THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 26, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:32 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to members of the committee, our witnesses as well as those watching this meeting online.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I will ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Good evening. Welcome. Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Black: Robert Black, Ontario. Thanks for being here.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you, all.
I would also ask senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. I will remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid-sentence and to not speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today, the committee is continuing its study on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada. We have the pleasure of welcoming Emmanuel Destrijker, 1st Vice-Chair, Egg Farmers of Canada; Richard Leblanc, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian ROOTS Farms Inc; and Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council. Thank you very much for joining us.
We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes. We will start with you, Mr. Destrijker.
[Translation]
Emmanuel Destrijker, 1st Vice-Chair, Egg Farmers of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will make my opening remarks in French. Afterward, I will be happy to answer your questions in French, and I will try to do so in English as well.
Good evening, Madam Chair, Acting Chair and members of the committee. My name is Emmanuel Destrijker, and I am an egg farmer in Quebec. As Madam Chair mentioned, I am also the 1st Vice-Chair of Egg Farmers of Canada.
Canadian egg farmers play an important role in food security. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on their role in this food security study.
Egg Farmers of Canada’s mandate is to manage the national egg supply, promote egg consumption and represent 1,295 regulated producers.
Together, our farmers produce more than 11 billion fresh, local eggs each year. The sector contributes $1.9 billion to Canada’s GDP, generates $675 million in tax revenue and supports more than 19,800 jobs across the country. Our sector is built to give Canadians year-round access to fresh, affordable, high-quality eggs.
Farms are located in every province and in the Northwest Territories. That national footprint helps us respond to supply chain disruptions, climate-related events and major production challenges, including highly pathogenic avian influenza. Egg farmers work together to keep the national supply steady. When one region faces an unexpected disruption, eggs can be shipped from neighbouring regions. In some cases, farms elsewhere can temporarily increase production to help fill the gap. Along with our small farm model, this coordinated approach helped protect Canadian consumers from the sharp price spikes other countries experienced during avian influenza outbreaks last year.
Beyond resilience, growth also matters for food security. Egg consumption is rising, and eggs continue to play an important role in Canadians’ diets. In response, we have set ambitious targets to increase production here at home. Canadian egg production increased by 7.6% in 2025, and more than 275 new egg farms have been established over the last decade.
That growth strengthens our food system and shows that a new generation is ready to lead. At my own farm, I see that commitment in my daughter. I also see it in many other young farmers across the country who are stepping up. At a time when many parts of agriculture are facing succession pressures, young egg farmers are engaged, innovative and ready to build on this sector’s strengths. They are bringing new technologies and more sustainable practices that will help keep our sector strong for the future.
Food security is not only about availability. It is also about nutrition. As the committee continues its study, we encourage you to consider the role of nutrient-rich staples. Eggs provide essential vitamins and minerals that support healthy brain and body function and are recognized as one of the world’s most valuable animal-source foods. Recent research suggests that eating eggs regularly may be associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Eggs also support children’s growth and development and help with the feeling of satiety. Egg farmers proudly work with food banks, breakfast programs and other partners to increase access to nutritious eggs.
In closing, Egg Farmers of Canada believes that maintaining a stable domestic egg supply is in Canada’s national interest. To support that goal, we offer three recommendations for the committee’s consideration.
First, promote policies that support domestic food production and Canada’s food sovereignty, such as supply management. It ensures reliable access to staple food products that meet stringent quality, food safety and animal welfare standards. It brings economic stability and jobs to rural communities and reduces the risk of over-reliance on foreign markets for our food.
Second, we must use federal procurement to prioritize Canadian-produced food and strengthen connections across our domestic food system. Canada has a vibrant and successful domestic food system, with thousands of farmers across the country dedicated to producing some of the highest-quality food in the world. By linking our domestic food system to federal government procurement targets, we can prioritize the availability of nutritious, Canadian-produced food and inspire Canadians to learn more about the food they consume.
Third, it is important to equip farmers with the tools they need to grow, adapt and respond to disruptions, including climate-related events, avian influenza and sustainability pressures. Delivering programming to farmers that meet the sector’s needs, such as avian influenza vaccination programs and sustainability incentives, will strengthen our agricultural sector and its ability to deliver domestic food security.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to answering your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Destrijker, for your opening remarks.
Next, we will have Mr. Leblanc.
Richard Leblanc, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian ROOTS Farms Inc.: Chair and honourable senators, and in particular, Senator Black, thank you for the invitation to speak today.
My name is Richard Leblanc. I am the founder and chief executive officer of Canadian ROOTS Farms Inc.
I am here to make one argument: Food security is essential. But in this era, food security must be understood as part of the broader objective of food sovereignty. Food security asks whether Canadians can access food. Food sovereignty asks whether Canada controls enough of the production, processing, infrastructure, technology and supply chains required to establish system resilience and to feed itself through natural or geopolitical disruption.
Security is access. Sovereignty is control. That distinction now matters. In normal times, the system looks efficient. Trucks arrive. Shelves are stocked. Imports flow. Consumers assume abundance is permanent. But stress reveals structure, and right now, the structure is fragile. The system is vulnerable.
A conflict in the Middle East can raise fertilizer, diesel, freight and food costs in Canada. A border disruption or drought in California can quickly become a produce supply problem within days.
This is how geopolitics and natural disasters enter Canadian kitchens — not as a headline, but as diesel, fertilizer, freight, price and availability disruptions.
In one recent senior federal discussion, the point was put bluntly:
Canada is at war. It’s a trade war, but nonetheless, we are on a war footing. COVID exposed our food-supply vulnerabilities, and we haven’t done anything about it since.
While we built baseload for electricity, we have not built baseload for food. We would never run a country on imported electricity and hope the border stays open. We should never build a national food strategy on the assumption that imports will always arrive or exports will always move. Yet we run critical parts of our agri-food system that way. That is not strategy. That is exposure.
Other countries understand this. The Netherlands — a country smaller than Nova Scotia — became one of the world’s largest food exporters not because it had more land but because it built better systems: greenhouses, logistics, processing, research, technology and export infrastructure. Countries such as Sweden and China have identified a sovereign agri-food system as a critical element of national security.
Canada has land, water, energy, farmers and science and technology expertise. Canada has capital. All in abundance. But too often, we export raw value and import finished value. We export cucumbers and import pickles the way we export lumber and buy back furniture. That is not sovereignty. That is vulnerability.
