:
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are resuming our study on a food policy for Canada.
Please excuse our tardiness. Things went on a bit longer at the House because of the departure of one of our colleagues.
We have with us Mr. Nick Saul, who is President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Food Centres Canada.
Welcome, Mr. Saul.
We will also, via videoconference, be hearing Mr. David Connell, who is Associate Professor of Ecosystem Science and Management at the University of Northern British Columbia.
[English]
Mr. Connell, can you wave at us, to make sure we are connected? We're good. Okay.
[Translation]
We will also hear, via videoconference, Mr. Evan Fraser from the Arrell Food Institute of the University of Guelph, who will be speaking as an individual.
[English]
Could you also wave at us, Mr. Fraser? Okay. We're all good.
We'll start with opening statements.
Mr. Saul, as you are here, if you don't mind, please give us an opening statement, for up to seven minutes.
:
Thanks for the opportunity to address the committee today.
I'll start by saying who we are. Community Food Centres Canada builds health, belonging, and justice in low-income communities through the power of food. We work with over 120 community-based partners in 60 cities across the country to establish welcoming places where people can come together to cook, grow, share, and advocate for good food.
We're interested in the development of a national food policy because it offers an opportunity to create a more systems-wide or joined-up approach to our food system, one that brings together economic, agricultural, health, and social concerns.
In our view, our country's long-standing focus on growing and exporting ever-increasing amounts of commodity crops is causing great damage to our collective health and to our planet. That being said, any national food policy worth enacting in this age of climate change, food insecurity, and burgeoning chronic disease must ensure that food production nurtures the environment and supports public health. We believe this is achievable so long as a national food policy views food as a basic right, and always through a health and sustainability lens.
At Community Food Centres Canada our policy interests lie first and foremost with food insecurity and poverty, the key drivers in determining whether lower-income Canadians can put good food on their tables. This priority falls mostly within the first pillar of the policy, but addressing this issue requires a whole-of-government approach with mechanisms that lie largely outside of an agricultural framework. That is to say, the current framing implies approaches or solutions that will not necessarily help to solve the problem.
Currently, over four million Canadians are food insecure because they don't have the income necessary to purchase the food they need to thrive. Think of inadequate minimum wages, welfare rates, increasingly part-time and precarious work, and unaffordable housing.
Food insecurity is unnecessary, unjust, and from a policy perspective, has great costs associated with the toll it takes on physical and mental health. Depending on the level of severity of food insecurity, research has shown that health care costs are anywhere from 23% to 121% higher in food insecure households.
We also know that poor nutrition contributes to billions of dollars in costs that come from diet-related diseases such as cancer, diabetes—$14 billion—and cardiovascular disease—$28 billion. We also know that diet-related disease disproportionately affects the poor. For example, type 2 diabetes is four times higher in the lowest-income group versus highest-income group.
We have a massive problem that we need to get right, and yet the language of the first pillar, which is to put more healthy, high-quality food on the tables of families across the country, is concerning. This implies that either more food needs to be produced, that food needs to be more affordable, or that it needs to be distributed better. This may be a natural tendency for a policy that is placed within the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture; however, with a few exceptions, such as in Canada's north where distribution monopolies and physical supply of food exacerbate poverty in hindering access to food, a lack of availability of affordable food is not the issue. The issue is the lack of income. This necessary shift in framing is important to understand for any policy that aspires to impact on the issue.
The mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture has traditionally focused on commodity production at scale. When we ask agriculture to produce more food at lower prices, however, certain types of policies are implied, i.e., significant subsidies for large commodity producers, more chemicals, and higher yields per acre. This often amounts to a race to the bottom, where farm income and wages suffer, as do the types of careful stewardship that are required to ensure that our agricultural economy is environmentally sustainable. That is the third pillar.
Another pitfall of this framing is that it can lead to an increased focus on charity as the solution to food insecurity, specifically as it pertains to food waste. As food waste becomes recognized as a bigger and bigger issue, there has been a temptation to create a win-win by finding ways to further connect sources of waste with charitable distribution channels.
We would strongly suggest that further entrenching charitable responses to food insecurity is the wrong path. Waste needs to be addressed and deincentivized at source, and not redirected into the households of low-income Canadians through a partial or patchy charitable system.
If the answer is not cheaper food or reducing waste through charity, then what is it? Canadians need to be able to afford more and better-quality food, and there are no shortcuts to this end.
