Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 17 - Evidence - Meeting of May 15, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:04 p.m. to examine and report on the research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector. (topic: How to support innovation with regulations, information and science from the perspective of food retailers.)
Senator Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Senator Fernand Robichaud from New Brunswick, and deputy chair of the committee. I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, the Laurentians, Quebec.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to let the witnesses and viewers know that some senators will be arriving a little later because they are currently occupied with other committees. Do not worry; your testimonies are recorded and the senators will see them.
The committee is continuing its study on research and innovation in the agricultural sector. First, we will have the pleasure of speaking with people who will present their point of view on innovation with regulations, information and science from the perspective of food retailers. We will then speak with a second panel about the relationship between educating young Canadians about farming and the innovative capacity of the agriculture and agri-food sector.
[English]
Our first panel of witnesses is from the Retail Council of Canada: Mr. David Wilkes, Senior Vice President, Grocery Division; and Ms. Karen Proud, Vice President, Federal Government Relations.
We thank you for accepting our invitation. I invite you to make your presentation.
David Wilkes, Senior Vice President, Grocery Division, Retail Council of Canada: Thank you very much for the opportunity. Ms. Proud and I have been looking forward to sharing with you some of the innovative practices that our members employ, as well as some of the work we have done on a collaborative basis that has changed the way our members work and some of the best practices that have been introduced. Once again, thank you very much, and I look forward to the questions from the senators. I also want to offer a few opening remarks to frame our discussions.
The Retail Council of Canada represents over 9,000 retailers across the country. In February last year, some 14 months ago, we established a Grocery Division that is primarily focused on four key issues that influence grocery retailers. They are: food safety, health and wellness, sustainability, and supply chain best practices. In my remarks, I will touch on some of the innovation that is occurring in a couple of those areas.
Our grocery members include companies that you all recognize: Loblaws, Metro, Federated Co-operative, Co-op Atlantic, Sobeys, Costco, and Canada Safeway. What I find interesting and what I am struck by is that retail grocers have a common master — the consumer. That is what drives all grocers every day. Much like members of Parliament, grocers that lose touch with their consumers, or constituents in parliamentarians' case, run the risk of losing relevance in the marketplace. It is the consumer that drives what products our members sell and whether innovation is successful in the market place. We can never lose sight of that.
Members will differentiate themselves through traditional factors of competition such as store design and location, customer service levels, pricing strategies and the products they offer. Members will also look to take innovative approaches to managing their supply chain.
Some of the collaborative work that has been done in Canada is unique in the world and has resulted in new and innovative solutions to lowering the cost for our industry. For example, our approach to sharing non-proprietary data through ECCnet is unique to this country. ECCnet is a data catalogue managed by GS1 Canada, another not-for- profit organization that houses data on all the products that have UPC codes and are sold by Canadian grocers. It provides significant efficiencies as suppliers have to load information onto this electronic catalogue and then provide permission for retailers that stock the product to download the information. This includes the number of units in a shipping case, the size and dimension of the shipping case and marketing image, to name a few of the components they have.
There are several net outcomes to this approach to sharing data. One is efficiency for manufacturers. They only have to load the data once and then it is transmitted to all retail partners, as opposed to having to provide the same data over and over again to different retailers. The second is accuracy. By transmitting data through a catalogue, if one user identifies an error, it is corrected and resubmitted to all users. It is a one-to-many as opposed to a one-to-one approach. Although it does not meet the traditional definition of innovation, it is one that is very innovative and one that we are extremely proud of.
Our industry has also recognized the need to undertake collaborative innovation to optimize packaging that is used by our members. We are working with suppliers and ministers of environment across the country and we have committed to several innovative changes as it relates to packaging. By way of another example, our members have agreed to work with suppliers to eliminate PVCs in rigid plastic packaging used to sell products in our stores; the clamshells we use. Once again, this is an example of our industry coming together in an innovative way to bring change that helps consumers recycle packaging and helps our societal goals of diverting the material from landfills.
As I have said, in both cases these examples may not be traditional areas of innovation and you may not be expecting me to bring them forward, but they are truly innovations and what makes the Canadian grocery industry different from our competitors around the world.
Turning to more traditional examples, our members will also differentiate themselves by the product they sell in the shelves. One key area of innovation within the grocery industry relates to responding to consumer demand for healthier products. Our members respond to this demand by offering new and reformulated products that provide Canadians with choices that meet their lifestyle, such as lower sodium or the elimination of trans fat in the products on our shelves.
In particular, there has been a tremendous investment made and a focus on meeting that consumer products facilitate specific dietary requirements. Also as a component of responding to consumer demand from choices that support lifestyles, our members also offer a wide selection of fresh fruit and vegetables. When assessing these types of products, our members will use four common filters to make sure we are meeting consumer expectations: Have food safety and labelling requirements been met? Are the standards applied by our members sufficient to ensure the safety of the food? Can the supplier deliver a product and quantities required? Are the processes in place to ensure consistent quality of supply and does the price of the goods fit with the retailers go to market strategy?
The order of those criteria is done with intent and you will notice that price is number four and food safety is number one. It has to be safe and it has to be delivered at the right quantity with the right quality and then fit within the marketing plans of the members.
We have a number of programs that we use to help local producers understand our members' needs and the innovation they are looking for. All our members have a locally grown first procurement policy, so if there is a supply available from a Canadian grower, it will be the one that gets the nod. We have an ability for local growers to deliver directly to the stores so that you do not have to ship from your producing area to a DC miles away and back to that same store. That is a unique offering that we provide mostly during peak growing season to service those types of growers that cannot meet the full system needs of our members. We have a variety of programs where members will work with local growers to explain procurement standards, most notably among them food safety, making sure people understand what the expectations of the retail community are to maintain food safety, and working with those growers to ensure that they have the right practices and husbandry techniques to ensure they are met.
On necessary crop size, what does it take to work with a Federated Co-op and a Loblaws, and how can we ensure the consistency of supply so we serve the customers walking through our members' doors each day? We are also partnered with various provincial governments to support programs such as Buy Manitoba, Buy Ontario, and around specific commodities. We have a number of programs where we are supporting locally raised or corn-fed beef that respond to Canadians' desire to purchase locally and from the people they live beside.
These examples illustrate some of the good work our members are doing both at the industry level, but also within their stores to respond to consumers' demands for new and innovative products. Our members are tireless in responding to customer demand for innovation. There are some frustrations and barriers that are created by government regulations that inhibit our ability to respond to this demand. I will give you a few examples.
Currently there are restrictions that any product making a local claim has to be produced within 50 kilometres of where it is sold. In a market as wide as Canada, that is very restrictive. There are labelling requirements that are there for the right reasons, but are particularly burdensome to local producers. In some cases the cost of complying with the labelling is more than the cost of producing the product that they are looking to sell to our members.
One that we talked about when we were in front of your colleagues next door — at Finance, I believe — was harmonization of regulations. There is a vast array of regulations across this country trying to meet the same outcome but have different ways of going about it. They add cost and complexity to the supply chain that I believe is an opportunity to be addressed. I will give you one example. It is a rather small one, but labelling requirements for fruit and vegetables sold in Ontario and Quebec are different. In Quebec if you are selling a vegetable platter the origin of each vegetable on that platter has to be sourced. In Ontario, you do not have to do that. You can just harmonize where it is from. There are opportunities where people living beside each other have different ways of achieving the same goals.
In closing, our members are among the most innovative in the world. Ours is more than a business, grocery retailing. It is a passion. We have the responsibility to ensure Canadians have the highest quality, safest product on a year-round basis and we are proud to say we strive every day to deliver to that expectation. We are proud of not only what we do, but also how we do it. I certainly look forward to the discussion.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilkes, for your presentation. We are going to start the questions with Senator Plett.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you both for coming out today. I have a few questions. First, I may have just not heard when you mentioned your members. You listed some members at the start, did you say Safeway was —
Mr. Wilkes: Yes, I did.
Senator Plett: Sorry, I just did not hear that. Thank you.
Mr. Wilkes, my first question is the following: For you as an industry, what would be your biggest challenge or problem? You listed some different challenges, food safety, price, et cetera. What would you consider as being your largest challenge in your industry?