Food sovereignty means investing in domestic production and domestic processing. It means keeping more value in Canada.
To be clear, this perspective is not an argument against conventional agriculture. Conventional agriculture is the backbone of Canada’s food economy, rural economy, export strength and national identity. But conventional agriculture alone cannot solve systemic and winter-supply vulnerabilities. Our climate and geography impose harsh limits. Open-field agriculture cannot provide year-round fresh produce resilience across the country. Imports fill the significant gap. While greenhouses help, of course, address some of that vulnerability, Canada still lacks an infrastructure-grade domestic foundation for the categories of food Canadians buy every week.
Resilient, reliable agri-food production is the missing layer. Controlled Environment Agriculture, or CEA, properly designed, can help provide that layer. The next-generation CEA must be sober: energy-integrated, water-efficient, biosecure, data-driven, near demand, tied to offtake, connected to processing, measured by performance and built with capital discipline.
Technology is not the business model. Sovereign resilience is the business model. The question is not whether Canada can grow every tomato, lettuce leaf or herb domestically. It cannot, nor should it try. The question is whether Canada should build enough dependable, year-round domestic production and processing capacity that we are no longer structurally vulnerable when external supply chains fail.
My three recommendations are as follows:
First, Canada should recognize strategic food sovereignty infrastructure as a critical legitimate national infrastructure category, which we do not currently. Infrastructure is not defined only by roads, bridges, pipes and wires. Infrastructure is defined by function. If the failure of a system affects public welfare, inflation, institutional procurement, emergency response and national resilience, that system has infrastructure characteristics. The agri-food sector meets that test.
Second, Canada should adjust policy and tax misclassification for verified indoor food production.
Third, Canada should support a small number of significant regional demonstration projects.
I will add one more. Canada should also explore a voluntary, audit-ready tool, such as the maple score, which is a corollary to the Australian country of origin labelling, or COOL, program, to measure Canadian origin, domestic resilience value and procurement relevance because what we do not measure, we do not change.
I will skip straight to the punchline. Thank you for inviting me to speak. I welcome your questions.
This is a glimpse at the maple score that I referenced. If you are familiar with the Australian COOL program, this is what I have offered for Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leblanc. Lastly, we have Mr. Buy.
Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council: Good evening, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
I am speaking on behalf of the Agri-Food Innovation Council, or AIC, an organization focused on strengthening Canada’s agri‑food system through innovation, productivity and collaboration.
We have been around since 1920 and designed to advocate for agricultural research, and now we have included innovation and food.
I will skip a couple of paragraphs to ensure you don’t have to look at me with a sign, but I will also try to make my key points, senator.
Let me begin with a simple but important point: Canada is a global powerhouse, yet too many Canadians remain food insecure. This tells us something critical. Our challenge is not a lack of food but a lack of alignment across our food system between production, policy innovation and access.
If we look at the current situation, the Food Policy for Canada sets out a strong and important vision. We support that vision. However, the results to date point to a gap between aspiration and outcomes. Food insecurity has continued to rise, particularly among vulnerable populations.
From our perspective, the issue is not the intent of the policy; it is the lack of integration, measurable targets and system-wide execution. We need to move from a policy framework to a coordinated food system strategy.
We’re missing a national food security strategy. Agriculture and food are not just a responsibility of Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada. Transport Canada has a responsibility to support supply chains. Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, has responsibility for the workforce. Trade is responsible for market access. Health Canada also has responsibility related to food safety. In fact, there are 37 departments and agencies with a responsibility in agriculture and food research and innovation — 37, senator.
The response to every issue is not the creation of new programs. It is to use our existing resources more efficiently, eliminate duplication and be laser-focused on delivery. We made that recommendation years ago. The Treasury Board Secretariat Working Group on Public Service Productivity looked at the issue and made a similar recommendation. We sent them our brief on that.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research also made a recommendation after one of our presentations to look at eliminating duplication. We hope you will also look at addressing the issue.
Food insecurity is not evenly distributed, which I mentioned. Indigenous, Black, northern and remote communities face significantly higher barriers, whether due to geography, infrastructure or systemic inequities.
AIC believes strongly that solutions must be place-based and community-led. That means supporting Indigenous food sovereignty and co-developed solutions; scaling northern food production, including greenhouse and controlled-environment agriculture; investing in infrastructure, from cold storage to transportation; and building urban food innovation systems, especially in underserved communities.
Food security must be designed with communities, not for them. For this, we need to look at how we can innovate from where we are now to where we need to be.
We need to understand the drivers of food security. In fact, they are shaped by several interconnected factors: agricultural productivity; climate change; market structure and supply chains; and importantly, income and affordability.
If we produce more efficiently, more sustainably and more locally where needed, we reduce costs and strengthen access.
We need to look at the federal measures and assess them and really look at whether or not they are all valuable. They are fragmented and not sufficiently aligned around a single objective: improving food security outcomes. We need to look at climate-resilient agriculture, next-generation production systems, digital and precision agriculture, supply chain innovation, food processing and value-added capacity, and Indigenous-led research and food systems.
To make this work, we need enabling mechanisms such as mission-driven funding with clear targets to significantly reduce food insecurity.
There are a few proposals that I will develop, which will hopefully provide answers to some of your questions to ensure that we still have time.
Let me close with this: Food security is not just a social challenge; it is a strategic national issue. Canada has all the building blocks: It’s a world-class producer with strong research capacity and a diverse and innovative agri-food sector. What we need now is alignment and ambition.
Senators, we hope you will do what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research did a year ago and what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did a few weeks ago. Both committees recommended that the government work on a national strategy for agriculture and food research and innovation.
With a coordinated, innovation-driven approach, Canada can be both a global agri-food leader and a food-secure nation at home.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, all three of you. I apologize for not giving more time, but we have a lot of questions and interest, and people want to pull a lot of information out of you. We are going to proceed to questions from senators, and senators will have five minutes for their questions, and that includes the answer.
Senator McNair: My question is for Mr. Destrijker, but I want to comment on something you said in your opening statements first. You said that EFC has established initiatives to support young farmers and women farmers. I have met egg farmers from New Brunswick. One was a young woman farmer from Scoudouc who is taking over a third-generation farm. You guys do an excellent job on setting up some of these initiatives.
