:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'll quickly introduce myself. My name, as stated, is Mark Davies and I'm the chair of Turkey Farmers of Canada. I have a farm in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia where I raise turkeys, and I've done so for 25 years. I'm also a second-generation farmer. The farm itself has been around since the first year of supply management for the agency. We bought our farm then.
Once again, thanks for inviting us to present our comments on the next APF.
I'll give you a bit of background on our industry. TFC represents 535 farmers across our great country, in eight member provinces from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, who generated farm cash receipts of almost $400 million in 2015. Over the last five years, farm output has grown by 12%, driven by a growth in production for value-added activity of 19% over that same period.
Across the chain, the turkey sector generates 14,000 jobs and adds economic activity in the amount of $3.3 billion per year, providing Canadians with 95% of their demand for turkey meat and related products. The sector imports $37 million in turkey meat, and exports are valued at $32.4 million per year, based on the 2015 statistics. Canada is also home to a globe-leading turkey genetics sector, specifically supported within the domestic quota system for many years.
Turkey farmers operate, as you well know, within a supply management structure and view supply management as a significant component of Canadian agriculture, including from the standpoint of a business risk management program in and of itself. That's how we view supply management. This has been recognized by parliamentarians and governments and was reinforced in the July 2016 Calgary ministerial statement, and we believe that it will continue to be a strong plank in the next policy platform.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which we are a board member, presented to the committee last week. The CFA has put significant work into contributing to the development of the next policy framework. As you develop and finalize recommendations, we encourage the committee to give the CFA a heavy weighting on their presentations and their objectives.
Our experience at TFC has been largely focused in two areas: research cluster funding through the Canadian Poultry Research Council, and the development, implementation, and review of our on-farm programs specifically dealing with on-farm food safety and flock care. In both cases, our sector has seen benefits from the current and previous framework. This experience shapes our comments for the next policy framework in light of the current and emerging influences on the Canadian agricultural and agrifood sector.
Moving along to the objective for today, which is the next policy framework, the Calgary statement sets out the key areas of focus for the next policy framework, but we will focus our comments on the following three elements today: first, research and innovation; second, the link between agriculture/agrifood and the public; and third, growth in the domestic value-added activities that it supports.
First is research and innovation. We support the cluster funding process that has been in place for the last two policy frameworks. The approach has created opportunity for our sector specifically linked to our TFC research strategy. We see the language of the Calgary statement as a positive indication of where ministers would like to go, at least directionally.
In particular, there are two key pieces to which we would like to draw your attention. First, the strengthening of science, research, and innovation capacity is needed, and the need to address it is not without urgency. The second piece is the supporting of research activities that require sustained commitment. Both of these objectives need attention and further development as Growing Forward 2 ends and the next framework comes into play.
The cluster funding model has been helpful to us and our partners in the Canadian Poultry Research Council, and this five-year model is helpful to our sector and to the researchers. We wonder if there is a way to create a longer-term span on the funding side. This would allow for a more flexible approach to ongoing research and addressing the needs as they emerge.
Finally, on the question of capacity, as you know, there are no federal research facilities for poultry at this point in time. It's very concerning to our industry as a whole. It is very important that the poultry sectors do not get overlooked as federal funding targeted to existing facilities increases now and into the new framework. We believe that it's worth a very considered discussion when it comes to the funding of research for poultry.
The second element is public trust. We all know that this has been in the public eye, especially in the last three to five years, where it has really come to the forefront for a lot of people in understanding how things work in the agricultural world.
As we're all aware, the agriculture and agrifood sector is facing a challenge as well as an opportunity, as the public and consumers rightfully want to know more about production of the food they consume and the consequences of food production and processing on our national resources and our environment. As noted by others, there can be a trust gap—and it is sometimes significant—between the science-based innovation that we use and the consumer acceptability of that innovation. We believe it can be bridged by an understanding of this innovation. Creating that understanding will maintain and deepen the public trust in Canadian agricultural production and food processing.
We've also engaged in the public trust network that was initiated about one year ago. This is an important priority for us. We would support an integrated approach between governments and industry in terms of reinforcing confidence and building trust, as per the Calgary statement, but this has to include consistency of standards applications on product coming into the Canadian market. That's not a new position for anybody in agriculture. Continuing support of programs that work towards, amongst other things, addressing consumer confidence and support for initiatives that bring improvements to practices is certainly warranted.
