:
For the benefit of the new members of the committee, let me remind you that our most recent project is the study of a food policy for Canada.
Today, we will be hearing from witnesses who will share with us what they would like to see in that study.
First of all, we welcome Scott Ross.
[English]
He is with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Bonjour, Mr. Ross.
From Soy Canada we have Dale Adolphe, interim executive director, and Mr. Chris Masciotra, director, corporate affairs.
Welcome.
[Translation]
From the Conference Board of Canada, we have Jean-Charles Le Vallée, Associate Director, Food Horizons Canada.
Welcome, everyone. Thank you for being here today.
We will begin by going around the table, with seven minutes per witness.
Mr. Ross, the floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to provide a brief overview of CFA's vision for an effective and successful food policy for Canada.
As you are likely well aware, we've advocated for a national food strategy for a number of years now, and we're very pleased to see this discussion unfolding as it is today.
To begin, I want to briefly read a quote from the CFA's earlier work on a national food strategy. I've included it because I believe it captures the essence of why CFA and its members believe a food strategy or policy is required.
Few Canadians give their daily food a lot of thought. Our abundance has allowed this luxury for many, but not all Canadians. Few Canadians understand what goes into bringing food to our plates and how the choices we make at the grocery store affect our food chain and our health.
Perhaps because of our abundance we have not, as a nation, comprehensively planned to ensure an adequate and wholesome food supply for future generations.
This quote speaks to the growing disconnect between the average Canadian and where their food comes from.
To maintain this abundance and capitalize on our sector's immense potential, we need a strategy that increases the understanding of people in Canada as to how their food reaches their plates, while laying out a comprehensive plan to move the sector forward. On that note, I want to commend the federal government on moving forward with a food policy for Canada and the discussions we're having today.
While we've long advocated for a national food strategy rather than a policy, the label isn't what's important. Whether it's a strategy or a policy, we see a few critical elements to successful implementation.
First, a food policy must bring together stakeholders to address emerging concerns around a common vision.
Second, it must provide a framework enabling all orders of government, departments, and stakeholders to align. This is critical. We continue to see misalignment between policy initiatives, with the agrifood growth targets being the most recent example, where subsequent initiatives, like the current suite of proposed tax reforms or proposed front-of-package warnings on food, would impose new costs and uncertainty that would seemingly undermine the industry's capacity to grow.
Third, a food policy must be grounded in clear, science-based objectives that allow for key metrics, benchmarking, and defined progress.
To achieve these outcomes, we believe that the policy must first focus on creating a common understanding that bridges that divide between expectations of the Canadian public and modern food production practices. Without this basic understanding, any policy will repeatedly push up against misunderstanding, division, and misalignment.
A starting point can be found in the consensus that exists between the previous Canadian food policy proposals put forward by CFA, CAPI, the Conference Board, and Food Secure Canada. These were developed through extensive, wide-ranging consultations that brought together diverse stakeholders. While they differ in a number of areas, they also have significant common ground upon which a food policy can build. For example, all these proposals speak to the need for a whole-of-government approach to get at the silos we all face when dealing with food-related issues. Silos between different departments, orders of government, or within the value chain result in duplication, contradictions, and unintended consequences.
Developing a food policy presents a means of better understanding various viewpoints, cumulative impacts and synergies, and an opportunity to promote more comprehensive, coordinated, and informed action on the part of all stakeholders.
The Barton report and the 2017 federal budget highlight the importance of this approach, noting the value that a whole-of-government approach provides. By focusing on obstacles to growth that span multiple policy areas, this approach looks to align decision-makers around solutions. This agenda's momentum presents a foundation upon which a food policy can build by providing a long-term forum for the cross-sector relationships needed to truly realize this vision and address issues that span any single policy domain.
In order to move from a vision to measurable success, CFA has outlined four key recommendations with regard to governance of a national food policy.
First is a whole-of-government approach. While we support Agriculture Canada's continued leadership in this initiative, this policy must be made explicit in all departmental mandates to ensure accountability and continued engagement.
Second, it can't be limited to the federal government and must engage and align all orders of government to address issues that span any one jurisdiction.
Third, industry leadership is critical. A successful food policy requires buy-in. If this is to be possible, it requires contributing to the vision and strategy required to get there from the outset.
Fourth, it needs clearly agreed to roles and responsibilities. These are essential. This not only ensures accountability and coordination, but it also directs stakeholders and their resources to appropriate priorities. Access to affordable food is a prime example.