Mr. Wilkes: I think the ability to educate local producers as to what the requirements of the grocery industry are, to ensure that the customer now is demanding fresh strawberries on a year-round basis. To have the ability to provide those as an example is something that is not negotiable anymore; we need to and we do. Our members have a variety of programs in place where they work with local producers to understand what the requirements are, but the ability for Canadian suppliers to meet those demands on a year-round basis because our climate, there is not much you can do about that. That is from a local produce perspective.
However, if I look into some of the other innovations around healthy eating, what are some of the things we can do to educate consumers about the right choices they should be making to fit their lifestyle?
How can we educate people that there is a variety of offerings out there that you can choose from, but make sure you choose in a manner that makes sense for the way you live your life, the activities you undertake and any special dietary needs? I say that is a challenge because we have to make sure that we have consistent messaging from all aspects that influence consumers — governments, schools, as well as our own businesses. Those would be a couple of areas where I think we have an opportunity for change.
Senator Plett: How do you educate people to eat healthy?
Mr. Wilkes: One of the best tools we have is Canada's Food Guide. One of the opportunities we should be exploiting, and we are in discussions with the health department around these types of things, is how we work to have a common message. What is the right amount of change that you can make in your diet if you want to reduce sodium, as an example? What are the right serving sizes for folks? Canada's Food Guide is very clear on what serving sizes should be. How do we make sure that that information is transmitted through a public awareness campaign, through partnering with industry and through getting the information in the school curriculums in a consistent manner? The knowledge is there; it is just a concerted effort by all the groups I have talked about to make sure that that knowledge is passed along.
Senator Plett: You listed a number of stores as your members. I imagine growers are also your members. Would McCain Foods be a member of your organization?
Mr. Wilkes: No. We are the Retail Council of Canada. I do not mean to be flippant. The suppliers are not members.
Senator Plett: Suppliers are not members. Thank you. That at least does not give you a challenge, and I am certainly not wanting to pick on any supplier, but we see the advertising all the time. I am sure frozen french fries are not as healthy as some other things that you might have, so you at least would not run into a conflict with suppliers if you were saying people should not eat frozen french fries.
Mr. Wilkes: Right, but we would never say that. We would never say whether it is frozen french fries or a chocolate bar or carrots or whatever. There is no such thing as good or bad food. There is the need to understand what the right choices are for your lifestyle. I may be able to enjoy, to continue with your example, a plate of french fries a week, and others may not because they am more sedentary or whatever. As we work with the department of health and the government and provinces across the country, there is a real recognition about the need to educate on the right choices for your lifestyle. If we go down the path of good and bad food, that is a path fraught with danger because the definition of what is right for one person is not the same as the definition of what is right for another person.
Senator Plett: What is the good balance between government and industry and innovation, in your opinion?
Mr. Wilkes: I think business is responsible for innovation.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Merchant: Welcome. It is very interesting and impressive to hear what your goals are and what you hope to accomplish. You say you work with government and institutions. Let us take, for instance, the case of schools. You have told us that Canada's Food Guide is the best indicator or a good marker for people to know what is good for them. In a school, you have a classroom where you learn about the food guide. However, at the same time, out in the hallway, you have machines that supply treats for the children, and there they have foods that are perhaps not that healthy for children. They are probably laden with sugar and salt and calories. Sometimes they are fried foods. How do you put your ideals into practice? Is there anything that you can really do?
It is the same with retailers and grocery stores. When you go into the grocery store, the muffins now have gotten to be quite large, where you could get a muffin that was the appropriate size. As a consumer, you go in there and you see the great big ones, and sure, it is your responsibility to make the right choice, but where do you get your satisfaction when you see what is happening and the plates are getting larger in restaurants? How do you marry the ideal with what is actually happening?
Mr. Wilkes: I think it is the same answer that I provided your colleague. We educate at all levels — at the schools, through our own industry and some of the mechanisms that we have to communicate through dietitians and through the health department. I do not believe this is a society where we dictate choice. The examples that you provided, senator, are part of a healthy, active lifestyle for some folks. I believe that if we are educating our youth about the right choices that they should be making, and if we are educating our youth that it is probably the right thing — and this is not a grocery comment but more of an opinion of my own — to be a little more active than some of the other activities that are available to younger people now, we will get back to that balance. If you are asking for my ideal, it is making sure that any sustainable change that we have, whatever that is, is based on people being educated on the right choices, whatever they are, whether they are food, whether they are walking to work or whether they are taking the stairs. What is that combination of activities and behaviours that I have to undertake to ensure I have a healthy lifestyle? I think that would be the way so that, when confronted with these choices, they would understand what choice to make.
Senator Merchant: I know that is what we strive to do, but how do we explain that? Our population is getting obese, and obesity is a terrific problem with everyone, but young people especially. They are not taking the stairs. What I am trying to say is that we cannot tell people what to do. We can only show them what to do. I am just wondering if there is anything you can do, for instance, to help the suppliers of these foods to also conform with what you hope to accomplish.
Mr. Wilkes: Much of the innovation that you see on our members' shelves around healthier choices — lower sodium, the elimination of trans fat over the last several years — is evidence that there are changing consumer behaviours and changing consumer demand to make those types of choices you are talking about. A variety of different types of products are available now that were not available five years ago. I think you are beginning to see that change. Certainly there are tremendous efforts within the industry, both with our members' own private label products as well as the national branded products, to reformulate in the ways I have talked about. You are seeing innovation and consumer demand changing, which I indicated at the beginning is the root of all activities that our members respond to.
I am a little more optimistic than pessimistic, and I am also optimistic because the conversation is happening. As you say, there is no denying that obesity rates are going in the wrong direction. There is no denying that obesity is the number one cause of non-communicable diseases in this country. There is no denying that obesity among children is going in the wrong direction. Equally, in my opinion, there is no denying that we are beginning to see the change, and some of the conversations we are having as an industry are not only about how to articulate the changes or reformulations, the new product introductions, but how to work closely with government to educate people on the right choices when confronted with whatever examples we choose to bring forward so they know what they should do. I enjoy a snack just like everyone else, but I also know I have to run an extra two kilometres that night, or three, depending.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you for being here. You are doing very interesting and important work for Canada's food supply.
Does your organization hold discussions with manufacturers with respect to advertising?
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Our association in and of itself does not. There are various codes that are available in our industry and the children's advertising code that we, along with other groups, are aware of. Certainly, some of our members have signed up to those as well as manufacturers. Where those conversations happen on a regular basis is between the trading partners, so between the individual retailer and the manufacturer, on what type of products are available, what type of go-to-market campaign will be offered, whether the innovation that is being presented by the manufacturer is really true innovation, what consumer demand does it meet. That is all part of the process that individual companies that sell back and forth to each other will undertake.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: The consumer is sort of caught in a cycle. On Wednesday or Thursday, for example, every large supermarket chain sends a flyer of items that will go on sale that weekend.
I am putting myself in the shoes of a woman with three children who goes with her flyers to buy the best frozen pizza. She comes home, but there is another flyer. The children say, "You should not have bought that one, Mom; you should have bought this one!''
It becomes difficult for the consumer to get the best product at the best price and of the best quality. Advertising does not help with that. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, advertising can help in some cases, but it can hinder in others. That is my opinion and the opinion of many consumers with respect to over-advertising in the food industry.
I would like to go back to what you were saying at the start about the rules for identifying products. I am from Quebec, which is Ontario's neighbour. We import a lot of fruits and vegetables, especially from Ontario, because the growing season there is longer than our own. The two provinces have an excellent relationship.
Why does Quebec have to have harsher rules? Let us go back a bit. Foreign products used to be sent through Ontario. I will give you a fairly specific example that happened in 1987, when our lemons came from producers in Morocco. That year, a storm affected the lemon crop, but Morocco continued to supply Quebec with lemons. Afterwards, it was discovered that the lemons had not come from Morocco, but from Corsica. It was not that the quality of the lemons was poor, but it was because some American states and South America dumped produce through Ontario. They used Ontario for dumping during the cold season. Ontario is now regulated in this respect.
There is no doubt that Quebec has harsher regulations, with respect to not only the food industry, but cheeses and wine as well, and there is no free flow. These interprovincial barriers are provincial matters. I agree with you, this should be abolished and Canadians across the country should have access to all Canadian products because Canadian products are excellent. Unfortunately, the provinces will have to be the ones to make the decision. The Canadian government cannot enact legislation tomorrow morning to do away with these tariff barriers.