To my question: On June 26, last year, Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) received Royal Assent. The bill, as you probably know, amended the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to prevent the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making any commitments to trade negotiations that would either increase the tariff rate quota applicable to dairy products, poultry or eggs, or to reduce the tariff applicable to those goods imported in excess of the tariff rate quota. Trade lawyer William Pellerin described supply management as probably the primary trade irritant we have with the United States and suggested that the passage of Bill C-202 would make it more difficult to reach a deal with the United States.
In your view, how has the passage of the bill been received in the U.S.? In your view, how should the Government of Canada address anticipated U.S. concerns about supply management in general and egg tariff rate quotas in particular?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, senator, for the question. Bill C-202 was a long run for us and all the supply management community, but at the same time, we heard from the House that everybody is supportive of supply management in Canada. We haven’t heard that anyone is opposed to supply management, so the bill is the final proof, saying to other countries, “This is what we stand for in Canada.”
When our negotiators go to the U.S. or any other country, it will be at the very beginning of the negotiation: This is what we have in Canada and this is what we stand for. I don’t think we should be ashamed of supply management. I have always heard that we should defend supply management. Stop defending supply management and start promoting it. It is a good system. I have nothing against exporters. We work together with our colleagues who export food outside of Canada. It is not one against the other.
For me, supply management is not a threat to other countries. It is how we work in Canada. Not everything in Canada is produced under supply management. We have exporter-oriented sectors and supply management. We have a big country, and we can work together. I don’t see Bill C-202 as a threat to other countries. That’s how we work in Canada, and we should be proud of that.
Senator McNair: Thank you. How does the system contribute to long-term food security, particularly in the face of global market volatility?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you for the question. We a number of producers in our community. We have over 275 new farms in Canada over the last decade. We are the sector with the greatest number of new producers in the country. In most sectors, the number of producers decreases year after year. In our sector, we have 275 new producers. My daughter is studying agribusiness at Université Laval. She is back on the farm at the age of 24, and that’s what she wants to do for a living.
In the 10 provinces and even in the Northwest Territories, we have farms that produces eggs. So supply management can support farmers and communities all across the country. It is not a couple of big farms or companies that produce all the eggs for the whole country. We don’t have employees on the farm. The people who run the farm are the owners of the farm in Canada. It is totally different in the U.S. For example, in the U.S., the three biggest farms individually produce more eggs than all of the 1,295 egg farmers in Canada, and they consider themselves family farms. That’s not family farms for us. That’s a major company that is totally integrated. For us, supply management can produce and sustain the sector all across the country.
Senator McNair: Congratulations on having your daughter enter the business.
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, senator.
Senator Black: Mr. Destrijker, you talked about your daughter a couple of times. I have questions for each of you so we will keep these short. Can you talk a bit about farm succession and its importance to the future of your family farm and our country’s food security?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, Senator Black. My daughter had a chance to meet you because she is part of the young farmers program of the Egg Farmers of Canada, or EFC, this year too. That’s something I learned from my dad. He came from Belgium and bought a farm close to Lac-Mégantic. What I heard from my parents was always positive. When they talked about agriculture, it was always positive. Even in the bad years, they never talked poorly about agriculture or the job we were doing.
That’s what I tried to transfer to my daughter. I never speak against agriculture at home. I have always been proud of it. It is more than a job for me; it is a lifestyle. All the farmers — at least the egg farmers — in Canada are very proud of what they are doing. It is not a job for us. It is Saturday, Sunday and seven days a week. On Christmas, birds still produce eggs. On Easter, it is the same. It is 365 days a year. For us, being proud of what we are doing is the goal, and that’s how we transfer that passion — thank you, senator — to the next generation. I never forced my daughter to come back to the farm. She made that choice.
Senator Black: Mr. Buy, what can Canada do to support more widespread adoption of new technologies and innovation?
Mr. Buy: That’s a great question, senator. There are many things that can be done. We used to have a good system to translate technology and innovation on farms and explain it. We cut that in the 1970s and 1980s, and that has been a challenge for farmers in terms of that. One of the things we heard at our own conference that is happening at the Sheraton Ottawa Hotel right now is that we still have a lot of people who are not able to access the internet in rural regions.
We’re taking about data, satellites and AI, and basically, those people are all forced to use dial-up technology. That’s not happening in other countries. We have heard the promises and we’ve heard the promises, but the fact of the matter, senator, is that the promises are not changing the speed of the internet in some of the rural communities. If we want our farmers to adopt new technologies, we need to give them the means. It is not about funding or more money. It is about making sure that the money we have is well spent.
Senator Black: We recently heard about how northern and Arctic regions are experiencing food insecurity and issues around food accessibility. Do you see vertical farming as a possible tool to support northern and remote Arctic regions in accessing fresh and healthy foods?
Mr. Leblanc: The answer to your question is yes. It is such an important question because of the issues of the transportation and the cost of produce for folks in the North. The technology has evolved a lot and has come a long way. There have been failures in the controlled environment agricultural sector. I have spent a lot of time forming relationships with academic researchers across the country, and they have solved a lot of the problems and recognized the issues. Guelph University, in particular, did an amazing project in the Antarctic and grew vegetables for 18 months. So, we are at that point now.
The timing of your question is so great because of the renewed and growing — exploding — interest in the North now.
We would like to be part of those technological solutions, not only here in Canada, but there are solutions out of Spain that I have come across.
The short answer is absolutely.
Senator Sorensen: I’ll start with Mr. Leblanc on the same line that Senator Black just asked.
Your organization describes engagement with Indigenous governments as sovereign partners and co-visionaries, and states that this is a foundational principle, not a policy. Could you just share a little bit about what that looks like in practice?
Mr. Leblanc: It is literally equity. We have approached three across the country: one in British Columbia, one just north of Calgary and one in Cornwall. We look forward to job opportunities and equity with them, and we look forward to board participation, as well as cultural participation. In our particular sector, we look forward to our products actually being like billboards for messaging in terms of what’s appropriate to them. Our job is to sit back and listen, actually.
Yes, we’ve done a lot of work in that area. I appreciate the question.
Senator Sorensen: Mr. Buy, I have a question, and then I’m going to go off. You made reference to “37” twice, and, at first, I thought it was departments but it was 37 —
Mr. Buy: Partners and agencies.
Senator Sorensen: In the government?
