Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 28 - Evidence - Meeting of April 11, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 11, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:01 p.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Before I continue, I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Mercer: I'm Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Chantal Petitclerc: Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today the committee is continuing its study of the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
[English]
Today, we receive from the Retail Council of Canada Mr. David Wilkes, Senior Vice President, Grocery Division and Government Relations; and Mr. Jason McLinton, Vice President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs. Welcome.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I invite you to give your presentation.
[Translation]
Jason McLinton, Vice President, Grocery Division and Regulatory Affairs, Retail Council of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to discuss with you the steps that Canadian retailers are taking to protect the environment, specifically with respect to food. I will give you a quick overview of the Retail Council of Canada, the RCC.
[English]
The RCC has been the voice of retail in Canada since 1963.
[Translation]
The retail industry is the largest private-sector employer in Canada. It employs over 2.2 million Canadians. In 2015, the sector generated salaries estimated at over $59 billion, while sales reached $340 billion, not including vehicle and fuel sales. The members of the Retail Council of Canada represent more than two thirds of retail sales in Canada. The RCC is a non-profit organization that is funded by the industry and represents small, medium and major retailers in all communities across the country.
Recognized as the voice of retailers in Canada, the RCC represents more than 45,000 businesses of all kinds, including major retailers, grocery stores, specialized stores, discount stores, independent stores and online merchants.
[English]
Our Grocery Division represents over 95 per cent of the retail trade in food in Canada and has strong private label foods in every category.
We understand that witnesses from other sectors have had the opportunity to discuss the impact of climate change on agriculture and agri-food with this committee. We wanted to thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of committee, for inviting us here today to offer a somewhat different perspective; that is to say, to provide some information on some of the programs that grocery retailers have in place to minimize their environmental footprint.
Two examples in particular that we wanted to bring to your attention today include, first, food waste management and, second, chemicals management.
With regard to food waste reduction initiatives, it is imperative to note that food safety comes first. All members adhere to the strictest standards in this regard, whether it comes to selling food products in their stores or participating in food-waste reduction initiatives. All major grocery banners in Canada have partnerships with food banks, picking up and redistributing food from stores and distribution centres that would otherwise be wasted.
In addition to partnership with food banks, discounted blemished fruits and vegetables are offered in most major grocery chains in Canada.
All grocers have internal food conservation and cold-chain management procedures, along with packaging design, to ensure consumers can take home food that is the freshest possible. All major grocers have the means of reusing unsold food by processing and cooking surplus produce, for example, into takeout meals. All major grocers have diversion programs in place to ensure waste is being composted as a last resort.
Many grocers also organize workshops, offering tips to consumers on how to optimize what is in their fridges. Others participate in promotional campaigns in partnership with local jurisdictions, informing consumers on optimal food conservation.
Retailers are also engaged in the Chemicals Management Plan, CMP, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, widely recognized as a world-class program. Chemicals, of course, are an integral part of everyday life, essential to our economy, communities, homes and the products we buy.
While chemical substances provide benefits, they also may be harmful to humans in the environment if not properly managed. RCC members actively participate in this program, providing Environment and Climate Change Canada with valuable information on use, applications and prevalence of substances of concern. Examples include actions taken and being taken on everything from micro-beads to HFC-based refrigeration.
Government could not get at this information on its own, given the massive number of vendors and suppliers going in and out of business all over the world. This information is critical for government to make decisions about managing risks to the environment.
Beyond initiatives related to food waste and chemicals management, other examples of activities that retailers take to minimize their environmental footprint include fleet management and greenhouse gas emissions reduction programs that are matters of both efficiency and reducing retail's environmental footprint and, while not limited to food retailers, environmental stewardship and recycling programs.
[Translation]
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss once again with you the measures taken by Canadian retailers to protect the environment, in particular with respect to food. We will be pleased to answer your questions now. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. We appreciate it.
You mentioned at the beginning of your presentation your relationship with food banks across the country. First, that is a good thing, and second, I don't think that Canadians appreciate the contribution that retail grocers make to food banks.
Do you have some numbers for the volume of products delivered by retailers to food banks, and do you also have an analysis of how frequently that happens?
Obviously the ongoing problem food banks have is basic consistency of products being available at peak times of year for Canadians who, unfortunately, do have to visit food banks.
David Wilkes, Senior Vice President, Grocery Division and Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada: Thank you for the question. Making sure food banks have the right food at the right time is a challenge, but it's also something that our industry and our members are working very aggressively on.
As far as numbers, this is an estimate, so I would have to verify it, but if you look at the overall industry I would suggest that it could be anywhere from 10 to 15 million pounds per year of food that is donated across the country. It will vary based on the grocer and their ability to donate food.
In addition, the grocery sector does provide financial contributions to the food bank system, and also the volunteers that help staff them should not be underestimated, along with activities organized by major grocers in order to help out at the food bank. There is not only the product, financial support and volunteer support, but also expertise on how to manage the food through the food bank system.
You mentioned some of the challenges the food banks have. One of the most important ones is maintenance of the cold chain. Part of the challenge that the food bank system has, certainly, as we talk to the Canada Association of Food Banks, is how to store fresh fruit and meat and ensure that those products that have to have their integrity maintained and, as Mr. McLinton said, ensure food safety is not compromised. Many food banks don't have the infrastructure to accept donations of fresh products or perishable products. That is an area where there is an opportunity for improvement. That would also enhance the ability of Canadians who need the system of food banks to get a broader range of food and also to facilitate further donations.