Farmers play an important but limited role, and that is efficiently producing food on an affordable basis. By acknowledging our strength in producing affordable food, the policy can focus on socio-economic policies while ensuring they don't undermine the affordability and sustainability of Canada's food production.
When it comes to where to start, CFA has identified three key recommendations as well. First, a national food policy can easily be bogged down with complexity and competing priorities. We continue to advocate that the strategy must begin with those areas where there's already common ground. By building on the existing work already done by CFA and others as a starting point for early action, we can reach this common ground as a starting point to build upon.
Second, in terms of moving from policy to action, data is critical. By first collecting and looking at data within a single framework, the policy can establish a foundation to convert desired outcomes and to clear actions based on science-based metrics and targets.
Third and finally, we can all point to areas where silos lead to seemingly contradictory policies. This policy can bring together the necessary actors to understand and address those contradictions before they become reality.
While much work is still to be done, the CFA believes these critical guiding principles are essential to an effective national food policy.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any questions you might have.
:
Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for the invitation to share our perspective on the development of a food policy for Canada. We always welcome the opportunity. Your chair has already introduced me as Dale Adolphe. I'm the interim executive director of Soy Canada, and Chris Masciotra is Soy Canada's director of corporate affairs.
I'm going to start by providing a bit of an update on the growth of the Canadian soybean sector before discussing our recommendations related to a national food policy.
Soybeans are new to parts of Canada, particularly western Canada, and Soy Canada is relatively new, in that we're only three years old. Our members include producer associations representing farmers from across the country, seed development companies, soybean exporters and processors.
Our goal as Soy Canada is to unite the soybean sector, facilitate co-operation, and represent the industry on domestic and international issues surrounding market access, trade, market development, and research.
The Canadian soybean sector is currently experiencing what could be called explosive growth. This year our industry has reached new heights, with all segments of the industry seeing strong growth and development.
In 2017, seeded acreage increased by a third over last year to 7.3 million acres. Production is set to climb by 20% over the same period to 7.7 million tonnes. Much of this growth, as I mentioned, is taking place in western Canada where production has more than doubled in the last 12 years.
In 2016, farm cash receipts from soybean production rose to $2.9 billion, an increase of 20% from the year before, and exports of soybeans and soybean products continue to trend upward. In 2016, exports reached 4.84 million tonnes at a value of just under $3 billion.
We are now in our 10th consecutive year of growth, and more and more producers are turning to soybeans as a reliable and profitable commodity to include in their crop rotations. Today, more than 31,000 Canadian farmers are growing soybeans, and that's up about 16% over the last five years.
Now I will turn it over to Chris.
Soy Canada welcomes the Government of Canada's work towards the development of a food policy designed to provide consumer guidance and address issues related to the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food.
From our perspective, a national food policy must include a strong agriculture presence. An effective policy will outline the conditions that will allow the Canadian agriculture sector to thrive and build on the expansive growth forecasted by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. This should include a focus on overcoming market access and regulatory hurdles to enable more production and exports, calling for increased processing capabilities for high-growth commodities like soybeans, and increasing marketing support for shippers.
A national policy must promote science-based decision-making, the harmonization of international standards, and the liberalization of trade through tariff reduction and other non-tariff barrier obstacles. These are some of the key ingredients to developing a meaningful policy that meets the needs of consumers and industry stakeholders.
We've seen these priorities built into the national food policies of other like-minded countries. Australia's national food plan contains chapters dedicated to capitalizing on opportunities, addressing business and regulatory challenges, growing agriculture exports, promoting healthy food consumption, and food sustainability. Similarly, the United Kingdom's strategy rallies support behind enhancing competitiveness, promoting free trade, and improving transportation infrastructure, benefiting all members of the supply chain.
These strategies are good models for the Government of Canada to draw from as it develops a domestic policy. They focus on issues beyond identifying the nutritional value of food and delve into the complex policies that impact all members of the agriculture value chain. Just to underscore the importance of trade-friendly food policies, international food trade now accounts for 23% of global food production.
A national food policy should also underscore industry and government efforts towards food safety in Canada. Quality assurance standards put in place by our industry are world-class and recognized internationally as the gold standard in food quality and safety. For example, soybeans produced for food consumption in Canada undergo robust private and government certification systems that trace the production and supply of identity-preserved soybeans. The Canadian identity preserved recognition system, or CIPRS, is a grain traceability standard administered by the Canadian Grain Commission and audited by third parties to ensure CIPRS-certified grain shipments are pure and adhere to the highest food quality and safety standards.
