I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on a food policy for Canada. This is our last meeting on the subject, which has taken up much of our time over the past few weeks. I thank you for being here.
Today, we have two groups of witnesses. In the first group, we will hear two witnesses via video conference, as well as another witness who is here in the room today. That witness is Ms. Christina Franc, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions.
Good day and welcome.
We will also hear Ms. Hilal Elver, the special rapporteur on Right to Food, from the United Nations Human Rights Council. She is testifying as an individual via video conference from Istanbul, Turkey, where it is 10:30 p.m.
Ms. Elver, thank you very much for making this small sacrifice to be with us today.
From Calgary, we also have a video link with the vice-president of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Mr. Casey Vander Ploeg.
Thanks very much and welcome.
I remind the witnesses that they will have seven minutes to make an opening statement.
Ms. Franc will start, and then we will hear our two witnesses via video conference.
:
Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to allow me to speak today, representing the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions. I am representing 800 fairs, agricultural societies, and exhibitions across the nation, from the Calgary Stampede right down to the Havelock Fair, a one-day event in Quebec.
Fairs are living reflections of the life and times around them, rooted in agriculture and volunteer driven. They hold deep cultural, traditional, and emotional connections to the people of their local area, and define a sense of community. Fairs and exhibitions have been, for decades, leaders in innovation while upholding tradition. Communities have relied on them in the past to bring them the latest information and technology, from farming technology right down to the latest entertainment system.
While our fairs have recently seen a period of decline, we are now growing and expanding. This is because of a cultural shift. People want to know and understand where their food comes from. There is no better place to do this than at a fair, where livestock is exhibited, agricultural displays are presented, and food and farming education is a key component.
That brings me to my first point. In planning the national food policy, I strongly encourage you to engage and support the fairs and exhibitions across Canada. A 2008 study showed that we have access to 35 million Canadians each year. We are one of the few places where rural and urban life collide. Think about the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. Hundreds of farmers and farm businesses show up there each year, in downtown Toronto, a decidedly urban location. At least a few urbanites are going to visit that spot.
There are great agricultural and food education projects going on at these events, large and small. The Norfolk County Fair, in Ontario, has an agricultural passport for children, where they have prizes if they answer clues and questions on farming and agriculture.
Our events are almost always overlooked because we don't have the resources to represent ourselves and get our voices heard. Frankly, I'm sure this is the first, if not the second time, most of you have heard about my organization, despite the fact that most of you, I'm sure, have a local fair or a fair-like event in your own riding.
The point being, fairs and exhibitions have the tools, knowledge, and passion to support the national food policy and educate the public about it. It's something we have been doing for decades in partnership with a wide variety of stakeholders, which touches on my second point.
Developing this policy, it will be critical to focus on education. By that, I mean providing access to healthy and safe food is critical, and I fully support it. However, the saying, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” stands true here. Teaching people about healthy food choices and getting through all the noise and misinformation on social media and other media outlets will prove to be much more valuable in the long run.
Depending on the province, fairs and exhibitions are eligible for funding towards agricultural education, but this funding is constantly at risk of being cut, now more than ever. This is unfortunate because I have seen some really great projects come through this funding, including videos on local farm industries and local farmers, and interactive exhibits on the development and processing of crops and livestock, and more.
These have been extremely well received and incredibly successful in educating our visitors. Helping people understand their food through education will also encourage a cultural shift that once again will support farmers, as individuals will have a better understanding of where their food comes from. Therefore, strategic education is a key component of this policy.
Finally, this policy will have the opportunity to give the people what they want in an innovative and strategic fashion. More importantly, we can do this proactively rather than reactively. Too often we see the bad news stories coming out about farming, and we have been beaten to the punch.
This policy can help shape cultural perceptions before the bad news stories make the headlines. This can only work if, in developing this policy, the marketing component and how to appeal to the masses is considered. Yes, people are interested in where their food comes from, but generally speaking, they are interested in how the cows are taken care of rather than the implications of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In order to ensure the success of this initiative, I hope the government weighs heavily on what the population wants to know versus what information the government wants to get out. There is a balance to be struck where all parties can be satisfied.
Overall, I look forward to seeing where this policy takes us. It is a very exciting opportunity and capitalizes on a growing desire of the population.
Please keep us, Canadian fairs and exhibitions, in mind as you move forward, particularly for the education and outreach components. We look forward to working with you throughout this process, from farm to fair to fork.
Thank you.