Take wine, for instance. British Columbia and Ontario produce excellent wines that win gold medals in Europe. We cannot buy them in Quebec. It is completely ridiculous. These are very high quality products. What work have you done with the provinces with respect to these barriers that truly hinder Canadian commerce?
You just said that some products had to be bought within 50 kilometres. On the North Shore in Quebec, you have to go 800 kilometres to get a tomato; otherwise you will do without.
Barriers must absolutely be reduced. Interprovincial trade must not be limited, and there needs to be a basic regulation that could have certain requirements added on to it, but without hindering free trade. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: In short, I agree with you. I think there is a huge opportunity to take a look at a variety of regulations, whether they are labelling, interprovincial trade or country of origin.
One of the key thrusts that we have at the Retail Council of Canada not only with respect to the grocery retailers that we represent, but all retailers, is harmonization of regulations. One of the key ones is around recycling programs, the recycling of various printed papers, packaging and electronics. Each individual province has a slightly different way of doing it. We are trying to achieve the same goal of diverting waste from landfill, and each province is doing it just a little differently. That adds cost and complexity, and it does not allow for economies of scales in the materials that are recycled like the aluminum from pop cans.
Senator, I think you made some very good examples, as you were going through your viewpoint. Harmonization at all levels is a key thrust. It is a key pillar of activity, and we are working not only at the provincial and federal levels, but also at municipal level as well. Some of the food safety inspection standards that municipalities employ are different. There cannot be two ways of ensuring a safe retail environment for food safety. We should understand what the best one is and apply it in all cases.
I agree with your thrust, and it is a key area of focus.
Senator Mahovlich: When food is imported, say, from Mexico, I buy the grapes in the winter season, and I always have to wash them. I was told to wash the grapes. Is there a concern about the safety of the grapes? Do they use a chemical? Are the grapes cleaned before they get to the retailer?
Mr. Wilkes: There are no concerns about particular chemicals. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency would ensure that anything sold in this country meets the regulations established by the Government of Canada, and that would include the way products are grown.
I think it is just good practice to wash anything that you are eating directly. Especially in the winter season — not to be too graphic — if there are colds and people are touching them with unwashed hands, it is just good practice for anything that you are consuming directly, whether it is apples or grapes, that you do wash them not because of how they are grown but because of what they are exposed to along the way.
Senator Mahovlich: Do you have any experience with false advertising on packaging?
Mr. Wilkes: None that has been brought to our attention. Certainly, the Competition Bureau, through its advertising regulations, would take a very dim view if false advertising occurs. If there are issues around products being labelled inappropriately from a country of origin, there are rules and regulations that would be applied against that as well.
Senator Mahovlich: I love my ice cream; ever since I was a kid, I always have ice cream. A few years ago, because of my weight, I decided to switch to low-fat yogurt. It tastes like ice-cream, so I have switched, but I have not lost any weight. Does yogurt have less fat than ice-cream?
Mr. Wilkes: I feel I have no right answer to this particular question, senator.
Senator Mahovlich: Well, it is true.
Mr. Wilkes: How do I comment on a weight question from a senator? All products do have the nutrition facts panel on the side of them. If you are buying from one of our members and you are purchasing ice cream versus frozen yogurt, I would encourage you to look at the nutrition facts panel. I cannot comment on the specifics because I do not know.
Senator Mahovlich: Is the information approved?
Mr. Wilkes: The information is regulated. You will see listed, based on serving sizes, the amount of the sugar, calories, sodium and carbohydrates, et cetera, in the product.
Look, for example, at the amount of sugar in a particular product. Product A may have less sugar than Product B, and that might be the reason that you are experiencing the outcome that you are.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Mr. Wilkes, you told us that the Retail Council of Canada has 43,000 member retailers, of all sizes, I imagine: large retailers like Walmart and probably Costco, a lot of medium-sized and probably very small retailers, which we may call owner-operated. Are government research and innovation assistance programs used more by the big box stores? If so, I suppose that the programs are probably for recycling spoiled fruits and vegetables or processing garbage as ecologically and economically as possible. As well, do you have any examples of government research and innovation programs for small and medium enterprises?
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Our members have traditionally not entered into a conversation with us about particular government programs around research and innovation. We have entered into conversations with our members on things like changes to supply chain practices. When we were launching ECCnet, the data catalogue, there was some support to get it up and running.
As another example, we have worked with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to make the change I talked about in rigid plastic containers, the clam shells that you often see in the produce section. We also made changes to the adhesive that was used to put the label on plastic products to ensure that it could be separated from the plastic easily to enhance the recyclability of the product.
We do take advantage of the opportunity to work with government to effect change in things such as I have described. I am not aware of particular programs that our members have taken advantage of to develop new products. They certainly have not advised us of those and it is not an area in which we are very active. We are more active in the pillars that I mentioned to you.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: My second question would have dealt with the length of the programs, but since our witness is not familiar with the programs, I will not ask the question.
A lot of witnesses tell us that innovation programs are often established over the short term — two or three years — but for the projects to reach maturity, it usually takes five or ten years, but my question is pointless since you are not familiar with the programs.
[English]
Senator Plett: I have a couple of questions about your organization. Our notes say that you are a not-for-profit industry that was created in 1963. Who started the organization?
Mr. Wilkes: It was a retail-based organization.
Senator Plett: They decided they needed an umbrella organization?
Mr. Wilkes: Yes, to represent industry for networking purposes for the development of best practices.
Senator Plett: You said that the retailers are your members and not the suppliers. You used the example of strawberries. If I grow them and want to sell them to Sobeys, do I work with you or with Sobeys?
Mr. Wilkes: You work with Sobeys.
Senator Plett: You try to ensure that we have as much locally-grown product as possible. How do you promote that?
Mr. Wilkes: Thank you for the question; it is a great opportunity for me to clarify.
The examples that I gave were examples of programs and activities in which individual members will participate. As a trade association, our role includes member education programs. We do some work with providing lower cross- payment interchange for our members by doing bulk buys, so using the collective opportunities that our 9,000 members garner. In our advocacy role we work with government to ensure that the conditions and expectations of our industry are understood.
We do not influence decisions on what is put in members' stores. I gave the example of Buy Manitoba and referenced opportunities that our members have sought out to support local provincial programs. As another example, members will feature locally grown produce and put pictures of farmers and families in their flyers.
These are things that our members are doing, not because their trade association, that being us, has recommended or suggested that they do them but because the consumer is demanding it. They compete diligently against each other to respond to that consumer demand, and that consumer demand, whether for innovation or locally grown products, is what drives the types of activities that I have described. The members are in the business of ensuring that they are the destination of choice, whether for healthy products, locally grown products, the best store set-up or the best service. Those types of things are the responsibility of the individual members, not us.
Senator Plett: As I am from Manitoba, I will use Federated Co-op as an example. If Federated Co-op decides on their own that selling Manitoba product is in their best interest, Sobeys will follow suit only because people are now going to Federated Co-op because they are sell selling Manitoba product?
Mr. Wilkes: I am not sure that any member would follow any other member, because they try to differentiate themselves. Any retailer, especially ones in as highly competitive a business as groceries, always want to be first to market. They want to out-compete each other by recognizing that a "buy Manitoba'' program provides them with a competitive advantage. Individual provinces work with all retailers in the province to support the "buy Manitoba'' program.
As another example, advertising support is provided by the provincial government for the Buy Ontario program to incent retailers to support it. The bigger incentive is the one that we have already talked about, the consumer.
To use Manitoban examples, I would suspect that all food retailers in your province would want to respond to the innovative needs of the consumer before their competition. If they cannot, they have lost touch with the consumer, as I have described, and they will suffer the same fate as will MPs who have lost touch with their constituents. They will no longer be the MP; they will no longer be the store of choice.
I hope I am answering your question clearly. There is no obligation beyond meeting the expectations of the consumer, who has a variety of very competitive choices.
Senator Plett: Your organization was started by the members. Do the members put together a board? How does one become the president of the Retail Council of Canada?