Mr. Buy: In the federal government.
Senator Sorensen: With that in mind — and we talk about this a lot, not just in this committee, but in lots of the work that we all do — referring to the silos that the government works in.
Can you just expand a little bit more? At the end of your presentation, you spoke about the strategy and what has come forward. Is that a takeaway as part of the strategy? No one knows how to break down these walls. This is the way that government operates.
Mr. Buy: The challenge, senator, is that we do know how to break down those walls. We had the Barton report in 2016 that said basically enough is enough. You need someone responsible at the PCO, the minister leading a secretariat on this — move forward, have a strategy, implement some research and innovation. You know what? We have done nothing about it. Everybody is controlling their silos, making sure we’re fighting against each other and protecting the empire.
Wonderful people work in the government. I’ve told them that. I keep telling them that, and I want to make sure any of my comments are not reflective negatively on the work being done by the thousands and thousands of public servants. That’s not the issue; the issue is that, at some point, someone needs to provide direction. The direction needs to be that we don’t need 37 departments and agencies, and we don’t need hundreds of funding programs. We can actually do less with fewer people, and we can do more with that.
That would be very welcome. So I push back on the idea of it being hard to break down the silos. It needs to come down from the top.
We had the Treasury Board Secretariat working group on productivity providing some recommendations. We had the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research providing recommendations. Two recommendations: one for the need of the national strategy and the second to review funding programs related to agriculture and food, and research and innovation — science and research were broader than agriculture and food — and look at eliminating duplication. We had two parliamentary committees and the Treasury Board, to a certain extent, saying the same thing. We hope that you will say the same thing, and we hope, at some point, it’s going to be listened to.
We need the Prime Minister to direct the clerk on that. I know it’s been raised in various circles. We were pleased at our conference to hear from Kody Blois, the parliamentary secretary of the Prime Minister, and Marianne Dandurand, the chair of the rural caucus in the Liberal Party, saying that they’re moving on certain things. That’s great, but let’s move faster.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
It’s a really important point. We’re studying food security, and this takes us up to 35,000 feet, but I couldn’t agree with you more. I encourage us to remember that.
Senator Muggli: Thanks for all that all of you do in this industry. I have a few questions.
Mr. Leblanc, I want to start with you because I didn’t quite hear what you were saying. You might have had a suggestion around tax issues related to indoor food production. Can you expand on that?
Mr. Leblanc: Vertical farms grow food, but if you put them into your facility, you’re likely to be directed by municipalities into industrial zones and you’re taxed. The mill rates are at industrial rates when you’re competing in the agri-food sector. If that were rectified, that would mean millions of dollars for the vertical farm community across the country. Yes, it is being labelled as industrial.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Building on what you talked about in relation to food sovereignty and not having enough processing to feed ourselves, my question is actually for Mr. Destrijker. In your industry, have you seen a move into processing? What can this government do to encourage more processing in your industry?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, senator, for the question.
There are a few things the government can do to support the people or industry because these industries are usually fighting against multinational companies coming from other countries. There are rules and regulations that products can come into the country. I don’t mean that they play with words, but they play with ingredients to make sure they can have access to our country. We have facilities that can produce these products here in the country.
So, making sure the rules are clear and the borders are quite tight to make sure that what we call “eggs” here is an egg in other countries or a part of an egg is a part of an egg. That will be the major issue: make sure the rules are clear, and they are followed and respected by the products that are coming into the country.
Senator Muggli: Are you saying that some countries will call something an egg product, but it isn’t an egg product?
Mr. Destrijker: Or the egg will be part of the recipe of the product, so the eggs will have access to the Canadian market. A portion of the product will be eggs, so they make sure they have just enough eggs to make sure they have access to the country.
Senator Muggli: That makes sense. Thank you.
This is about avian influenza and concerns around what could happen to the industry with avian flu. I understand that some American egg farms are a million hens compared to Canada, which has smaller ones so if you do get avian flu on a farm, it’s not a million hens that you’re losing.
Could you take a little bit about that? Are there any concerns about how you try to look out for issues around avian flu?
Mr. Destrijker: Yes. Thank you again for your question.
A million birds in the U.S. is a small farm, to be clear about that. You’re right: When there is a crisis in the U.S., you have 6 to 8 million birds on the same location. That’s a lot of birds. We have approximately 37 million birds in total in Canada. That’s why we are split between close to 1,300 farms. Our average flock in Canada is 22,000 birds, so it’s nothing compared to the U.S.
What the government can do relating to avian influenza is to make sure we have the right to vaccinate and we have vaccines available. We are starting some field tests in the next few months, but the disease is here for many years.
It takes time, and we totally understand there are rules and regulations that need to be followed, but when you have a disease like this one, I think we should have some — and I don’t want to have a fast track compared to other people, but make sure we put that on the top of the list. By the time we make the trial test, it’s going to be 18 months again, so we’re not going to have anything before 2028.
We have a system in Canada; I know in some other countries there is pushback on vaccination because they want to keep exporting the product. In Canada, we don’t export any egg products so we have the perfect country to vaccinate eggs and make sure the birds are protected and Canadians have food on the table at the same time.
Having support from government to make sure we have access to vaccines will be top of the list for us.
Senator Muggli: Great points. Any time left?
The Chair: None.
Senator Muggli: Second round.
Senator Martin: Thank you all for your expert testimony and giving me lots of food for thought, no pun intended.
I had quite a few prepared questions, but there are some things I want to follow up on from what you said.
My questions are related to Mr. Leblanc and Mr. Buy and what you said. You said we could become an agri-food leader — and that’s what we’d love to become — but you said there’s a lack of alignment, a lack of coordination and other issues. Mr. Leblanc, you mentioned that COVID exposed our food vulnerability, and yet we haven’t quite addressed it.
My first question is this: What are the vulnerabilities that were exposed? What needs to be done in part two, or continuing? What do we need to do to become the agri-food leader? What do we need to align and coordinate?
We know where the gaps are. We’ve heard about quite a few of those, but I would love to hear your insights. Please expand on what you said.
Mr. Leblanc: In my sector in particular, approximately upwards of 80% of produce in the winter months is imported, and that’s an unacceptable vulnerability.
