Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 12 - Evidence - Meeting of June 2, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 2, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to study international market access priorities for the Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Senator Ghislain Maltais, from Quebec.
I would like to ask senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Mercer: I'm Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Good morning. I am Claudette Tardif, from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Good morning. I'm Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Plett: Good morning. My name is Don Plett, and I'm from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Senator Unger: Good morning. I'm Betty Unger from Edmonton, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte, from Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, the committee will continue its study on international market access priorities for the Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector.
This morning we welcome guests from the Government of Ontario, Deb Stark, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Mr. Brendan McKay, Director of Strategic Policy.
[English]
Ms. Stark, would you like to begin?
Deb Stark, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of Ontario: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and committee members.
Honourable senators, thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I'd like to start by extending regrets from Minister Leal. He would have liked to participate but was unable to free himself from his schedule.
I'm very pleased to be here on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to participate in the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry's study on international market access priorities.
I did submit some comments. I will go through some of them, but I won't provide all the facts and figures today. You have them for the record, and we would be glad to provide any more information that you would like afterwards.
I'd like to talk about Ontario's agri-food sector, how Ontario is unique and what the province contributes to the nation's agri-food industry. I will conclude with comments on Ontario's actions to promote market access, grow markets and what it means to the Canadian agri-food industry.
Ontario has a successful agri-food sector. We have a unique value proposition benefiting Ontario's economy, but the Canadian economy as well.
The province's uniqueness is in the sheer diversity of its commodities, its scale and its scope of primary agriculture, processing and value-added companies. All are complemented by the sustainability of the sector and safe food- production practices.
The province also has access to reliable sources of safe water, a highly skilled workforce, strong financial systems and services, research and development capacity and food clusters. Together these are what make Ontario attractive for investment and Canada's leading agri-food jurisdiction.
We have more than 200 commodities, from apricots to zucchini, to confectionary and floriculture. We are home to a wide breadth of food companies, both domestic, such as Maple Leaf Foods and Dare Foods, as well as international ones, like Dr. Oetker and Ferrero. National retailers, like Loblaws, have their corporate head offices in Ontario.
In 2014, Ontario accounted for more than one third of the total Canadian agriculture and food processing GDP.
Ontario is also supportive of its large supply-management industry, which has significant economic importance to the province. At last year's TPP negotiations, Minister Leal was present in Atlanta to show support for Ontario's interest in trade and his support for the supply-managed sector. In 2015, Ontario's supply-managed commodities accounted for 26 per cent of the provincial farm cash receipts.
Clearly, Ontario's agri-food sector is large and doing well, but there are plans to grow and we need to support that growth. Domestically, Ontario's food processors buy about 65 per cent of what is produced in the province. They are the largest buyers of Ontario's agriculture products, but they also buy products and ingredients from the rest of Canada. As Ontario's processors expand and require more and more supplies of agricultural products, they give the rest of the nation opportunities to develop and grow their own operations.
Furthermore, Ontario's agri-food businesses also enjoy close proximity to the United States, our number one trading partner. It's all of these conditions that prompted Ontario's Premier Wynne, in 2013, to challenge the agri-food sector to double its growth rate and create 120,000 new jobs by 2020. We call this the "Premier's challenge.'' I know you have spoken to several Ontario participants here, and I suspect that several have talked about that. It's been well received by the industry.
To support this, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs offers a suite of programs, services and funding to spur innovation, create growth opportunities and develop new products to meet the demands of the domestic and global consumer.
For example, the province invested $5 million through a dedicated stream of our Jobs and Prosperity Fund to help P&H Milling Group to build a new bulk mill in Hamilton Harbour. In return, P&H Milling is investing $40 million towards that new mill. The new mill will enable the company to process 25 per cent more grain and the investment is expected to create 16 new jobs and retain 200 jobs in Ontario.
The ministry was also able to leverage Growing Forward 2, a five-year federal-provincial-territorial policy framework and funding scheme, to positively affect Ontario's pork supply chain in a time of crisis. You may have heard that in 2014 the pork industry experienced porcine epidemic diarrhea, a serious production-limiting issue for pig farmers. Because of Growing Forward 2's flexibility, the ministry was able to set up a dedicated stream of funding aimed at boosting the producers' ability to put more robust bio-security measures in place, protecting themselves and the supply for both domestic and export markets.
Another key area I'd like to mention is Ontario's focus on fostering research and innovation partnerships. For example, Premier Wynne just completed a mission to Israel where an Ontario delegation met with Israeli counterparts and signed an MOU between Hebrew University and the University of Guelph.
The collaborative nature between all levels of government, research and industry is key to setting conditions for the agri-food sector's success in Ontario and in Canada. These kinds of investments and actions create the conditions to make Ontario an attractive place to do business.
The sector is primed for the global stage. In 2015, we set a record of $14 billion worth of exports. That's 23 per cent of Canada's agri-food exports and makes us the largest exporting province after Saskatchewan. Around the world, 177 countries enjoyed the best of Ontario.
The Ontario government has a Going Global trade strategy that has clear goals to improve export performance for Ontario's enterprises. It aims to diversify markets, increase the number of companies who export, build and communicate Ontario's strong brand internationally and make life easier for businesses to find the programs and services they need from government.
Our ministry also works with other ministries to support the sector. For example, Minister Leal and the Ontario Minister of International Trade, the Honourable Michael Chan, conducted a trade mission to China, including Hong Kong, last year. This is Ontario's second largest agri-food export market and is full of opportunities for the province's producers and processors.
This mission represented an important step forward for Ontario's agriculture and agri-food sector. It set the stage for future growth in terms of both increased investment from China into Ontario and increased exports and trade with China.
Later this year Minister Leal will travel to India to strengthen ties with its agriculture and food processing sector.
As well, the ministry provides a wide variety of services to support the overarching Going Global trade strategy, such as export counselling, facilitating buyer and supplier contacts, seminars, trade show advisers, market research and measurement.
A successful Ontario relies on federal supports. Ontario's farmers and food processors need the federal government to expand export opportunities through trade agreements, through market access support and market development, as well as overall support to the sector through the policy frameworks and funding mechanisms like Growing Forward 2. By the way, the ministry is very much looking forward to the development of the next policy framework which is currently under discussion.
On the ground, both the government and the sector need to be prepared to capture the opportunities that do emerge from new trade deals and policy frameworks. For example, the recent trade agreements, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement and the potential Trans-Pacific Partnership agreements, will give market access to gains in Europe as well as in the Asia-Pacific region. The question is: Are we ready to grab that potential? We think this is an important step for the industry.
Ontario was pleased to see the announcement by the federal government that it is moving forward with consultations about mitigation of CETA impacts. The ministry is very supportive of the Ontario dairy industry's need to access dedicated funding to increase their capacity to allow them to grow their markets, both domestically and internationally.