Senator Mercer: I wouldn't want you to forget that not only are you a big donor of products and cash to food banks, but many stores also act as vehicles for the collection of donations from customers. It's not unusual for me to go to the Sobeys store that I shop at in Sackville, New Brunswick and, especially at certain times of year, like Christmas and Thanksgiving, see a box to collect donations. There is also the opportunity, and indeed, at least, at the retailers I have been frequenting, for retailers to get more creative in putting together packages that are attractive to the food banks in the sense that they have quality, nutritious food that is easily utilized, transported and stored coming in a package. Instead of me buying a bag of macaroni, there is a package I could buy that will have macaroni in it, sauce and other things altogether. Instead of me just buying one thing, because it is an attractive package, I end up buying five or six things for donation.
Do you have any numbers for how much retail collects — not just donates — for food banks?
Mr. Wilkes: Unfortunately, I don't have the particular number about the collections beyond the general one I provided. But that's a very important point you made, senator, that the retail industry, both grocery and the broader sector, has a big commitment to the communities we serve. Our industry is unique in that it is in every community across the country, as I would like to say, from coast to coast to coast, from the east to the west to the far North.
In additional to offering donations for food banks, there are programs where individuals or customers are encouraged to donate a small amount of a dollar or two at the cash register. Our industry has a strong tradition of supporting various charitable programs like the Children's Breakfast Club, which is not necessarily a food bank, but a program that helps provide nutritious breakfasts for youth at school who may not have had the benefit of the most important meal of the day.
There is a variety of contributions that we make and I thank you tore bringing that to the committee's attention to ensure that not only the food in the stores is properly used and donated and not wasted within the conditions described, but that we are a hub of charitable activity and facilitate our customers to donate to a worthy cause.
Senator Mercer: To continue on with facilitation, I notice in retail outlets I frequent that most of them have community rooms where they have events such as kids' birthday parties, et cetera. I don't frequent those very often but is there an integration of those facilities? I know that they have cooking classes on occasion, but do they have classes where they coordinate with groups like food banks or other community organizations that offer courses in the preparation and storage of nutritious food, helping families making the best of what they have?
Mr. Wilkes: Yes. It's not necessarily limited to the store environment in those community rooms, which I remember renting out, when my daughter was much younger, for various activities. It gets to the point that I was referring to earlier about how the retailer, or the store, is part of the community. Not only do we employ 2.2 million Canadians, but I, Mr. McLinton and our colleagues across the country proudly say that we are the largest private sector employer in Canada, when you look at the very senior head office jobs that are some of the most interesting and challenging jobs across the country, to providing part-time employment for youth working their way through school. Retail is really an engine of the Canadian economy and, quite honestly, part of the challenge we have, senators, is being recognized as that engine.
Back to your question about providing information around how to best use food, many of our members have cooking classes on how to reduce waste in the kitchen and how to interpret the product labels around best before dates. That doesn't mean expired, but best before means a test for freshness; it's a quality test, as opposed to a safety test.
There is a number of activities and programs that are being run by groups. I know there is one in Vancouver whose name I forget, where you go on a website and understand how to properly manage your food purchases and the food that you have in your home in order to ensure that it doesn't go bad.
It is an important responsibility. It's a responsibility that the industry takes very carefully and I think over the coming months and years you will see the food industry invest much more heavily in the reduction of food waste, quite simply because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. McLinton: If I might add to Mr. Wilkes' comments, specifically with regard to being part of the community coast to coast to coast, and best-before dates, these types of educational programs are particularly important in northern communities. Some of these communities may not always have access to some of the produce and that sort of thing that other communities in the South take for granted. Retailers in the North, as well, engage in these sorts of activities, and they are particularly critical in those communities.
Senator Mercer: To comment on what you said, I think that's very true. My son, many years ago, went on an exchange trip to Nunavut for a week. We asked the question in advance, prior to his travels, what can he bring to the people to say thank you that would be welcomed by the family he would be billeted with? They said fresh vegetables, and my son went with an extra bag full of potatoes, carrots, onions and things like that.
He asked why he was taking that, and I said, "They're going to be really thankful when you get there with that.'' He said after that it was a welcomed gift as a thank you gesture to the family. Instead of buying something that was available there, this was something that was not readily available in their community. It was a worthwhile thing to mention.
Senator Woo: Good afternoon. I'm Senator Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia as you guessed already.
How much food waste is attributed post table relative to post harvest at the retail level? Do you have any figures on that?
Mr. Wilkes: The majority of food waste is at the consumer level, depending on the estimate, and it varies. Once again, I would ask that these numbers be treated as an estimate, I would say it is around 30 or 40 per cent. And that's where there are opportunities that I was talking with Senator Mercer about around educating and whatnot.
Some of that food waste is just the peels and the scraps that come with normal preparation of food. You have to be careful with that number. But there are steps along each section of the food chain, from the farm to the processor to the retail community to the consumer, and there are opportunities all along the supply chain to reduce food waste. But a large part of it is in the home.
Senator Woo: I take your point about the need for consumer education on food waste issues, and we really could lessen the amount of waste that I see every week picked up by the organics truck that comes by our house. But I wonder if you have a view on consumer education on the issue of food choices.