Similarly, seed developers work with Canadian regulators, such as the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, when establishing residue limits on crop protection products. The processes for establishing these limits are extremely robust. They are science-based and have multiple built-in safety factors that enhance food safety when products are brought to market. Consumers need to be made aware of these practices through a national food policy that educates Canadians on the high level of safety and care that goes into food production and handling.
It is about excellence, transparency, speed, continuous improvement, and least cost. It's about providing Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with a world-class foundation to continuously improve their performance and process standards, policies, and resource allocations for the benefit of consumers, businesses, and the taxpayer.
Finally, a Canadian food policy should feature a healthy foods section that focuses on the nutritional value of agrifood products. It is extremely important for a food policy to highlight the health benefits of agrifood products grown right here at home. Canadian soybeans and processed soy oils are well positioned to serve as strong examples of locally grown grains with tremendous health advantages.
Consider that in 2015 Health Canada approved a health claim linking the consumption of protein-rich soy food to lowering cholesterol levels. Scientific studies behind the claim show that consuming 25 grams of soy protein per day helps reduce both cholesterol and the risk of heart disease.
We are seeing other countries come to the same conclusion, linking soybean consumption to a reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease. Just last month the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a similar health claim on soy oil food labels in the U.S. In Canada, the health benefits of consuming soy oil in a country where soybeans are one of the fastest-expanding crops is a net positive story for Canadians and one that could be featured as a success story in the upcoming food policy.
I'll pass it back to Dale.
The policy cannot remain silent on important agricultural issues such as market development and market access. It must also take care to demonstrate the agriculture industry's commitment to food safety and quality assurance. Food safety is not just about consumer protection, it's also about enhancing the competitiveness of the Canadian food chain.
We strongly believe a national food policy must facilitate the growth of crop sectors like soybeans, and the grains and oilseeds industry in Canada, and we look forward to working with the Government of Canada as it develops this strategy.
The health, safety, and economic well-being of Canadians is greatly determined by the integrity of the ecosystem, the natural resources, and infrastructure that we share, which is climate, airsheds, fresh water, natural landscapes, fisheries, agrifood systems, and the transportation, telecommunication, and energy networks.
Thank you.
:
Food is horizontal. It needs a full supply chain view. You've heard from primary agriculture, but really, before agriculture, there are inputs. There are land issues, credit issues, which are not always easy to access. There are pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals, or organic matter. There are lots of inputs. Labour is an input. In Canada, we just finished a study. The current labour gap in agriculture is 58,000 workers. It will grow to 114,000 workers by 2025. We are using many temporary foreign workers, but that's all part of the input to primary agriculture.
You then have many, many products, and you have a great policy for growth in that, and the value-added is fantastic. In trade as well, you're going to $75 billion by 2025. That's amazing. The world needs more of Canada, and we can supply more food. The world population will grow to 8.3 billion by 2030, maybe 9.7 billion by 2050. Canada will grow to maybe 55 million. The world will grow much more than Canada, so we can feed more of the world, rather than internally. That doesn't mean we can't do more locally, or shift from imports—substitution, for instance—to grow those regional economies. There's more trade in Canada than outside Canada in some instances. It's fascinating.
You go along the supply chain, and you get processing as a leading sector, more than automobile in Ontario, for instance. You have retailing, food services, and the consumer. You have this whole supply chain view, which this national food policy must look at. The mandate is an initial mandate; that's how we see it. It was a few words put together right after the election, so we need to add to that, and we need to grow that mandate beyond the wording that's in there now. For instance, it doesn't say “fishers”. It says, “ranchers and farmers”. It's forgetting the sea. That's part of a national food policy too. Canadians tend not to eat very much fish. It's been stable for 30 years. Recommendations in the guidelines are two portions per week. Right now, we're at one portion per 10 days.
It's the same thing with fruits and vegetables. We recommend eight per day. We don't even measure that at Statistics Canada; we measure five a day. The consumption is that about 30% to 40%, to 50% in some cases—women more than men—match the five a day, which is great, but we need to do more.
On industry, you have issues relevant to legislation. For instance, on the fisheries side, there's no aquaculture act. We can do more there. On the Food and Drugs Act, we can get rid of drugs but stick to food. On regulations, we tend to add regulations instead of cleaning the system up. There are ways we can improve our regulatory system and standards.
On food safety, we do really well. I led a report with Sylvain Charlebois which compared 17 OECD countries. We came out on top. We're number one in the world. That doesn't mean there isn't more we can do. We have four million food-borne illness cases in the country and 240 deaths per year. What else can we say? On food safety, we're behind on traceability compared to the Europeans, for instance. We don't rest on our laurels; we move ahead. There is always more we can do.