Ontario encourages more investments at the federal level to continue to capitalize on market access opportunities and is hoping the federal government can expand the market access support for niche and small- and medium-sized businesses that have potential export value. For example, in the greenhouse vegetable industry in Ontario, there's a huge demand for those products in China. There are sanitary and phytosanitary barriers in the way, and we would encourage the federal government to look to that and see if we can help open the door to China.
When the federal government invests in Ontario, it is investing in the nation.
I thank you for inviting our ministry here, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Stark.
Senator Mercer: Many times those of us who are not from Ontario don't look at Ontario as an agricultural province, but you've underscored that for us this morning and we appreciate that. We need to remember that you're second only to Saskatchewan.
You said that because of Growing Forward 2's flexibility, the ministry was able to set up a dedicated stream of funding aimed at boosting the ability of hog farmers to put more robust bio-security measures in place, protecting themselves and their supply for domestic and export markets. Could you explain that further? What happened here? How did that work?
Ms. Stark: Yes, absolutely. This disease of pigs started in the United States and was quite devastating in that country. It moved fairly rapidly across states. Canada, and Ontario in particular, did have the benefit of seeing it coming. Partially because of the investments we have in animal health surveillance and because of the diligence of the pork industry in particular in terms of disease control and veterinary capacity, when the disease did eventually break in Ontario it was detected quite quickly.
At that time the sector came to us and said that what they needed to do was increase the bio-security, or the controls they have in place on the farm and between farms to make sure the disease doesn't spread. They make sure that farmers have the ability to change their clothes, wash their boots at the farm, wash their trucks when they've moved pigs between farms, and that they have sampling to ensure that it is really disease-free.
They needed support to move fairly quickly with that. They needed government support to encourage farmers and truckers to make those investments.
The Growing Forward 2 program, as I said, is shared between the federal and provincial governments as there are both federal and provincial dollars in the program. We were allowed to use our provincial dollars that we have allocated in that program and redirect them towards a funding stream that was targeted specifically at pork producers to make those kinds of investments. The federal government moved quickly, which we really appreciated, to say that indeed it was still within the agreement and would still be considered an investment under Growing Forward 2; and that allowed us to move quickly.
Senator Mercer: I also want to say that the minister is looking forward to the development of the next policy framework to follow up Growing Forward 2. What changes would you make to the current program?
Ms. Stark: The current program expires in 2017-18. Both federal and provincial ministers have indicated that they want to have another conversation about a next-generation policy framework. The ministers will be meeting in July. At that time, they anticipate endorsing fairly high-level principles around what that next five-year funding agreement may look like. All ministers have to go back to their respective treasuries and get financial support; but at this time the conversation is around maintaining some of the current work, focusing on productivity, on innovation and on investments in research.
There's a risk management stream that supports individual producers to cope with disasters that are beyond their control. There is a new conversation about something called "public trust/social licence,'' helping the agriculture industry speak with consumers and citizens to ensure that people appreciate the value of the Canadian agri-food industry in this country.
Those are all the themes under discussion. Where it will eventually land, as I say, I don't know for sure. We hope the ministers will endorse a policy statement this June, and we'll continue to work under those high-level policy directions.
Senator Mercer: As you know, our American friends come up with The Farm Bill periodically.
Ms. Stark: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I'm the longest-serving member on this committee. A number of times the committee, collectively or individually, has gone to the United States or looked at The Farm Bill with some envy because they've been able to focus the entire United States government on agriculture, even if it is only for a short period of time and even if they have a hard time.
Do you think it would be a worthwhile thing for us in Canada to look at an overall farm bill where we consider all the aspects of agriculture? This would not be annually, of course, because it just doesn't make sense to do it annually and you can't measure the results unless you do it over an extended period of time. Do you think it would be a worthwhile process for us to pursue?
Ms. Stark: I admit to not being familiar enough with the mechanism behind The Farm Bill to tell you how it would work differently from what we do with our mutually agreed upon agriculture policy frameworks we've had in Canada for the last 15 years. We anticipate going through this next round where federal, provincial and territorial governments will sit down collectively to agree on priorities, funding streams, and what they want to accomplish for the sector. That seems to be a similar kind of outcome. I can't comment on whether a bill would be a better tool.
Senator Mercer: One thing they've done is interesting, and it is manipulative. They have the same problem in their Congress that we have here in that the voting power has shifted from rural United States to urban United States. To get urban congressmen and urban senators to focus on the needs of rural America, they have thrown some things in The Farm Bill that are of great interest to people in the cities, such as food stamps and supplementary food for people in poorer districts. Those are in The Farm Bill. Most of that stuff is happening in the inner city, so now they've got the attention of congressmen from the inner city. Anyway, that's for another day.
You mentioned the Chinese market and expanding access to it for your greenhouse vegetables like tomatoes and peppers. What about the local Asian market? Ontario has a very large Asian population, as does British Columbia. Have you been able to focus on making sure you're servicing the local Asian market as well?
Ms. Stark: Thank you for that question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about our efforts in local foods.
Senator Mercer: I'm here to help.
Ms. Stark: Excellent. In general, you're right. One of the advantages we have in Ontario is we have the citizens of Canada at our doorstep. The GTHA is the largest urban population in Canada. The Eastern United States is right there, so there are a lot of people. My deputy colleagues across the country often tell me that when it comes to the local food movement they can only dream of the opportunity that Ontario farmers have.
In general, we have support for things like our Foodland Ontario program where we have a logo that's 40 years old. It will be celebrating its fortieth anniversary next year of marking Ontario produce and meat and vegetables and cheeses and dairy so people can find them.
We have the Local Food Act, and this might be a good opportunity for me to put in a commercial for Local Food Week in Ontario, which is always the first week of June. Local Food Week is next week, so visit a local farmers' market or buy local and think about Ontario farmers.
We continue to have funding streams.
When it comes specifically to Chinese and ethnic diversity, we have put a priority on that. We have a research agreement with an institution in Ontario called the Vineland Research station and a priority on something called the World Crops Initiative, and that is to understand better the dietary habits of all new Canadians, no matter where they've come from, and what they would have eaten at home.
What we find, as you've picked up on, senator, is they don't find those traditional foods here, or they're very expensive and they're imported; therefore, their diet changes. The Vineland initiative is very much focused on what we can grow in Ontario that is more of a traditional food crop. We call that the World Crops Initiative, and it has been very successful in terms of bok choy and okra, which is another product we're mainstream growing on Ontario farms.
Senator Mercer: I notice in the Ottawa area there is one large supermarket that is almost entirely aimed at the Asian markets, and I know that would be multiplied a number of times in the GTA.
Ms. Stark: Yes. Asia is a big stream. Ethnic foods in general are because of the diversity of the population. Halal is a big stream for us as well.
Senator Plett: I want to follow up bit on the biosecurity. The things you mentioned about biosecurity have been there for more than a dozen years, certainly in Western Canada. Are you suggesting the biosecurity in Ontario has been different than the rest of the country?