Distinguished members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, ladies and gentlemen, to begin with I would like to congratulate the Canadian government for developing the first-ever national Canada food policy discussion. Such an initiative, despite its policy importance, is rather uncommon among developed countries, especially those, such as Canada, that do not have significant food insecurity challenges and possess an established agricultural system.
Food insecurity, however, especially in relation to eliminating all forms of malnutrition, has recently become a universal challenge that pertains to developed countries and certainly to Canada, which is one of the world's largest food producers and ranks high among the wealthiest countries in the world.
A few facts underscore the relevance of malnutrition to the Canadian reality. One out of four Canadians is obese. Type 2 diabetes is rapidly spreading. As well, 1.15 million Canadian children go to school hungry because fresh, whole, nutritious food is either too expensive or unavailable. These forms of severe food insecurity are particularly prevalent in the northern part of the country, above all in remote communities where most aboriginal peoples live.
The standing committee should also be commended for adopting a holistic approach, which insightfully connects the health of people with the health of the planet. In this way, agricultural policy and food systems are addressed together, which is an important step forward, especially in view of the relevance of climate change and emerging resource scarcities.
I would like to take advantage of my opportunity to talk with you to underscore Canada's international commitments to uphold the right to food. As one of the fundamental principles set forth in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to food is by now considered a right embedded in customary international law principles that is obligatory for all governments, whether or not they have ratified the contents.
Canada is a leader with respect to confirming the obligatory status of the right to food, having ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights back in 1976, which legally acknowledged the right of everyone to adequate food and a life free from hunger.
Canada has also ratified several other international legal instruments that confer a right to adequate food on particular segments of society, such as women and children.
Most recently, Canada made a commitment to adopt a national plan for the realization of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Particularly relevant is goal number two, which affirms a commitment to end hunger, achieve food security and nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. This commitment is very central to Canada's evolving national and international food security.
Unfortunately, for a considerable period there was no effort made by the Government of Canada to internalize the international law commitments through national legislation with respect to the right to food. I consider this initiative an important opportunity for the Canadian Parliament to demonstrate the seriousness of its commitment to uphold its human rights obligations.
Let me discuss now some of the specific issues in relation to pesticides that I believe to be vital to include in Canada's food policy.
The four components of the national food policy are expected to address not just access to affordable food, health, and food safety, but also the way in which food is produced, which should always be treated as a fundamental component of ensuring food security.
The major inputs of desirable standards of agricultural production include clean and healthy soil, water, and air, as well as ensuring a variety of seeds and ensuring biological diversity. Monoculture is illustrative of the most intensive type of agriculture production. It is in effect an enemy of ecosystems and often wasteful of vital natural resources.
For these reasons, we should try to strike a delicate balance between agricultural production and sustainability. Such a balance allows for the planning of long-term food security and is not just a creature of short-term profitability.
Increasing production without thinking about future generations is selfish and short-sighted from the perspective of Canada's long-term agricultural national interests. Canada's diversity of agriculture is precious and should be carefully protected.
From this perspective, increasing excessive use of synthetic pesticides is one of the most critical and controversial issues of current industrial agriculture. Reducing reliance on pesticides is the best way to minimize harm, and for those that are shown to be dangerous to human health and the environment, outright prohibition is the only responsible course of action. In particular, farm workers, children, and indigenous communities living in remote rural areas are more exposed to pesticides and the harmful and chronic effects of them, which are often especially insidious because it is so difficult to diagnose this at an early stage of exposure.
The language barriers confronting migrant workers also mean that warning labels fail to help workers take safety measures, a situation aggravated by the tendency of farm workers to work under pressure for long hours to earn hourly wages, their highest priority. To avoid adverse long-term impacts on human health and the environment, the precautionary principle should be implemented with respect to pesticides that can and do cause harm.
Unfortunately, synthetic pesticides are being more widely used, suggesting the need for greater security and regulation. This can be difficult in the face of strong resistance of powerful interest groups, especially in the context of the genetically modified organisms that are now prevalent in monoculture agriculture. Actually, overuse of pesticides over time is bad for agriculture, as it decreases the yield rather than increasing it. This has now been scientifically proven.
In Canada, fertile soil has significantly decreased due to dysfunctional pesticide use. It is increasing problems in watersheds, posing threats to aquatic life, as well as endangering the quality of drinking water. Declines in pollinator populations such as bees and butterflies due to exposure to synthetic insecticides, directly and severely affects the future of food security—
:
Thank you very much, and good afternoon.