The last point is value-added growth. The further processing or value-added segment of the market, as I noted in my opening comments, has been the driver of growth in our sector. The value-added activity is strong, and farmers are meeting the needs of the sector through a flexible and market-driven approach to setting our turkey supply. We have also developed and implemented programs that focus on food safety and flock care. Both are important to customers and consumers. These should include an emphasis on value-adding in the next policy framework and they are of high importance to our farmers, especially if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is implemented. Our sector will face high import access and we expect that access will be used to import meat processed to a secondary level—I am referring to boneless meat, which is really the economic driver, and what is mostly imported into Canada—that will be used to a finished level. This represents an area in which a well-informed and integrated approach along the domestic supply chain, with the support of governments, is critical to maintaining and increasing domestic output.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you all today for the opportunity to appear. We've been able to hit only the very high points on three major areas of focus, three areas that overlap with our business plan, which, coincidentally, we just completed in Calgary in May. We see a real dovetailing here of initiatives. It's really no surprise, given the ongoing changes within Canadian agriculture and agrifood. We all have the same focuses now. We're ready to engage collaboratively with you on the committee, with the government, and with officials as required. Thank you for your time.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[English]
First of all, I thank you, on behalf of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, for this invitation to participate in this very important study on the next agricultural policy framework. I will start my presentation in French.
[Translation]
With me this morning is my colleague Émie Désilets, assistant director, dairy production research, for the Dairy Farmers of Canada. She is very familiar with the current framework so she will be able to answer your questions.
The Canadian dairy sector makes a huge contribution to the Canadian economy. According to the latest study conducted by EcoRessources ending in 2015, Canada’s dairy sector contributes approximately $20 billion to the GDP, and $4 billion in tax revenues, every year, while sustaining 221,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the country. From 2013 to 2015, this represents a 5% increase in contributions to the GDP, a 5% increase in tax revenues, and a 3% increase in jobs. In addition, dairy is either the top or second agricultural sector in 7 out of 10 provinces. Furthermore, unlike other jurisdictions where farmer’s incomes are heavily subsidized, Canadian dairy farmers receive no direct subsidies and derive their income from the marketplace.
The development of the new strategic framework is crucial to our sector. It will of course be difficult to cover the topic in detail in 10 minutes. We will nonetheless be available to contribute throughout the development process.
A number of programs affecting our industry contribute directly to achieving the objectives of the strategic framework, whether market growth or sustainable development. It is clearly important to maintain and indeed increase investments in partnerships with the dairy sector.
I will now say a few words about the AgriInnovation program.
Following a consultation with dairy sector stakeholders, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, or DFC, this summer adopted a national dairy research strategy for the next five years. DFC and its members are currently working to coordinate investments in dairy research and leverage partnerships at all levels to maximize farmers' investments in research, and generate targeted outcomes to advance the sector.
DFC strongly believe that the next strategic framework should maintain the overall government-industry ratio of investment at 75/25 for non-profit organization applicants. If the ratio changes, industry might not be able to compensate for reduced government contributions, which would decrease research capacity and efforts.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of the research continuum, there should be no interruption between GF2 and the next strategic framework. Access to all government and university researchers under GF2 is appreciated. This access has been a key component in maximizing the success of collaborative and multi-disciplinary projects. DFC consider that all types of research and projects that are deemed important to the industry should continue to be eligible and funded under the next program.
Furthermore, it is critically important for DFC to continue to be able to fund randomized clinical trials for human nutrition and health research under the cluster program. Such trials provide the strongest levels of scientific evidence in order to inform clinical and public health guidelines. As these trials are generally longer, very expensive to conduct, and normally difficult to fund under our other funding programs, the cluster program presents a unique and very important opportunity for us in this regard.
Finally, DFC requests that the next APF keep investing to ensure the rapid and efficient dissemination of research results, new knowledge, and new technologies. Moreover, the next strategic framework should be more flexible in terms of the budget and work plan in order to address issues that emerge during the research period.
The role and responsibilities of cluster recipients in the management of the intellectual property developed under the program should be reviewed and better defined.
I would like to provide a few concrete examples of the cluster under GF2.