We had a very interesting presentation from a gentleman from Pulses Canada who was making the point that your choice of different foods will have different impacts on the environment, and he was talking essentially about conversion ratios, plant-based proteins being better for the environment than animal based. He didn't say that in quite those terms, but he favours the lentils, pulses industry.
What do you think of this idea? It has been known for some time that if we eat less meat, it would be a much smaller impact on the planet. Is it the job of retailers to provide that education?
Mr. Wilkes: I think the job of retailers is to respond to the demands of consumers. We have fundamental responsibilities, with food safety being number one. Grocery retailers are in the business of understanding the consumer demands and responding to those. But what has become increasingly clear over the last few years — and I have been representing the grocery industry in this type of role for over 18 years — is the amount of change that we've experienced in the last two or three years. And that change is really coming from what consumers are demanding. They want to understand more of where their food comes from. They want to understand more about the nutrient value of it. They want to understand the traceability, where is the information raised.
I think what you are seeing is not a reference from a retailer saying this is the right type of choice for you or the wrong choice for you, but making sure we respond to the range of choices consumers have and to the information they want to make the right decision for their families, whether that's on the type of product, the climatic impact, lifestyle, organics.
The choices for consumers today is overwhelming and the demand for information about those is overwhelming. But more important, the ability to provide the information through digital platforms or scanning the bar code, and having that linked information, is phenomenal. I only see that continuing to grow and as government looks at legislation, whether it be the healthy eating strategy or other areas, government really has to look at making sure they are positioning solutions in a digital framework, and positioning solutions for tomorrow as opposed to an "analogue'' framework and putting everything on the package as a specific example.
I think as there are fewer consumers like me in the stores and more of the millennial generation, these "digital natives'' who have grown up by having everything in the palm of their hand instantly, they will want to scan not only the price but also how it revolves perhaps around climate change.
That's a long answer to say the industry is changing. The amount of information demanded by consumers is really growing and it's a challenge and an opportunity for our industry. I think regulatory change needs to mirror that and make sure it doesn't constrain the flow of that type of information. But is it retail's job to say this choice is better than that one, from whatever perspective, whether it's the one you were suggesting or others, I do not believe so.
Senator Woo: A big part of what we are trying to find out here are the appropriate policy responses and how the agriculture sector will be affected by them, and the carbon pricing is one idea out there.
Can you tell us anything about the way B.C. grocery retailers have adapted to the British Columbia carbon tax?
Mr. Wilkes: Carbon tax is something that has an indirect impact on retailers. It becomes part of the cost of doing business as opposed to responding to the way that we do business. It's a cost as opposed to an approach.
We've certainly participated in consultations both provincially and federally on the carbon tax. Our overriding theme and objective is that the approach must not be a substitute for increasing tax revenues but must be targeted at the objective of reducing carbon.
From a grocery retail perspective, you are seeing that many of the responses are reducing the carbon impact. The answer to the question is that you are seeing change, and seeing change in advance of any regulatory approach or carbon tax or cap and trade, whether it is the way that our fleets are managed or the way the refrigerator trucks are managed. It is switching out simple things, light bulbs to use less energy, the way the stores are managed. Refrigeration is another very big one, making sure the units in place are not leaking. And many of our members have measurable numbers to suggest how much leaks have been reduced. But it's simple things. With the standup freezer doors, the ones that are straight, rather than having curtains on them, it's about putting doors on them. You can't do that with all the bunkers; the refrigerated ones are harder because of what consumers are expecting in a physical configuration.
Senator, it's more that we are seeing a response to the responsibility to reduce carbon as opposed to a particular impact as it would perhaps be with my colleagues from oil and gas.
Senator Ogilvie: It's interesting. We are obviously not talking directly about temperature effects, but the overall impacts wind up being the same, the issue of feeding the planet, and you've touched on a couple of things that really haven't come up. The chemical side has come up a bit, but the idea of waste, if you start right at the original producer, the farm, right through to the consumers you have been talking about, the estimate of the percentage of food that is wasted really is quite staggering.
On the other hand, any efforts to change that are very energy intensive. You just don't go round and collect all this stuff without energy inputs. You have to organize it. We've seen it in cities, and all of these things you have talked about are excellent examples, but they are just not possible to work efficiently. The more rural the community gets, the more difficult it is and the higher the energy inputs and so on. A great deal of it depends on volunteers.
It's a solution looking for a means to work, to deliver on those problems. I'm delighted that you brought it up because it does deal with a very significant percentage of the total food that is produced in the country, the amount that goes to waste.
I want to come to the chemical side of it, specifically with regard to antibiotics. I know that your business isn't really to force anyone into direct food choices, but the reality is that the use of antibiotics in animal production in the country is one of the very serious concerns with regard to developing antibiotic resistance.
The science behind the idea of using it and the claim that it's a growth enhancer is very weak. In fact there's considerable suspicion that it really is not a growth enhancer in the meat production, meaning fowl, pork and dairy.
We know that certain large consumers, one major fast food area, said they use all antibiotic-free produce and so on. Maybe there are other examples that I'm not aware of.
Is there any room on the retail side — you now have organic products and you have regular products — for an antibiotic-free section? Are they already in place? By the look of your smile, you're about to tell me they're already in place.