We've talked about industry and we've talked about prosperity, so competitiveness. Food policy should address the issues of profitability for farmers along the supply chain, the different businesses, so they remain viable and grow. That's what we want, so they contribute to the economy. In the end, you have issues of demand and supply.
We've spoken a little about the supply side. On the demand side, you have issues about health and well-being. I spoke to you about consumption, but we don't have enough data. The last data we have is from 2004, and before that, it was the 1970s. I would highly recommend we do this every five years. It's something easy we can do, and it doesn't cost that much. Food is a huge determinant of health, and the largest budget item is health care. If we can have a healthier population, then we can reduce the costs of health care. Regarding health or chronic diseases, two-thirds of the population are overweight or obese, we have diabetes issues, and we have people who are anemic, vitamin D deficient, vitamin A deficient. There are some forms of malnutrition in the country. It's quite rare.
What you see more is on the energy side, what you call food insecurity, which is a bit different from food safety. It's about availability of the food supply, responding to food emergencies. You saw a lot of flooding, even in Gatineau. Where we live, we had flooding this year. Suddenly, we had people who were food insecure who never thought about being food insecure. Food emergencies come that way.
Climate change is a food issue also, very, very long term. That can affect the growth of crops and where we grow food in the country going forward 10, 30, or 40 years. We're talking about potential desertification, if we look at certain areas in the Prairies. We have to prepare for that. A food policy can help support that
On the environmental and sustainability side, there are soil quality issues: soil erosion, organic matter issues. You can look at air quality issues—the greenhouse gas issue is a big one, as well as ammonia and particulate matter—or water quality issues, such as nitrogen and phosphorus certification, and runoffs from agriculture. It could be a food waste issue, a very hot topic.
I don't know if you know, but one of the things I do at the Conference Board is develop a food report card—A, B, C, D—of how Canada performs in the world. Then I compare all the provinces. Next year, I'm looking at comparing the cities, and I'm looking for funding for that.
When we compare Canada and the world on food loss and food waste, we are among the most wasteful societies on the planet. We're last. Food loss is before purchase, and food waste is after purchase. Consumers represent half of all the food waste in Canada. We need to do a lot more on tools and engagement with different jurisdictions to raise literacy, and a national food policy can support that. It turns out a lot of Canadians can't read food labels, because they have very low numeracy skills, let alone everything else. They can't do the math.
We did all these reports, which fed into the national strategy, and we came out with 62 recommendations and goals. All of these can be useful in your thinking as you develop a national food policy.
You might consider a national food council that is permanent. I would try to avoid political risk. The examples that were given, the Australian national food plan and U.K.'s food 2030, are great, but as soon as the government changed, they were shelved. I'm hoping that this policy will remain viable irrespective of government change.
Thank you, sir.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming to present to us their various opinions on the food policy. We sensed their great passion for the subject in their presentations.
Mr. Le Vallée, we could sum up the work of the committee by using your document alone. It has 66 recommendations. We could wrap up the study today and we would already have plenty of work.
Before I ask my question, Mr. Chair, allow me to bring up two matters.
As you know, the composition of the committee has changed. On Friday, my colleague Mr. Gourde submitted a motion, of which committee members received a copy. As Mr. Gourde is no longer here, the motion is not valid. So I would like the committee's unanimous consent so that we can study the motion today, given the urgency of the matter and the fact that the is currently consulting on the tax changes.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the motion reads as follows:
That the Committee immediately undertake a study on the proposed changes to the tax system in order to assess their impacts on small farm businesses, particularly family farms and the inherent risks in the proposals on transfer of ownership; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 1, 2017.
I make this recommendation given that there have been changes to the committee. The first version of today's agenda set time aside for the discussion of this motion, but it was withdrawn when the committee members changed. So I am asking my colleagues for permission—
:
Thanks to all the witnesses for participating in this.
I have had a town hall meeting in Guelph discussing this with about 80 people from Guelph, ranging from farmers to scientists to civil society. We also had one of the national consultations at the University of Guelph. That included indigenous people.
I want to address the first question to Mr. Le Vallée.
An item came up in our discussion at our community town hall around food waste. One of the people there said that France, as an example, has a policy under which restaurants are not allowed to throw out food, that hey have a policy whereby they have to find a home for food, not the garbage can.
Has the Conference Board done any study, maybe through Mr. Charlebois, who came from the University of Guelph and now is the dean at Dalhousie? Have you done any work about food waste policy in other countries that could be submitted to this committee?