I'm Casey Vander Ploeg and I serve as the vice-president of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I thank the committee for this opportunity to share our perspective on the development of a national food policy.
NCFA was established in 2007 to serve as a national voice for Canada's cattle feeders. Our activities are centred around three focus areas: first, securing growth and sustainability for our sector; second, increasing our national and international competitiveness; and third, providing leadership for Canada's beef industry. This trio—growth and sustainability, competitiveness, and leadership—is mirrored to some extent in the themes identified in the documents for a national food policy.
I'd like to focus my comments this afternoon on three points: first, what I think the current documentation around the national food policy has gotten right; second, what any national food policy must get right if it is to succeed; and third, what I believe might be missing. On the first point, in July 2017 we communicated to that we fully supported the concept of a national food policy and that the four pillars enunciated by the government are all objectives that NCFA definitely supports.
In the documentation, there are two other points that are raised, and while they're not necessarily pillars, we do believe them to be equally important. It is noted, for example, that a policy can serve as a vehicle to “address issues related to the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food.” To the extent that a national policy can aid agriculture in resolving some of our unique challenges, that's all to the good.
The documentation also notes that sufficient access to affordable, nutritious, and safe food is, in and of itself, not enough. Canadians also, and again I'll quote from the documents, “require information to make healthy food choices”, and with that we absolutely agree. That also explains why we have jumped into the consultations with Health Canada around the new Canada food guide.
However, in order for a national food policy to be successful and meaningful in the lives of Canadians, there are several things we believe it must get right. First is that agricultural producers must be foundational for any food policy. It is not enough that producers be a “pillar” or that they simply be “consulted”. Producers are foundational. Without Canada's base of tens of thousands of Canadian farmers producing safe, quality food in a competitive and sustainable way, we don't have much of a food policy beyond figuring out exactly how we would go about feeding 35-plus million Canadians.
We were somewhat concerned by the lack of agricultural representation at some of the consultation round tables and some of the tone around that dialogue. When we hear things like agriculture should not drive a food policy, it does make us wonder whether the foundational role of producers is, indeed, being recognized.
Second, it's quite important to acknowledge that agriculture producers recognize and respect the views of other stakeholders and while there may be some natural tensions here, everyone must understand that producers are already deeply committed and deeply invested in all four of the pillars. For example, we all want access to affordable food. Today's beef industry is highly innovative and sophisticated, using a number of safe and proven production technologies, such as growth implants, vaccines, carefully crafted rations, specialized feed supplements with vitamins and minerals, radio frequency tags, leading-edge management approaches, and even chute-side computers with animal tracking software. All of that boosts our efficiency and productivity and keeps production costs down, and that allows us to grow more high-quality beef using less resources and to do so in a safe way that is affordable.
Producers are working with these four pillars each and every day. That's not to say we can't improve, but improving means Canadians must remember that agriculture and agrifood is also a business, and the food policy must not economically disadvantage producers. If it does, we put the nation's food production at risk. If we want to grow more food and keep it affordable, then we need to focus on our competitiveness, and that means continuing to invest in research, development, innovation, and technology, and it means resolving a number of competitive challenges, whether that's access to labour, the regulatory burden, or even investing in rural infrastructure.
Finally, we must ensure that all policies across the federal government, and even provinces, are aligned. We have a clear emphasis on agriculture in budget 2017. We have the Barton report. We have the new Canadian agricultural partnership program. We have Canada's new food guide, and now the idea of a new national policy for food. All of these initiatives must work together, and they must align.
In thinking all of this over, we may be missing a fifth pillar—it was mentioned earlier this afternoon—and that relates to education, information, public trust, and social licence. The great majority of Canadians have little to no idea of how their food is produced and why it is produced that way. There is a tremendous disconnect here that I believe a national food policy must address.
Government has largely abandoned the role of consumer education when it comes to agriculture, but this could be picked up again as a unique focus of a national food policy. Canadians should have a choice when it comes to their food, but that choice also needs to be an informed choice.
I just want to quickly point to two examples before I close.
For example, some Canadians believe that grass-fed beef is somehow superior or more natural than grain-finished beef. However, do these Canadians know that grass-fed cattle produce five times the methane that grain-fed beef does? Do they know that methane has 25 times the potency of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas? Do Canadians know that in the 1950s it took 10 units of input to produce one unit of beef, and today it's six units of input for one unit of beef? Do Canadians know that if we used the technologies of the 1950s to produce the beef we produce today, we would need another 45 million acres?