All the things you mentioned we have had for years, and you said that the PED epidemic started in the United States. What are they doing to make sure that disease doesn't come into Canada?
Ms. Stark: Biosecurity has definitely been a priority of Canadian farmers for a long time, I agree. It tends to be heightened. It's like all of us: we think we've got measures in place and we get a little complacent. Sometimes we don't do what we need to do as quickly as possible, and then diseases like this remind us that maybe we haven't reinvested in the boot washing, or we've not got those protocols in place, or indeed our farm did change and we don't have that washing station anymore. That is where the pork industry found itself, and that's why the program was there.
In terms of what the United States is doing to keep diseases out of Canada, I think it's more about what Canada is trying to do to keep diseases out of Canada. Canada and the United States work together fairly cooperatively, and it's a lot to do with understanding where the animals are, tracking them and sanitation: so washing these trucks and making sure they're clean before they go back.
One thing we had to do in Ontario was increase the capacity to wash these trucks down. They were being cleaned, but they were not being cleaned to the degree that they needed to manage this disease.
Senator Plett: Maybe I should be asking our federal government this question, but one of the issues with the cleaning of trucks, when trucks haul pigs from here to the United States, the straw in the truck is Canadian straw. The manure in the truck at the other end is Canadian manure. The pigs are Canadian pigs. The only part of the truck that touches U.S. soil is the wheels of the truck, and yet CBSA is insisting these trucks be washed in the United States, as opposed to them coming back to Canada and washing them here, which would make far more sense, because there is nothing there. We should be trying to contain any diseases that there might be inside the truck.
Do you know what CBSA and the Government of Ontario are doing to make sure that these trucks are not being washed in the United States, where the truck washes mostly use recycled water? That means if the truck or some other livestock vehicle has been washed before them, this recycled water is being used to wash the Canadian truck. What is your government doing to stop that and make sure all the diseases are contained inside those Canadian vehicles?
Ms. Stark: I would have to defer to the Canada Border Services Agency for their practices and the standards they have in place.
In Ontario, we've had discussions with the industry about Canadian standards. They're fairly comfortable, and we're comfortable as a province that the practices in place are the appropriate ones.
I realize that not every jurisdiction feels the same way.
Senator Plett: We're always comfortable until the disease hits.
You are second to Saskatchewan.
Ms. Stark: In exports.
Senator Plett: Since I'm from Manitoba and Western Canada, I'm happy that some of Western Canada is still ahead of Ontario in some sectors. Why is Saskatchewan larger in this area than Ontario? Is it basic land mass, and they're outperforming you in grain?
Ms. Stark: Just to be clear, second to Saskatchewan in terms of the value of the exports in 2015. We are usually one or two or three when it comes to value of exports. In 2015 it was a lot to do with the price of grain and lentils that was very high that year and pushed Saskatchewan over the top.
Senator Plett: The only way Saskatchewan could outperform Ontario in dollars of exports would be in the grain industry. Clearly Ontario would be the largest agricultural producer in everything else.
Ms. Stark: One of our big advantages is the diversity, for sure. It's been a rather unique time in the sector when meat, grains and oilseeds prices have been high. Usually one is higher and one lower; so depending on where you are in Western Canada, whether it's cattle or grains and oilseeds, you pop up and pop down. Again, Ontario's strength is that diversity. We have all of them.
Senator Plett: We've heard over a period of time, first of all in this study and in other studies, one of the issues so many of the provinces have is interprovincial barriers, especially in moving wine from one province to another. What is Ontario's position on allowing British Columbia to move some of their good wines here and moving some of the Niagara region wines into other provinces?
Ms. Stark: Ontario generally as a province is very supportive of the review of the Agreement on Internal Trade that's been happening, and I believe Ontario has been co-chairing that work. There has been an FPT initiative looking at those barriers, and we look forward to the results of that.
In terms of wine, we recently put some changes in place that will allow wine and cider more access into grocery stores. Part of that will include more access to international and interprovincial wines. That will play out over the next three years, and we will see how that goes in terms of the consumer deciding which wines they want sitting in those sites.
Senator Plett: You mentioned a number of times throughout your presentation the assistance the federal government might give you. The federal government passed a bill a few years ago that allows interprovincial movement of wine, and you're saying that you are chairing a review.
This review has been going on for a long time. I won't ask a question but will make a comment: I would suggest we stop reviewing and start doing.
Senator Unger: Ms. Stark, thank you for your presentation.
Ontario truly does have an outstanding array of products which you export to many different countries. Your province also benefits in manufacturing and then exporting these products back to Alberta.
I am from Alberta, and I know I'm bringing in a new topic here, but I'm wondering if your premier will allow Energy East, the pipeline, to go ahead. As you know, it would benefit both Western Canada as well as many provinces to the east of Ontario.
You also said you're very supportive of trade, and certainly this is interprovincial trade. Would you carry a message back to your premier telling her that we would very much appreciate some provincial cooperation?
Ms. Stark: I will absolutely carry that message back. Thank you very much.
Senator Unger: I have one more question on the issue of skilled workers. It's been cited as a factor which could threaten productivity and expansion of the fruit-processing sector in the west. Are you facing similar challenges in Ontario?
Ms. Stark: Absolutely. I don't have the data to tell you whether it is better or worse in Ontario than Western Canada, but I can tell you that we hear from our food processing sector all the time: that there are jobs going unfilled, as we speak, when it comes to skilled labour.
The Ontario government funded our provincial food organization, Food and Beverage Ontario, to launch a campaign targeted at the high school level, encouraging people to think about food processing. One of the things that they found, as they did some strategic planning a few years ago and identified some issues, is that it's just not on people's radar — guidance counsellors, students — that they could have a successful, lucrative and productive career in food processing.
That is putting a concerted effort into the high schools to think about food processing as a stream.
We also depend very heavily on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, and we know the federal government is currently reviewing that. We look forward to the results of that review.
Having a full range of tools is important to us because, like Western Canada, it's a challenge to get the people to the jobs. And it's not just the unskilled jobs; it's the highly skilled jobs as well.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Madam Deputy Minister. I would like to talk about supply management with you. There will be a demonstration on the Hill today by Quebec farmers who want to keep supply management, especially for dairy products, eggs, chicken and pork. However, some people believe that supply management has an adverse effect on the international markets aimed at by trade agreements.
How does the Government of Ontario see this situation, and do you believe that changes should be made to supply management?
[English]
Ms. Stark: Ontario has consistently been very supportive of its supply-managed sector. It's also supportive of its non-supply-managed sector and believes there's potential for both types of businesses to be successful.
You asked about whether or not it's a threat to international markets. Minister Leal has, again, been very consistent in saying that we think that's something that needs to continue to be a part of the Canadian agri-food industry.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Regarding local consumption, does the development of international markets not run the risk of reducing the availability of certain products in the local market, for instance at the corner store? It would be more profitable for producers to sell their products in large quantity to foreign buyers.