:
Today, local products make up a good part of the retail market. Short channels, public markets: it's all great. Some provinces are further ahead than others and have a better supply of local products in retail outlets. Actually, most local products are sold in retail outlets, not by direct transactions between producers and consumers. You can buy products directly from producers, but Canadians are net consumers, meaning that they buy their products in retail outlets. Local products represent from 5% to 20% of the market, depending on the season.
To start with, there is a definition problem. Are we going to say that they are Quebec products, Jonquière products, or Chicoutimi products? How do we define local products? Are we talking about a radius of 100 km? Can we consider strawberries from the Île d’Orléans as local for consumers here in the Outaouais? Personally, I prefer to buy local strawberries. Local for me means that they come from the Outaouais. Does that include Ripon?
No system is in place to promote local products because the term is not clearly defined. For the promotion to happen, there has to be some agreement on it.
People are interested, but it is not their priority. We surveyed consumers and their priorities are about quality and freshness. Price is in fourth place. Nutrition and health are very important as well. Products having to be local is in sixth, seventh or eighth place. It is not the priority.
However, during the season, people prefer community-supported agriculture. People go to buy containers once a week. That's more popular than buying products directly from the farm. We are seeing growth there too.
We did a study on that and I will send it to you as well.
:
We should approach it in terms of what I call resilience. On the economic, social and environmental fronts, this would provide the food system and the players in the food chain with mechanisms that would be triggered in the event of an emergency.
As you said, we are talking about a few days. The same is true for the city of Ottawa; we are talking about four or five days. If food were no longer delivered to the cities, we would have to make do with the food we had at home. But most people would not have enough.
This year, I prepared a status report about food. I looked at whether people were ready for this possibility. More than half of Canadians would have food for only one day in the event of an emergency.
Food security is important in the short term and in critical moments. You talked about nutritional security, but the term “food security” is more exact. Food security is the availability of food, the physical, economic and cultural access to food, and its use. Resilience supports those three pillars, if I can put it that way. Those tools are there in the long term as well.
Of course the army and the Red Cross could be a solution, but in the case of a city of several million people, only certain areas would be served. The entire population must be able to build community food security, which would also be supported by a national policy.
I would like to welcome all our colleagues joining us as new members to the committee. I am pleased to be working with you on this study of a food policy.
My question is for each of you.
I'm really interested in the whole issue of education about the food policy. In terms of the environment, just think how much time and energy have been invested over the past 20 years to ensure that consumers and the entire population recycle. Today, we feel guilty if we throw a small plastic jar in the garbage instead of the recycling bin. The fact remains that it has taken that many years. My fondest hope is that the educational aspect plays a significant role in the new food policy. I would like to hear your comments on that.
Clearly, when consumers choose a product, they need to know what they are buying, what the nutritional value of the product is, and so on. You must have an opinion on the matter.
Let me start with you, Mr. Le Vallée.
:
Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you today. As stated, my name is Dan Darling, and my family and I farm and raise cattle near Castleton, Ontario. I am currently president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and on behalf of Canada's 60,000 beef cattle producers, we are pleased to share our views on Canada's food policy. With me today is Brady Stadnicki, CCA staff here in Ottawa.
Earlier this year, the Government of Canada outlined its objectives for Canada's food policy, stating that it will set a long-term vision for health, environmental, social, and economic goals related to food, while defining actions that can be taken in the short term. CCA has been actively engaging in the food policy consultations and will continue to collaborate in this policy-making process.
Before getting into the proposed themes the food policy will focus on, I'd like to make a few overarching recommendations regarding the policy's development.
First, the governance structure or council that provides guidance to FPT governments developing the policy must have strong representation from agricultural producers. CCA believes it is important for this process to be collaborative and inclusive of civil society, but farmers and ranchers are the foundation of Canada's food system and it is critical that we play a meaningful role in developing this policy.
If designed and implemented properly, Canada's food policy has an opportunity to bridge the gap between the Canadian public and modern Canadian agriculture. As an industry, we understand that building public trust is very important, and that we need to reconnect with consumers and the public. This initiative has the potential to bring the public and farmers and ranchers together to find shared values in Canada's food and agricultural systems.
It is also imperative that Canada's food policy be science-based and utilize the best available data and research. Clear goals, priorities, and baselines need to be established to build the food policy into a road map that is truly useful to guide actions. It has to be flexible and updated regularly to account for changing market and environmental conditions, and should leverage and complement current federal initiatives rather than duplicate them.