Canadian dairy genetics are among the best in the world. Since 1988, the total value of Canadian dairy genetic exports, including dairy cattle, embryos and semen, rose from $68 million to $140 million in 2015.
With regard to sustainable development, carbon equivalent emissions from dairy farms were reduced by over 25% between 1981 and 2006 as a result of efficiency gains made on farms. This trend has continued to show a steady decline in GHG emissions from dairy farms of approximately 1% per year.
Research outcomes have resulted in science-based standards for the animal care assessment stream of DFC’s proAction program.
Milk products, regardless of their fat content, do not increase cardiovascular risk. In fact, a growing body of evidence indicates that milk products are associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. These are some concrete examples of the investments made in the research cluster.
I would like to say a few words about the AgriMarketing program. I mentioned the proAction initiative, comprises six modules: animal care, food safety, traceability, biosecurity, and the environment. It is an on-farm sustainability program launched by DFC to foster more innovation and improvement within the dairy industry, as well as to build and maintain public trust. The Canadian dairy industry is unparalleled in the quality and safety standards that are rigorously set and adhered to by all our farmers.
Some components of the proAction initiative are administered under the assurance systems stream of the AgriMarketing program of GF2. DFC will be reapplying for funding for the continued development and implementation of proAction under the next APF.
This kind of program requires some flexibility in order to adapt to market conditions. In addition, DFC strongly recommends that AAFC reduce the approval delay period for projects falling under the AgriMarketing program, and offer bridge funding between GF2 and the next APF.
With the dismantling of TraceCanada, DFC suggests that AAFC ensure continuous eligible funding for livestock traceability projects, including implementation and operational costs.
Environmental farm plans are also very important to us and we would like to contribute to discussions on their evolution and on the national approach currently being developed.
Finally, since June 2015, DFC has been asking the federal government for an investment equal to 50% of the cost of implementing proAction on Canadian dairy farms. The total cost is estimated at over $200 million in cash outlays and producer time over the next ten years. We believe this would be a constructive way for the Canadian government to invest in a sustainable and innovative dairy industry that could be administered under the next APF.
[English]
I will conclude in English.
While DFC's focus in this submission has been on the element of the new APF that directly impacts the dairy industry, as a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we would like to state our support for each of the CFA's recommendations.
In closing, it's important to say that the government's long-term commitment towards supporting the agricultural sector must go beyond the five-year framework for the AFP. The government must recognize agriculture and the role of dairy as a strategic growth sector.
While DFC considers supply management to be one of the best business risk management tools, the next APF can play a critical role in supporting the investment of the Canadian dairy farmers and making it into a sustainable future for our sector.
There is a need for increased funding for the entire program. However, it is important to know that any increase in funding for a particular stream should not come at the expense of any other program administered under the next APF.
It is critical for the government to recognize the knowledge and expertise of the agricultural sector. If you put the right tools in our hands, we will continue to innovate and lead our industry to a sustainable and prosperous goal.
I know that you all have on your mind a big question about CETA. I just want to let you know that I do not have any information or reaction I can share with you. I will be pleased to take your questions on research, and even on the new logo, if you want to, that we launched this week. I look forward to the discussion.
:
It's good to hear you're a fan of turkey. We're always looking for those. I didn't think I would come and get recipes, but that's also a bonus. This committee is squarely on the ball.
In all seriousness, though, thank you for the question. Interestingly enough, we're partnered today with DFC because in the context, not of CETA but TPP, we have more in common with them than we do with our other feathered friends because of the impact. That is basically because of the structure of our market.
As I indicated very briefly in my presentation, our market is driven really on the white meat market, the breast meat. That is literally all that comes in across the border. It just displaces the rest of the bird, to put it in elementary terms. You can't just grow the breast meat. That poses a huge issue to us in displacement.
The access will be up about 71% over the totality of the 10 years when it comes to its full fruition, if it is signed and implemented. It's a significant hit for the turkey farmers of Canada. When you talk about compensation, we have lots of questions. As Caroline indicated before, we're sort of just wondering at this point what that's going to look like.
We, being in supply management, would still prefer to get our dollars and our livelihood from the marketplace. We stand firmly behind that. Having said that, if part of your market has been undermined through this, then of course you're looking for compensation. We do not see it as a subsidy, but squarely as compensation for lost market in order to rebuild and continue to invest.