Mr. Wilkes: I became President of the Retail Council of Canada because the prior president retired and then I was selected. The Retail Council of Canada is run by a 20-odd-person board of directors of our members. They have responsibility for their organization. As you mentioned, we are not-for-profit. The funds that support the activities of the organization come from the membership dues and any funds that we generate from conferences that we hold.
We have a variety of committees, including food safety, environment, loss prevention, and payments, which looks at charges that credit card companies apply, that provide not only direction for the advocacy work that we do but also a tool to educate and inform the members about the work we are doing and any regulatory changes that might be coming at them.
We are an organization that was created by the members and is still run by the members. The role that we play is defined by the members and, as a professional staff, we ultimately report to that board of directors.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to come back to the issue of product labelling.
You spoke in the beginning about all the advertising done in day cares, in schools and for young people so they get used to good nutrition. I would like you to deliver the following message to your members. When I go grocery shopping, I sometimes take my grandsons, who are in day care and school. We go to the produce aisle, the meat section. They say to me, "Grandpa, do not buy that; this is what you need to be healthy. That is what they tell us in school.'' Very well; my basket has good things in it. I go to the cash to pay and am confronted with evil temptations. You have every chocolate bar under the sun, all kinds of candy, everything that is bad for you, right in the checkout lane. I imagine I am not the only one to have experienced this. Could retailers not put them elsewhere? We are stuck there with grandchildren, and all the good things we have bought for them can be destroyed in five seconds.
Could these products that tempt us be placed somewhere other than at the cash? I am sure I am not the only grandfather caught in this situation.
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: It is encouraging to hear the initial part of your commentary about how you have educated your grandchildren around the right choices; that is good. That might be unique, and I am sure it has a lot to do with family lineage and the ability to pick up.
I challenge the concept of good and bad and whether it makes sense to pick up something at the point of sale. Retailers will provide offerings where it makes sense from a consumer's perspective. You walk in the front door of the store, and you will see a wide range of fruit and vegetables. The first thing that hits you in every single grocery retailer, certainly the ones I am familiar with, is the vast array of products available that can meet those choices for fresh produce.
A store is designed with an eye to where it makes sense to put various products to facilitate the type of shopping that the consumer wants to do. Certain stores have checkouts where absolutely no impulse-buy products are available. It is not a ubiquitous type of activity; but if they were not there, the consumer might go to a store that is offering them, or the retailer may choose to design their "front ends,'' as they are called in the business, for a way that speeds checkout so they do not have those impulse buys. It really is something that responds to market forces, and that is something that we should be embracing.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I fully understand what you are saying, but the fact remains that, if we want innovation in the food industry, given what children are learning at school these days and all the efforts being made across Canada, your members should also be taking part in this work. I think a corner should be found for all the chocolates so that people who would like to buy them can. It is a free country after all, and we can buy some from time to time to make the children happy, at Easter and Christmas and so on. But there, it is right under their noses and sometimes you have to wait in line for 15 or 20 minutes. That there, that is marketing. They absolutely want to sell these things. And if you look at the price, they cost three times more at the grocery store than at a real chocolate maker's store. That is my message for your members.
The Deputy Chair: You certainly gave your message to our witness, Senator Maltais.
Do you have any comments, Mr. Wilkes?
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Our members are committed to doing the right thing to provide the right education to facilitate healthy lifestyles.
Senator Merchant: I also shop at the very kind of stores you have mentioned: Safeway, Sobeys and the Superstore. The cash register checkout area in each of those stores has all the tempting foods. Even the little shop by my neighbourhood, which is a wonderful little grocery, has those kinds of treats right by the cash register. They have toffee, chocolates and cookies and everything else. Give us the names where you shop so we can check them out.
I have a question on the expiry dates on packaging. I am not exactly sure what criteria you use. Is this an international standard? Some products are made and packaged in China or South America or other country. How does that work?
Mr. Wilkes: It is based on a best before date as opposed to an expiry date. It often relates to quality rather than food safety risk. It is meant to ensure the integrity of the product from a taste profile and all other aspects that you would anticipate. It is based on a best before date as opposed to an expiry date.
Senator Merchant: Do we have different criteria for products coming into Canada, or is this an international standard? A company in China can package sardines and ship them to the U.S. or Europe or Canada. Who monitors that?
Mr. Wilkes: The best before information is applied by the supplier. I am not aware of any different standards or application of regulations. I would have to check into that. To the best of my knowledge, it is based on the efficacy of the product as opposed to a particular standard.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Among your retailers there are furniture retailers, car retailers and retailers from all consumer areas.
A few weeks ago, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance looked into the price differences between Korean and Canadian products sold on the American market that were much less expensive. As an example, a Chrysler vehicle built in St. Thomas, Ontario, is sold at a lower price in the United States than in Canada.
NAFTA sees to it that there is no barrier, but in the food industry, be it fruits, vegetables, fish or some other perishable food item, have you seen these price differences between the same product, so those sold in the United States and those sold in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Allow me to answer in two parts. I will call on Ms. Proud to provide a perspective on some of the challenges that retailers face and the price differential between Canada and the U.S. as it relates to supply managed commodities. We are not here to take a position whether supply management is right or wrong. To illustrate some of the outcomes of that, I have numbers, although a couple of months old, that are based on Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics: a dozen eggs in Canada cost $3.22 and in the U.S. $1.80; and milk per litre is $2.40 in Canada versus 92 cents in the U.S. There are other examples of the supply managed commodity, such as the fresh ones you talked about. Chicken is another great example where the ability not only to meet consumer demand but also to meet it at a price comparable to the U.S. price is challenging.
Perhaps Ms. Proud could offer some of the other challenges that we face on the pricing differential between Canada and the U.S.
Karen Proud, Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada: We were before your colleagues just a few weeks ago representing the Retail Council of Canada to talk about the price differences between Canada and the U.S.
As Mr. Wilkes mentioned, certainly on the supply-managed products there is a reason for that and it is a significant difference between Canada and the U.S. Our position was that our members fully support the agricultural sector in Canada, but if the government is going to continue with those policies they should think about some of the other sectors, such as the retailers affected by those policies.
Our recommendation had been at the time, and still is, that if the government was going to maintain the supply- managed system in Canada, they should take other measures, such as exempting those sorts of products from personal exemption limits at the border as they do with tobacco and alcohol. We know for a fact that those are some of the most cross-border shopped products when people are just going down for a day trip. They are filling up their cars with groceries, as well as gasoline, tobacco and cigarettes. Supply management certainly plays a factor.
The other thing we raised with the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance was the fact that there is such a thing as country pricing in Canada. Some suppliers will sell to Canadian retailers at a much different price than they would sell the same product to U.S. retailers. It is not something that the government could necessarily intercede on. It is not all suppliers and products, but for some of these big manufacturers and name brand products it is a reality in Canada that the Canadian retailers who buy and source their products in Canada from those suppliers pay significantly more money than in the United States.
One of the things we are hoping to achieve through our testimony in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is really getting the awareness out there to Canadians about the reason behind the difference in pricing, both on the supply-managed products and those products subject to the country pricing. It is not the retailers; it is factors beyond their control.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We have now come to the end of the first part of our meeting. Thank you for being here to speak to us and answer our questions.
I would be remiss if I did not make a comment on supply management. I think that it is not just a question of price, but also a question of product quality. People could clearly defend the quality of the products, the people who manufacture them under the supply management system. Everything can be discussed. I just wanted to make that point for the people on this side.
Thank you once again. We will now suspend in order to receive our second panel.
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: It has been our pleasure. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
The Deputy Chair: For people who are watching, I would like to say that Senator Buth has now joined us for the second part of this meeting.
We have before us Mike Nowosad, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian 4-H Council, accompanied by Sue Walker, Director of Development and Provincial Relations with the Canadian 4-H Council.
[Translation]
We also have Johanne Ross, Executive Director of Agriculture in the Classroom Manitoba.
I understand that Mr. Nowosad and Ms. Walker are going to make a presentation. The senators will then ask questions.
[English]
Mr. Nowosad, the floor is yours.
Mike Nowosad, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian 4-H Council: Thank you very much, senator. It is a pleasure to be here and to present on behalf of 4-H Canada. I will tell you a little bit about the history of 4-H.