What I was trying to allude to is that when you compound — and rarely is there one issue that’s going to disrupt imports, and we’ve got geopolitical issues and climate issues — two or three issues in any particular period, it would not take long at all. That’s the feedback I got from the grocery industry in particular, all the way from a produce manager to Galen Weston himself. They feel that vulnerability and the need for us to find solutions.
Senator Martin: Are there any vulnerabilities you can share?
Mr. Leblanc: My focus is on that; that’s one I can speak to.
Mr. Buy: I could go on and on about the vulnerabilities. Our supply chain system showed various issues during the pandemic. During various climate crises, we had challenges in British Columbia, in your province, with the fires; getting food to some people was a challenge.
Our system has indeed been shown to have some challenges; none of them are insurmountable. We can certainly get there, and we are a global leader in agri-food production; we should do more.
The challenge, senator, is that we often react to crises. In 2016, the government had the Barton Report — I’m sorry I’m going back to it — and for us it was a win. We were excited. Finally agri-food was seen as an opportunity, not just a liability: “Oh, let’s pay farmers compensation.” It was seen as an opportunity.
In 2016 a number of things were planned, done and expected. In 2019 the pandemic arrived and, rightfully so, our focus completely changed during the pandemic, but we didn’t go back to the promises of 2016, 2017 and 2018. The budget opportunities were completely forgotten, and we moved along. Whenever we have a crisis, we focus on that crisis and we move; we don’t have a long-term plan.
The chief economist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada said, at one point, in one of our conferences — you should really attend tomorrow — that the return on investment for agri-food is higher than any other sector. So look at any other sector. When you’re looking to put money into research and innovation, the return on investment in agriculture and food is the top, but we invest very little.
The reason we invest very little is because we actually are hoping for faster returns. In agriculture and food, we don’t have a quick turnaround. Research takes a while. Canola was developed over 35 years. There are many factors involved. There are billions of dollars of return right now for canola, and a lot of gains we’ve made are huge, but it takes a while.
Right now, a lot of our funding programs are looking at short‑term gains. Short-term gains; let’s invest in that quick bang for our buck. We’re forgetting we have an infrastructure issue in terms of research, which is for long-term research. That’s a challenge for us in the future.
Again, a national strategy should focus on all those things and should enable you to stop looking at every stakeholder who comes to your committee and say, we should give them this or we should give them that. Say, no, we have a strategy. How does your proposal or stakeholder go with our strategy so we can move forward?
I know that’s politically incorrect to say because we want to please everyone that comes through the door. But the fact of the matter is that the sector would strongly benefit from a long-term national strategy.
The Chair: I told you people had a lot of questions.
Senator McBean: I always enjoy going late in the question period because I get to listen a lot, but you’re always getting your pockets picked on the questions, but it also allows me to give you a little more time to say things.
First of all, Mr. Buy, can you actually give us the list of the 37? Not today, but could you provide it to us? If you could provide us with that list, I’m sure that would look pretty stark in a report.
I was going to ask about what progress had been made in the development of a national strategy, and you’ve already told us — none. Is that accurate?
I’m going to give you a little more time to talk about what progress has been made on developing a national strategy on research and innovation for Canada, and how this strategy would increase collaboration and streamline efforts to achieve objectives.
Mr. Buy: One of you had asked questions about the national strategy after one of our meetings, and Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada replied and said that they have a national strategy. The fact of the matter is that they have a national strategy focused on themselves. They don’t have a pan‑government, government-wide strategy.
The fact of the matter is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is now a very small partner in the whole agri-food ecosystem on funding from the federal government. ISED has much more money to provide for large projects than Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, so we were looking for a pan‑government, government-wide strategy.
The food security challenge has focused on efforts. The hope is that this government is realizing that there is a need to do something on the food issue. Our hope is that a strategy will come through something else called “food security strategy,” and we think, hopefully, something may come within the next few months. Those are the rumblings we’re hearing at the present time.
The fact of the matter is that it would have been really good if the government had actually consulted the sectors and consulted a little bit more widely all the various groups. Bring academia; bring the business community; bring the various NGOs that are working for it; bring the consumer groups. It’s nice to think about the product. If there is no social acceptability for the product, there’s an issue. Even bring lawyers so they can tell us what is or is not feasible and some of the challenges associated.
You do need that consultation and work to be done. FTP meetings are great, but they’re not sufficient.
Senator McBean: Mr. Destrijker, I really liked and connected when you talked in your testimony about the small farm model and how that is what protects us. As my colleague brought up, now we know about the megafarms in the United States.
How can a federal government support domestic food production in these small models while maintaining high animal welfare and food safety standards?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, senator, for the question. We are already doing that in Canada in our sector. It doesn’t matter what the size of your farm is. The rules are the same. If you have 3,000 birds, or we have some farmers who have close to a hundred thousand birds. The rules are the same. It’s important to make sure that the policies are followed by our producers.
At the same time, on the government side, one issue we have had lately is when you have an avian flu crisis or a farm that is hit by the disease, the compensation model is something that the government can work on.
When a disease happens to your farm — it doesn’t matter the size you have — CFIA takes control of your farm. So you’re not the boss anymore. Someone else took over the farm, and it’s okay. The government needs to be in control of that, but after that, the compensation model is something that can be renewed.
As a farmer, you’re not programmed to euthanize your birds or kill your flock. That’s not what you want to do. Your brain is not programmed to do that. You want to be there to take care of your birds and your farm and produce food.
Having to manage all the stress related to that — and you have all the paperwork to do after that to get some compensation model — is something that could probably be worked on. It doesn’t matter the size of your farm, but that’s one example that could be addressed.
Senator Burey: As usual, many of my esteemed colleagues, if not all, have taken most of the questions, but I have some questions left.
Mr. Destrijker, first of all, I want to compliment you on having more young farmers come into farming and especially small farms, and the diversification and the resilience that that has built into the — I don’t call it supply management — the farming system we have developed here in Canada.
You said a few things about price volatility, and I would like you to expand on how the system that we have, because affordability is part of the issue with food security. How does this system protect for price volatility?
Then I have one other question, asking you to expand on one of your recommendations, which is federal procurement targets in terms of domestic food production. So can you talk about price volatility and then the federal procurement targets?
Mr. Destrijker: Thank you, senator, for both questions. I’m going to do my best to answer that.