The types of policies required to advance the income security and food security goals are properly pursued through ministries that have the mandate to attack the problems at the level of scale and investment that they require, for example, the national poverty reduction strategy being driven by the Ministry of Families, Children and Social Development.
Moving people out of deep poverty will include policies like increasing transfer payments so the provinces have the means to increase social assistance rates and investing further in existing income security programs such as GST/HST credits for low-income earners. Given the role income plays in addressing food insecurity and improving health outcomes, this is an opportune time to explore the idea of a national basic income guarantee.
Despite the constraints that arise from the agricultural lens to address food insecurity, there are significant opportunities that can surface from a national food policy that takes a holistic approach to looking at issues across the food system, i.e., bringing together the ministries of agriculture, health, environment, social development, and indigenous affairs, and that also views these issues with a triple bottom-line lens as a guiding principle, that is, a lens that looks at policies from the vantage point of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
Where we can readily see the value of this type of approach is where food and health policy intersect. Orienting our food system to health means looking beyond food simply as a commodity, and demands that health and food safety, the second pillar of the policy, be examined in a holistic and expansive way. Food safety is not simply food that won't make you sick tomorrow; it's food that won't make you sick in the long term, as a steady diet consisting of the sugar, fat, and salt contained in processed foods almost certainly will.
If our system of agricultural subsidies supports commodity crops that ultimately underpin processed food, which is at the heart of the chronic disease epidemic and is costing us billions in health care spending, perhaps under the rubric of a joined-up national food policy, we can examine this system to look at reducing harms and increasing benefits across the food system.
:
Thank you for this opportunity to present to the committee today. I was asked to share my views about whether anything is missing from the pillars of the national food policy. To me, the obvious answer as to what is missing is farmland. The pillars mention soil, water, air, and the production of more quality food. The four pillars also highlight the need to protect the environment, but there's no mention of land as a finite, non-renewable resource on which our food is grown, and there's no recognition that in spite of many years of efforts, we continue to lose farmland, including a lot of our best farmland, in every part of the country. With this critical gap in mind, I have two main messages that I want to share today.
The first is that protecting farmland should not be an afterthought of a national food policy. It must be recognized as a precondition for all four pillars.
The second message I want to share is that the federal government can play a critical role in helping to better protect Canada's agricultural land base. Specifically, the federal government could adopt a clear, direct statement of policy to protect the agricultural land base and to support its use for farming. Such a statement would ensure that the public interest in protecting farmland is integrated across provincial, territorial, and local jurisdictions.
In the policy brief I submitted to the committee, I included some statistics about the loss of farmland. These statistics show that there's significant conflict over competing land uses, especially between urban development and prime agricultural land. These conflicts will continue to contribute to the direct loss of farmland, declining agricultural activities on farmland, and price increases.
To address these issues, we first must recognize that farmland protection is part of a much broader question about where farmers, food, and agriculture fit within our society. That's what a national food policy needs to address. When adopted, the national food policy will be a statement about the importance of agriculture and food to Canadian society. The question I put to you is this: where do you think farmland protection fits within a national food policy?
To help you answer these questions, we need to look at the current state of farmland protection in Canada. The information I shared with you is from an ongoing national project engaged in looking at this. One of our main objectives was to assess the overall strength of farmland protection at both the provincial and local levels. In our view, a strong legislative framework is one that protects farmland.
In our policy brief we documented how each province takes a different approach to agricultural land-use planning. We also documented how these different approaches lead to very different outcomes—from very strong provincial legislation to very weak provincial legislation. These results are included in the table on page 1 of the additional materials which I submitted. Page 1 is the one with the pie chart on it.
The pie chart shows the relationship between the strength of provincial legislative frameworks and the amount of prime farmland in each province. We can see that at the provincial level, at most, only 9.9% of our best farmland is protected by very strong provincial legislation. This leaves most of our best farmland highly exposed to non-farm development. Furthermore, when we look at local governments, we find that the situation actually gets worse. This is evident on page 2 of the materials that I submitted. When we look at local legislative frameworks within each province, we see that a strong provincial legislative framework is not a guarantee for strong local legislation.
British Columbia, unfortunately, is a very good example of this, as shown on page 3 of the documents I sent. British Columbia is very strong provincially, yet a full range of strengths exists among local governments, from very strong to weak. When we look at the whole picture, we see that the strongest farmland protection is more likely to be in places where we have the greatest historical loss of farmland, and where the pressures for non-farm development are also the greatest. This is the after-the-fact situation that we must address. We must improve the strength of legislation that protects farmland before we lose it, and before we lose most of our agricultural lands.