It started in Manitoba in 1913 and was available for youth at the provincial level until 1933, when there was a need to provide services for youth at the national level. Currently, we are a grassroots organization with 26,000 members across Canada.
I have some statistics for you. Overall, our membership has been declining, and volunteer recruitment is problematic. Some points of interest: 4-H hit a peak membership of 80,000 in the late 1970s and, since that time, we have been declining about 2 per cent. The average age of 4-H members is 13, with the largest group being 12 to 17. We are losing senior members, 17 to 21 years old. However, the areas we are experiencing growth in terms of 4-H is in non-traditional areas, and those areas include Aboriginal, suburban and the North. Looking at the statistics, it is apparent to us that the growth in the age range of 5 to 18 will be in urban and suburban areas, and I will be touching on that shortly.
We started out as an agricultural-based organization teaching young people various skills in terms of agriculture. Akin to Scouts, where Scouts complete badges, 4-H members complete projects. The top 10 projects in 2011 were beef, horse, dairy, crafts, self-determined, light horse, sheep, foods, dog, cooking and photography.
Some statistics about the value of the 4-H program: 40 per cent of our alumni work in agriculturally related jobs; 82 per cent of our alumni have a secondary school education; over 31 per cent of our alumni have a bachelor's degrees; 43 per cent of our alumni have household incomes of $50,000 to $99,000; and 16 per cent of 4-H alumni had household incomes of $100,000 or more.
I will turn it over now to Sue Walker to talk a little bit about our programs.
Sue Walker, Director of Development and Provincial Relations, Canadian 4-H Council: Essentially, 4-H Canada is made up of a variety of conferences, exchanges, scholarships and grants programs, all available for ages 16 to 21.
We have two conferences. One is our national conference, which is a five-day, agriculture-based conference that takes place in a variety of places across Canada. Our citizenship seminar takes place here in Ottawa to teach 4-H members the value of being a Canadian citizen.
We also have exchange programs. With our youth exchange program, we have members from different provinces actually exchange provinces to learn about agriculture in a different province. We also have our international exchange programs where 4-H members travel to Washington to the 4-H national conference there and exchange ideas, as well as our international exchange program where we have youth from across Canada go internationally for a three to six- week period every summer and learn about agriculture in another country.
We have scholarship programs that are sponsored by CIBC and TD Bank Financial Group for our members to apply for post-secondary education, as well as our grants and awards programs for various clubs and individuals across Canada to apply for. Some of those include the Growing Forward Business Development Program, which is funded by AAFC; the Sears Young Futures Club awards program; the National Resource Network also funded by AAFC; Canadian Young Speakers for Agriculture, also funded by AAFC; Step Up for Agriculture Mentorship Program, which is in partnership with CFBMC, CYFF, COYF and also AAFC funded; as well as our Loblaws grant program, which is a program available across Canada for nutrition-based, local food programs, and the Cargill Victory Canola Oil Program for projects in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta focusing on nutrition, education, health and environment.
We also have a new program coming for our centennial anniversary in 2013, which is a national public speaking program, which is one of the things that 4-H is probably best known for across the country, and this program will focus on ag-based topics for all of our members to compete for 10 national winners across the country.
Another part of 4-H Canada is the Canadian 4-H Foundation, incorporated in 1969. Its current principal sits at about $2.5 million. The foundation provides an annual grant to council to operate the programs I just described, and all of the foundation's principal comes from donations from individuals and corporate Canada.
Mr. Nowosad: I will talk a little bit about where we are going as an organization. Recognizing the statistics and declining rural population and the fact we do want to grow, we have commenced a project called Embrace the Future. The goal is to double our membership by 2021. To do that, we have done research in terms of identifying common and unique elements shared by provincial 4-H councils. We have reviewed Statistics Canada information to determine where 4-H should target efforts for suburban and urban markets. We are in the process of developing 4-H member and leader recruitment and retention strategies targeting new markets, and those markets continue to be rural as well as urban, and visible minorities. Aboriginal is an area we are really looking into with a partnership we want to do with the National Association of Friendship Centres.
A couple of opportunities for education and collaboration, getting to the point of the purpose of being here: We have not lost our agricultural roots. In fact, as an organization, we believe we own food in terms of sharing the story of agriculture and food. As we move into new markets, we will be educating a brand new market of young people who in fact could become part of the agricultural community in the future. We are celebrating 100 years in 2013, and we will be celebrating that by promoting it with an external as well as internal focus, external being in those new markets.
In August of 2013, we will be hosting our first international conference called Feeding a Hungry Planet. It will be an international youth agricultural summit. We are inviting 20 countries to participate, including China, India, Korea, Australia, Italy, et cetera. This program is funded at this point in time with a donation of $340,000 from Behr, although we are talking to the Department of Agriculture for additional funding.
Engaging youth: This is what we do. We have made great strides in terms of the social media. Facebook, Twitter and 4-H member blogs are a natural way to communicate with youth across the country. We are gaining more and more fans daily on our Facebook. Among over 7,000 fans we have, 18 to 24 years old represent 41 per cent of the participants, and 13 to 17 years old represent 20 per cent. Twitter is another area we are really growing in leaps and bounds. We have a youth advisory council made up of 4-H members from across the country, and they have taken on the role of blogging on our behalf.
Not wanting to rush the presentation, I am sure the committee members will have plenty of questions. As we look at the question of the day in terms of how can we educate young people, we have been doing that for close to a hundred years right now in terms of agricultural skill development. As we move into new areas, suburban, urban, et cetera, we see ourselves as a logical lead agency to bring agriculture and to bring food to new communities. I would imagine that, by doing that, we will be contributing to the future of agriculture in the country. As you are all aware, as farmers get older, we are all looking for young people to see the real value of agriculture.
On that note, I am not sure whether I am at six or seven minutes, but I will close my comments. We will be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nowosad. We have received the presentation in one of the official languages, and it will be circulated in the other official language when it is translated.
Johanne Ross, Executive Director, Agriculture in the Classroom — Manitoba: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here tonight. It is an honour. As you are aware, I am here representing Agriculture in the Classroom in Manitoba. However, I am also part of the Executive Committee of Agriculture in the Classroom Canada, which we are working on presently. I will talk about that further on in my comments.
In Manitoba, Agriculture in the Classroom is a non-profit charitable organization. We are committed to cultivating an interest in agriculture in young people. This is in students from kindergarten all the way to grade 12. In most if not all jurisdictions in Canada, the subject of agriculture is not an element of core curriculum. Therefore, organizations such as Agriculture in the Classroom strive to integrate agriculture concepts into existing provincially mandated curriculum, such as science, social studies, math, et cetera. This, of course, is easy to do in terms of the content because, as you well know, these core subject areas form the basis and foundation of the agriculture and agri-food industry.
Agriculture in the Classroom's goal is not to promote the industry but more to offer positive and real information for teachers and students to understand and experience agriculture and understand the importance to their everyday lives.
We believe in being completely accountable to what we call our ABC principle, and that is to be accurate, balanced and current with every single piece of information that we put out, and that, of course, gives us the credibility in the classrooms.
Agriculture in the Classroom truly has a multiple target audience. There is the obvious, namely the students and the teachers, but we must also encourage our sector partners that support us to engage actively in these efforts to increase awareness of agriculture's diversity and innovative capacities. We believe these activities, by involving our partners, are critical for the future of the agriculture and agri-food sector. In an ever-growing world with more and more mouths to feed, young talent will be critical to fill key roles in the business of growing food. It has never been a more important time to be communicating to young people and educating them on agriculture.
The role of educating youth about farming and agriculture is critical on so many levels. There has been a real disconnect in the present generation of young Canadians between the farm and the food on the plate. Through Agriculture in the Classroom's efforts, we are not only helping students understand where their food comes from but also how it gets to the plate and all those processes in between.
We are also dialoguing about the many non-food products produced by the ag sector along with the important role Canada plays as a global participant in feeding a growing world. We encourage youth to understand that agriculture is around them all the time, every day, everywhere they look. More than just the food on their plate, the paint on the walls and the floor they are walking on would not be there without agriculture. The great thing about Canada's youth right now is they are interested, confident, and they like to make their own choices. That is a great character to have, and they are taking a lot of interest in food security, sustainability and the global environment around them. Their ideologies reflect many of those that we focus on in the agriculture industry, such as feeding a hungry world, good stewardship for the land, animal welfare and so forth. The time is ripe to be engaging with young people.