Mr. Wilkes: My smile is because you anticipated my answer around organics. There are those types of choices for the consumers.
There are a couple of points around the question of antibiotics. First deals with our reliance on Health Canada. We would only sell those products that are approved for sale in Canada and been deemed safe by the department that has that responsibility, Health Canada.
Let me use an example of a genetically modified product where there is a salmon product that was made available. It was approved by Health Canada. Very few retailers chose to sell that product because there wasn't the consumer demand for it. That relates to the discussion I had earlier about the need for information.
The use of antibiotics and whether they are safe or not is a question where retailers really do rely on Health Canada to pass judgment on. They obviously have indicated.
The ability to provide choice to consumers through organic offerings is an area where I think you've seen that response provided. That offering is in various proteins as well. It's a peripheral part of the answer, but there is also a great preference, if you will, for our members to rely on locally grown products.
Obviously we're a winter country and we cannot source Canadian products year round, but on an overall basis, once again, industry average numbers, I would suggest about 30 per cent of the produce that we purchase comes from Canadian suppliers. When you get into the peak growing season, it's upwards of 40 or 45 per cent.
We have the responsibility to respond consumer demand. We are offering choice, as I've described, through organic. We rely on Health Canada to ensure the products that we are selling are safe, whatever they are. We also recognize that the products that are grown in our backyards, whether they are through the manner that you suggested or others, it's our customer's expectation that they appear on our shelves. It also is good business because we are supporting their community.
The last point is peripheral but it is an important point to raise.
Senator Ogilvie: I wasn't making the point that the meat products that are raised with antibiotics added to their food are in any way unsafe. They are completely safe. That is not the issue.
The issue has to do with the development of antibiotic resistance. We are moving towards a post-antibiotic era. You, and everyone in here, know about the antibiotic resistance bacteria in virtually every hospital in this country. C. difficile is throughout.
We are moving to a situation where antibiotics do not give us protection against bacterial infection when we get ill or from disease. We don't obtain it from the food, but they're used in food production. In food production, there's growing evidence that the massive use of antibiotics on the farm contributes to bacteria around the farm developing resistance to those antibiotics. That moves out into the food chain.
I'm giving that explanation to counter the idea that you might have thought that I was implying that the food on the shelf might not be good. It is excellent. That is not the issue.
I'm going to leave it there because I don't think you have much control over that. You're dealing with the consumer on the one hand and ensuring, as you correctly indicated, that the food you are dealing with is approved and safe for consumers.
I also want to make sure you understand I wasn't making any suggestion that you, the retailers, are implicated in the initial source of this issue at all. I just wondered if you had a role in taking on a social responsibility aspect there.
Mr. Wilkes: Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Ogilvie: I thank you for your response.
Mr. Wilkes: If I may, it's an important issue. I would also like to point out the good work that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, do. On food safety in those areas that you are talking about, I don't think we give enough credit to the work that Health Canada and CFIA does both in addressing those concerns and trying to stay ahead of the science. It is an evolving world. I don't think anybody can argue we live longer than we ever did, but there are also important questions like the one you've raised.
It's important to recognize the work of those agencies.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for being here. I have two questions for you. One is quite simple. Let's take a step back.
I want to get a sense of the scale and the impact of the retail industry on environment. It would help if you could paint an image of what it represents and compare it to other industries. I know it may be difficult.
Just last week, or two weeks ago, for example, we had the beef industry. It was quite simple to see the impact on the environment. Your world is a little more complex. It's hard to get an idea of what exactly it represents in terms of scale and where the challenges on the environment come from.
You did mention the storage and transport.
Mr. Wilkes: Let me paint you a picture of our supply chain. This is where I get up and use the white board. Thank you, first of all, for the recognition. It's an incredibly complex industry. If you start at the end, which is the store, and think how every day you walk in there, with the exceptions when there might be challenges on particular products due to growing conditions in a region where there are shortages, the shelves look beautiful. They are well-stocked. The produce is fresh, the meat is fresh, and there are very few holes. That's the end result.
I'm overly simplifying it. As I mentioned, I've been representing this industry for 18 years so I can easily get caught in the weeds here. But you will have deliveries to a distribution centre. These distribution centres — there's one in Laval, one down the road here — they are massive buildings, hundreds of thousands of square feet. They will have 30 bays for truck delivery. They will pull up at the back door of those warehouses or distribution centres every day.
The product is unloaded from the trucks, in some cases put away in the distribution centre; in some cases cross docked, as it's called, or immediately moved out the other side. From there you have trucks that spread out to the chain of stores. You'll have one truck that is packed in a sophisticated manner so that the store that it's stopping at first is the last one that's loaded. The orders come in on a daily basis from the store management. The distribution centre that serves that store is responsible, on a daily basis, in most cases — a couple of days at the maximum — to send the trucks off to the store system, unload them and ensure that the product is there.
Mr. Chair, if you'd like to see a distribution centre or a store, I'm sure we could arrange that. There is very little storage in the back of a store. It's not the size of this room. It's maybe a third of the size. What is in the store is on the shelf. The product gets moved from the back door, takes a brief pause in the back of the store itself and if it's a refrigerated or frozen item, it immediately moves in. It is really a just-in-time model where the product is then put on the storage shelves.