Regarding the first one related to price, our farmers are not paid depending on the product availability or not. We are producing based on the cost of producing eggs, for example, in my community in the country. Last year, we saw the price of eggs in the U.S. It was in the news. President Trump even made some news with that. The price of eggs was extremely high. The price of eggs in Canada always stayed stable even if there is a crisis in the U.S. or even if we have avian influenza in the country. It doesn’t matter. The price in Canada is based on what it costs to produce eggs in Canada.
As a farmer, over the last two years, I have been paid the same amount for every dozen I have produced. I don’t have any increase over the last two years, and it’s okay because the price hasn’t increased. Our costs haven’t increased, so there is no reason for us to increase the price of eggs to the consumer. That’s not how our system works. We are based on what it costs. That’s how the system works in Canada, and that’s why we have stability in the country.
If there is an increase in costs, for sure, the price will go high, but it’s not going to be a crisis. It’s going to be stable.
The other question — I want to make sure I get it right. I think I understand your question quite well. If not, I will use the translation, but I think what the government can do is make sure that we have Canadian products in the requirement. There is Canadian product available in the country. We should use them first instead of importing products, but I’m not sure that answers your question.
Senator Burey: Federal procurement targets, yes.
Mr. Destrijker: Exactly. There is availability of the product, and sometimes the price seems to be a little bit cheaper coming from outside, but we need to make sure we have the same quality of product when you import product. Price is one thing. Quality is another.
Senator Burey: Thank you. Mr. Leblanc, you made a distinction between food security and food sovereignty. I’d like you to expand on that, please.
Mr. Leblanc: We think of food security in terms of ensuring that everyone has access to food. Food sovereignty means we need to make sure, in our own different ways, that we are controlling every step of the way, within our borders, as many aspects as possible. We don’t. Like that silly example I gave about selling cucumbers to the U.S. and buying back pickles. There are countless similar examples to that, and we are so vulnerable today.
I mentioned the off-season produce issue, but over the next few months, the continuation of fuel pricing and diesel pricing for every farm tractor across the country and every transport truck across the country are totally out of our control, and we need to stop doing that. We need to take more control over as many elements as we possibly can.
The Chair: Moving to second round, we are really tight on time, and I’ve got three people on the list. I’m going to ask you to pose your question to our witnesses and ask them if they would be able to follow up with a written response. I’ll give people two minutes to ask their question.
If you have difficulty capturing the question, I’m sure we will be able to supply you with it after the fact.
Senator McNair: Mr. Buy, you made a statement that should be obvious but unfortunately isn’t, and that is that food security must be designed with communities, not for them. I’d like it if you could, without spending too much time putting it in writing, to expand on that. What model do you see as the best practice or approach on that?
The only other thing is, Mr. Leblanc, if you don’t mind leaving your maple diagram with us. I would really like that.
Senator Black: My colleagues have heard this, but I have this fear that there will come a time in our own country when we won’t be able to feed our people in our provinces or this country.
I would love to hear your thoughts about that in a paragraph or two — what you think about that.
I have a concern that we won’t be able to feed our provinces or country, let alone the world that we’re expected to now. Do you foresee this, and what would you say to that? Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Bullet-round questions. Mr. Destrijker, could you please put in writing what happens with any overproduction in your industry?
Mr. Leblanc, can you say more about the North using vertical farming? I’m just wondering if their power system can sustain this kind of farming, because we’ve heard a lot about power issues in the North.
Mr. Buy, could you give us your top key recommendations about a food security strategy related to innovation toward processing? Thank you.
The Chair: I might give you one question as well, as chair’s prerogative.
I’m wondering, Mr. Leblanc, if you might be able to also, building on the vertical farming potential, give us a sense of what the profile might be for products coming out of vertical farming. We have heard testimony that it tends to lean more towards the leafy greens, and I’m wondering, when we look at our plate and what we need to have on our plate, how much of that we could actually look to vertical farming to produce. That was my question.
I believe that brings us to the end of our testimony. Once again, I wish to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us. We appreciate the effort you put into preparing your remarks and answering our questions.
We will turn now to our next panel. For the second panel today, we have the pleasure of welcoming online from Agriculture in the Classroom Canada, Darcy Pawlik, Chairman, and Pamela Alexis, Board Member. We also welcome with us in the room, from the Coalition for Healthy School Food, Sarah Keyes, Provincial Lead of the Ontario Chapter. Thank you very much for joining us.
We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes. We will start with our witnesses from Agriculture in the Classroom. I understand you will be sharing your time.
Darcy Pawlik, Chairman, Agriculture in the Classroom Canada: Madam Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear. My name is Darcy Pawlik, and I am the chairman of Agriculture in the Classroom Canada, or AITC‑C.
AITC-C is a national charitable organization working with 10 provincial member organizations to connect students and educators to agriculture and food. Our mission is to ensure every young Canadian understands where food comes from, the people who produce it and the role agriculture and food play in our economy, environment, health and communities.
Our message today is simple: Food security is not only about producing enough food. It is also about whether Canadians understand food, value food, trust food systems and see themselves as part of the future workforce that will sustain those systems.
AITC-C reaches more than 2 million student experiences annually through accurate, balanced, curriculum-linked resources and programs. We are already helping students understand food production, local food systems, sustainability, innovation, careers and the diversity of food stories across Canada.
In northern communities, for example, we have begun work with the Northwest Territories to help students explore food through farming techniques, greenhouse growing, Elder teachings, Indigenous foodways and community knowledge. We see that as food literacy in its fullest sense.
If Canada wants stronger food security, we need to invest earlier. We need young people to understand agriculture, respect food, reduce misinformation, consider agri-food careers and recognize that food systems look different across communities.
Our recommendation is that agriculture and food literacy be recognized as a core food security measure, supported through sustained federal investment and scaled nationally with a particular focus on Indigenous, minority, northern, rural and underserved urban communities.
Pamela Alexis, Board Member, Agriculture in the Classroom Canada: Good evening. Thank you for your time.
My name is Pam Alexis, and I am the former MLA for Abbotsford-Mission and former Minister of Agriculture and Food for British Columbia. Before that, I served as a school trustee, city councillor and mayor. A 20-year run in total. Now, I am a board member for Agriculture in the Classroom, a national board which helps connect students to the agricultural sector.
This was the only board I said yes to joining upon retirement. The reason was simple. There is a disconnect between our society and how food is produced. There is a growing need to produce and process more food to feed Canadians and for export opportunities. We are faced with a changing climate, so we have to be smarter about where we grow food, what we grow and lean into the technology that is available to help ensure a higher success rate of production.