All of these things are important information that leads to informed choice. In late September—
:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.
I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Martin Shields.
I have many questions to ask you. I am new to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and I have received quite a lot of information. There is one thing that is troubling me. People talk a lot about affordable food.
The new generation, the one that is just a bit younger than us, is short on time, what with children, school and sports, and it buys quite a lot of frozen products. This is common in our communities. We want affordable food, but the government imposes numerous taxes. I represent a rural riding, and farmers are worried about the new tax. What can we do to fix this?
When you go to the supermarket, healthy food and fruits and vegetables always cost a bit more than chips, chocolate and cola. We therefore have to teach young people, but how do we go about it? What can we all do to ensure our food is healthy and affordable?
People are turning more and more towards organic foods, but they are much more expensive than the usual products. The price of an organic carrot and that of an ordinary carrot is not all the same. What can we do to have food that is healthy and affordable, and suited to today's lifestyle, what with harried parents who buy more and more frozen food? I would like to know your take on this.
You can all answer.
Just quickly, I think the education piece has been referred to, but partnerships are critical to make this work. I know for the National Cattle Feeders' Association, for example, your code of ethics policy for feedlot operators is world class and is being used. That was a partnership you worked to develop. Now to get out the educational piece, like the fairs say, "how and where?"
Alberta Open Farm Days have been around in Alberta for about five years. The Toronto world fair was classic and as a kid I remember it, but nobody knows about it anymore. That's not working. We have to find a different mechanism. Alberta Open Farm Days is when you get the people out to the farms, and they come by the hundreds.
Casey, is there any response to send to the producers and how that could work in your industry?
:
Of course, there's a strong correlation between the two. Sustainability, as we all know, is about using the resources, but what we need in agriculture is water, soil, and seeds. These are very valuable resources, and these resources are actually also in danger because of agriculture. Agriculture needs these, and these are also part of the problem and the environmental issues. In relation to climate change, our witnesses made very clear the kinds of foods we eat and how much greenhouse gas emissions we are producing. This is an extremely important issue.
When we talk about food security, long term, we have to first understand the way in which they produce the food. Sustainable food means more organic, more agro-ecological systems that many countries are using. I'm sure many Canadian farmers are also practising agroecology, but the problem is that government should really support these kinds of projects and these kinds of farming practices.
More and more, with the intensive agriculture direction that we are going in, we have more and more food production but our food system is broken. For instance, one of the members was talking about affordability. Nutritious food, frozen food, is a serious and important issue because that is where we have to put our money as a government. If we want to support small farmers or agroecology or sustainable food producers, this is the best money to do it, rather than giving some kind of incentive to big-time, export-oriented agriculture.
:
Agroecology is also in general connected with food waste. Agroecology means not producing more than we consume. We are talking about more responsible production activity.
In developed countries, food waste is at the consumer level. For instance, if you go to developing countries, again there is a significant amount of food waste but at a more local level because they don't have enough infrastructure. They cannot access the market. This is not the case for Canada.
The thing is, we can handle supermarkets. Maybe we should look at what kind of packaging we are using, because government can regulate this. For instance, we could look at the “best used by” dates. We can regulate this, because many false dates are given for products that are still easily consumable after that period. For instance, when we buy pasta in a supermarket, they say “best before 2018” but you can easily use it in 2020. I'm not talking about dairy products or meat, because those cases are very different.
It has to be regulated by government, genuinely working together to educate consumers and of course working with farmers. Farmers' markets are basically a much better way to buy our food. Of course it's more expensive; we know that. But there's less consuming and less wasting of food because it's on a smaller scale, rather than going to the big supermarket and buying tomatoes for 10 families.
It depends on the province. For example, in Quebec the provincial government allows funding towards agricultural initiatives, and education specifically. You can get $30,000 in funding if you are doing agricultural education on anything. It could be farmers, beef, dairy, or whatever. It's already happening. These are videos. These are interactive displays. They are having exhibitors animate sessions. There is a huge opportunity for educating in every sector.
I think I may follow up with the NCFA afterwards to see how we can work together on programs we can share. We're building relationships with agriculture more than ever, with agriculture in the classroom, and so on, to see how we can engage and what new education opportunities....
It's unending. The outreach is huge and there is a lot of potential there.
:
Thank you for this question. It's important, because there is global governance around food security. It is very recent. Maybe you remember in 2008 there was a big food prices crisis around the world and there was lots of rioting.