[English]
Ms. Stark: Our experience with companies that trade is they will go where they can sell their products. We believe that Canadian consumers very much value Canadian products. I heard that reinforced just this week at a conference I was at, which did a survey of Canadian consumers: local is important to them, but after local Canadian is important.
I believe that there will continue to be a demand for Canadian diary, eggs and poultry, and I have faith that our producers and processors will fill that need.
Senator Tardif: Welcome, once again.
Many stakeholder groups have told us that they are having difficulty because of the lack of harmonization of regulatory standards between the two border agencies, and that there has been diminished capacity in the area of food inspectors as a result of a lack of inspectors.
Have you felt the impact of the cuts and the insufficiency of food inspectors? And have you felt the impact of the lack of harmonization between regulatory standards?
Ms. Stark: That's regulatory standards between the United States and Canada?
Senator Tardif: That's right, knowing that the U.S. is one of your larger export markets.
Ms. Stark: Yes. We hear consistently from stakeholders that the ongoing effort to harmonize those standards and make it easier to move across is an important priority. That's why, when we talk about one of the things that the federal government can do to support an export agenda, it really is focusing on those market access issues. I would consider this in that category.
In terms of the number of food inspectors, that's not something we have heard about in Ontario.
Senator Tardif: What programs have you put in place to support producers in sustainable food production? Could you speak a bit about those programs?
Ms. Stark: We consider sustainable food production kind of foundational. It's an expectation; it's not an option.
The programs that we have in place are not geared to a particular sector that's sustainable; they are for everybody. We have programs that support energy efficiency and we work a lot with our producers who are interested in environmental improvements. We are very proud to be the home of the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, a producer-driven project that has farmers do their own assessments of the environmental risks and then decide what steps they can take to improve environmental performance on their farm. Through Growing Forward 2 and other funding programs, we support them in making those kinds of investments.
We are currently working with farmers on Great Lakes water quality, which is a concern. There are many reasons that the Great Lakes are struggling at this time, and agriculture can be part of that solution. We are very focused on that at this time.
Again, it's not that we are doing anything for the sustainable part of the sector. You need sustainability to be in agriculture at this time.
Senator Pratte: Our mandate is with trade. I'm curious about your next mission to India. I would like to know the current status of exports to India, especially what the opportunities are and the challenges and obstacles to the Indian market.
Ms. Stark: We are early days in planning that. We have priority markets, some of our traditional ones being the United States, China and Japan. India is on our list of new priorities to better understand what those opportunities will be. I will be able to provide more information about some of the priorities for the trip as it comes forward and where we'll be focusing, but I don't have that information at this time.
Senator Pratte: In theory, could it be a huge market?
Ms. Stark: We'll likely find, as we found in China, that just thinking at the country level is a bit naive. They are huge markets and there are many opportunities. To dig down and be more focused, I suspect, is what we will learn when we go to India as well. It's early days for us.
Senator Pratte: How do farmers look at a new market like that? Are they fearful or anxious?
Ms. Stark: I don't know if I can really speak for farmers. I suspect it depends a lot on their comfort level and the work they've done.
One thing that we do for farmers, but a lot more for food processors, is have training programs on what it takes to export and what it takes to be a global player. We find that most of them usually start by going to the United States because the geography is similar and the language is similar. We are different, but there are many similarities culturally. We find, in reality, that's often where a business will start to export.
We have some businesses with that global mindset that are looking around the world for the best fit for their particular product at a given point in time. We have others that are trying to step out of their comfort zone, and we try to support them all. But it's not uniform.
Senator Pratte: When is the India mission?
Ms. Stark: It will be in November.
Senator Pratte: It would be nice if we could have some feedback on that mission.
Ms. Stark: Let me get you a little more about that.
Senator Beyak: Thank you for your excellent presentation and the details of the programs that you're implementing. I was interested mostly because I'm from northwestern Ontario, although I grew up in Agincourt when it was still farm country. You have a program called Northern Ontario Agriculture, Aquaculture and Food Processing Sector Strategy. I never tire of saying how much people at home watch our agriculture committee, I guess because food affects all of us. If you could elaborate a little on that program, I would be grateful.
Ms. Stark: It's actually a consultation that's underway as we speak, recognizing the great success of agriculture and aquaculture in northern Ontario and asking how we can do better. The Ontario government has the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, which it put in place several years ago. When it looked at the priority sectors for real potential, agriculture and aquaculture were on it. At this time we're digging into that to try to determine what the barriers are and what the potential is in northern Ontario.
Certainly, when we look just as a ministry at the North, we see the land, the people and the opportunity. The question is: Do we need to change some of the support? How do we tailor some of the support that we're providing as a ministry of the government to take advantage and accelerate that growth?
I would encourage you to check our website. There is a consultation as we speak and a discussion document out.
Senator Beyak: I have more of a comment on what Senator Unger said and also my work as a vice chairman of the school board many years ago. Way back in the 1980s we encouraged more children to go into the service industry, any kind of trade, because only 50 per cent of Canadians go to university, trade school or college. The other 50 per cent go into their own businesses after grade 12; a fact that few people know. I'm very encouraged to know you are doing that.
Also, for Senator Unger, when we have more oil than we need in the West and we're buying it in the East from Saudi Arabia, we're not managing our resources very well. Climate change is important, but Canada should come first and nations who don't care about climate change should not be put ahead of ours. It's great that you can take that message back.
Ms. Stark: Absolutely.
Senator Ogilvie: I realize the questions I am about to ask are complicated because of the role that the federal government plays in terms of imports, exports and overall security of systems. Ontario, as you've described, has enormous economic value in agricultural exports. Protection of your primary production as well as your markets internally has to be important to you as well.
From your point of view, do you feel that you have, in cooperation with the federal government, adequate protection against micro-organisms, even those that are slightly larger than micro, entering the country on imports from various countries where food production and security are perhaps not as rigorous as ours. You indicated the ethnic diversity within Ontario, so certainly a lot of imports come in from those areas.
My question is simply a general one: How do you in the ministry feel about the security of agricultural production against micro-organisms and insects entering on general imports into the province?
Ms. Stark: I'll answer that by talking about the federal government's work in their Safe Food for Canadians Action Plan and their interest in upgrading the Canadian food safety legislation, which we're very supportive of. We know that the legislation has been in place for a long time and has done a good job. Canada has an international reputation for food safety and quality. One of the things we hear from our stakeholders all the time is that we should be talking more about that and not shy away from it.
There has been recognition of some gaps. That legislation was put in place when we ate mostly our own food and didn't import. The emphasis on understanding where products are coming from, registering all the players in the system and having a better understanding of that so we can more properly assess that risk is a good thing.
We're supportive of that initiative and hope it comes into place according to the time frames that they anticipate.