I talked earlier about curriculum linkages and the importance of integrating agriculture themes into those core subject areas. This has been an important success factor for Agriculture in the Classroom. Along with creating curriculum-based materials for the teacher in the classroom, we are also making it a strong priority to create curriculum linked experiences in agriculture. We believe the best way to make an impact is to truly have the students and teachers immerse themselves in agriculture through a number of unique outreach events. This has proven to be significant for us in our outreach and has given the students a hands-on understanding of the industry, through connecting them with the actual people making their living in agriculture.
We have several opportunities for many grade levels where the students are interacting with farmers and agricultural industry people, essentially putting a face behind the food and a personality behind the careers that agriculture can offer. A great example of this is our successful Made in Manitoba Breakfast school program. We visit schools all over Manitoba. We have reached over 10,000 students at the end of the 2012 school year. This program brings together three integral pieces. The students are actually eating locally produced Manitoba food on their plate; we are bringing the farmers and the industry people out to stand behind that food; and we supply the educational piece that ties it all together for the teacher.
I could go on for a long time about our outreach programs. We obviously do not have time. These programs are the ones making significant impacts for us.
As an industry, we have to be able to create curiosity and interest in young people towards agriculture. Presently, it is not high on the list of suggestions for career counsellors and guidance counsellors across the country. This is not because schools do not support agriculture but more because they do not always have the information and the resources readily available to them.
Quite frankly, that old stereotype is it still there. Agriculture equals farming, and if you do not come from a farm, you cannot have a career in agriculture. We all here know that is untrue, but the stereotype is still there. It is ambitious work we are carrying out and not without its challenges.
You may have heard of a disturbing website that had gone viral, written by Yahoo, highlighting the 10 most useless degrees you could get in the United States. Out of the top five most useless degrees, three of those were agriculture. The number one most useless degree was a bachelor of science in agriculture. Here is what Yahoo had to say about it:
. . . if your idea of a good day is getting up with the sun and working till it sets as an agricultural manager, a degree in agriculture might be your calling.
This is a perfect example of why we need to work together to create accurate, balanced and current educational materials and programming related to agriculture. If we as an industry do not take the lead role in speaking to the opportunity, the growth, the innovation and the amazing excitement around our industry, no one will do it for us. In fact, there are many organizations that are quite happy to do exactly the opposite — spread myths and create misunderstanding around our industry.
I will tell you that Agriculture in the Classroom organizations exist across Canada. We are actively operating in nine provinces, albeit with unique structures. Presently, an Agriculture in the Classroom Canada framework is being developed, and an executive committee will be working specifically on this over the next 18 months. It is our goal to launch AG in the Classroom Canada in 2014 with all provinces and territories participating. Having a national body will help us to encourage national groups and organizations as well as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to join in this important work, and I have had two brief discussions with Minister Ritz on this, and I believe there is and very well should be strong support from AAFC in this effort.
To wrap up, you are probably thinking education is a provincial priority and mandate, and you are correct in that thinking. I believe, however, that agriculture education is our mandate and ours alone, and it belongs here with each and every one of us involved in the Agriculture and Agri-Food sector. If we are to ensure that accurate, balanced information is received and used, we must be the ones to make it so. All of us here understand the importance and amazing opportunity of the agriculture and agri-food industry. We have to work together to share this with young Canadians. In the next 20 to 30 years, we will be hiring and recruiting for jobs that do not even exist yet, but we have a big challenge ahead of us to feed this world.
The innovation capacity of agriculture is infinite. However, our capacity of young talent entering the industry is not. Awareness and education must start today. It must be strong, positive and united.
I thank you for the time and I look forward to discussion, Mr. Chair.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Ross, you will have time to further your presentation through the questions that will be asked of you. I thank you for that.
I will recognize senators in the order they have asked to have the floor.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much for your presentations. I certainly have a passion in agriculture, although I have never farmed. I spent 35 years in the plumbing and heating business making a living on farms and working with farmers. I certainly appreciate everything you folks do.
I will start with a question about 4-H. Would part of the decline in membership in 4-H be related to the size and type of farming we are doing nowadays? Farms have gotten much larger; they are more business oriented than they were back in 1913. Is that when 4-H started?
Mr. Nowosad: Yes.
Senator Plett: Would there be any correlation between those two as to why the membership in 4-H has declined?
Ms. Walker: Absolutely, there is a definite correlation in that. The other reason is we are finding a lot of young people are not staying on the family farm any longer. They are going to the city and staying in the city. Things we are hearing from our senior members are the family farm is too expensive to run; it is too expensive to purchase from their parents. There are not enough grant programs going into it so they can actually sustain it. They just feel that there is not a lot of support and it is not a viable option for them. For those who do, they end up partnering with other farms, taking them over and merging fields together. That seems to be working for them. However, our senior members do not think it is a viable option.
In terms of the decline in 4-H, more folks are moving to suburban and urban areas, which is why we are focusing our energies there for new recruitment as we move into the next 100 years. That is where we see a real opportunity to teach youth about agriculture, where their food comes from. We have already made a few forays in urban and suburban areas and we are hearing that some kids think meat comes from Loblaws. They do not understand that it comes from a cow. There is a mandate for us to move into those areas and teach people agriculture, teach them where their food comes from.
Senator Plett: Of course, a grain farm comprised of 15,000 acres now would have been at least 15 farms 20 years ago.
Ms. Walker: Exactly.
Mr. Nowosad: Part of the problem also is that 4-H was started in the late 1800s in the United States because there were a lot of new farming methods being introduced and the existing farmers then did not want to learn the new methods, because they knew how to farm. The goal is to teach the kids the new farming methods. It is a matter of educating the parents, because it is the parents who discourage the kids from following certain practices. As Ms. Walker said, we want to move into new areas where there is perhaps less bias.
Senator Plett: You said that 4-H does not want to go away from its agricultural roots and you listed some areas that you are going into. One that you mentioned is the Aboriginal community. Of course, many Aboriginals farm, but that is typically not what one thinks of when you think of the Aboriginal community.
Is focusing on the Aboriginal community not going somewhat away from your agricultural roots? Could you explain that?
Mr. Nowosad: Not necessarily. I will cite Manitoba as an example, where the Manitoba 4-H Council was to asked to present 4-H to a reserve community. They expected 20 or 30 people, and I believe that over 150 people attended, including parents, grandparents, et cetera.
In terms of moving into the Aboriginal communities, we have been working for a while on a partnership with the National Association of Friendship Centres, which are predominantly located in urban areas. There is an opportunity to teach the constituents of the NAFC about opportunities in agriculture. In urban areas we look at immigrant populations and non-immigrant populations as well as the Aboriginal community.
Senator Plett: Ms. Ross, what sectors support your organization? You mentioned that education is primarily a provincial jurisdiction in Canada, and I agree that agriculture possibly is not.
What sectors do support your organization, and what would you like to see the federal government do to help you out?
Ms. Ross: On who is supporting us now, I mentioned that nine provinces are participating in Ag in the Classroom. We are all unique in our structures. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, B.C. and Ontario are all non-profit organizations. The rest of the provinces are funded through their provincial government departments. The non-profits have a wide range of funders and supporters, and Manitoba is one of the provinces leading the way in terms of our support. We have over 450 members from across the industry. We have life science companies, banks, grain companies, commodity groups, farmers and individuals. We have a very broad section, and I am proud of that because we are run by a board of directors and have a wonderful balance of the agriculture industry on that board. Who is supporting us? We will pretty much take anyone as a member.
As to what we would like to see from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, there are two things that we would love to see. I have just come off a week of hosting my colleagues in Winnipeg for our annual face-to-face. We are putting together a national framework and we will be working diligently at that over the next 18 months, as I mentioned.
A short-term goal for me would be to have the federal government involved in helping us build that organization. That would be very important for us because it is sort of the chicken and egg situation. We have to get the funding in order to get it off the ground, but once we are off the ground we will need sustained funding. I see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in a partnership role in the future to help us with direction, priorities and those sorts of things.