As I stated at the outset, my position is that farmland protection should not be an afterthought. It must be a precondition for an effective national food policy. Therefore, I recommend that as a foundation of a national food policy, the federal government adopt a clear, direct statement to protect the agricultural land base and to support its use for farming. For example, as a starting point, I recommend that the name of the theme change from “conserving soil, water, and air” to “conserving land, soil, water, and air”. It is my strong belief that a national perspective can provide a unified direction to other levels of government, help integrate public priorities across jurisdictions, and help to ensure we protect farmland for future generations.
Thank you.
:
I would like to thank you for the invitation, and also congratulate all of you, and , for taking leadership on this. I have been involved in a number of the consultations and I've been delighted by this. I was delighted by the discussion that I heard, both in the Ottawa summit in June as well as the regional consultation that we held here at the University of Guelph earlier this month.
I'm really pleased by the four priorities that you've identified, with complete acknowledgement that there could be some tweaking done. I think improving or increasing access to affordable food; improving health and food safety; conserving soil, water, and air; and growing high-quality food are all laudable interdisciplinary cross-cutting objectives, and they signal to me that the government is serious about trying to create a comprehensive policy that applies across Canada.
I actually would like to use my time to make three specific recommendations.
The first is that within that framework you focus on a couple of doable, specific programs. Don't try to boil the ocean here, but figure out a few targeted areas to focus on. I think the food policy provides an ideal opportunity to show leadership in a couple of key areas. If you're taking recommendations right now, under the theme of increasing access to affordable food, I would recommend programs that address chronic food insecurity and safety among Canada's first nations and indigenous peoples. That would probably be my top priority, and then focus on other vulnerable and marginal groups.
Under the heading of improving food safety and health, I would recommend programs aimed specifically at improving childhood nutrition and focusing on food literacy through our public school system.
In terms of the conserving soil, land, water, and air theme, I really recommend that you prioritize programs that are geared at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian agricultural sector.
Under the final theme, which is about helping producers grow more high-quality food, I think there's a real opportunity here to align the food policy with the federal budget, with its emphasis on innovation superclusters, and develop the technologies and governance structures to establish a brand Canada which would demonstrate to our trading partners that Canadian food is the safest and most sustainable in the world.
This brings me to my second recommendation, which is that I really urge you to do everything you can to align the national food policy with other government priorities and programs. For instance, I urge the committee to seriously think about how the national food policy can support our research strategy, for instance, by including agrifood as a priority area amongst our research councils.
Similarly, and as I said a minute ago, I think there's a huge opportunity to support the national food policy and have the national food policy support our economic and trade policy. This harkens back to my comment a minute ago about the innovation superclusters. I think that inasmuch as funding is directed to the agrifood sector through the innovation supercluster fund, it should be aligned with the federal food policy. Similarly, I think there should be a direct and explicit alignment between the national food policy and the recently announced economic strategy tables for agrifood growth.
Then there's the new Canadian food guide which is going to be launched soon. We all know that. If two components of the national food policy are increasing access to affordable food and improving health and food safety, I suggest they should be explicitly linked between the food guide and the food policy, and that the food guide becomes one vehicle by which you consider implementing the food policy.
Finally, by using the national food policy to address food insecurity amongst indigenous communities, I think it should be possible to align the food policy with efforts to meet the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with a specific emphasis on nation-to-nation consultations.
My third recommendation builds on this and is actually the most important of my three recommendations. I strongly urge the government to take this opportunity to create a long-term and durable governance mechanism to help establish food policy on an ongoing basis.
As members of the committee may be aware, a number of attempts have been launched over the last few years by civil society and by industry to develop food policy. In one way or another, many of these attempts have not really had the long-lasting impact that we hoped they would. Although there is debate as to why, my own feeling is that one of the reasons past attempts have failed to achieve the lofty goals they've set is simply because the federal government was never at the table and never willing to show leadership. But this is changing, and with your efforts we're making serious progress here.
I strongly urge you to consider that one of the outcomes of this entire process be the creation of a long-term and durable governance mechanism that would promote the future development of food policy in Canada. Governance for food policy has to be underpinned by principles like transparency, participation, accountability. It must be multi-sectoral. It must be multi-stakeholder. It must explicitly include indigenous peoples' participation. I believe you have an extraordinary opportunity to develop such a governance mechanism. Possible models could be a national round table for food or a national food policy council.