Senator Ogilvie: A related question is in the area of imports of actual processed products. You cover a wide range of things. We've heard a great deal about spent chicken and other issues. That's a very big deal from the Ontario point of view.
Ms. Stark: Yes.
Senator Ogilvie: Clearly, those are absolutely fraudulent efforts and successes being able to circumvent our trade barrier regulations. Can you give me the Ontario perspective on some of those issues?
Ms. Stark: We have certainly heard about the spent fowl issue as well and are disturbed by that. We would like to see that dealt with, absolutely.
Senator Ogilvie: With regard to the fabrication of labels on processed agricultural products coming back into Canada that subvert our trade requirements, do you feel we are active enough in examining imports at the border?
Ms. Stark: I'm not sure we have enough data to answer that question in an evidence-based way. We certainly hear those concerns, and if that is happening we believe that should be dealt with. We don't have access to the information to tell us how big that is.
Senator Ogilvie: There's not a direct dialogue between the federal border regulation and activity with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture with regard to what they're finding coming into the Ontario market?
Ms. Stark: That would be correct.
Senator Mercer: On Senator Ogilvie's question on spent fowl, we are at the point where we're going to have to encourage the government to do some spot DNA checking on spent fowl coming across the border at various crossings. We only have to do two or three of those in the industry and the word will be out that we are watching.
My question was about leadership and agriculture. One of the issues I mentioned earlier when I talked about the American farm bill was trying to get people to focus on agriculture and agri-foods as an important industry, and on this committee we know how important it is.
I was impressed with Premier Wynne when she became premier and she assigned her first cabinet. She was the Premier of Ontario but also the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I thought that was the kind of leadership the sector needed to demonstrate how she viewed the importance of this industry in her province.
As someone who doesn't live in Ontario but has spent some time here, did that work to refocus the Government of Ontario on agriculture and agri-foods? If it did work, is it continuing now that she's no longer the Minister of Agriculture?
That may be unfair; I just asked you to evaluate your boss's performance.
Ms. Stark: It's difficult for me to answer that question because this is my first deputy minister role, which was three weeks before she became the minister. She was my first minister as well as my first premier in the deputy role.
Certainly, taking that role, as you say, was a very public signal that agriculture was important to that particular government, and people really appreciated that. She was not afraid to tackle the tough challenges, and the Premier's challenge came out of that.
It wasn't just about showcasing agriculture. It was saying to agriculture that you can do better and you can contribute more to the economy of the province. You can contribute more to jobs and growth of the province. She did both.
Has it continued? We continue to be at the table when many ministries are working through their policy thinking, because of the importance of the agriculture and food sector to the economy. As I talk about the cleanliness of the Great Lakes, Ontario has just passed a new bill around the understanding of food processing around waste. Certainly the interest and recognition that food and food processing is an important part of Ontario's economy continues.
Whether or not I can attribute that all to her particularly in that role, or just people understanding the evidence and following where the province is, I do not know.
Senator Mercer: I would guess that the current minister, when he goes to cabinet with a request in hand, should know his file because, guess what, the boss knows the file, which always makes it tougher.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Plett: I need to pick up on what Senator Ogilvie started and Senator Mercer took further.
I find it extremely strange and tremendously disconcerting that we hear from not just the Province of Ontario but from other provinces. We don't have enough information on spent fowl coming across.
The federal government needs to take a lead there, absolutely without a doubt but, my goodness, the spent fowl is coming into the provinces and we hear over and over again that we don't have enough information. For goodness sake, the Minister of Agriculture should stand at the border and start checking these boxes to find out what's coming across, because our chicken farmers are being tremendously hurt by this. I'm from a province where the chicken farmers are a huge issue, and this is not a new issue; this is an old one.
I would suggest, deputy minister, to you and every deputy minister and minister in every province in this country to make sure that the Americans are not sending product over here that is labelled one way and is something else. It's unconscionable that this has gone on as long as it has, and not just from you. This is not directed at the Province of Ontario.
Hopefully, with our new government in Manitoba, they will take the lead. The other one didn't, but again I don't know if that's a political issue. I'm certainly going to be lobbying them. That's a comment, not a question.
I do have two questions, however. I'm adding up your total agri-food exports here of $14 billion, and two paragraphs lower, when I add up the Ontario's top exports — I know it's only the top exports — but I only get to half of that, about $7.5 billion.
Where is the other $7 billion? That's only 50 per cent. There have to be some major exports that aren't here. Can you tell us what those might be?
Ms. Stark: I will send them to you.
Senator Plett: Thank you. That's a significant difference there.
Ms. Stark: It's back to having 200 commodities and those food processors.
Senator Plett: In the international trading that you do, you list that you are doing a considerable amount with Asia and some with Europe. Do you have numbers as to what goes into Asia and Europe?
Ms. Stark: We can certainly get that information for you.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would have one last question for you, Madam Deputy Minister.
As we all know, we are now headed increasingly toward industrial farms. Do you think there will always be room for family farms, given all of the agreements we are signing with international markets? Will family farms be able to benefit from these agreements?
[English]
Ms. Stark: In Ontario the majority of farms are family farms. They're family-owned businesses, so I have absolute confidence that there will continue to be room for family farms.
Sometimes, when people ask that question they are asking more about the size and whether there will be room for smaller operations. Again, in Ontario we have a great diversity. We have some larger operations, but we continue to have some very small, very successful farm operations. I see no reason why that won't continue in the future. It's about giving consumers choice, but it's also about giving farmers choice about how they want to farm and run their businesses.
Senator Plett: Very briefly, you've mentioned a few times in your presentation about wanting help from the federal government. Can you give us three specific areas where the federal government can help the province of Ontario — and, hopefully, other provinces — in your imports and exports?
Ms. Stark: It's about promoting Canada around the world, the attributes of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system and the safety, quality and diversity of the products.
It is continuing to work on the trade agreements but, when we get those trade agreements, aggressively working with the sector to figure out where the opportunities and threats are, and how to seize these opportunities and mitigate those threats.
If that requires making investments of time, energy or dollars, it is about making those investments so that the sector can continue to grow, and to do that collaboratively with the provinces, territories and the businesses of the country.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to thank you for having come to testify this morning. I thank the Government of Ontario. Our report on access to international markets shows that Ontario plays an important role regarding exports and imports in Canada. All of the senators here are working relentlessly to further provincial access to the new markets. Canadian agriculture will not be the same in 10 or 15 years. We must prepare for access to better nutrition on a global scale. If we do not take bold steps now, other markets will open here. It is important to work in close cooperation with the various stakeholders. The work the committee is doing is important, and we are always happy to welcome representatives of governments like yours who can explain to us how they are preparing for the future and what means they are taking to modernize.
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much indeed. Have a good trip back to Queen's Park. Watch out for the tractors that are going to be in the streets this morning.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, and I am deputy chair of the committee. I would like senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Alberta.
Senator Plett: I'm Don Plett from Manitoba.