On CETA specifically, it's not really an issue for the poultry industry. I'll just speak for turkey and in general for the poultry industry. Because they're both high-value markets, it's really a net zero game. It's really dairy, as everybody knows, that has had issues, but we still share their concerns because it sets that precedent. We saw that unfold in the TPP shortly thereafter.
As they do in dairy, we support trade. We're not anti-trade, as has been indicated sometimes in the press. We get a lot of bad press in supply management. I don't know why. I might be biased.
Really, it comes down to the fact that we have a very strong system here in supply management, in poultry and in the dairy sector, and that has to be maintained. It has an ability to contribute to the rural fabric of this country and to the small towns, which we know are under pressure and struggle now, especially with an economy that is basically a little flat over a few years. The projected outlook is not as rosy as people would hope. Supply management becomes more of an integral part of rural Canada.
:
Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I want to first of all say congratulations to the Dairy Farmers of Canada on the introduction of their new logo. I can tell you that the blue cow, around our home, is the one that gets looked at, so I hope this supplementation and this marketing tool are going to come along and just make a good thing better.
I wasn't going to say this, but you just mentioned something that struck me. In agriculture, as my good friend over here mentioned, there is a concern that the average age of farmers is 55 and that is because in the agricultural world, what we do is not very sexy. That's not right. I have to tell you that I disagree with that. I'm looking at this book about the agricultural workforce, and I'm looking at the farming around my area, whether it's supply management or not. Why is it 55? I can take you to farm after farm where the father doesn't want to leave, and he's my age or older, but the next generation is coming along. Why is it coming along? Because we've made the industry sexy, sorry to say.
I will be honest with you folks. I'd take the majority of our young entrepreneurs and farmers and stick them in a room with any CEO or CAO of a company, and say let's talk about business.
I'm not concerned about it being 55. I'm a long ways past that, but it was always 55. What we have is a brilliant, energetic, technologically advanced group of young people. I'll take you from farm to farm, and you'll see that the number of women who are involved in the management and the workings of them is really quite something. Why? I talk to students coming out of university, and I ask them what they're going to do. “What do you think about farming? Are you thinking about science? Are you thinking about chemistry? Are you thinking about engineering?” I tell them that agriculture has all of those. With regard to research and innovation, this is an industry in which you can have a job, and it will be a good job, because you're in one of the most progressive industries.
I think it's a sexy industry, and I tell that to the young folks, and I want to now try to relate that to the APF.
Any time we see an industry that in seven out of the 10 provinces is ranked number one or number two, then we have a great amount of dedication and respect for it. That's the way it is.
First of all, Dairy Farmers, can you help me? There's a new research facility in Elora. How does that work in terms of the five-year cycle and getting a research project at that facility? You say it's too restricted in terms of the flexibility, so can you give me an example of what we can do to use that as a facility? It is brand new and quite amazing, quite honestly. How can we improve so that the research that comes through that facility...?
Mark, I know you don't have your own, but help me with some of the ones that you have.
Research leads to innovation, which leads to productivity, which often leads to markets, whether domestic or international.
Maybe, Caroline, you could start and then we'll go to Mark.
:
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here with you today to help you as you consider the new policy framework for agriculture.
We all enjoy the benefits of abundant, healthy, safe, and affordable food in Canada due to a world-class food system, one that feeds our 37 million Canadians, and as the fifth-largest exporter, one that feeds a multitude of people around the world.
This system relies on people—farm and food businesses and their workers—to grow, harvest, prepare, and package its delicious products. Unfortunately, the business of farm and food production is struggling to find enough workers, and its future is in jeopardy.
Our research clarifies that 10 years ago, the industry was 30,000 workers short. Today that figure has doubled to 59,000 workers, and there are clear expectations that it will double again in 10 years to 114,000 workers.
On-farm job vacancies are exceptionally high, at a 7% vacancy rate. The national average for other industries is only 1.8%, so this is a clear exception and a clear problem. It's costing the farm industry $1.5 billion in lost sales revenue each year. That's $1.5 billion on the primary agriculture side alone.
