farmers is being echoed here since the situation is the same, unfortunately. Before legislating more on the environment, let's make sure that our businesses can evolve in a business environment that is suitable and sustainable.

Reconciling the grocery prices that consumers want to pay with the standards being imposed on our farmers is becoming harder to do and will soon bring our industry to a breaking point. There is tremendous pressure on farmers, who also have to deal with rising input costs and rising interest rates. Profit margins have dropped considerably for farmers as everything goes up. This breaking point will obviously have an adverse effect on our hopes for food security.

In closing, to ensure the future prosperity of the horticulture sector, we must meet today's challenges with determination and a vision. I urge you, as members of the committee, to support our efforts to strengthen our horticulture industry and secure a prosperous future for our strawberry and raspberry farmers in Quebec. In fact, let's change our vocabulary and replace the word “support” with the word “investment”. This is not just about supporting our industry, but also about investing in something fundamental, in other words, feeding ourselves.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Ms. Forcier.

We will now move on to Mr. Gilvesy from Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.

[George Gilvesy, Chair, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to present to you today on behalf of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. I am here today with Mr. Richard Lee, our executive director.

OGVG represents over 170 greenhouse vegetable growers across the province, producing over 3,900 acres of tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers. The greenhouse vegetable sector is one of the fastest-growing segments of Canadian agriculture. Our members generate $1.4 billion in farm gate sales as of 2022, a contribution of over 14,000 jobs to the workforce and a consistent track record of growth. The sector is a valuable contributor to the Ontario and Canadian economy, and it is the future of farming in Canada that is capable of yielding over 20 times more than conventional field farming as we manage the evolution of climate change.

With over 81% of our product exported to the United States, we are an export-dependent sector providing fresh, nutritious produce to consumers across North America. Our dependency on export and trade was confirmed during the pandemic that defined the integration of the food system across North America. This dependency correlates to the need for alignment on policies that impact our ability to compete sustainably in the global marketplace while managing the crisis on food costs to the consumer.

Canada’s approach to climate change presents a major challenge to our growers. The escalating price on carbon only works where users can feasibly transition to alternative energy sources. These transitions and timelines face significant barriers with the lack of available technology and the limitations of public infrastructure, primarily in the electrical grid. Canada continues to penalize food producers, while the United States adopts incentivization to achieve its climate change goals through the Inflation Reduction Act and its various programs.

In 2024 our members will pay over $18 million in carbon tax, net of the 80% relief we currently receive. This is scheduled to be over $40 million by 2030 based on current production if the 80% relief is maintained. In summary, over a 10-year period, our members will have paid over $242 million in carbon tax.

Canada is not an island, and we have great concern that policies around carbon and plastics will influence the continued growth and investment in greenhouse production throughout Canada. Greenhouses will continue to be built to satisfy consumers' increasing needs for food security and fresh produce, but the question will be whether that investment takes place in a jurisdiction that penalizes food production or in one that provides incentives. In the interim, however, we would encourage the swift passage by the House of Commons of Bill C-234 in its original state.

For years, our members have been consciously looking at improving the packaging options for our products. We have embraced the use of packaging that is recyclable to protect the integrity of our produce, providing food safety and traceability while offering consumers new options on ready-to-eat healthy snack-size produce products.

We have serious concerns, again, about the imposition of plastics rules that ignore many of these positive attributes while also increasing food waste and the potential costs of produce by an estimated 34%—according to Deloitte—and while negatively impacting healthy eating habits. This plastics policy will create two different market requirements for the U.S. and for Canada, which may lead to products being unavailable to Canadian consumers if shippers no longer consider Canada to be a viable market for their products.

In the context of producing food, we would offer this: Does it make sense to institute policies and direct taxes that have the impact of increasing food costs? Everyone needs food, and we again would suggest that incentivizing change may provide a better approach and outcome.

We also have comments on a few other points.

OGVG strongly encourages the swift passage of Bill C-280, which is currently in front of the Senate. Financial security is a critical aspect to supporting farmers, and this bill supports a long-standing gap in the produce sector. In addition, it will provide a corrective action on a long-standing trade irritant with the United States.

OGVG advises that in the context of climate change, Canada should consider a North American perimeter strategy on pests and diseases.

Based on previous outdated pest assessments, the CFIA believes these organisms will not survive our cold winters, but the weather is changing, and so is the availability of hosts in the expansion of greenhouses and indoor agriculture. Our pest risk assessments should be re-evaluated.

As a final comment, Mr. Chair, greenhouse producers do not have access to production insurance, and our current safety nets are not representative of controlled environment agriculture. In addition, our experience with AgriRecovery has been dismal, in spite of multi-million-dollar losses and a great impact on our membership.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gilvesy.

We'll now turn to Prince Edward Island and Mr. Keenan. It's over to you for up to five minutes.

[Alvin Keenan, Owner-Manager, Rollo Bay Holdings Limited]

Thank you for welcoming me to this committee. When I got the first phone call, it was to appear virtually, so here I am today. I'm not prepared in the way that George Gilvesy from the greenhouse committee is, but here in agriculture in Prince Edward Island, I've been involved in the potato industry for my entire life.