The proposed themes of the food policy are increasing access to affordable food; improving health and food safety; conserving soil, water, and air; and growing more high-quality food. While we can definitely support all of these principles, it is important to provide context. For example, we all want access to affordable food. However, the food policy must recognize that innovation and technology help our industry and other commodities to remain efficient in using resources as best as we can while keeping costs of production down. This in turn allows food to be affordable to the consumer.
It is important that Canada's food policy recognize productivity-enhancing technologies like growth implants, feed additives, and even bio crops. This will help us towards the goal of keeping food affordable, as well as meeting other goals like soil conservation. Recognizing that raising cattle and supplying beef to consumers can play an important role in achieving the goals outlined will be essential in a food policy that we can support.
We already know beef is a nutrient rich and healthy food that can improve people's health when eaten with a variety of complementary vegetables, whole grains, and dairy.
Canada already has one of the best food safety systems and records in the world, but we know that the continued efforts to improve health and food safety are critical for public confidence, maintaining the Canadian beef advantage, and enhancing the health of all consumers. The Canadian beef industry has placed a strong emphasis on health and food safety in its research priorities and through the development of on-farm food safety programming for cattle producers. This focuses on training producers and verifying on-farm practices through an audit.
We know cattle can be used very well to conserve soil, improve grassland health, and ensure the preservation of important rangelands. Keeping grasslands that are utilized by cattle intact also provides public goods such as carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, increased biodiversity, and improved water quality.
In regard to growing more high-quality food, the Canadian beef industry and all of Canadian agriculture is a strategic growth asset and is well positioned to play a vital role in feeding the world with its safe, high-quality products.
It will be imperative that Canada's food policy places a strong emphasis on creating the most competitive business environment possible in order to grow more high-quality food and meaningfully increase agriculture's contribution to the Canadian economy. This also includes an emphasis on market access, research, labour, and a competitive regulatory system.
In closing, I would like to say that Canada is already in a position of strength to achieve the food policy's themes and objectives. Canadian agriculture has made great strides over the past half century in terms of conserving soil, air, water, and biodiversity. Thanks to productivity improvements and research, Canadian beef's GHG footprint is one of the smallest in the world.
Consumers in Canada also have access to some of the most affordable, high-quality, and safe food in comparison to the majority of other countries in the world. Given our abundance of fresh water, feed grains, and grazing lands, along with committed and innovative producers, Canada is well positioned to grow more high-quality food to feed both local and international consumers.
There is always room for continuous improvement. That is something our industry is committed to, but it must be recognized that we are starting from a strong position.
Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to your questions.
:
Hello. Thank you to the members of the committee for having us here today.
My name is Ashley St Hilaire, and I'm the director of programs and government relations with Canadian Organic Growers. I am joined here today by my colleague, Jim Robbins, on behalf of the Organic Federation of Canada.
Canadian Organic Growers is a national charity and organic farming membership organization. We are very pleased to be here today to talk about the importance of this government's initiative to develop a national food policy for Canada. We'd also like to announce and remind the committee that it is Canada's National Organic Week, which is an annual countrywide celebration of organic food, fibre, and farming. We're in our seventh year.
It's a very fitting time of year to discuss a national food policy for Canada. As Canadian crops are in their final weeks of harvest and abundance appears all around us, we are reminded by our work today that too many Canadians live with food insecurity. At the national food policy summit, we were shocked to learn that food bank usage continues to rise across the country despite Canada being ranked eighth in the world for food affordability. We support the work of this government and of Food Secure Canada to lead the development of a national food policy that will address these issues head-on. Every Canadian deserves the right to access culturally appropriate and nutritious food so they may live with dignity.
We feel the priority areas within this policy are appropriate and should be equally weighted. Organic food and farming span all of these priority areas and enhance food security in Canada, because the core principle of organic agriculture is healthy soil.
Through organic management practices organic producers are enhancing the health of our agricultural soils all across the country, ensuring that these lands can produce food for future generations of Canadians. Healthy soils enhance yields and the quality of what is produced. When we don't look after our soils, we turn to inputs, which increase the cost of production for farmers and cut into their profitability, making it harder and harder to make a living growing food for Canadians and the world. Farm profitability and food security in Canada are inherently linked.
We also urge policy-makers to recognize that a balance must be struck between the productivity of our crops and environmental degradation. Achieving ambitious agricultural export goals of $75 billion by 2025 should not come at a cost to the environmental health of our agricultural lands, as this would only further exacerbate food insecurity in Canada.