The Deputy Chair: Today the committee is continuing its study on international market access priorities for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is an important part of the country's economy. In 2014, it accounted for one in eight jobs in Canada, employing more than 2.3 million people and generating close to 6.6 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. Internationally, the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector was responsible for 3.6 per cent of global exports of agri-food products. In 2014, Canada was the fifth largest exporter of agri-food products globally.
Canada's engaged in several free trade agreements: to date, 11 free trade agreements are in force. The Canada- European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada- Ukraine Free Trade Agreement have been concluded; and eight free trade agreement negotiations are ongoing. The federal government has also undertaken exploratory trade discussions with Turkey, Thailand, the Philippines and the member states of Mercosur, which are Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
Our second panel this morning consists of Cher Mereweather, Executive Director, from the Provision Coalition, processing food subsidiary. We would like her to make her presentation, and following that we will go to questions from senators. I would ask that questioners and responders be concise so we can get in as many questions and answers as possible.
Cher Mereweather, Executive Director, Provision Coalition: I would like to give you an overview of who Provision Coalition is; talk about business sustainability and how we believe it's impacting market access; and about some of the opportunities for what we refer to as industry-led collaboration around making sure that we protect our market access and create market opportunity, leveraging some of the sustainable business opportunities that we believe exist.
In terms of who we are, Provision Coalition is a coalition of 12 food and beverage manufacturing associations. This group of associations came together around a common issue of sustainability. We work on providing resources, programming and public policy collaboration on behalf of the food and beverage companies in our country.
We are funded primarily through Growing Forward 2 and have a wonderful working relationship with Alberta Agriculture and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada as well as the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture. We define "sustainable business'' as three pillars: people, planet and profit. First and foremost, the company has to be financially viable. Without it being financially viable, there really is no business.
The second aspect is that the company really needs to understand what the impacts are to the natural environment of their business. If those impacts are negative, then they have to actively address them.
The third element is on the social side. They need to understand how they treat their employees, their customers and the communities in which they operate. Most importantly, they understand that all three elements are intimately connected to each other and that their business decisions are balanced across all three of those elements.
The next slide that I have shared with you has a number of environmental and social issues across the supply chain. I share this with you to identify the plethora of issues that we face as a food and beverage industry that impacts market access.
What has changed in the past? In the past, typically we were just dealing with the issues within our segment only of the supply chain; the evolution of what we refer to as "responsible sourcing.'' Now access to information through social media and the Internet allows customers and consumers to see all parts of the supply chain. That means every segment of the supply chain is responsible for each segment prior to it. Good or beverage manufacturers are suddenly responsible for everything that happens in distribution farming, as an example.
Given that there are so many issues, we worked with Deloitte to help us identify the top issues within sustainability and food and beverage manufacturing that could impact market access. The first is what we refer to as responsible supply chain management, so making sure that we are responsibly managing our supply chain: industrial and agricultural water consumption and pollution prevention; local, seasonal and immigrant labour rights; and sustainability reporting, being able to tell the customer and the consumer what is happening within that supply chain in a clear and transparent way that is verified and creates assurance to the customer.
When we look at the trends happening in 2016, we can see that public consumer trust is at the top. I will define what we mean by that: rising food costs, transparent reporting, climate change and COP21 commitments and reducing food wastes.
Public trust, I think, is the biggest issue we see as a potential barrier to market access, but at the same time it can create opportunity. We are seeing that public trust in brand is eroding, which means that the consumer doesn't trust the food system anymore. We're seeing a shift towards transparency in both the product input — all of the ingredients and elements that go into the product — and the outputs along the supply chain. Consumers want to know exactly what is in their food, where it comes from and the impact of its creation. This drives a need for collaboration and information sharing like we've never seen before across the supply chain.
The market access impacts we see: brand owners, whether a big food company, retailer, food service or restaurant, are increasing their expectations for accountability and transparency — tell me what you did and how you did it. They have ambitious goals that they're making public, and that is creating accountability.
The multiplier effect is in that example I showed you of the supply chain. Even within their four walls they know that most of the impacts come from within the supply chain, so 90 per cent of the impacts happen outside their four walls.
We're also seeing that market access being denied is very real: recent examples from A&W and Earl's show that we can lose access to our market if we don't respond.
Industry-led collaboration — I can keep this short and answer any detailed questions later. We believe we need to work together across the entire supply chain. We're working on initiatives such as our sustainable farm and food plan concept to create transparency within the supply chain. There are a number of benefits in being able to do this.
We're also actively working on food waste. We think there's a tremendous opportunity to improve our food security for those who don't have access to food. Food waste is a $31-billion problem. That represents 30 per cent to 40 per cent of all our food across the supply chain being wasted and accounts for the equivalent of 2 per cent of our Canadian GDP and 70 per cent of our Canadian agri-food products.
We have developed a number of groups where we're trying to establish a way to build awareness and education around food waste production, as well as work with manufacturers to help them leverage existing opportunities, increase profitability and competitiveness and reduce their environmental footprint and business risk.
Finally the collaboration that we believe needs to happen around climate change is a market access issue. If we're not seen to be doing something on that global stage, it will impact us. We believe we need to shift the mindset and the way we conduct our business. We need to understand how we benchmark, monitor, track and understand the impacts of our energy and our resources.
To summarize, we are a coalition of industry associations. We work on behalf of the manufacturers. We're looking at transformational change within our industry and doing that through collaboration on food waste, responsible sourcing and climate change.
The Deputy Chair: I am interested in looking at the makeup of the Provision Coalition. You have something for everybody. You have the Wine Council of Ontario, the Baking Association of Canada, Canadian Beverage Association, Canadian National Millers Association, Le conseil de la Transformation alimentaire du Québec, Food and Beverage Ontario, Ontario Agri Business Association, Ontario Craft Brewers, Ontario Dairy Council, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Processors Association and the Ontario Independent Meat Processors.
I'm curious because there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to all of these people coming together. How did that happen?
Ms. Mereweather: The group came together around the common issue of environmental management and regulations. They started talking to each other in about 2009 and decided that when they work together they have a stronger approach and a stronger voice. The issues were common regardless of what segment of the industry they were in, so they wanted to be able to stand united.
In 2013 they decided to refocus their attention on sustainability in a more holistic manner, and we incorporated and established Provision Coalition at that time.
Senator Plett: The chair, in large part, asked my first question, but I'm going to continue on that.
I know nothing about your industry. This is the first time I've heard of it, and I should take note that I probably was part of approving your group as a witness here.
You say you are funded by Growing Forward 2 and you deal with industry. You go out there and make sure that everybody is transparent. Tell me more about your organization and what you do. From your presentation, I still don't understand.
Ms. Mereweather: I'm going start by giving you a bit of an overview on who I am and my expertise.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Ms. Mereweather: Then I will talk about what Provision does.