It happened in the developing countries, and suddenly the United Nations Security Council decided it should do something about it. The food system is very important and especially connected with our security. Under the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, a United Nations body in Rome....
Actually, Rome is a very important city. We have four different UN organizations. There is the FAO, the World Food Programme, and IFAD, which includes financial activities across the agriculture process, and they established the Committee on World Food Security.
The Committee on World Food Security is a very interesting global governance model. It's the only UN model that includes private sector and civil society mechanisms, which is very interesting.
We will now continue this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In our next panel of witnesses, we are pleased to have joining us Tia Loftsgard, executive director, Canada Organic Trade Association, and Dag Falck, organic program manager, Nature's Path Organic Foods. We will also be hearing from Marc Allain, chief executive officer, Co-operation Agri-Food New Brunswick, and Natan Obed, president, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.
I would remind you that each group has seven minutes for their presentation.
I will now ask Ms. Loftsgard to begin this round of presentations.
:
I am Dag Falck. I represent Nature's Path, a privately held, family-owned producer of all-certified organic foods. We are North America's largest organic breakfast and snack food company and are committed to triple bottom-line social enterprise. Our company is regularly named one of Canada's best employers, and we export to over 40 countries. We own 6,500 acres of organic farmland in Saskatchewan and Montana. Nature's Path also serves as an outlet processor for many independent organic family farmers, representing approximately 100,000 organic acres.
Food plays a critical role in the health and well-being of Canadians, while also having a direct impact on our environment, economy, and communities. A food policy that incorporates organic principles is a way to address issues related to production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food. A food policy that mimics our ethics at Nature's Path, which means always leaving the earth better than we found it, would help Canada advance the cause of people on the planet along the path to sustainability.
Canada's organic food market share has grown to 2.6% of the overall food and beverage category in mainstream retail, up from 1.7% in 2012. Also, 66% of Canadians purchase organic food weekly, and 88% say they will continue to maintain or increase their purchases in the coming year. As a producer and importer of organic raw ingredients and the company that sells domestically and abroad, Canada organics' 8.7% market share growth since 2012 is only going to grow as Canadians continue to demand food that meets their values and lifestyles, and as it becomes increasingly available in all communities across the country.
Canada has an opportunity to be a leader by embracing organic production and creating domestic and international opportunities with a triple bottom-line return to the environment, the economy, and health, as part of the food policy for Canada.
Global hunger is rising for the first time in more than a decade, according to FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Some 815 million people, 11% of the world population—mainly children—are still food insecure, and that difficulty arises from limited access, poor infrastructure, and climate change. The macro-economy and political stability are a big challenge in the achievement of hunger reduction. The increase in food-related diseases, obesity, diabetes, and growing resistance to antibiotics are putting serious pressures on health care systems in developed countries like Canada.
Despite the unpredictability of factors such as climate change, crop losses, and price volatility in agricultural commodities, all of which cannot yet be controlled by any production model, organic farming represents one of the key innovations in the domain of food and agriculture over the last century. It is based on a socially inclusive, economically and ecologically resilient systems approach for the production of foodstuffs and renewable raw materials. Its global success is demonstrated by about 2.4 million operators in 2015 in 179 countries who contribute to food production by using local resources, thus reducing their dependence on external inputs and increasing their own resilience to external shocks, currency fluctuations, oil prices, and natural calamities.
It is time to recognize the organic farming model as an efficient and effective approach to combat climate change, as well as to preserve biodiversity, soil fertility, and public health in our Canadian food system.
:
A food policy for Canada must support the next generation, promoting a diversity of farming practices, production, and accessibility to healthy food. The national food policy should include and support the development of organic agriculture as a model of sustainable production, which favours resilience of local populations, especially young people and women, to face climate change and food insecurity. As public trust in organics is at an all-time high, 44% of Canadians trust that the Canadian organic standards deliver on their promises.
New farmer entrants—millennials and women in particular—and entrepreneurs are attracted to organic production at a time when we are seeing major labour shortages on conventional farms and in the manufacturing agrifood industry. This is due not only to the higher premiums associated with selling organics, but also to the demand for organics and organic methods often being in line with their ethics. Twenty-nine per cent of Canada's organic farmers make over $500,000 in farm income, according to 2016 census data, offering a viable method to address rural poverty and bring the potential of new organic value-added manufacturing to rural landscapes.