In the short term, it would be great to have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada support the initial development of the organization. We have the people ready to go with it. It is just that we are all working so hard in our provinces that it is hard to commit a lot of time to this focus.
Senator Plett: Mr. Chair, it is nice to see Manitoba leading the way again.
Ms. Ross: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I am going to continue with the 4-H Club.
I am a former 4-H member and was a member for about 20 years in Quebec. I do not know if the motto is still the same. In my time, it was: honour, honesty, handiness and humanity.
I notice that the 4-H members have made the shift to the 21st century because, back then, in Quebec and British Columbia, the movement was focused on the forest, flora and fauna. The main objective was to create good citizens who respect nature, flora and fauna. You mentioned initially that now it is, I think, to bring youths together and give them the best possible agricultural skills, while making them good citizens.
Your main mission is somewhat educational, and I would like to hear you speak about that.
[English]
Mr. Nowosad: In terms of providing education to 4-H members, Ms. Walker outlined some of the programs we have. At the grassroots level we offer over 200 projects for 4-H members, and those projects touch on just about every component of agriculture, be it food, sheep, beef, dairy, et cetera. We still provide that skill development so that the young people are being educated specifically about agriculture as well as other things that interest them. You have to stay with what youth are interested in. We have about a half-and-half offering between agriculture and non-agriculture. At the end of the day, it is not only about education in agriculture; it is about skill development and leadership development.
In terms of national programming, that is where the education really comes in or complements what is happening at the local level. Ms. Walker alluded to the Step Up Program related to agricultural mentoring. We are now entering our second year with that program. It provides an opportunity for young people to live and work on a farm anywhere in Canada for six to eight months and learn everything there is to know about agriculture. The first year it was offered for the older age range, but this year we are doing a pilot for young members between 12 and 16. It is for a shorter time frame. If a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old thinks they might like agriculture, this is a good way to get their feet wet and make contacts.
We also talk about the Bank of Montreal program that has been sponsored, and that particular program provides grants for forays into urban centres. I have a sterling example, in Kingston, Ontario, where we partnered with the Boys and Girls Club of Kingston. The young people were looking for programs at the Boys and Girls Club, and we were looking for new members and new markets. Their first project was a foods project. As Ms. Ross was referring to, a lot of kids in urban centres do not know the front end or the back end of agriculture, so not only was the program a success in the first year but it also doubled in the second year.
That is the type of education that we are trying to do. As we move into urban centres, we recognize that urban youth are somewhat unaware of agriculture, so some of the four core themes in new programming that we will be offering include leadership and communications. One thing that is fairly key is sustainable agriculture. I trust that answers your question, sir.
Senator Buth: I want to start with Ms. Ross. It shocks me that agriculture is not part of a curriculum in any province.
Ms. Ross: Absolutely. It shocks me too. Twelve years ago, when I started, I could not believe it. It is criminal, is what we say, but it is the reality. To give you an example, we ran a program, for three years, called the Teacher Learning Adventure, where we brought teachers out for a week in the summer to experience agriculture. We took them on the road. They visited farms and industry; they were immersed in it. We actually were able to offer it through Continuing Education at the University of Manitoba, and it was three credit hours toward their post-baccalaureate. We had tremendous success and a waiting list of teachers to get in. All of a sudden, after the third year, I got a call from the dean of continuing education, and she basically said, "We are taking away your credit.'' I asked why, and she said, "Because agriculture is not an academic subject.''
Of course, it is shocking for us to hear those words, but that is what we are dealing with. That is the challenge because we are not in the core curriculum. I took the dean of the faculty of agricultural and food sciences with me to meet with this dean, and we, to this day, have not gotten that credit back. These are the challenges. There is no province that has agriculture in the core curriculum. There is an optional course called agriculture that can be taught in grade 11, but it depends on whether or not there is a teacher who wants to teach it in that school.
Senator Buth: How do you get into the curriculum?
Ms. Ross: Everything that we develop, we connect to curriculum outcomes. For example, if we have a grade 7 soils resource, there is a soils cluster in science in grade 7, so we integrate agriculture concepts into those existing curriculum outcomes. As I mentioned, it is very easy to do because agriculture fits into almost every single subject area you can think of. For every single program and resource that we develop, even if it is a field trip, we have the curriculum outcomes outlined for the teacher so that she or he can go back to the classroom and continue the learning within the units she or he has to teach. A lot of them would love to bring agriculture to their classroom, but they do not have time. Provincial curricula are mandated; you have to have a certain number of outcomes. It is a fact that they do not have time, so we have to integrate into that existing curriculum. We are able to do it, and that is why we are successful.
Senator Buth: Mr. Nowosad, I ask you the same question that Senator Plett asked of Agriculture in the Classroom. If you had a recommendation for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in support of what you are doing, what would it be?
Mr. Nowosad: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are real friends of 4-H. They have been funding us since 1933. Between Agriculture Canada and Canadian Heritage, we get about 30 per cent of our funding through the federal government. If I was to recommend anything to the Department of Agriculture, it would be that we, as we move into urban centres and grow the program, get more funding in order to expand the program and to assist our provincial partners because there is, in some cases, a lack of significant funding for 4-H in provinces. I know there is a separation in terms of provincial funding and national funding, but, through the funding we receive through the Department of Agriculture, we actually do provide funding. It is to prop up those provinces that do need the assistance.
My vision for 4-H in urban centres is that our website will one day have about 10 or 12 or 13 or 14 different languages on it so that we are reaching new generations and new target areas of 4-H members.
Senator Merchant: You have been in existence for, did you say, 13 years?
Ms. Ross: Twelve years in Manitoba.
Senator Merchant: If you want agriculture to become part of a curriculum, I would imagine that you would have to approach the school board. You would have to have some results-based evidence. Are you collecting something? How can you build on what you have started already?
Ms. Ross: Measurement is extremely important, and we evaluate and get feedback measurement from our teachers and students who participate in our programs. However, it is a very hard measure to make because it is very hard to measure goodwill. It is hard to measure the next generation that we are hoping will take more of an informed interest in agriculture and be inspired to chase a career in agriculture. It is a very hard measure to make. In terms of the curriculum, you asked if we have to lobby school boards. It is actually the provincial government that we need to lobby. The great thing about that is that we have worked very hard. I should make a quick correction. I mentioned 12 years, but that is since I have been doing the job. Agriculture in the Classroom in Manitoba has been in existence since the early 1980s, but they never had anyone working full time until they hired me 12 years ago.
Going back to what I was saying, in the last 12 years we have really built a strong relationship with our provincial education department, and we work very closely with the provincial curriculum consultants. They know we are there, and they are now turning to us. For example, when they are working on a pan-Canadian science curriculum for grade 6, they will actually include us in that process in terms of saying, "Do you have some resources connected to some of these outcomes that we can put into the mandated curriculum?'' That has been a huge plus for us because it is the first time they have started to consider us when developing a curriculum. That is a little step, but, in terms of that lobby effort to the provincial departments of education, that is where we need to be and where we are every year, talking to them about that.
Senator Merchant: For our other two guests, I do not have a firm question except to say that I am very impressed with the kind of mandate that you have because you have a world vision. You are trying to educate young people so that they will have concerns beyond our own borders. Do you have some programs where you are doing exchanges, sending young people to, let us say, poor nations in Africa or Bangladesh or some areas? Do you have an exchange of people? Are your clubs in some of these areas so that they can come here and you can send people there?
Mr. Nowosad: Both my colleague and I will comment on this. I think Ms. Walker can comment on the exchanges, and then I will talk a bit about global 4-H.
Ms. Walker: This is our first year in international exchange. We were predominantly in the U.K., up until last year. We did expand. Actually, it was a request not only of our funding for that program but also of the youth across Canada. They wanted to go to some of the developing countries to see what the challenges were and what agriculture was like in those countries. We have been able to expand. We have a demand wherein we could expand to probably 15 or 20 different countries with our youth. We have a waiting list of 4-H members who want to travel internationally. We are very fortunate in that we are able to provide that experience to our members. They get to come back and submit a synopsis of what they learned, share that with their club and we share it across the country.
Mr. Nowosad: Globally, 4-H is available in over 80 countries in the world. About a year ago, the U.S. 4-H program convened a meeting with representation of 4-H countries from all regions in the world. We are in the process right now of developing a global 4-H network.