I've been working in agriculture and food for almost 20 years. My education background is in environmental science, and I have a master's degree in environmental economics. I have worked in agricultural research around environmental management, best practices and the economic value of best practices. I've consulted in the food industry, so I've sat in the boardroom of the big food companies and helped them develop their strategy around sustainability, and I'm now the executive director of Provision Coalition.
What we are trying to do is help the small to medium food companies integrate sustainability into their business. That's really about looking at the way they do their business differently. We will go on site, and we have developed a series of tools and resources in a portal that's online.
Senator Plett: When you say you do this, do you do this at this business's request or do you just show up on the yard like some food inspector and say you're going to come and help them out? Do they call you and say they need some help?
Ms. Mereweather: Yes, we call them and ask if they need help and then we go on site. We create tools and resources on behalf of the industry and market those to them. There is no charge for using the tools. That is what we use the funding for is to develop tools to help the industry.
Senator Plett: Do they pay for this service?
Ms. Mereweather: No.
Senator Plett: It is 100 per cent government run?
Ms. Mereweather: Yes.
Senator Plett: How is 40 per cent of our food product wasted?
Ms. Mereweather: There is food wasted in each segment of the supply chain. There is food lost in the farming, distribution and in manufacturing. The lion's share, 50 per cent, is lost in the consumers' home.
Senator Plett: I don't eat all my potatoes, and I throw it in the garbage?
Ms. Mereweather: That's right. Or leftover food in a restaurant that goes into a compost bin.
Senator Plett: What do you do about that?
Ms. Mereweather: What we are trying to do is twofold. We have created what we call a stakeholders' collaborative. We have brought together the leaders in this space, from farm to retail, to identify what we can do around education and awareness, helping people understand what the true cost is of wasting food and the impact on the environment and society around food security.
We also have a food waste working group where we're working directly with food manufacturers to help them understand what they can do within their manufacturing facility to reduce waste. Because food is not just food; it's the energy, water and all the labour that went into producing the food that is lost. We have hungry people in our country, and there's a significant amount of food wasted within our supply chain.
Senator Plett: Just on that point, you say there are hungry people in our country. My mother used to tell me not to leave those potatoes because there are a lot of hungry people in the world, and I said, "Fine, then send it to them.'' That's not going to happen.
I support what you're saying. There's food wasted in my home. I don't always eat the entire steak when I'm in a restaurant. How do you educate the customer? Clearly the restaurant has to throw the food in the garbage if I don't eat it. I order a 16-ounce steak and a baked potato and I leave half of it. Who are you educating and how do you do that? What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and that's great, but how do you educate me to do that properly?
Ms. Mereweather: It's not an overnight solution. What we need to do is target technology. We need to look at educational awareness, education in schools and homes. It's not a silver-bullet solution.
Senator Plett: Do you go to schools?
Ms. Mereweather: We don't. Our mandate is solely around manufacturing, but we have taken a leadership position to bring all of those segments together and collaborate around the issues so people who do education are sitting at the table and we can have a conversation about the solutions and technologies. What can we do to create change? We need to create change.
Senator Ogilvie: This has been a very interesting presentation, and you're covering a lot of issues that are absolutely critical to the whole food processing sector and the marketing thereof.
I want to come to two or three issues that are directly related and ask you a specific question. You noted what has recently gotten a lot of attention: the decrease in brand confidence. A lot of that is because even the most trusted brands have faced recalls due to bacterial or micro-organism contamination recently.
There is also the issue of food waste. You have addressed the broad aspect, but some of that is due to deterioration of fresh products, once again due to micro-organism assistance in speeding up the degradation under the conditions in which they're stored.
With regard to fresh produce, which is where a lot of the challenge is in handling fresh meats, poultry and vegetables, we have recently seen an E. coli strain that has developed which is resistant to the last resort of antibiotic treatment of bacteria. E. coli is widely dispersed and usually the major cause of spoilage in food products.
There is a technique that was initially developed in Canada but has never come to use in the food industry, and that is radiation of fresh food products: meat, dairy products and vegetables. It eliminates all micro-organisms. The immediate packaging of such treated product is stable against micro-organism degradation for as long as it is kept. There are other things you need to do to keep it but there will be no impact of micro-organisms, which again are one of the major reasons for negative impact on brand and the faster decomposition of fresh products that tend to be stored.
Why is it we continue to ignore this technology, which has been around for 50 years, and not brought it forward to use in protecting the consumer and marketer?
Ms. Mereweather: I apologize; I'm not a food scientist. I'm not familiar with the technology that you're referring to, but I would go back to my comment about a mindset shift. We have to take a mindset shift in the way we're running our businesses because we have to leverage technology; more importantly, we need to communicate effectively with the consumers about the technology. We have seen a number of examples where, when we don't communicate effectively about the value of the technology and ensure that consumers are comfortable with it, there's backlash.
That would be my comment: if this technology has the tremendous value that you're describing, then we need to explore it, communicate it, evaluate it and use it.
Senator Ogilvie: I'll give Senator Plett and his province of Manitoba some acknowledgment in this regard. It was the Whiteshell nuclear facility that developed this technology and, of course, there was tremendous public resistance to radiation, just the concept of it, at that particular time. But it was really advanced technology: it's very simple and direct to use, and extremely safe. I urge your association to take another look at that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am going to begin with international trade. We know that international trade forces producers to produce a certain volume of product. Are the practices you wish to put in place not somewhat contradictory with the volume expected from producers who supply international markets? In addition, how do you reconcile your strategies with those of producers who produce massive quantities of product for international markets, while trying to keep product loss to a minimum?
[English]
Ms. Mereweather: If I understand the question correctly, the strategy around a sustainable business practice is really about understanding where your energy, water and resources are being used so that you can effectively manage them.
When we talk about holistically evaluating our management practices, what we're seeing is you're actually more effective. Regardless of who your market is or how much you are producing, if you are managing your inputs effectively then your outputs are better.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You spoke about the concept of a sustainable food supply. For most people, this sector is quite difficult to understand. You talked about education in that regard, and I think we have to continue to make such efforts. Do you have any recommendations to make that we could include in our report, which would be applicable in the near future? Concretely speaking, what measures would you recommend that could be implemented in Canada in certain specific areas of the country?
[English]
Ms. Mereweather: I agree with you that even the term "sustainability'' is very confusing. When we're reporting back, I think we want to focus on the simple aspects that people will understand. What is the impact on the environment and the natural health of the ecosystem? What is the impact on people and what is the impact on the businesses? We break it down into those simple terms.
The Deputy Chair: It seems to me that food waste is a major issue. One of the things that we haven't heard from witnesses is better statistics on what's wasted, and not just the wastage when someone does not eat all of their potato or steak. The reduction of waste would do one of two things in the industry: increase profit for the producers; or two, increase our ability to feed the 9 billion people that we're going to have on this planet in 2050. Can you comment on that?