Organics is an industry that has always championed this balance and continues to be an agricultural leader in sustainability. Consumers from all walks of life support our industry every day when they purchase organic products at the grocery store and at farmers' markets. Their desire to access sustainably and locally produced organic food should be backed by this policy and by a commitment from the government to permanently fund the Canadian organic standards.
I'd like to turn it over to Jim to speak to that point.
I'm an organic farmer from Saskatchewan. Together with my family, I raise cattle and grow cereals, pulses, and forages—all organic—on 2,500 acres in Saskatchewan. We farmed conventionally for 21 years, and we are now almost finished our 19th organic harvest.
I'm proud to be representing today the Organic Federation of Canada, which oversees the maintenance of our national Canadian organic standards. The organic standards connect agriculture with the environment. It defines good agricultural practices that target productivity, profitability, and preservation of our environment.
Decades ago, producers from across the country came together because they wanted to change the way they farmed. They wanted to reduce their environmental footprint and become more sustainable. The Canadian organic standards provide a framework for their agricultural practices and allow them to define what they do as organic agriculture. The standards are not only a measure to ensure public trust in organic, but are also an industry benchmark for achieving and standardizing environmental sustainability on a farm. The standards are a public good, and all Canadians benefit from the practices organic farmers use on their land.
Our Canadian organic standards were established in law by the Government of Canada in 2009, and are referenced by Canadian federal regulations. However, the Canadian organic sector has been operating under the constant risk of losing the backbone of our industry, which is our standard, our assurance system, our standards, our brand, and our public trust. This is because, unlike our competitors, such as the U.S. and the European Union, whose governments fully and permanently fund the maintenance of their organic standards, the Government of Canada has yet to do the same for its own organic industry.
The Canadian organic standards, owned by the Canadian General Standards Board, require our industry to review and update organic standards on a five-year cycle. The price tag of this work is about $1 million, the majority of which goes to paying fees to the Canadian General Standards Board for overseeing the review and publishing of the revised standards. It also includes the cost of paying for national consultations to ensure that the standards reflect the needs of organic stakeholders.
Reviewing the standards is absolutely critical for maintaining not only the Canadian organic brand, but also all of our government-negotiated international organic trade arrangements, which we have with 90% of our major trading partners: the EU, Japan, and the United States.
The Canadian organic brand and the Canadian organic standards are all owned and backed by the government, so when the Government of Canada prepares budget 2018, with a national food policy and its 2025 agricultural export goal in mind, we strongly urge you to eliminate this competitive disadvantage that we suffer in Canada: get rid of the risk to our industry and include permanent funding for the Canadian organic standards. They will need to be fully revised and updated by the year 2020, and that work needs to begin in 2018.
To conclude, we remind the committee that organic agriculture is an example of a successful, clean-growth industry that offers a model for promoting climate-friendly food production. As the Government of Canada develops this national food policy, we hope it builds a policy that both incentivizes and rewards sustainable agricultural production, which we know contributes to food security in Canada. We also urge it to look for opportunities to eliminate competitive disadvantages for our organic producers. Permanently funding the Canadian organic standards would be the way to start.
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to speak on this topic today.
:
Thank you to our witnesses for being here this afternoon for this important discussion.
I want to pick up on a couple of themes from our first questions, and I know some of you were here but I think it's prudent for these witnesses.
I appreciate the sentiments of my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Longfield, in talking about how important our family farms are to our economy and how they've heard from farmers about their concerns on these potential tax changes, but I find their comments to be a little disingenuous, because we've heard over the last couple of weeks that there's been no movement from our current Liberal government in terms of extending that consultation. I think if you were really genuine about wanting to ensure that these are not going to impact our Canadian farmers, then you would extend that consultation period. I think to end that consultation period right in the middle of harvest shows just how much of a priority the feedback and input from our Canadian farmers truly is.
I again ask the Liberal government to consider extending that consultation period, and if it was a priority you would have agreed to our motion today, which would have asked us to study the financial implications of these tax changes on agriculture. You did not want to do that, so I think your concern about protecting our small farms is maybe a little misled.
One of the things we've talked about in this study is about ensuring that we have affordable food, but everything our colleagues across are talking about, in my mind, would do the opposite. I took note of a few things today. On transportation, they're not extending the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. There's the carbon tax, and eliminating the deferral on cash grain tickets. Those types of things, in my mind, would make agriculture more expensive and our access to food less affordable.
I'd like your opinion on what you see as some of the implications of the tax changes that the current government is making and the impact it is going to have on our access and our ability to access affordable food.
:
Dan and Jim, both of you may know Bill Zylmans. He's a cattle farmer in my neck of the woods. He has a small operation in Richmond and a larger operation in Delta, in the valley.