These vacancies exist despite extensive efforts by business owners to recruit and attract workers. There are lots of reasons for this. The work typically happens in rural Canada. A lot of it is seasonal. And many Canadians are that much more removed from farming backgrounds and so don't even think about working in this industry.
This is certainly something to be worried about. Not only is this an industry that supplies the food we eat, it's also a huge driver of Canada's economy, as you well know, accounting for close to 7% of Canada's GDP.
What's good for you and me, our families, and Canada as a whole is to ensure that this industry thrives. Right now, the sustainability and growth of our food industry is at risk. As you contemplate the next policy framework for agriculture and agrifood, it's critically important that this risk be acknowledged and mitigated in an intentional and strategic way. We can't put our heads in the sand and 10 years from now be in a position where we realize that we have a shortage of 114,000 workers.
However, at this point, there's no overt mention of the workforce issue in the next policy framework. This is true despite the fact that farmers and producers have been clear and have indicated that it's the number one risk to business success moving forward. What is required in the new policy framework is that we specifically address the workforce shortage and support Canada's food systems' competitiveness and growth.
This can be accomplished with the addition of a seventh priority on labour, business development, and competitiveness. It's actually a title Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has used in its own consultations with industry on the next policy framework, recognizing that this component was missing.
This seventh priority area would support key recommendations of Canada's national labour task force, which many of you are very familiar with, to strategically implement the workforce action plan. A labour, business development and competitiveness priority could achieve great things.
First, it should involve building a national career awareness initiative, a campaign to clarify the extensive and exciting work opportunities the industry has to offer. Building public trust is now recognized as an important activity for the industry, and when we clarify how food is produced, we have an opportunity to also clarify who's involved and what a great industry this is to work in.
The second thing the seventh priority should involve is improving diversity in the sector, including the full participation of women in the industry. If we want this industry to thrive and grow, we need to ensure that it's filled to capacity with the brightest people who are willing to push innovation and success.
That means we as an industry need to do better, to encourage more Canadians, young and old, those from rural and urban backgrounds, men and women, and new Canadians to consider working in this sector and ensure that there are no barriers to entry or advancement for anyone in the industry.
Third, the next policy framework's seventh priority should also involve the development of affordable and accessible training including online learning options to ensure that workers in the industry get access to the latest and most effective production techniques as well as the latest and best practices in human resource and management techniques, no matter how busy or how remote their location is.
A strategic plan has been well researched and documented by the labour task force to tackle this labour challenge. The agriculture and agri-food workforce action plan should also be managed and implemented as a seventh priority. It includes clear short-, medium-, and long-term solutions to ensure the industry can get ahead of this challenge and address it in a meaningful way to advantage the industry to grow and thrive into the future.
So before you take your next bite of whatever it is you're going to take as a snack or lunch, think about those extensive job vacancies and that 7% job vacancy rate. Think about the stress those empty positions have on our businesses in this industry and the role of government in labour policies, immigration policies, and agricultural policies. Think about what's at stake for you and me, our families, and all Canadians if we don't work together to solve this in a meaningful way.
That's it for me.
:
Thank you for inviting the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, CAHRC, to be here today. I'm here as a producer from East Selkirk, Manitoba, where I produce grains, oilseeds, and vegetables. I'm a member of the Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba, which is an implementation partner of the Canadian agriculture and agrifood workforce action plan. I'm also the vice-chair of CAHRC.
CAHRC has quantified the labour gap farmers are facing today and in the future. Portia also identified for you the current vacancy rates. At this juncture, industry stakeholders are requesting that our government policies be responsive to their needs as employers, in order to fill positions and run their farms and processing operations.
We eat three times a day. Canada depends on the agriculture and agrifood industry, our Canadian consumers, our trade exports, our workforce, and our Canadian economy. The industry is seeking to work with the federal government on a whole-of-government approach.
This is where Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has an important leadership role to play. Agriculture labour needs to be the concrete seventh priority of the next policy framework, because workforce shortages are affecting all of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's proposed priorities: innovation, public trust, sustainability, and international markets and trade. It's the number-one business risk issue and is severely affecting our capacity for value-added agriculture and agrifood processing.
Under the new seventh priority for labour, business development, and competitiveness, there are four initiatives that could be actioned to address the inadequate supply of workers. These priorities will help position Canada to become a future food superpower with a strong, highly skilled, and trained agri-workforce.