We continue to hear about food waste, but we don't get to see the statistics that, number one, back it up and, number two, give us an idea of what opportunities might be there for everybody.
Ms. Mereweather: That's a very good point.
In 2013, Provision Coalition actually did a research study with some consulting partners at the Ivey Business School and Value Chain Management International to understand the extent of the food waste problem. We did a food waste map to identify the hot spots within the supply chain. Unfortunately, there is no data to validate the specific amount of waste, but we can use best estimates at segments of the supply chain.
What we can say is we understand that there is a tremendous amount of waste. The 30 to 40 per cent is similar to the numbers that we're seeing in U.S. reporting.
In terms of how we want to address the issue, I think we need to specifically work on what it is that we want to achieve. We need to create awareness around it and put a dollar value on it in terms of the economic impact, both within the supply chain and to the consumer.
The Deputy Chair: Part of the economic impact is not just the cost to the consumer purchasing the product, or the fact that the food that they are wasting is not going to someone who needs the food; it's the cost, particularly to the municipalities, to process the wasted product.
Ms. Mereweather: There is also the cost in terms of the raw material input: the fertilizer, the tractor fuel, the energy to move the product, to grow the product, all of the water that's used, and then the distribution and manufacturing. It's compounded: the energy, the water and then the movement to the retail store and the labour, et cetera. Then the consumer goes and purchases it, they throw it in the waste bin and then it is actually processed.
The actual cost of the food is literally the top of the iceberg when you look at the impact. It's substantial beyond that.
The Deputy Chair: In reality we're talking about efficiency and of making the whole process efficient.
Senator Unger: I have some questions for you about your organization.
How long have you been in business?
Ms. Mereweather: The coalition of industry associations has been working together since 2009, and we informally incorporated in 2013.
Senator Unger: How many employees do you have?
Ms. Mereweather: We have six employees today, and we have quite a quite a breadth of consultants and partners that we work with.
Senator Unger: Back to Senator Ogilvie's point, I'd like to know specifically what you and your organization will do to expand on the promise of radiation to prevent food spoilage.
Ms. Mereweather: One of the things that I mentioned briefly was our stakeholder and working group collaborative. I intend to take that technology back to that group. We will explore where the opportunity is and then look at whether we can evaluate it in a pilot study.
Part of what we're doing within these groups is to identify technology, evaluate it and pilot it.
Senator Unger: So you do a lot of networking with other groups?
Ms. Mereweather: Absolutely.
Senator Unger: On the page where you talk about sustainable farm and food plan benefits, you have "cost reduction'' and then "reduce number of assessments.'' Could you give me an example of that?
Ms. Mereweather: What we're seeing happening right now within the supply chain, to create that transparency, verification and assurance of the food supply, is brand owners, or the retail or food service, are auditing those farms and the food companies providing the food. This is creating audit fatigue: we might have Loblaws, Tim Hortons, McDonald's and several other companies actually auditing for the same items.
We are trying to reduce that duplication of effort and create some harmonization so that we have efficiency even in that sharing of information in the audit.
Senator Unger: Can you give me an example of success in this?
Ms. Mereweather: There are several global initiatives that are doing it quite successfully.
Senator Unger: I mean specifically between the companies that you named: McDonald's and Loblaws. Can you give an example of how you helped them achieve a reduced number of assessments?
Ms. Mereweather: This is what the goal is. We haven't done it yet. In the global marketplace we see that there are efforts to do this, and it's working. I can give you an example of that global effort, if it will help.
Senator Unger: No, that's okay.
I would like to go back to another point under "buyer/brandowner.''
"Increased public trust = improved social license/less onerous operating restrictions.'' That is, I think, an accepted given right now.
How do you do this? Or do you do it? Is it just an item on your list?
Ms. Mereweather: We're partnering with the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity and Farm & Food Care Canada to help with understanding public trust.
Senator Unger: How do you partner with them?
Ms. Mereweather: They have expertise in building and earning trust, so what companies need to do to earn that trust. We look to their expertise.
Senator Plett: I want to continue with what I started with earlier and Senator Mercer picked up on.
There is 30 to 40 per cent per cent waste, and yet you say you have no statistics. I'm wondering how you come up with the number of 30 to 40 per cent when you don't have any statistics to back that up. Where is the waste?
We have probably the best farmers in the world farming in our country. They clearly do not want to see any of their livestock die, which would be waste. They certainly will make sure that they are efficient with the feeding of their livestock because it would cost them money not to. They will do everything in their power not to waste.
I assume that the grocery stores will do everything in their power to keep their produce fresh. Again, we have waste in restaurants and in homes, but you're saying you're not involved in education about that.
Where do you get this number of 30 to 40 per cent? You say that's the same as the United States. Did you simply say waste in the United States is 30 to 40 per cent so it must be in Canada as well? How did you come up with that number? Again, tell me what you're doing to stop this. I don't see to see what you're doing to prevent this waste.
Ms. Mereweather: Regarding the number, we had consultants and experts in the area do the evaluation. There is economic evaluation you can do to try to estimate what the impact is. When I said there are no specific statistics, I meant that Statistics Canada doesn't track or release data that specifically supports that 30 to 40 per cent.
The number is a best estimate based on an economic evaluation that we had conducted.
Senator Plett: A study that you had conducted. So you have that information? You said Statistics Canada doesn't release that but you have the information.
Ms. Mereweather: I apologize if I wasn't clear. The study that we did estimated the 30 to 40 per cent value and where it was happening.
Senator Plett: Where is most of it happening?
Ms. Mereweather: The vast majority — 51 per cent — is happening within the home. About 9 per cent is happening in agriculture, in the field. There's a little bit in distribution, about 18 per cent in manufacturing, about 11 per cent in retail, but 51 per cent, the vast majority, is happening in the home.
Senator Plett: So there's nothing you can do about it?
Ms. Mereweather: Provision Coalition, as I mentioned, is taking a leadership role. We've brought the segments of the value chain together to address the problem and come up with solutions.
The first thing that this group has committed to is education and awareness. We're working on an education and awareness campaign.
We have all of the players across the supply chain sitting together saying, "What is it that we can do and how do we actually execute this?''
As I mentioned, this isn't something that can happen overnight. We are creating the opportunity to bring those collaborators together and create the change.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Mereweather, thank you for your presentation.
You may not realize, it but you've raised an awful lot of questions around the table. This ties in with what a number of people have talked to us about offline related to waste management in food processing and consumption. It is an important sector.
We appreciate your time, and it would be interesting to follow up on Senator Plett's last series of questions and look at it in more detail.
Ms. Mereweather: I'm happy to share the study that we did.
The Deputy Chair: That would be helpful. Perhaps you could share that with the clerk and he can share that with us. I think Senator Plett is right: it's nice to see the scientific method by which statistics are gathered. That would be of some help to us.
I would like to thank you for your time today. We appreciate it and wish you all the best.
(The committee adjourned.)