From there, the consumer purchases it. If there's product that needs to move back through the system, there's a couple of ways that happens. It can be donated to food banks, as we were discussing earlier. If there's damaged product that is not for sale, there are providers that pick up that damaged product and either dispose of it if it's unsafe or, once again, donate it to food banks if it's just a dinted can.
With that oversimplified explanation of how the system works, there are many opportunities to influence climate change, for example, fleet management and refrigerated trucks, as we discussed, and making sure the distribution centres are as energy-efficient as possible. There are many initiatives under way. There is also making sure that as the stores are being stocked, the refrigeration units are managed properly and the doors opened and closed, as well as looking at the lighting systems.
The complication and the complexity of the retail industry provides opportunity that no other industry has as well. Hopefully that paints a picture of the system, senator. As we are multifaceted, it also provides a unique opportunity, I would argue — and I believe our members accept — and a unique responsibility to be part of that solution.
Senator Petitclerc: You probably don't have this number, but I like numbers. In Canada, for example, what percentage of the environmental footprint does your sector represent to your knowledge?
Mr. Wilkes: I'm sorry; I don't have that number.
Senator Petitclerc: I was just curious.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we move on to the senator's next question, I have a few quick questions. Please pass on our congratulations to your members because you employ many young people, as young as 16, as packers. I see them often in the grocery stores where I shop. These young people tell us that they have flexible hours. Not only does this give them some pocket money, but it gets them used to working, and what your retailers do is fantastic.
The vast majority of retailers in Canada have stopped using plastic bags. If you need a bag, they cost 5 cents each, but now cotton bags are used. Like everyone else, I got some cotton bags. When I get home and unpack my groceries though, I have a whole bunch of small bags: one for the onions, one for the vegetables, one for the shallots, one for the tomatoes, for the bananas, fruit and grapes. There are a lot of bags.
What are you thinking of doing? Twenty years ago, paper grocery bags were used. They were biodegradable. Why not go back to paper? There would be far fewer bags in the oceans.
Are the big chains such as Walmart and Costco members of your association?
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: You can answer my questions quickly to leave some time for my colleague.
[English]
Mr. Wilkes: Plastic bags do not lend themselves to a quick answer.
Let me get to the point. In the City of Montreal, Quebec is conducting a life cycle analysis right now on both plastic bags and paper bags. In many cases, the environmental footprint of paper bags is larger than plastic because of the production of the bag itself.
That is an important consideration. You're right; there are many options for consumers to take their groceries out. Reusable bags are an important one.
Also, with the plastic bags that are used for onions or other things, part of it is also a food safety and a cross contamination issue, to make sure that the produce doesn't come in contact with things that it shouldn't. In some cases there are allergy issues; in other cases it's simply a cleanliness and food safety issue.
There's also opportunity recycling those paper bags, as Jason mentioned in his opening remarks. Part of the responsibility the retailer community has taken is the recycling of cardboard, of paper, of plastic bags, of electronics, of furniture, of tires — pretty well everything that the consumer sells. Indeed, senator, you might be coming home with some, as we call them, thin walled plastic bags. There are reasons for that and there's also an opportunity to recycle those bags as well.
Retailers are undertaking many initiatives to reduce the impact, but I would also caution that paper bags aren't the panacea that they may be but they are one of the options because of the lifecycle analysis.
[Translation]
The Chair: There was an article in a Quebec newspaper last week about products imported into Canada. It referred in particular to olive oil and spices — which are essential to Senator Mercer, who is a great cook. He noticed however that his bottle of olive oil had just the name on it. It actually had all kinds of things in it, but very little olive oil. He found that his fine spices were 36 per cent crushed strawberry leaves with a bit of spice fragrance.
Health Canada inspects these products when they come into Canada. It is not up to retailers; they do not open the bags; it is not their job. How do so many imported products get past Health Canada without being checked?
[English]
Mr. McLinton: As I'm sure you're aware, it's a joint responsibility. In fact, importers — and often time retailers are the direct importers of record — do have responsibility to ensure that the product they are selling is properly labelled and is in fact what the consumer anticipates it would be. So there's that responsibility.
From a government perspective, there's a shared responsibility there as well. Health Canada, as the regulator in large part, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which also falls within the health portfolio, is responsible for the inspection.
While I can't comment on that particular incident, we have one of the best food systems in the world. When it comes down to labelling, it's a matter of correct representation to the consumer but it also sometimes may be a matter of health and safety. If somebody is larger to the ingredients you describe, it would absolutely have to be properly labelled. As we've mentioned a few times now, food safety is of the utmost importance to our members.
It is a shared responsibility and I'd be interested to learn more about that particular case. Members have an interest to serve the needs of their consumers. At the end of the day, it's a reputational issue. They want to make sure what they are selling to the consumers is exactly what consumers expect and is safe for them to have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. We will find the article in question and send it to you.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm sorry I was late. This time of year the Senate's duties and committees seem to overlap. I'll watch your presentations tonight on the Senate website.
If anyone already asked you this, I'm sorry, but we've heard a lot about the waste of food that happens along the route once it leaves the farm and how that contributes to climate change.
I wondered if you addressed that in any of your remarks or if that's a problem in the retail sector?
Mr. Wilkes: We did have a good discussion on food waste. The discussion talked about the support that we provide to food banks. There are some other initiatives that retailers are undertaking.