Increasing access to and growing more affordable high-quality food must include organic food. A recent lpsos study demonstrated that Canadians across all income levels are purchasing organics weekly, dispelling the common misperception that organic products are only available to those with higher incomes. Sixty-four per cent of consumers with less than $40,000 in income buy organics weekly, compared to 70% of those with over $100,000 in income. Across all regions of Canada, at least 60% of grocery shoppers are buying organic products weekly, yet organics are still not accessible to all, whether because of production method or unavailability for purchase in their region. Canada needs to adopt policies that ensure that consumers, despite their location or income level, have the option to access organic food.
In order to achieve all of the goals we have set forth today, we are joining our partners in calling for the establishment of a national food policy council to ensure that appropriate approaches and successful implementation of the national food policy occurs. The proposed national food policy council would be a para-governmental agency, where diverse stakeholders from across the food system can work together to oversee the implementation and ongoing evaluation of a food policy for Canada. Working in—
:
I would like to thank the committee members for the opportunity to share our initiative with you.
My name is Marc Allain, and I am the chief executive officer responsible for the implementation phase of the Co-operation Agri-Food New Brunswick. My real job is as the executive director of Carrefour communautaire Beausoleil, in Miramichi. I mention that because it's relevant to the experience I'll be sharing with you.
I am going to tell you about something we did in New Brunswick, something that quickly permeated the borders with other provinces. The lessons learned are applicable on a broad scale.
The state of food security in New Brunswick is, to say the least, troubling, if not dire. We currently produce approximately 13% of our agri-food products. Some 40 years ago, we were producing nearly 75%. Clearly, we aren't headed in the right direction.
We face challenges when it comes to product availability, storage, and transportation. In fact, we experience challenges with the entire infrastructure system that transports the food where it needs to go. Collectively, these barriers are enormous, substantial, and difficult to overcome with a single initiative.
Now, I'm going to describe the opposite situation, one involving a number of initiatives that were put in place some time ago to increase consumption of New Brunswick products. These initiatives are focused around schools and are headed almost exclusively by non-profit organizations. The strengths of these experiences were combined to create the initiative I'm describing. It is the result of co-operation between all the partners you see here. I'll leave it to Google to help you become more familiar with our partners, because seven minutes isn't enough time. With a little bit of searching, you'll learn that New Brunswick's three largest farm organizations, together with three food service providers for schools, supply 32 of the province's schools. Thirty-two may not seem like very many, but it means that 10% of New Brunswick schools are members of the co-operative.
Co-operation Agri-Food New Brunswick's objective is to solve the problems I mentioned earlier. The organization is incorporated as a non-profit co-operative, and voting members are all non-profit organizations. Membership is not required in order to do business with the co-operative. The only privilege members enjoy is the right to pay dues and sit on the board of directors. Members and non-members dealing with the co-operative are treated the same.
Co-operation Agri-Food New Brunswick's mandate is to supply local food products to meet market demand, grow existing and new markets, and ensure infrastructure development. In terms of schools, to paraphrase the song New York, New York,
[English]
“If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere”.
[Translation]
Our meals sell for $5 to $5.50 a plate, but if we tried to sell them for $6, we'd have a mob of angry parents after us. If we can do it in schools, we can do it anywhere. We are currently in 32 schools and will be supplying 60 more schools by the end of the fall. That means our co-operative will be supplying 92 of New Brunswick's schools while redefining the entire approach to agri-food products.
We started with schools, but we did not stop there. Our goal for the second year was to penetrate the restaurant, cafeteria, and catering market, but those businesses came knocking on our door the first year.
The other day, our manager and I realized that the co-operative had been in operation for 45,000 minutes. We received the funding on August 31, 2017, and two weeks later, the school year began. Right now, we're playing a bit of catch-up. Nevertheless, this week, we delivered food to 32 schools, and that food comes from New Brunswick.
Now, I'll put on my other hat, as executive director of Carrefour communautaire Beausoleil, in Miramichi. Last year, we purchased 1,500 pounds of tomatoes and around 500 pounds of mixed vegetables from Green Thumb Farm, about 30 kilometres away. This year, we bought 15,000 pounds of tomatoes and 5,000 pounds of mixed vegetables from the farm.
Last year, Mr. Richard, the owner, was very pleased with our order. This year, our order changed the scale of his production. Now, we are able to distribute those products, process them, and make them available to our partners, who are doing the exact same thing with the products they specialize in. We have a terrific chef whose specialty is preparing tomato sauce and frozen vegetables.