At the same time, we are faced with higher costs and other barriers, which really turn potential farmers or food processors away from the industry.
There is a solution. Agriculture in the Classroom provides students an opportunity to understand and be engaged with all things agriculture, which ultimately will provide options for employment later in life.
As a school trustee, I marvelled at the long-term impacts of a strong recycling program at the elementary level. As a result of the program, we learned as a society to reduce waste, create innovation in compostable products and reuse other products over and over again. Agriculture in the Classroom fosters appreciation and understanding of all things agriculture, ensuring the sector retains its rightful position in society.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, both.
Ms. Alexis, you missed it, but you had a round of applause when you announced that Ag in the Classroom was your board of choice. There are many people impressed with your credentials. Thank you.
Next we will go to Ms. Keyes.
Sarah Keyes, Provincial Lead, Ontario Chapter, Coalition for Healthy School Food: Madam Chair and committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
The Coalition for Healthy School Food is Canada’s largest school food network. We are made up of over 390 non-profit members and 150 endorser organizations from all provinces and territories. We’ve been advocating for a cost-shared national school food program for over a decade.
I’m speaking on behalf of the coalition and to the briefs submitted by Farm to Cafeteria Canada and forthcoming from Dr. Amberley Ruetz.
School food is a vital component of Canadian food security, not because it solves household food insecurity, but because it reaches across sectors to bolster food systems and provides the building blocks for the next generation to be healthy, well educated and set up to succeed.
Canada’s National School Food Program is helping to level the playing field so students from all income backgrounds can have equal access to quality nutrition and are ready to learn at school.
Non-stigmatizing school food programs are particularly important for Black children and youth, whose families experience the highest rates of food insecurity in Canada.
Indigenous-led school food programs can increase children’s food security and support Indigenous food sovereignty in communities, including remote and northern regions.
As educators and administrators attest, a well-fed school is a calm school, and this is where learning can happen well. A wide body of research demonstrates that school food benefits the health, academic achievement and mental well-being of children and youth.
These programs improve students’ diets, test scores, behaviours, attendance and graduation rates as well as school connections.
School food also helps children and youth become change agents of tomorrow, especially when food education is embedded in programs and the curriculum.
Involving students in growing, preparing, planning and learning about where food comes from helps them build life skills, confidence and understanding of how to foster healthier and more sustainable food habits for life. These impacts have ripple effects at home, influencing families and broader communities.
All of this helps make Canada become more food secure. But the benefits of school food reach much further.
In the face of a deepening affordability crisis, the national program is a ready-made tool that has a real impact on families by reducing grocery costs and alleviating the time and stress of packing school meals.
The government has estimated a saving of $800 annually for a two-child household. Research shows these savings could rise even higher as investments grow and more substantial meals are offered.
With millions of school meals served daily in Canada, programs that prioritize local purchasing can support Canadian farmers and food producers while building more resilient food systems.
We can take lessons from Brazil and France, which have designed their programs to create markets for regionally grown and prepared food, which, in turn, creates jobs and grows local economies.
We appreciate that these and other benefits are recognized by the government and are included in Canada’s National School Food Policy. To support the implementation of the policy in collaboration with provinces, territories and Indigenous partners, and to better understand the impact of Canada’s investment, we recommend the following.
The first is to double the National School Food Program investment from $200 million to $400 million per year to advance Canada’s vision that all children and youth in Canada will have access to nutritious food at school.
The second is to relaunch the School Food Infrastructure Fund, with a permanent annual investment of $20 million. This will support community organizations to produce, process, store and distribute more whole, fresh and culturally responsive food to schools. This infrastructure is vital for enhancing community food security as well as agri-food development.
The third is to invest $20 million in the Buy Canadian in schools program, to increase local procurement, expand economic growth and build resiliency in our food supply chains. This will help Canada’s agri-food sector become more self‑reliant amid global geopolitical disruptions.
By basing the program on international best practices, it can also help Canada meet our climate commitments by promoting climate-friendly menus, minimizing food and packaging waste and providing students with action-oriented food literacy education.
The fourth and final recommendation is to develop a coordinated national research and evaluation plan to implement longitudinal studies on health, education, economic and food system outcomes, and coordinate research currently being funded by CIHR. This would allow Canada to monitor progress towards the national policy, share learning for replication and innovation, strengthen policy decisions and, importantly, demonstrate the impact of this important investment.
We should also consider creating a Canadian research centre and a Canadian research chair in partnership with universities to coordinate and lead this work.
At a moment when Canadian resiliency matters more than ever, school food is essential to Canada’s national food security strategy.
A recent World Food Programme report states that all the evidence shows that school meal programs are one of the smartest long-term investments any government can make.
Thank you for your time and focus on this important subject.
The Chair: Thank you. Perfect timing.
We will now go to questions, senators. You will each have five minutes to ask and have your questions answered.
Senator McNair: Ms. Alexis, thank you for your service, quite seriously, to your province and your country.
Ms. Alexis: Thank you.
Senator McNair: My question is for Agriculture in the Classroom. According to a media release in 2024, Agriculture in the Classroom Canada partnered with CropLife Canada to develop curriculum resources for educators and students throughout the country. The resources drew on CropLife Canada’s “Real Farm Lives” documentary web series, which was created to highlight the work and lives of Canadian farming families.
I have four questions with respect to that.
What were the measurable outcomes or impacts related to agriculture literacy, if any, from Agriculture in the Classroom Canada and CropLife’s curriculum partnership?
Second, in your opinion, how does agriculture literacy enhance food security and inform policy in Canada?
Third, to what extent does Agriculture in the Classroom Canada plan to extend its programming and curriculum to Yukon and Nunavut? You mentioned the Northwest Territories.
Last, how should governments collaborate to further enhance agriculture literacy and to help address the possible disconnect between Canadian consumers and the origin of their food?
Mr. Pawlik: I’m trying to collect all four questions here quickly and, at the same time, trying to be comprehensive yet quick.
Thank you for the question.
The first one around CropLife Canada’s involvement and the “Real Farm Lives” program is an interesting one. One of the things they enabled us to do was showcase different farmers all across the country, all the different production methods and how they farm.