I'd like to highlight that a group of stakeholders, some of whom you've already met in committee, along with my own institution, the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph, Food Secure Canada, the Maple Leaf Centre for Action on Food Security, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, are about to launch a white paper on governance of food policy in Canada. I'd be delighted to share copies with committee members, if you're interested. This particular white paper will call for the creation of a national food policy round table. I am happy to take questions on that.
I'd like to quickly wrap up. I applaud the government's efforts to engage in food policy. It's complicated, difficult, and it's time that we did it. I am also very supportive of the collaborative vision that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has put forward, and through the regional consultations and the summit in June. I also think we can use this as an opportunity to take advantage of important trading opportunities while protecting our environment and ensuring safe and sustainable food for consumers.
I share the vision laid out by the report from the Advisory Council on Economic Growth that we can work to ensure Canada is the world's trusted supplier of safe, sustainable food for the 21st century. I believe that developing a national food policy which must include some sort of durable governance mechanism like a national food policy council is the right way to proceed.
:
I hope you picked up in my comments that I don't think we have a problem around food. We have plenty of food out there. This is not an issue related to production. My main point has been about how we fairly and equally distribute the food that we already produce.
Globally we produce way more calories than we need. I have a deep concern—and I'd love Evan's comments on this as well—when you look at a goal of $75-billion export. I'm not sure where that's going. If you want to try to underpin a more sustainable agricultural system, when you are pushing more and more food out the door, it puts huge pressure on the land and the soil. Therefore, I want to push back against the kind of “get big or get out” approach that we often see in our agriculture policy, often aimed at export.
I would like to see much more focus on supporting organic and sustainable farmers and helping people to transition, and acknowledgement that that's an important route to go. I don't see much evidence of that when you see where the expenditures in agriculture go. There are huge opportunities to create land that is nurturing, that creates really good food.
I am trying to triangulate the idea of health, sustainability, and a good economy. A national school nutrition program is one of those approaches that brings together all three. You can support kids to eat well, do well in school, and build food skills, but if you put a mandate in on how you procure that food, you can also support a local rural economy.
:
I'll be very brief, Lloyd, but you're identifying an extraordinarily complicated issue. I'll say three things.
First of all, there are different ways of constituting some sort of governance structure, such as an act of Parliament. Outside of an act of Parliament, there are different ways of doing it. We could have a long conversation about that. Anything, I think, is better than nothing, and right now we have nothing. Food always falls through the cracks, and you have an opportunity here to fill some of those cracks. It's not going to be perfect, of course not.
The second thing would be about the mandate. The mandate of a governance body should be to advise government on policy issues, to work to build consensus around agreement amongst the multi-stakeholders, to provide research and expertise, and to set benchmarks and independently verify them. These are the sorts of things which, in my mind, a governance mechanism can and should do.
The final thing I'll say is that we have examples of these sorts of things happening. Domestically we have the International Institute for Sustainable Development out of Winnipeg that's been very effective over its career. We have the former national round table on the environment and the economy. We also have lots of international examples, such as Brazil, Scotland, and Finland, that have embarked on multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder governance models for food.
We're not developing things out of zero, and we can build a research body and a series of recommendations based on global best practices that will put Canada and Canadian governance at the absolute forefront of this important issue.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presentations, their participation in this consultation, and their patience.
I realize that there was a tribute in the House, but all members are expected to be at committee for 3:30. This is a really complicated, broad subject, and I wish we had more time to delve into it.
In 2012, the UN special rapporteur came to Canada. I remember because I was on the agriculture committee. We talked a lot about food insecurity and the recommendations that were made. I don't think the last government acted on them, and I'm not sure where the present government is on that, but the right to food is something that has come up quite often at committee.
In Canada we produce amazing food, and the government has an objective that we export more, but then we still have four million Canadians who are food insecure in Canada. It seems that we do have a broken food system, and the solution is this food strategy.
My fear is that we'll consult as a committee and the government will do their consultations. We'll have a wonderful report, but there will be no outcomes, no results, and we won't solve many of the problems. That is my big fear.
I was wondering if we could start off, Mr. Saul, and talk about the importance of a national food strategy for children. I know my colleague Olivia Chow, who's no longer with us in the House, worked really, really hard on a national food program for kids. She talked about its importance. There are so many children who are food insecure. Would that be something that could be a food strategy or recommendation? We don't even know if there's going to be money attached to this, at the end of the day. I was wondering if you could talk about the importance of starting with young children.