In September, everyone can buy products from New Brunswick, but it's a bit more challenging in January. To overcome that, we freeze the foods so that they are available in January. We are doing our part, just like the Early Childhood Community Development Centre, in Fredericton, which has four schools and one cafeteria, so five commercial kitchens in all.
One of our schools has 279 students, and last year, it made $193,000. It wasn't the children who ate all that food. Cafeterias and restaurants in Miramichi served our food. During a single catering event in September of last year, we took in as much as the cafeteria makes all month long.
The markets exist, and they are accessible. It's simply a matter of removing the barriers, and Co-operation Agri-Food New Brunswick is there to do just that.
:
Nakurmiik. It's an honour to address you here as a national Inuit leader on this very important topic of food policy for Canada.
As Inuit, we often are seen as very exotic, whether it's where we live in Inuit Nunangat, the Canadian Arctic, or the foods that we eat: beluga, narwhal, bowhead whale, Arctic char. These capture the imaginations of Canadians and the world. Unfortunately, in the last generation, the last 20 and 30 years, we've had a number of challenges in continuing to eat our traditional foods, our country foods, and have huge inequity when it comes to food insecurity in our communities.
We have a whole host of different, sometimes conflicting sets of research findings around our food insecurity rates. Depending upon the type of study and where it happened and the different populations, it can range anywhere from 24% in Nunavik in northern Quebec, based on specific questions and different methodologies, to 70% in Nunavut, which is the Inuit health survey, children's survey. Broadly, for 2012 APS data, it's about 52% of Inuit in Canada who report regular household food insecurity. That is a massive difference in relation to food insecurity for non-Inuit Canadians.
Among the numbers that drive that are our median income gap. Our median income gap in Inuit Nunangat is $60,000, $18,000 for Inuit and $78,000 for non-Inuit who live in Inuit Nunangat, which is the Inuit homeland, the combination of the four settlement areas of our modern treaties or comprehensive land claim agreements.
The challenge that we have just to go to the store and buy food when we have a median income that is below the poverty level is striking. Also, there's the fact that we have a traditional diet that depends upon the environment and depends upon our interaction with the environment in the face of climate change, and also in the face of a changing social environment where we are more dependent now on Ski-Doos and boats, and all of the money that it takes to operate new ways of harvesting. Our traditional ways of living and our traditional links to the environment are being undercut. A Canada food policy doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to change all of that within the policy but I think we need to take the steps in the right direction.
There are billions of dollars of subsidies that happen in this country every year in relation to how food gets on the plate of Canadians, but there hasn't been, to date, a comprehensive discussion about how to ensure that Inuit have food security and that there's a food security that fits within our world view and our lens, and also our realities. We have certain subsidy programs, such as nutrition north Canada, that attempt to drive down some of the market food costs within our communities, but we still have massive infrastructure gaps.
Much of the food that arrives in our communities doesn't come fresh. A lot of the food is partially spoiled or is almost inedible by the time that it reaches our communities because of the staging and the way in which, due to the lack of infrastructure for getting produce from Ottawa to Rankin Inlet or to Pond Inlet, it has to go through multiple stages of airports without refrigeration units. The fact that some of our produce might end up on a komatik or in the back of a flatbed truck at -40°C just isn't something that many other Canadians and many other retailers have to ever deal with.
We also have a strong desire to keep our traditions alive. In the past, even in the present, there are subsidies that provinces and territories in which Inuit live provide for a new way of harvesting our traditional species to ensure that the sustainable resources we have in our lands can be then utilized to the greatest of our abilities.
We have had caribou harvests. We have seal and muskox harvests, and the char fisheries. But they all struggle, and they struggle largely because of the lack of a clear policy around how subsidies can work. It isn't as if we were ever going to have profitable country food markets across Inuit Nunangat considering the size and scope of our land, 3.3 million square kilometres, our small population, 60,000 for all our 53 communities, and the fact that it is very expensive for any operation, maintenance, or bricks and mortar facilities within our communities.
There are community-based solutions, but there also has to be imagination. To operate in Inuit Nunangat, you have to think differently about programs, terms and conditions, the funding and subsidies, and why they're there.
We don't have wheat-producing parts of Inuit Nunangat. We don't have a number of the different key crops that you are going to consider within your work, but we do have a homogenous space that constitutes 33% of our land mass, 50% of its coastline, and one indigenous group of people who are looking for this new path and want food that comes from the south but also want to protect our way of life, our society, and our culture.
Nakurmiik.