Our friends from the U.S. have gotten significant dollars from the Gates foundation as well as the Clinton foundation to grow the program and create an organization. One of the first projects they are doing is a sustainable agriculture project in Ghana. We see that as a really neat way of connecting our organizations.
I have to say that being on the ground floor of this organization makes you realize how small the world really is. We are really excited about the global 4-H program.
Senator Mahovlich: My question is similar to Senator Merchant's. Is there not another country in the world that has a curriculum in agriculture? Europe has been around for a long time. When I go to France and travel through that country, the farms are beautiful. They have been in the business for centuries. Would they not have a program for their youth?
Ms. Ross: I am not sure about Europe, but the United States has a very strong curriculum in agriculture. In fact, they offer a degree in agriculture education. That is how far ahead they are.
Senator Mahovlich: Which university offers that?
Ms. Ross: You can take that degree anywhere in the United States.
Senator Mahovlich: Like Harvard?
Ms. Ross: Maybe. I do not know the specific universities that offer the degree per se. There is curriculum in the U.S. for students. At most grade levels, agriculture is there. They have a couple of other things that are quite aggressive in terms of agriculture, such as the Future Farmers of America, the FFA, which is in schools. It is not outside school; it is a club that is part of the curriculum, and that again is related to agriculture.
Senator Mahovlich: As the world population continues to grow, agriculture will be a larger concern for us. Is that right?
Mr. Nowosad: Absolutely.
Senator Mahovlich: Have you visited India at all?
Mr. Nowosad: Not yet.
Senator Mahovlich: It is where the biggest concern is because the population there is expanding at a horrific pace.
Mr. Nowosad: I believe Canada has and will be playing a lead role in feeding the world. I think that is exactly a mandate of ours, in terms of education.
Getting back to your initial point with regard to curriculum, in two of Canada's provinces, Alberta and Ontario, the provincial 4-H councils have been working with provincial boards of education in terms of offering a credit if you complete 4-H. We are trying to make inroads into that, and by virtue of offering that credit, I think it will expand those young people who do not know anything about agriculture.
At the same time, we have changed our age range. We have increased the range to the age of 25 in 4-H. Traditionally it has been 21. In the older age range, 18 to 25, we are in the process of developing programming at universities for senior 4- H members, if you will, to learn about 4-H and to learn about agriculture. At the University of Manitoba, for example, they have the Stockman's Club, which is a judging club. They are small steps, senator, but we are moving in that direction.
Senator Mahovlich: I would think there would be a demand for teachers to teach in China if they had that degree.
Mr. Nowosad: Absolutely.
Ms. Ross: I wanted to make one more comment with regard to that. I think we have to be careful not to get too caught up with the fact that agriculture is not in curriculum. Agriculture is very science-based, and feeding the world is going to involve innovation. Where we have to connect with students is exactly there; they can go into agriculture and they can be researchers, scientists, marketers or lawyers.
Senator Plett, I know you said you were a plumber. I challenge high school students to name me a career that is not connected to agriculture; we need plumbers in agriculture.
We need to work with our curriculums and integrate those concepts, get kids interested and curious about the industry. That is where we have to start.
Senator Mahovlich: Quite a few of our hockey players were farmers.
Ms. Ross: All of my boys were hockey players and farmers.
Senator Plett: I have one question around funding for the 4-H. Senator Buth started this line of questioning, but to go a little further on that, I think you said that 33 per cent of your funding comes from the federal government?
Mr. Nowosad: Approximately, yes.
Senator Plett: Are there fees involved to be part of 4-H? When I was growing up, I was never part of 4-H, but many of my friends were. I know that a couple of my buddies would get a calf, they would raise it, it would go to an auction, and of course they would get ribbons based on the amount of money they raised.
What fees are there to be part of the 4-H? Does the rest of your funding come from fees?
Mr. Nowosad: You have the best person in the room to answer that question, and it is not me. It is my esteemed colleague, the director of development.
Ms. Walker: Yes, there are fees that vary from province to province to be a 4-H member. Some are subsidized by the provincial governments in various provinces where there is still government influence in 4-H.
In terms of our national 4-H Canada office, the rest of our funding comes from corporate Canada and individual donations. We are very fortunate to have a lot of ag-based corporations in Canada support us, as well as financial institutions. I mentioned a few of them. Sears, Loblaws and Cargill, all of those companies are coming forward and want to be part of what we are doing. They believe in what we are doing, and they see the need in it.
We were fortunate in that last year at our national conference, Syngenta was our premiere sponsor. The theme was science, innovation and technology in agriculture. We had youth members driving GPS tractors in John Deere's parking lot. They also visited a biodiversity lab at the University of Guelph. There was a wide variety of support for all of our national programs, but the bulk of funding comes from corporate and individual donations.
Senator Plett: We have had witnesses come in and testify that agriculture is not sexy. How can we make it sexy? You just finished talking about GPS. It used to be you were out there with a pitchfork and a single plow behind your tractor, and now the equipment we have, my word; I would love to operate some of the equipment nowadays, as I am sure others would. How can we make this topic more interesting?
Ms. Ross: Agriculture is sexy, and we have to start saying that. Part of it is ourselves; we are too humble in this industry. We are not out telling our good stories. We are quite happy to let the negative stories get out there before we start speaking up. It is partly that we have to start talking about this industry and how exciting it is.
I think we also need to connect students. When I talked about our experiential learning, it is curriculum-linked with schools, but you have to get them in there experiencing, talking about and hearing the stories, meeting the people. It is not just the farmers, which are important, but to get them meeting those industry people and let them tell their stories of why they love what they do, why they are in agriculture and what they are making for salaries.
As you said, students think about the pitchfork and the hay bale. I know a lot of people in the industry who are doing significantly more than that. We have to get those people out there talking to young people. That is totally how we base all of our programming now, namely, making that personal connection.
Senator Buth: I think I will leave the last word with Senator Plett because I think he asked the best question in terms of how we make agriculture sexy. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Before closing this meeting, what about urban agriculture? I saw a program on the weekend on La semaine verte whereby they are using rooftops in industrial parks to grow vegetables. This has to do with science, research and innovation. How much of that is communicated to the younger generation?
Ms. Walker: One of our urban communities is funded by RBC. We partnered with a Boys and Girls Club to do just that. I would also refer to our colleagues in Saskatchewan, who have the Hyatt Hotel rooftops that have been converted into vegetable and flour gardens. They are teaching inner city kids how to grow something — many of them do not know how to grow — and the value of growing something. We are also partnering in Toronto, in the Riverside Farm, on an inner city gardening project with the Lebanese and other immigrant communities to teach them about the value of agriculture, how to grow, how different it is here in Canada, and the different varieties of things they can grow. Those are all the focuses we are trying. We are not abandoning our rural roots and taking agriculture with us into the suburban and urban areas. Those are some of the areas we are focusing on.
Mr. Nowosad: We are not abandoning rural Canada whatsoever. Probably one of the neatest 4-H clubs I am aware of — and it is the largest in Canada — is in St. John's, Newfoundland, right downtown. It is a dairy club. There is a dairy farm just outside of St. John's where they actually lend their calves to the kids and the kids have calf shelters in their backyards in downtown St. John's. To me, that is bringing agriculture to the city. There is lots of innovation. The idea is not to say no and ask about what are the opportunities.
Ms. Ross: I wanted to make one comment about the gardening. I truly believe gardening is one of our best opportunities right now in agriculture; that is, gardening in the classroom. There are so many global curriculum outcomes through gardening. There is an in-school program running in Saskatchewan, which we have launched as well in Manitoba, called Little Green Thumbs, where the teachers are actually growing gardens about half the size of this table in their classrooms. It is absolutely transforming the school, not only through the lesson plans and all the connections but also on many other emotional global outcomes for the students. This is a great way to talk about how they can grow food for themselves, then bring in some farmers and say this is exactly what a farmer does, but he or she is growing food for the world. Again, we are making that connection past what they see in front of them and what is personal for them and taking it into the industry. It is very successful and very much an opportunity we are working on.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your very good presentations. There is still a lot of work to do and we urge you to continue the good work you do with the younger generation.
With this, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)