:
I think we have to invest in it. I should be clear. This is not an area of super expertise for me. I'm an anti-poverty activist at heart who is organizing in low-income communities through food, because food is a powerful way to connect people, and also work on some of the big, seemingly intractable problems of our time, as I said, climate change, public health, and inequality. I am not going to pontificate on the dimensions of how our national food policy supports a thriving organic system.
What I do know is that my experience with those who have tried to buck the trend is that it can be done, but there are practically no resources put toward helping it happen. Again, I haven't crunched the numbers, but when I talk to a person who is farming 100 acres of land and able to take $35,000 or $40,000 gross out of it, and get his kids together, off to school, family is good, and make money—and I pass rows and rows of farmland all dedicated to soy and corn, a lot of it for ethanol, a lot of it for livestock—when he talks to me about the land around him, he says basically, “I have sugar, meat, and processed food all around me.”
There is a burgeoning crew of young farmers who want to get on the land and grow in a very, very different way, and there is a market for that. My concern is, you know, the question that you raised around it: how do we democratize that good food? How do we make sure that all of us have access to more expensive food, because our food needs to be more expensive for it to take care of the environment and to ensure that it's healthy for us.
That's the dilemma. The more we can create supports by a government in a regulatory framework that pushes and encourages farmers to grow that way, the better.
[Translation]
We are beginning the second hour of our meeting on a food policy for Canada.
We have with us Ms. Claire Citeau, the Executive Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.
I welcome you once again to our committee, Ms. Citeau.
We also have with us Ms. Rebecca Lee, the Executive Director of the Canadian Horticulture Council, and Ms. Linda Delli Santi, Chair, Greenhouse Vegetable Committee.
Welcome, ladies.
And finally, we have with us Mr. Mike Dungate, Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada.
[English]
Welcome again to our committee, Mr. Dungate.
With that, I will start with a seven-minute opening statement from each of your organizations.
[Translation]
Ms. Citeau, you may begin. You have seven minutes to make your presentation.
:
It will be my pleasure.
[English]
I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, CAFTA, to speak on the subject of a food policy for Canada.
CAFTA is a coalition of national organizations that have a major stake in international trade and seek a more open and fair international trading environment for Canadian agriculture and agrifood products.
Our members represent producers, processors, and exporters from the major trade-dependent sectors: beef, pork, meat, grains, cereals, pulses, soybeans, canola, as well as sugar, malt and food industries. Together, our members account for over 90% of Canada's agriculture and agrifood exports, which last year exceeded $55 billion, and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in communities across the country.
Canada is one of the few countries that can not only feed its population, but also has an obligation to produce, trade, and sell food to the rest of the world for its agricultural sector to thrive and grow. Canada's agriculture food processing industry is much larger than if we were only serving our domestic market. In Canada, nine out of 10 farmers rely on exports for their livelihood, which is a result of production exceeding domestic needs and consumption. One in two jobs in crop production depends on exports, and it is one in four in food manufacturing.
Canadian agriculture produces what the world needs and is well positioned to continue to do so, but Canadian agriculture cannot be competitive without commercially viable access to export markets. CAFTA welcomes the four pillars proposed by the government for a food policy for Canada, but believes that success will require commitments that extend beyond the mandate of Canada's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. International trade is crucial for Canadian agriculture and agrifood as 58% of its total value is generated through exports. We export over half of the agrifood products that we grow, and Canadian agriculture has already made great strides over the past 10 years as our exports have grown by over 100%, from $30 billion to over $60 billion, boosting farm cash receipts by 61% over the same time frame.
An effective food policy should include a strong trade component and outline the conditions that will allow Canadian agriculture to thrive and build on the export growth forecast by the Prime Minister's Advisory Council on Economic Growth of $75 billion in exports by 2025. This is an ambitious goal, but one the industry believes is completely achievable, given the immense potential for growth.
The policy should include a focus on negotiating and implementing free trade agreements with key markets and the markets our competitors are also after, as well as removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to enable more production and exports.
We offer the following to the committee for consideration:
First, the policy should ensure that proper resources are allocated to departments and agencies in charge of negotiating free trade agreements, specifically maintaining the free and fair trade we have through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and improving it where possible; implementing free trade agreements with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, like the TPP, the trans-pacific partnership. This remains today the best option for Canada to secure favourable market access to Japan and many fast-growing countries in Asia.