:
Good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Obed, thank you for giving us insight into what you face. Here, we are in our world, in our bubble, and very few people have had the opportunity to visit Nunavut. I was fortunate enough to go eight years ago, and I remember my surprise at how expensive food products were.
When we talk about making food affordable, numerous factors come into play, particularly distance, as Mr. Obed said. Organic products also pose a problem. More and more people are buying organic foods, but the average person can't always afford them. Why do organic tomatoes cost four times more than regular tomatoes, for instance? People who don't have a lot of money are going to buy the non-organic tomatoes because, in their minds, they are still tomatoes.
I would like you to tell me why organic foods cost so much more than non-organic foods. What do we need to do to make organic products affordable for the average Canadian?
:
There are several factors involved in the production of organic food that are a little different from conventional or non-organic food. One of the issues is around production costs because we don't have as convenient an arsenal of tools to deal with the challenges of agriculture. We have to use methods that may not be as cost-effective. There's more labour involved in many cases. That's one factor that plays into it.
Another factor that plays into it is the certification cost, the cost of being certified and keeping the paperwork up to date because it's a guarantee system. You have to guarantee that you're using a certain amount, the prescribed methods, and not methods that are not prescribed or not allowed. That takes an extra amount of commitment and cost as well.
The third factor is that there's less support because it's still a relatively niche market. It's a small segment of agriculture that's organic so the support system for this form of agriculture is not as developed. There are fewer, if any, subsidies and the infrastructure is not as well developed. There are fewer, say, seed cleaning plants for grains to be cleaned that are capable of segregating and so on. Because of all these kinds of reasons, there is added cost.
One of the claims we often make is on the quality. We pride ourselves on making the highest quality food. If our food is of a higher quality, it may have more benefits per weight than conventional food. If that's the case, or if the consumers choose to believe that or do believe that, they feel that's part of what they're getting, then the cost is not necessarily as high comparatively.
For our company, Nature's Path, we consider, as you say, that all people should have access to food and we shouldn't price ourselves out of making food available for everyone. For our products, our additional cost is usually 10% to 15% higher for cereals. If you look at the different food categories, you see there is a different premium depending on the production costs and all those other factors I mentioned. Meat is very much higher. Fruits and vegetables can be double, but not necessarily. Dairy is usually double or more. There's a wide range.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing a great job. It's nice to have you as chair today.
I'd like to thank each of our witnesses, who gave very informative presentations in order to provide our government with food policy proposals.
After my questions, I'm going to give Ms. Dabrusin a minute of my speaking time.
I'll start with you, Mr. Obed. You talked about food access and food insecurity. Mr. Falck, you talked about food insecurity among children. Research shows that a large number of Canadians experience food insecurity, nearly four million people and one in six children. That's very sad, indeed, and clearly, the situation is even worse up north, such as in your region, Mr. Obed.
I'd like to resume the discussion about how northern communities, in co-operation with the Government of Canada, can put strategies in place. I think that's a crucial element.
How can we work together to come up with strategies, solutions, or alternative paths to fix the problem?
:
What's more, the problem is most serious in the Miramichi region. It's prevalent in our community, and it's one of the reasons Carrefour communautaire Beausoleil exists and has made such a commitment.
The Carrefour played a predominant role in our initiative, and you just mentioned one of the main reasons it was developed. Yes, providing food and fostering economic and community development are important, but the health of our children comes first and foremost.
Two years ago, we made the choice to take back control of our food services, to say “no, thank you” to the then-provider. We hired a chef with 35 years of experience who had previously worked in a retirement home. We recruited him to reinvent how we fed our children. It doesn't end with what we put on the plate; that's not enough.
Children start coming to us at the age of two. We have not just a junior kindergarten program, but also a day care program for younger children. Our chef gave food workshops to the children in our day care, the youngest ones being two years old. He also gave workshops to high school students. That's where we need to start redefining our relationship with food. In order to tackle widespread and systemic problems like—
:
That's great. I'm going to take note of that as a recommendation.
During the 41st Parliament, my colleague Ms. Quach introduced a buy local bill. Unfortunately, the then-Conservative government voted against it. She is nevertheless going to reintroduce the bill.
Could you briefly comment on the importance that buying local would have on the next food policy?
[English]
If I have enough time, I'd like to ask another question about how this food strategy can support the organic sector. I think more and more Canadians are curious to know where their food comes from. When they have the financial means to do it, they will buy organic, they'll ask questions, and they'll ask for mandatory labelling of GMOs.
Can you maybe speak a bit to that?
I don't know how much time I have left.