When we look at food waste we really group it into prevention of waste, recovery and recycling.
Let me focus on prevention right now. In some cases, you'll have products that are a little imperfect. The apple might not be exactly the shape that the consumer wants, might be a little blemished, have a little scar on it, nothing that affects the overall safety of the product, but it's imperfect, if you will. What you're seeing is a growing number of retailers offering imperfect foods or slightly discoloured foods for a more affordable price. There have been a number of initiatives taken at the retail level in order to reduce the amount of food.
The other part of the discussion is working with consumers to understand proper management of the kitchen, how much they should buy, proper cooking techniques, what sort of portions they should be developing, how to make sure that they contribute to being part of the solution, but where our members are working very diligently is providing that information to their consumers.
Senator Beyak: To the chair's question about the plastic bags, I was over in Europe a few years ago and they were inventing a machine that would go into a house and you could throw everything into it, plastic bags, banana peels, coffee grounds — everything — and it would heat and power the house.
Have you heard whether there's been anything new on that front?
Mr. Wilkes: A biodigester is I believe what you were talking about. There is a lot of research going into that. In some cases, there are regulations at the municipal level that will not allow them. That's another part of the challenge, but yes. We can't eliminate any solutions. Biodigestion is certainly one of them.
It's an opportunity that is being addressed to the recycling programs. You have very sophisticated recycling programs around organics and the other items I've suggested. So that is how it's being managed now. Biodigestion is something we need to look at in the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilkes and Mr. McLinton, for appearing today. It's very important for us to know about your group.
[Translation]
Thank you to your members for continuing their fine work. I hope we will have the opportunity to see them here again before the end of our mandate. It is always very interesting to find out who is feeding us. Farmers grow our food, but it is your members who put it on the shelves. You play an important role in Canadian society. Thank you and glad to have you back.
We now have some new witnesses.
[English]
From the Canadian Honey Council, we have Mr. Rod Scarlett, Executive Director; and by videoconference, Ms. Lydia Carpenter, 1st Vice President, Policy, National Farmers Union. Welcome.
Mr. Scarlett will begin.
Rod Scarlett, Executive Director, Canadian Honey Council: Members of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian Honey Council, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to your study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and the forestry sectors and the actions undertaken to increase adaptation and emissions reduction strategies.
The Canadian Honey Council represents over 9,000 beekeepers across Canada, managing over 750,000 colonies. Their contribution to the Canadian agricultural industry exceeds $4.5 billion. Beekeepers and farmers have a mutually beneficial relationship, as beekeepers are often dependent on landowners for yard placements while farmers get the benefit of increased pollination of their crops resulting in greater yields. Not only will climate change policies impact beekeepers directly, they may have a significant secondary impact depending on how those policies affect landowners.
Managing beekeeping represents unique opportunities with regard to climate change. For example, as a pollinator friendly crop, canola production is extremely important to honeybees in Canada, particularly in the Prairies. As you are probably aware, over 20 million acres in Canada are planted in canola, and there are studies that suggest that if three colonies of bees were placed on every acre, production would increase around 10 per cent. That is a 10 per cent improvement without increased fertilizers, no need for more applications and no additional inputs. That would mean that rather than the 750,000 colonies we have in Canada, Canada would have upwards of 60 million. That's quite an upside. The downside is what would we do with those bees in the remaining 11 months.
Canola represents only one example of the benefits of good pollination. Nearly every crop that is pollinated can have production increases with intense pollination by honeybees, production increases that have no substantial impact on the climate. The challenge is finding the right mix of bee-friendly habitat and intense farming practices that can definitely have a positive impact on climate change.
I think it fair to say that the beekeeping industry as a whole has not had extensive discussions on the impacts of climate change and the policies that governments have introduced related to the subject. Certainly carbon taxes that relate to fuel can have substantial and significant economic repercussions, as beekeepers tend to travel long distances to maintain their bee yards. Increasing input costs always affect competitiveness, but of equal concern would be the impacts on landowners and whether it changes farming practices, such as crop rotations or the types of crops grown.
If new crops are introduced that require pollination, then most certainly it enhances the beekeeping sector. On the other hand, if more pollinator-type crops are grown and canola acres are restricted, the growth capacity of beekeeping in general will be severely limited.
Further up the value chain, government policies that increase input costs, for example, electricity, can dramatically impact competitiveness. If a honey-packer's expenses increase to the extent that costs exceed profit, honey sales will be impacted, as honey could be priced right out of the market. With commodities such as ours, where there are a limited number of packers, this could be a big problem. All levels of government need to be careful so as not to put excessive financial burdens on companies — burdens that will ultimately come back and haunt producers.
As climate change discussions progress and governments enact mitigation measures, carbon pricing may be a key issue. Like other agricultural producers, beekeepers are price-takers and do not have the opportunity to increase the price if input costs increase. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all levels of government to implement policies that ensure competitiveness and profitability.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Ms. Carpenter, we would appreciate hearing your presentation, then we will get to the questions from senators for both of you.
Lydia Carpenter, 1st Vice President (Policy), National Farmers Union: I thank the committee for hearing my testimony. I'm here with the National Farmers Union, which is Canada's largest voluntary direct-membership farm organization. The NFU represents farm families from across Canada in all sectors of agriculture. We believe that family farms should be the primary food producers in Canada.