Second, the policy should also ensure that proper resources are allocated to the functions in charge of implementing free trade agreements. Specifically in the European Union, while there is a huge potential to make greater inroads in that region, in particular through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which was implemented exactly one week ago, the results for many of our sectors won't be felt immediately as technical issues remain outstanding.
Third, the policy should also ensure that adequate funding is allocated to functions in charge of resolving market access issues, so the Government of Canada can continue its work of minimizing technical barriers to trade and ensuring real access for exporters. The proliferation of non-tariff barriers in agriculture over past decades has significantly increased the number of market access barriers our exporters face as they diversify their export profile, and for farmers, producers, and exporters of all sizes, this has a direct commercial impact on export revenues, risk management, and predictability of operations.
Our fourth recommendation for the policy is to allocate proper resources to the network of Canadian representatives abroad, notably embassies and trade commissioners, because Canada's ability to build a competitive industry depends in large part on how well the country opens doors abroad.
In closing, Canada's food policy should place a strong emphasis on creating the most competitive business environment possible in order to continue to grow high-quality foods and meaningfully increase agriculture's contribution to the Canadian economy.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members. Thank you for having me here today.
Given that there are new members of Parliament on the committee since I last appeared, allow me to first introduce the Canadian Horticultural Council, or CHC, and give context for our remarks today.
CHC is an Ottawa-based voluntary not-for-profit national association that represents fruit and vegetable growers across Canada involved in the production of over 120 different types of crops, with farm cash receipts of $6 billion in 2016. Since 1922, in collaboration with our members, growers, and the government, CHC has advocated on important issues that impact Canada's horticultural sector, promoting healthy, safe, and sustainable food, and ensuring the continued success of our industry while providing nutritious food to communities across Canada, which brings me to our focus today, the national food policy.
Let me begin by saying CHC supports the mandate of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to develop a food policy that promotes healthy living and safe food by putting more healthy, high-quality food, produced by Canadian ranchers and farmers, on the tables of families across the country. How the policy is implemented is where CHC is pleased to have input as an active stakeholder.
Please note for the purpose of this presentation I'll use the term “Canadians” to represent all those who call Canada home.
The national food policy is a big undertaking, which requires a multi-faceted approach by government and buy-in from all Canadians and key stakeholders, including farmers, as the policy will inevitably impact and influence Canada's agricultural industry with ripple effects throughout communities across the country. CHC supports a policy that focuses on the accessibility of nutritious food to all Canadians, particularly to northern and remote communities. At the same time, CHC advises the government to avoid a focus on the affordability of food and consider the broader picture to ensure the policy is also sustainable for farmers and the communities they feed.
With higher costs of production, including labour, carbon pricing, and implementation of safeguards for food safety assurance, among others, CHC suggests a policy based merely on the affordability of food would not be sustainable, nor would it help in reaching the federal government's goal in budget 2017, which set out to increase agrifood exports to $75 billion by 2025.
In tandem with accessibility, there needs to be more food literacy available to educate Canadians and make healthy choices. Effective educational programs can lead to folks choosing more whole foods, which are often more affordable than processed meals, and learn how to cook with whole, nutritious ingredients.
I'd also like to address the government's call to increase the production of high-quality food, which touches on national food security issues as well. While in theory this sounds good, in practice Canadian growers need effective tools in order to continue to provide and increase high-quality food in a sustainable production system. Currently Canada has enough high-quality food to feed our country, based off current crop protection products available. If or when these products are removed, farmers need to have access to new tools to maintain the same level of high-quality food at the same level of production, let alone grow more food. Therefore, CHC urges Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, to maintain their commitment to continue registration of crop protection products when there are no viable alternative products that the horticultural industry deems effective. CHC encourages PMRA to work with growers in cases where risks are identified for human health or the environment, and to work together to implement practical means of mitigating identified risks to ensure continued access to tools to control pests and diseases. If growers lose essential crop protection tools, not only would there be less high-quality food production, but food loss in the fields would increase exponentially and there would be further food waste throughout the value chain. Again, this goes hand in hand with government departments working together to ensure the sustainability and growth of Canadian farms to continue to feed our communities.