I'm intrigued because I'm assuming, Dan, that most of your folks do not do organic cattle farming, and Jim, you mentioned that you have an organic operation. Bill is trying to get away from the traditional farming industry for cattle, which is kind of unique in B.C., because we operate with Alberta. We have our baby cows until about six or seven months, and then they're shipped off to Alberta to feedlots.
I'd like to get your comments. I don't have a specific question, but I'd like your thoughts on how we can have a more organic-driven cattle industry. Also, to tie into your comment on public trust, Dan, you commented about bridging the gap between the public and the industry on cattle. I don't eat much beef, but others do, and I think Canada should have a robust cattle industry. I'd love to have your thoughts on all those points I've made.
Yes, I'm an organic cattle producer. I used to be a cow-calf producer, but now I finish all of our calves to market weight, which is possible to do organically in the prairie region. It's not difficult to do finishing. I was told when I started that it was an art form, but it's an art form that's not difficult to master.
Yes, it's certainly possible. It's an important part of our farming operation. It's doable. I receive a pretty modest premium for my organic beef. When I direct market it, there's about a 20% premium. When I market cattle to a buyer, to a plant that kills, my premium is in the 35% range.
It's a doable thing, and a lot of what I do probably you do too, Dan. You grass your cow herd in the summertime. I do too. I grass my yearlings as well, and I don't finish until after that yearling grass period is done. I imagine we do many of the same things. I doubt very much whether you spray your grasslands either.
:
We have a federal Canadian organic standard, as we were describing in our testimony. It is backed by the government. We have a government-owned brand for organic products in Canada. The seal reads “Canada Organic”, and consumers everywhere can look for those labelled products at grocery stores, farmers' markets, and wherever they buy organics.
Now, one of the deficiencies in our regulatory system right now is that many provinces do not have their own provincial organic regulation. What this means is that any products sold only within the province, not crossing any provincial or international borders, are subject to the regulations of that province. Right now, only five provinces in Canada, including B.C., starting this fall, and Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba, have a provincial regulation. We're working on one very proactively in Ontario right now. However, internationally and across provincial borders, we have a very robust regulatory system that enforces the Canadian organic standards, and the CFIA is part of that enforcement.
Yes, consumers who are buying within the province, at farmers' markets especially, need to ask their farmers if the product is organic and if the farmers have gone through certification, because in our minds “organic” means certification. Right now, every province is working towards a provincial organic regulation.
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here today.
Today, the quality of our witnesses is extraordinary.
That being said, I would like to clarify something about the motion that was introduced earlier. It was not rejected; we just postponed the discussion on whether we should study it or not.
A number of topics were discussed, including education. We also talked about inspection methods, the importance of not working in a vacuum, the labelling of GMOs, the increase in production and quality in light of climate change, among other things.
How can research contribute to the policy we want to implement, but also to climate change?
I want to come back to an issue you have previously addressed: food waste.
My colleague introduced Bill , which is probably familiar to you. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not believe in the bill and voted against it. Actually, it was not that they did not believe in it, but instead they wanted to integrate it into the food policy. However, I see nothing in this policy about it.
How can organic food contribute to food security? Many people turn to food banks and may not be able to afford food. How can organic food enhance food security while contributing to good human health?
The impact of sustainable development on lands and soils has been discussed at length. You gave the example of nitrogen fertilizer, which accounts for 70% of the emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. On your end, how can you promote good human health in a sustainable way?
:
You covered a lot of topics there, so I'll do what I can to jump in and say something.
Organic agriculture contributes to food security by ensuring that the land the food is grown on can grow food for generations to come. The practices that are used in organic agriculture are about building soil fertility and resilience, especially in the face of climatic extremes. There is research to show that organic systems are more resilient in the face of extreme weather events. There are a number of very unique stories of how organic producers have found ways to make their products more available to the everyday consumer.
Direct marketing is one way to do that. It's one of the ways to bring down the cost and it's also a way to bring together consumers and farmers. There's an amazing book called The New Farm, which is about an organic farm just outside of Toronto that has partnered with The Stop, which is a community food centre. It's a model for all food banks across Canada. They have been regularly supplying them with organic produce.
Part of the movement of organic agriculture in Canada is about bringing the consumer closer to the farmer and building relationships. There are a number of models out there. We can send you some more information on some of the examples from the organic industry about the ways to strengthen food security and to make sure that organic products are available to all Canadians.
Again, as we said, it comes to scarcity. If a product is scarce, it will inevitably be more expensive.