Some of the changes from climate change are coming so fast, so offensively and in so many different ways, with pests attacking our crops and weather conditions like warmer falls and tropical storms bringing heavy amounts of rain.

Our crop insurance programs need to be updated so that we can use the technology that we have today. The labour force isn't available to walk the fields and monitor how much we leave. The reason we leave some of these spots in the field is that the crops will not store in storage. We have to opt them out, but unless the measurement is over two acres, those things are a bit harder for us to monitor.

The technology today for drones to measure the fields is available. This tool would work better in precision farming in documenting our inputs, and now we can do this electronically with the GPS on our tractors, but now this technology is overloading the cell towers, so the communication can't go from the tractor to the cell tower to the satellite, and therefore the machines sit in the field. As we have more people with cellphones, all of this technology is almost inadequate and makes it so it is not dependable.

It sounds like I'm giving you a list of things that are wrong and complaining about our industry, but my purpose here today is to help you be aware of how we need to make this technology dependable.

I guess I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Keenan.

We'll now turn to questions. We're going to turn to the Conservatives.

It's Ms. Rood, on her birthday. You have six minutes.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

Mr. Gilvesy, you touched on this a bit in your opening statement. In general terms, how would removing primary plastic packaging affect the hygiene and the efficiency and the cost of moving perishables from production to processing to market? Especially in the greenhouse industry, we see a lot of the tomatoes and peppers—especially tomatoes—in plastic packaging because it helps protect them from bruising during transportation and it extends their shelf life. It's the same with cucumbers.

Could you comment on what that's going to do to the cost of food coming from the greenhouses?

[George Gilvesy]

Thank you for the question.

We've been working with the CPMA on this matter. It had a study done by Deloitte, which estimates that the cost of the goods will increase by roughly 34%. The availability of fresh produce will decrease. It will be cut by 50%. Food waste will also increase, by over 50%. It will have significant impacts.

The strange thing is that the plastics we're using in the sector are recyclable. Is the problem that they're not already in a sustainable position, or is it that the recycling regimes just aren't taking up the product?

There are major problems with this policy. I thought what we learned during the pandemic was that most people wanted their products protected for the purposes of food safety and for the traceability aspect. It seems that we've quickly forgotten that aspect.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Have you been able to find any alternatives on a commercially viable scale right now that compare to plastic? Are they as effective, and what is the cost comparison for those alternatives?

[Richard Lee, Executive Director, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers]

I like to think that our farmers are leaders and adapters of new technology, and the research and development into alternative packaging has been an ongoing effort.

As you can appreciate, a lot of the greenhouse vegetables contain a significant amount of water, so fibre products are just not an alternative that can provide packaging that protects the produce.

We talk about food waste and we talk about food security and and we talk about food traceability, but it doesn't really matter if the product doesn't last on the shelf or make it to the shelf. That shipment and that packaging appear to absorb that moisture, and the shelf life on that product deteriorates significantly.

That is not to say that alternative packaging isn't on the forefront. I would suggest that the amount of plastic elimination our sector has engaged in thus far is significant. I believe that it's less than 3% that produce packaging contributes to plastic waste across Canada. What is left is truly to protect the produce to ensure that it has a shelf life and that food safety and traceability are covered. It also eliminates unnecessary food waste.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That's a good point that you touch on there.

I've recently been up in the north and learned that groceries travel on transport trucks from Alberta for about 24 hours to get up to Whitehorse, for instance. A lot of times they're seeing spoilage of the produce and perishables before they even get up there. That's before we have a change in the regulations here, with the Liberal-NDP government trying to ban plastics, so food waste is a concern. It's also a cost to those grocers and to any of the independent grocers who are trying to sell the food to the folks who live up there.

Has there been any study done, Mr. Lee or Mr. Gilvesy, on what this might do to your insurance premiums? I know that growers carry insurance and that the trucking industry has insurance so that if food spoils en route, there is coverage. Has there been any talk about how that will increase insurance premiums?

[George Gilvesy]

I don't know the answer to the part about the transportation piece, but on the production side, in my testimony I offered up that on the production base, we don't have any insurance scheme for greenhouse vegetables, so that is a gap.

As far as the costs are concerned on what you're suggesting on transport, it would only suggest that it would have to increase. I would go back to the essence of that policy in the part II Canada Gazette consultation, which is that the cost of fresh produce is going to increase by 34%. That can't be a good thing in the light of what's happening with food inflation and skyrocketing food costs across the country.

That's fundamentally not a good place to start. Then, if you pile on possible increases in transportation, insurance, etc., I would suggest that the fundamentals of it should be looked at in the light of trying to keep the prices down.

[Richard Lee]

May I add to that?

I think you're referring to transports taking ownership of the product from the grower to the marketer. If it's a situation that's under the control of the transporter, then it would probably be covered under insurance.

If it's a situation based on a policy that they're unable to ship in a protective coating, which may work in the EU because the shipping times are a lot shorter and the distances are a lot shorter, it would fall back on that farmer, and that increased cost is 34% to 40%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

We're at time. I am going to try to keep us on track here.