Last, I'd like to note that the small business corporate tax changes that were proposed in July will heavily impact Canada's farms. Without the farms it will be harder for Canada to produce food locally and be able to feed the nation, which would have a ripple effect on the economy and on the environment. As you may know, the average age of a farmer is over 50, and the farm owner is usually a generation older, so we will see quite a few succession plans in the years to come. The proposed tax changes will severely impact how these farms will switch hands and if it is viable to pass along to family members. You can see how these changes would be counterproductive to getting young people involved in the farm. We strongly encourage the government to take more time to review the corporate tax changes and make adjustments as necessary to continue to promote and grow Canadian agriculture.
A favourable business environment will ensure there will be Canadian growers for decades to come. As the food policy helps set the stage to grow more high-quality food and increase access to it, CHC suggests that the Government of Canada needs to encourage healthy economic conditions so farmers can continue to provide Canada with locally grown fruit and vegetables.
In addition to Finance Canada's quickly approaching consultation deadline for the small business tax changes, there are numerous complex government consultations happening this year. CHC trusts that the government will ensure that the resulting food policy is coherent with other consultations across departments, including Canada's healthy eating strategy and the proposed safe food for Canadians regulations.
CHC looks forward to working with the federal government, growers, and other key players to develop a national food policy that will benefit all who call Canada their home.
Thank you. We are happy to take questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chicken industry in Canada is a growth and value-addition success story. Production has increased 12% over the last four years, and will increase another 4% this year.
Just to give you a sense of what the sector comprises, there are 244 hatching egg farms, 40 hatcheries, 125 feed mills, 2,800 chicken farmers, and 191 processing plants across the country. They contribute $7.2 billion to Canada's gross domestic product; they sustain 95,000 jobs, and they pay $2.3 billion in taxes. We're making significant capital investments as we're growing our business: new feed mills, new hatcheries, and expanded processing plants. For example, in Ontario alone there are 100 new barns under construction. These innovative barns have changed from what you think of as the typical farm. Our barns have changed, but our values haven't. We still care about our fellow Canadians. That's why this food policy is important to us, and why we are focused on a secure, affordable supply of safe and nutritious chicken that is raised with care.
As we present before you in terms of a national food policy, I think it is important to acknowledge that Canadian farmers and their agrifood partners first and foremost provide food for Canadians. The issue of affordability is a complex one. It is one that's driven primarily by low incomes, not by the value that we provide in the industry. Canadians, on average, only spend 10% of their disposable income on food. I think we do a good job across the whole agrifood sector.
Chicken is the most affordable meat protein. I think that's a key reason it is Canada's most consumed meat, but the challenge before us is to make sure it remains affordable. Right now, for us and all of animal agriculture, the real threat to affordability is the security coming from activists who are masquerading as consumers. These activists are extorting our restaurant partners. They're maligning our farmers. They're campaigning against the humane transportation of animals. They're campaigning to take chicken and other meats out of Canada's food guide. Their ultimate objective is to dictate to Canadians what they can and cannot eat, and they are trying to reach their goal by driving up the cost, and that's the affordability issue of nutritious food for consumers.
As chicken farmers, we are not in a position to address issues related to low incomes; that is a broader context than we're able to address. That being said, we fully support food banks—all our partners across the country. We think it's a stopgap measure. I think food banks would tell you it's a stopgap measure. Every one of our provincial boards has programs. In Ottawa, we've been a partner with the Ottawa Food Bank for the past 10 years. We've provided $500,000 over the last 10 years in both chicken that goes out as protein sources to people and in donations. Many of you have participated in our recipe contests and earned contributions to your own food banks across the country.
A national food policy needs to recognize the choices that Canadians make toward healthy eating. The Canada food guide is a key part of that. Chicken is nutritious and contributes to the health of Canadians. It needs to be maintained in the Canada food guide. Canada's chicken farmers are already addressing the food policy's goal regarding food safety. In 2013, we were the first commodity to have an on-farm food safety program that was officially recognized by the CFIA. We want to move so that there is a program in place for on-farm animal care as well.
We're also responding to concerns from consumers on antimicrobial resistance and use. In 2014, we eliminated the use of class 1 antibiotics. Earlier this year we agreed to eliminate class 2 by the end of 2018, and class 3 by the end of 2020.
In terms of the environment, we've recently expanded our “raised by a Canadian farmer” program, and we gave you the little blurb in terms of putting it out to the public to incorporate sustainable practices.
Our supply management system for chicken production ensures that chicken production is spread out across the country. Chicken manure is a valuable resource for crop farming. With it being spread out, we make sure that it's put out and provides fertilizer in a sustainable manner.