I'm here today as a member of the NFU but also as a farmer. I farm along with my spouse in southwestern Manitoba. We raise predominantly livestock — cattle, sheep and hogs. At 32 years of age, I am at the beginning of my farming career. In the near-future climate scenario, which is from 2021 to 2050, I hope to still be farming in that time.
But over that time, we are expecting to see and already have seen increased temperatures in the Canadian Prairies, increased winter and spring precipitation, quick melts and flooding, increased frost-free days and more extreme weather events.
We live the climate every day. While farming is definitely not without risk, we feel that increased rapid change requires increased adaptability. So we feel that Canada needs to implement measures that help farmers adapt to climate change, while meeting emissions reduction targets as well. To reduce emissions and promote adaptation and resilience, we farmers need to work with government to minimize fossil-fuel-intensive inputs; maximize crop plants' ability to work with soil micro-organisms to convert atmospheric carbon into soil carbon; reduce business risks by increasing on-farm biodiversity, which would also reduce climate risk; and promote transportation, storage and processing infrastructure design and support production for local and regional markets as well.
There are many farms that are seeking open-source management solutions to increase biodiversity on farms and improve soil health. They are not always necessarily seeking capital-intensive technological solutions, although there is a place for those as well. As a first-generation farmer, in my case, we do not necessarily have the ability to borrow against multi-generational equities. There are many farms in this position as well. We do not necessarily have the capital required to invest in capital-intensive technological or input-intensive solutions. We simply can't afford that type of risk on top of the risk of an already variable climate.
On our farm, we use diversification strategies to mitigate economic risk, but in so doing, we are also mitigating variability in climate. We have planned grazing practices, we have diversification of livestock, we lease additional land instead of land purchasing and direct marketing sales. On a grain operation, this may look like or include rotations, poly-cropping, crop and livestock integration, farm water management and/or custom work off the farm.
Farming in Canada is pluralistic and so must solutions be to addressing the issue of climate mitigation adaptation. Inherent diversity of farming diversities means that the issue of climate adaptation resilience needs to be addressed within multiple levels of government. As we look to address the issue of adaptability and resilience in agriculture, we can't separate farming and food from the farmer.
While today we are looking at the issue of climate change, we will in the next 10 years see large amounts of land transition from one generation to the next. So, as part of a addressing the issue of adaptation to climate, we must also consider who will be managing Canada's farmland and what measures can be taken now to create incentives for the next generation to take on the vocation of farming in ways that help to reduce emissions.
I agree with Mr. Scarlett on some of the comments he made regarding his concerns about a carbon tax. Farmers and primary producers are price-takers, they cannot necessarily pass on that cost easily and are subject to having those costs passed on to them. Ultimately, low-emissions production methods, which will save farmers money and increase quality of livelihood, along with diversification and good soil management that helps to build soil life and store soil carbon, will create more resilient farms.
Thank you.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We will go to questions now.
Senator Mercer: Thank you both for being concise in your reports because of our time.
Mr. Scarlett, you talked about the cost of transporting bees from location to location. This committee is familiar, after our major study on bees. I should tell you that it has been one of the most — I was going to say "popular'' — but one of the most widely read reports we have produced recently.
You are a farmer, and when you are moving your bees, are you allowed to use farm vehicles with marked gas as opposed to vehicles that can't have marked gas?
Mr. Scarlett: Most definitely, yes.
Senator Mercer: There is a cost saving for you in transport, but the environmental aspect is really not much different from the emissions from that gas as opposed to the gas I have in my car.
Mr. Scarlett: Correct. And those are for commercial beekeepers; the hobby beekeepers don't have that. I will say, for example, in operations on the Prairies, beekeepers — during the bee season, they will visit once every two weeks — might travel upward of 300 to 400 square miles to tend their bee yards, depending on where that operation may be.
Senator Mercer: The National Farmers Union is, as you indicated, the largest union representing farmers across the country. We are familiar with them. Some of our colleagues, either here or in the House of Commons who have been farmers, have been members and active members of the NFU.
You indicated that you are new to farming, but I assume part of your family is not. How often does the issue of greenhouse gas come up for discussion within the NFU?
Ms. Carpenter: It comes up more recently now. The Province of Manitoba had provided funds for the National Farmers Union to do a study — this was under the previous government — on climate change adaptation and mitigation. It is being discussed more, particularly the issue around the carbon tax. So there was a report on carbon credits or cap and trade versus carbon tax schemes.
We do have policy on climate change, mostly relating to meeting international targets that the government has committed farmers to, as well as policy specifically around soil health and carbon sequestration as it relates to soil.
It is a point of discussion. The National Farmers Union also has the youth constituency which is farmers 35 and under, and it is a concern in terms of policy changes we expect to see within our farming careers, and so it is an important topic.
Senator Mercer: One of the other issues is we've talked to some people in agriculture about the restriction that some retailers of farm equipment have put on after-sale maintenance so that if you want to do maintenance on a particular brand of vehicle you must take it to that dealership, which means that they can dictate price.
Have you found that this problem is growing over the last number of years because the cost of maintenance has become significant and then also that perhaps some people are putting off that maintenance which may be driving up greenhouse gas emissions because they are not maintaining their equipment as well as they should?