Number one is improving diversity. We support women's inclusion and participation in the workforce. Women currently make up 30% of the agriculture workforce, and outreach initiatives are needed for under-represented groups, including women.
Second, we need to grow the agri-workforce, and we need national career initiatives. We know we need to get Canadians engaged in agriculture, and agriculture offers quality career opportunities with competitive wages. A national career campaign is needed to raise awareness and to disseminate agricultural career opportunities to media influencers, educators, and the public, increasing industry's access to labour with under-represented groups such as youth and the unemployed.
Third, we must increase training. We need to improve the knowledge and skills of workers through the development of affordable, accessible training, including online e-learning to ensure that farm and food workers in rural Canada have access to training support.
Finally, we have the Canadian agriculture and agrifood workforce action plan, a strategic road map for jobs and growth in rural Canada. The action plan is a collaborative industry effort. It is the culmination of over four years of work by 26 members of the agriculture and agrifood labour task force, 13 AAFC value-chain round tables including seafood, and 77 agricultural groups and companies supporting its implementation. It is critical that this strategy be adequately funded, allowing the plan to be actioned.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of this committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today about Canada's next agricultural policy framework.
My name is Ashley St Hilaire and I am a director with Canadian Organic Growers. I am joined here today by Geneviève Grossenbacher, who runs an organic farm in Quebec and was the vice-president of Canadian Organic Growers for many years.
Canadian Organic Growers is Canada's only national organic charity with supporters and chapters in all regions of Canada. Our focus is on education. We produce a number of textbooks on organic agriculture. We publish a national magazine and host a national organic lending library, and we offer a suite of programs and courses on organic production and the Canadian organic standards.
Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to the benefit of the environment and our economy. Organic production systems are becoming more efficient and more productive, and our government has played a big role in improving our techniques through funding of the organic science cluster.
The science clusters are a fantastic program that provides a crossroad for industry and government to partner on research. The funding ratio of 25% industry and 75% government for this program was an achievable cost-share ratio for our burgeoning sector that otherwise lacks consistent funding sources. We have been informed at consultations that the cost-share ratios would change from what they are now to a possible 60/40 government-industry cost share under the new framework. Should this cost share change to this proposed 60/40 split, not only does that put a greater burden on industry to fundraise for Canadian agricultural research, but it incentivizes industry to fund research that only benefits proprietary projects and not projects that focus on public goods, such as sustainability and pollution reduction. Thus, to this committee, we recommend a flexible cost-share ratio that maintains a 75/25 cost share for projects that generate a public good, limiting the 60/40 cost share to projects that only develop proprietary products and techniques.
In the next agricultural policy framework I have also read that the government plans to enhance knowledge and technology transfer. I very much hope this to be true, because the entire $1.1-million budget for knowledge transfer that was included in the organic science cluster application was cut completely. I strongly urge this committee to not let knowledge transfer activities fall to the bottom of the priority funding list in the next policy framework.
Moving to the topic of the organic marketplace, I want to share some facts with you. As of 2015, there were over 5,151 operators with organic certification in Canada. This includes producers, handlers, and manufacturers.
Canada has the fifth largest organic market in the world, valued at $4.7 billion a year; and this is up from $3.5 billion in 2013.
Recent consumer studies show that 56% of Canadians buy organics every week and that 80% of these consumers plan to maintain or increase their organic purchases.
The demand for organics in Canada is increasing at a rate of 16% per year and domestic supply is not keeping pace.
Organics in Canada remain a burgeoning sector still representing less than 2% of Canadian agriculture. However, with the support of our government, we have established ourselves on the global market and have negotiated organic equivalency agreements with 90% of our major trading partners.
You may ask me to provide some trade data on organics. Unfortunately, that is not something I can do at this time because our government rarely segments out organic data from any data it collects on agriculture and trade in this country. We need more data so our sector can continue to measure our success and the success of the investments made by government in organics, and to understand the challenges and risks our industry faces. In the next agricultural policy framework we would like to see organic data segmented out from all agricultural data that the government collects. A good starting point would be to add an organic question to the next census of agriculture.