We are also at the finishing stages of a life-cycle assessment, looking at sustainability in our industry from an economic, social, and environmental perspective. We think that a 360° view would allow us to focus on where we can get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of environmental improvements. We are all about continuous improvement. I think we are much farther along than others would give us credit for.
In conclusion, our industry is focused on innovation and value addition. We grow and process all our chickens in Canada. We further process and add value in Canada. We are investing in our future, making capital investments, and the immense growth of the industry speaks to the trust that Canadians have in the chicken they consume.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today.
I know you had an opportunity to listen to some of the witness statements prior to your hour as well. You've heard a lot of the discussion through this study about access to affordable food. That's going to be a pillar to the study. All of you touched on it a bit in your testimony as well, and how difficult it's going to be to maintain that access to affordable food with some of the changes that are being implemented by the current government.
I would like to ask you to take a look at implementing a carbon tax and eliminating the deferral on grain cash tickets, now with these potential tax changes, and the implications this could have for passive income and succession plans.
We can start with the Horticultural Council. What is going to be the impact of these changes?
We heard at the finance committee earlier this week that if these small business tax changes go through, the typical farm will see an increase in its tax bill of about $70,000 a year. I know the farmers and ranchers in my constituency. They are certainly not wealthy, and they go on a very small margin. An additional $70,000 a year to their operation...and that's just on those tax changes. Some of them have told me that their fuel costs alone would be another $25,000 when you include the carbon tax. With those two tax changes alone, a typical farmer is looking at more than $100,000 in additional expense. How do we, then, come up with a food policy guide saying that one of the pillars is affordable food?
I would like your comments on how we can possibly harmonize those two things, with one side saying, “We need to access affordable food” and the other side of the federal government saying, at the same time, “We are going to be implementing some pretty punitive taxes on you.”
:
This may raise an issue regarding access to information.
[English]
This is for the Canadian Horticultural Council.
I've been on the agriculture committee since 2012, and back in the last Parliament we talked a lot about PACA. We haven't talked about it today, but I'm going to talk about PACA again, because this is still an issue.
In this Parliament, the 42nd Parliament, the agriculture committee has written two letters. We wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture in June 2016. We wrote another letter to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Innovation before we finished for the summer break, and we never got a response, not even, “Hey, you know, I got that letter. We will get back to you.” It was total silence. We got absolutely nothing.
This is an issue I brought up when you guys were in government, and now we're working together, and even during the election campaign ,a lot of you guys promised that we would have a PACA-like system. It's even more important now, because as was mentioned earlier, we are renegotiating NAFTA. We have TPP 11. We have so much going on, and we don't have payment protection for Canadian farmers who are sending their produce to the United States. This is something in which I thought we would have the Minister of Agriculture be our cheerleader. I thought he was going to bring this forward, but last year we found out it is going to be the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development who is going to take this on.
I was wondering if you could explain to the committee what PACA is and the importance of having that done as soon as possible. Maybe you have some kind of insight on why this has taken so long, because I don't understand why. This seems like low-hanging fruit.
:
Mr. Chair, I have to give a bit of context here and just remind some of my colleagues about what the Paris agreement is which 166 countries have signed on to. Yes, the U.S. may be withdrawing in 2020, but California still implemented a carbon pricing model. Any big country that signed on to the Paris agreement already has implemented a carbon pricing model. We're having access through CETA to 500 million consumers who all care about the environment and carbon. Anyway, those are the other facts.
On tax reform, I think that the has heard you loud and clear. He has said that he doesn't want any unintended consequences. The longer we give uncertainty in the market, the worse it will be. Yes, it's going to end October 2 for the department, but there is legislation. It has to go through first, second, and third reading, which leaves plenty of time for comments once we know the final result. Right now we're still in consultation.
Mike, how are you? By the way, there are two days left of national chicken month.
You've talked about the cost of producing food. I was at a chicken farmer's about two or three weeks ago, and he talked about the whole bio movement, and he believes that the size of barns right now are probably too large because chickens tend to huddle together. I think he has about 20,000 chickens in there. He says that even that size of barn, per square footage—and I don't know the exact square footage required once you declare you're moving into bio-chicken as opposed to traditional methods. Anyway, he talked about how the size of the barn could probably be reduced because chickens tend to huddle together. He has all this extra space in there.
I'm wondering if you could talk about that and the impact on the cost of food, and again what activists are saying versus reality.