Ms. Carpenter: To the first portion of your question, I would say yes, there have been discussions about prices going up and increased fees. The lack of dealerships to take equipment to for repairs, as a lot of the local dealers have been closing, is increasing costs. It also increases turnover time for folks who need things repaired quickly.
To the first part of your question, I would say yes. To the second part, that would seem reasonable. I don't have data on that, but I think that would be a reasonable assumption to make, that if farmers cannot access the parts they need or the facilities they need to have those repairs made, they would perhaps continue to run equipment that is emitting more than it otherwise would were it to have had the appropriate repair done.
Senator Woo: Ms. Carpenter, thank you for the background paper you submitted. It's very rich and has a number of really interesting ideas and suggestions for our consideration, including the idea of a rebate on a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
I won't ask you about that suggestion, but I want to ask instead about offsets. I guess I'm unclear on your position on offsets. Maybe there is not a single position, but in the discussion paper you talk about the pros and cons of offset projects.
Can you say more about the view of either the NFU or your personal view or farmers in general when it comes to offset projects? Do you fear, for example, that offset projects might take away land from farming and undercut what you are trying to do? On the other hand, is it a way to coexist with farming and give farmers credit for sequestering carbon?
Ms. Carpenter: I can comment on that both from the NFU position and from my own personal experience. We graze cattle using planned grazing techniques, and there have been people in Canada and the United States who have demonstrated that when using these planned grazing techniques, you can sequester carbon back into the soil. The question is should these producers be provided with some benefit for having done so and how should they receive that benefit?
In terms of a carbon offset program, which would be a cap and trade, where those credits could potentially be purchased, for me — and I imagine this would be a concern for other producers as well — as a young farmer, land prices are incredibly high and purchase is somewhat prohibitive. There is some concern that if you commodify carbon in a carbon offset program, there might be increased demand from wealthy emitters seeking offsets that could purchase that land and inflate prices further, and I think that is problematic.
If it is an offset cap-and-trade system, how do you create a more regional program so the land stays within the community or is held for food production?
With the carbon tax regime, I would repeat the concerns of Mr. Scarlett, which are ours as well, that if farmers have to pay a tax on one end, they may end up paying on both ends because they can't offset the increasing costs on inputs and transportation. Those costs could be passed on to them because they are price-takers and not price-makers.
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for both of you, and thank you for being here. Mr. Scarlett, if you want to answer first.
I'm interested in hearing from you about the importance and impact of new technologies in your sector. We heard from the previous witnesses about the global positioning system for fertilizers. I was interested to hear from you about how that has an impact on higher productivity, we hope, but lower impact on the environment.
What is your feeling on having access to this technology? Do you feel you have enough support, or is it all in your hands or do you need support?
Mr. Scarlett: I think it's fair to say that the beekeeping industry in Canada has been very non-technology oriented. It is manual labour, doing visual inspections across all the colonies.
There are emerging technology where you can get weights to tell you how the colony may be growing, but you still have to inspect visually to see if there are disease issues or issues along that line. Although technology can be a benefit, it probably won't be as dramatic a benefit on the beekeeping side.
Inside honey houses, for example, as technology increases and gets better, like any other automated industry, of course; it will have positive ramifications on things like climate change. Other than that, technology has a place, but it certainly can't offset our manual capacities.
Ms. Carpenter: I agree. Certain parts of the industry are management-intensive. I personally do not have experience with precision agriculture, for example, or no-till techniques. We don't perform them ourselves because we are not producing crops. However, there is a place for those specifically as part of transition.
One thing I think ought to be discussed is this idea of high management and skill with low capital costs and high return, as it relates to climate change mitigation and adaptation. One thing we do on our farm and we see others doing in the United States, Australia, parts of Africa and Canada with cattle, for example, is management-intensive grazing systems.
We do use technology. We can use drones, electric fencing and computer programming. There is software coming out of the United States in Silicon Valley for mapping technologies so you can map your pasture management.
There are different groups of technology. Some of them are high capital investments for larger-scale crop production, and some would be more management and skills related. That's where I think about livestock management, providing farmers with training and skills, software technology, drones and that sort of thing. I definitely see a place for that and I think it is definitely important to different areas of the industry, and when I say industry I mean agriculture in different ways depending on the production system.
The Chair: Ms. Carpenter, the last question.
[Translation]
Would a carbon tax discourage the young generation of farmers or do you think they can deal with it and still have a future in farming?
[English]
Ms. Carpenter: I believe that farmers could deal with a carbon tax. The idea of a revenue neutral tax with those funds reinvested into the sector would be preferable. I don't think that a carbon tax where the funds are being reinvested would necessarily keep young people from farming.
I think there are bigger issues to deal with in terms of getting young people on to the land. Some of those issues would be succession, access to capital and access to long-term land tenure.
Coming back to the response I had provided that related to the carbon credit issue, if we create a system that increases land values to the point that young people cannot afford to farm or where we do not create programming for young farmers, then it's an extra thing and would be prohibitive. Otherwise, it's not something that is stopping us from farming.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Scarlett, thank you very much for appearing. Thank you very much, Ms. Carpenter.
[Translation]
Our apologies, but a vote is taking place in the Senate. As a result, we will have to cut our questions bit short. I am sure we will have the opportunity to see you again during our mandate. Thank you very much for testifying from Winnipeg, and here, in Ottawa.
(The committee adjourned.)