Returning to the topic of trade, it is important that this committee recognize it is the rigour and reputation of the Canadian organic standards that allows for organic trade agreements to exist. As you know, our Canadian organic standards, which are developed by industry, are owned by the government through the Canadian general standards board, and Agriculture Canada pays $39,000 a year to the CGSB to keep the Canadian organic standards a public resource.
It's important that this committee recognize that the Canada organic brand is owned by the government, and every five years the Canadian organic standards must be reviewed and revised in order to keep them relevant and compliant with our international equivalency agreements.
The cost to do the most recent review, completed just this year, was over $1 million, which included $600,000 in fees to the CGSB paid by the Treasury Board, $300,000 from the agri-marketing program, and $100,000 fundraised by industry. The review process is onerous and time-consuming, but it is absolutely necessary.
Our sector is facing a new risk. We're being told that government funding for our standards revisions will be cut. I must point out that the maintenance of the organic standards held in other countries, such as the United States and the European Union, is fully funded by government.
If our government chooses not to fund the next review of the Canadian organic standards in 2020, this would likely lead to a collapse of the Canada organic brand and would invalidate all our international equivalency agreements. I urge this committee to not let that happen, and secure support for the maintenance of Canada's organic standards in perpetuity in the next agricultural policy framework.
Another important topic to cover is the expansion of the organic products regulations, the legislation that governs the Canadian organic sector and is now part of the Safe Food for Canadians Act. The scope of the organic regulation is limited to food products, animal feed, and seed, but the organic marketplace, in reality, includes many other agricultural products, such as organic pet food, personal care products, plants and flowers, textiles, and a new emerging opportunity, organic marijuana.
That means, as a result of their regulation, that imported non-food organic products are being sold in the Canadian marketplace, while Canadian organic operators are restricted from certifying these same products with the Canada organic brand. A step in the right direction within the next agricultural policy framework would be to work with the organic sector to expand the organic products regulations to include all agricultural products. This was done in the United States and has worked well in creating new domestic and export opportunities for organics.
Why organics at all?
Organic agriculture is an example of a successful clean-growth industry that offers a model for promoting climate-friendly food production and allows farmers to command a higher premium for their products. Organics are less dependent on non-renewable resources and manufactured inputs, and build resilience in the face of climatic extremes.
Environmental services are also inherent in organic production and are well documented. Organic systems store higher levels of carbon in the soil. They promote biodiversity, enhance soil health, reduce pest outbreaks, reduce nutrient leaching, prevent contamination of water, and use energy efficiently. Organics are attracting new farmers to our rural communities, and many of these people are women. On top of this, organic certification uses a third party assurance system that is monitored and enforced by the CFIA.
When you put all this together, you can conclude organics in themselves are a business risk management tool that can help all farmers mitigate against price and input volatility, negative environmental impacts, energy use, and public trust issues. On top of that, consumers in Canada want organics, however our domestic supply in this country is not keeping pace.
The Canadian organic opportunity is waiting on our doorstep, and much more can be done in the next agricultural policy framework to support the organic approach to producing food. This approach spans all sectors of agriculture and goes all along the value chain. That's what makes us unique.
What I've had time to discuss today is only the tip of the iceberg. I can list a few more recommendations that I would be happy to discuss with this committee.
For the next policy framework, we recommend that this government consider developing an environmental goods and services tax credit that rewards and incentivizes environmental stewardship on farms. Metrics measured for a tax credit could include reduction in energy use, increases in carbon soil sequestration, and prevention of nitrogen loss.
We recommend that a revenue-neutral system for carbon pricing be developed that reinvests revenues from agriculture into the industry. These revenues could be used to fund an environmental goods and services tax credit.
We recommend that the government perform a life-cycle assessment and energy audit of the entire Canadian agriculture and agrifood system. The assessment would look at each sector in detail, with a focus on embedded energy use on farms, in transport, processing, retail, and in the kitchens of Canadians.
The U.S. and the United Kingdom have completed the same assessments, which should be looked at as an example for Canada.
We recommend that, in the next policy framework, flexible business risk management tools be developed, which could include and should include comprehensive production insurance for organic operators that recognizes diversified operations. We support the maintenance of the AgriInvest and advanced payments BRM tools. We recommend that public trust programs, should they be included in the next framework, focus on assisting industry and building transparency and assurance systems to better address consumer demand for these pillars of social licence.