Mr. MacDonald, you have up to six minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to all our guests.

I want to go to Mr. Keenan in Prince Edward Island, obviously.

Mr. Keenan, in your preamble, you touched on some of the challenges that farmers are facing with climate change.

I want to talk a little bit about the East Prince Agri-Environment Association, which you're aware of, and the work they're doing with living labs across the country and, in particular, in your province of P.E.I.

Can you speak to the importance of these local partnerships and some of the innovations that have occurred locally with living labs and on-farm research that you're aware of?

[Alvin Keenan]

Thank you, Heath.

The work that living labs is doing all comes from input from the producers themselves, as we work with different cover crops to help prevent wind erosion in the wintertime and also controlling our fertilizer inputs to have them be more accurate. There are all kinds of little jingles here, but it's the right product at the right place at the right the time and at the proper amount. They've talked about that with the four Rs. It goes from there on through to different trials on different varieties of our crops.

Mostly I'm talking about the main cash crop here, which is potatoes. Prince Edward Island doesn't grow all the potatoes in the world, but we think we grow some of the best. In doing that, to control the nitrate levels, we use fertilizers with a coating on them. It makes the nitrogen release slower, and then the plants are able to take up more of it and less fertilizer is left to seep into the groundwater and what have you. That's a major issue.

Also, there's the rotation of different varieties. As we do this, we're doing it with tight calculations for precision.

I want to elaborate a little bit on this. We're able to do this now with satellites on our tractors. It's important for us that this technology be dependable, because if they lose their contact in the fields, the machines sit still sometimes for 20 minutes, half an hour or even sometimes for half a day before the signals come back. You can see that this type of thing really affects the gathering of all this information.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Last week, there was the International Potato Technology Expo in PEI, which I attended. I was really impressed with the innovative technologies that are available for farmers today.

You touched a little bit on the impediments sometimes for the technology to be able to be consistent. Is there anything else out there today that governments should be supporting that would help farmers into the future on the technology side?

[Alvin Keenan]

As we watch the world news today, there are some very horrific events going on. They can use drones for defence, but also in measurement with the technology here.

We're fortunate to have the Climate Lab on Prince Edward Island. They have shown us where they've flown a drone over some of the fields after the crop insurance.... Crop insurance is provincial. It's a program that's shared between the feds, the farmers and the province, but it is administered by the province.

Anyway, they've flown the drones over the field and found great differences between what they're able to measure versus people walking the fields. When people walk the fields, they have a minimum of a two-acre size that they can measure, if you're leaving some for wet spots or heavy rain. When we measured with a drone, we found—we can verify the numbers—a massive difference of what crop is left.

Once you have these things that are not calculated properly, the yields and measurements of different varieties get skewed. Therefore, the yield didn't come in the storage or in the bin, where the exact amount, right to the pound, can be packaged and measured at the end. If it's left in the field, you don't know whether it's 2%, 5% or 14%. Those things are devastating. Plus, the producers themselves can't take advantage of the program that's available.

Those are some of the reasons that the uptake on crop insurance is not what it needs to be to help give stability to agriculture.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have one quick question, Mr. Keenan.

What's the biggest obstacle facing the horticulture industry today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Answer in 20 seconds, please.

[Alvin Keenan]

Very quickly, there's no question that we're trying to deal with rapid climate change, but there's also the labour force. Canada has been developed with immigration. That's how we're all here, from our ancestors. Somebody can give you a two-week notice, and then it takes you two years to replace them. If you know, you can write the number down. I just wrote down that the odds are two to 104.

There are so many things that our policy-makers and our legislators need to help us with to be more proactive instead of reactive to our situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll keep it right at that, Mr. Keenan.

That's exactly why we're studying this. It's so that we can be more proactive to help you.

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Perron, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us today. We are grateful that they have made themselves available to us.

Ms. Forcier, you were very eloquent in your opening speech. You evoked Patrice Léger Bourgoin, from the Quebec Produce Growers Association, who talked about AgriRecovery, a disaster relief framework.

You talk about “agri-adaptability” and “agri-speed”, noting that bills are payable within 30 days, not a year and a half or two years later. What formula are you considering? Do you have a specific recommendation? Could we bring in an emergency compensation fund in the event of unforeseen climate events?

[Stéphanie Forcier]

An emergency fund is a good solution. In Quebec, we have the Green Fund and now the Blue Fund, which farmers take part in.

Flexibility is a word that has been used many times. Since the pandemic, we have been asked to be flexible. An emergency disaster fund would be useful and 2023 was a disaster for farmers.

The process for the other assistance programs requiring files analysis needs to be set in motion sooner. Take AgriStability: farmers applying for AgriStability assistance can obtain an interim payment, but for that the accountant has to prepare financial statements and send them to Farm Credit Canada. That takes time and provides access to only 75% of the payment. It is not fast enough. Let's not forget that for farmers, everything is payable within 30 days.

In short: yes, an emergency fund would be a solution.