One of the biggest things we have is this disconnect between what I will call rural and urban. But, largely, farmers are disconnected from the rest of society, so making sure it is no longer a farmer with a pitchfork. It is an understanding of modern agriculture that is coming to bear that people can understand and start coming to grips with what that has become. It is not necessarily that traditional version of agriculture anymore. It has been positively housed.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me. I know the program fairly well. The videos are well done, which, at least in today’s society, is an important part of making sure your message gets across.
If that’s okay, I can try to move to the second one fairly quickly for you, senator.
Food security and Agriculture in the Classroom’s role to play really have to do with understanding where your food comes from and a better sense of nutrition.
We find so many disconnects in today’s society. Maybe you’re getting your information from social media, or it is coming from a source that maybe doesn’t have the capacity to go from an information piece, maybe a school teaching or otherwise, into the ability to understand what that actually means.
A good example might be looking at a food label and maybe misunderstanding what niacin is — it is a vitamin B — or the importance of a folate. They might not understand the word. That might give them some kind of a fear response. There is a lot of misinformation in society that we’re trying to dispel with a lot of our programming and give kids the ability to make that discernment themselves.
The third question is around the extent to which we’d be able to possibly get educational materials and enter into the Yukon and Nunavut and even with the Northwest Territories, these are pretty early days.
The challenge, of course, is to work with communities. That came through in previous committees. That’s not an easy thing to do. It takes a lot of time, resources and expertise. That is not necessarily always housed within Agriculture in the Classroom either at the national level or at the provincial level. We’re all kind of working off the corner of our desks. We rely on a lot of volunteers who dedicate countless hours of time to pursue this endeavour. I can tell you it is not easy. Trying to do it right does usually take a little bit longer. Being present in those communities is part of that initiative. We also then have to think about training the trainer. That takes a lot of time and resources that we don’t necessarily have. We do rely on the gracious sponsorship and donations that come from, writ large, almost all agricultural community members, some of whom were on different panels earlier, as well as many, many others.
I’m trying to move through this quickly. I hope these are okay answers.
The Chair: It may have been a little too ambitious to answer all four questions in five minutes. Can you give us a written submission on those answers, Mr. Pawlik? Would you mind? Senator McNair is being tough on you. So if you could write those.
Senator McNair: Sorry to dump those on you like that.
Mr. Pawlik: Yes.
Senator Black: Can we send the transcript so that he will have that?
The Chair: Yes. For sure.
Senator Muggli: Ms. Keyes, thank you for being here. I just wanted to explore a little bit. The government has talked about making the school food program permanent. You talked about the importance of doubling the investment. I have a couple of questions. Will doubling the investment be enough to reach all the most vulnerable children? What does permanent mean in terms of research? I wanted to bring that up because I have worked in the realm of collaborating with research chairs, and sometimes I’ve heard universities talk about maybe research chairs are not the way to go because they have an end.
So you can do something for, say, five years, and then it ends. Would it be better to have maybe a commitment with this so‑called permanent program, permanent research funding? I ask because how else can you measure outcomes in programs where you actually have to do longitudinal studies. Can you expand on that?
Ms. Keyes: Absolutely. I will touch on your first question. In terms of doubling the investment, right now, it’s $200 million. If you spread that money across all students in Canada, that’s just over 20 cents per student per day. If you double that, it is just over 40 cents so it’s still not going to reach all students in Canada, but it will go along the way. We know the impact of the current investment is having a huge impact. It is increasing the quantity and quality of food; it is expanding to new schools and serving more students. We know that doubling that will continue to do that.
We don’t actually have numbers of what is coming out of the initial investment yet. We haven’t seen that report from the government. We are hoping to, soon. But we need that data to understand how far the money is going.
The initial investment was supposed to reach 400,000 students. We hope that this hard target has been met, and ideally, that another $200,000 on top of that would reach another 400,000 students at least. We need that data from the government and we need the research. Going to your next question, the research is so important. What we have right now is so many researchers across the country who are ready and set up to collaborate and do this kind of longitudinal research and work together. We already have people starting research in different universities even though we don’t have a centre or a research chair. A national research plan would incorporate a centre that would allow for that continuity and those longitudinal studies, and a chair would enable that to get kick-started.
Maybe that chair would turn over in five years, but it would also allow another chair to be put in place. That would be the hope with that.
Senator Muggli: I have another question for you. Should programs have criteria to use locally grown products? How can that happen in practical terms?
Ms. Keyes: That’s a great question. We know from leading countries around the world and there are some great examples within Canada already that are really prioritizing local food. But it does cost more in some instances so we need the right coordination and the proper support to connect the farmers to the schools to make sure that that connection is there, that there is coordination, that they have the space to deliver the food and that they have the people at the school level to make the food into edible, consumable products for kids. We do think that’s a huge area where we could expand. It is in the National School Food Policy as an objective. We know it is a priority for the government. What we don’t have yet are targets.
In some countries, like France and Brazil, there are targets. It used to be 30% in Brazil to purchase from small local farmers who employ sustainable practices. That just increased to 45% and it made a huge difference in the country. It not only increased the food resiliency of the food systems, but it has also increased income for farmers, and along with income support, it got Brazil off the UN hunger map. That’s great news. France is doing a similar thing. They have 50% local, sustainable food and 20% must be organic. We can do similar things but we need incentives.
That’s why we talked about the Buy Canadian Policy in schools program, because that could be one way to help providers who don’t have right now either the coordination capacity or enough funding to buy those local foods. We need more support to enable that. A few states in the U.S. have incentive programs so if you are buying local food, you get some compensation for that.
Senator Black: Mr. Pawlik and Ms. Alexis, I have the utmost respect and thanks for the work that you do and your provincial affiliates with respect to Agriculture in the Classroom. Thank you very much, very much. My question to you is this: Based on your experience, what part of educating students on agriculture and food is most valuable for the future of our country’s food sovereignty and food security situation? How will we, in Agriculture in the Classroom, talk about food sovereignty and food security?
Ms. Alexis: Thank you for the question. The food literacy part is your basis. First, you’ve got to understand what it is. When I was a school trustee, we did have a fruit and vegetable program in British Columbia. Some of the schools had children who could not identify the vegetables or the fruit that were being delivered to the school to augment any existing program.
So that really got me thinking. If we can’t even understand what it is that is out there, how can we possibly teach people the sector? The food literacy part and the understanding of how the food is grown, how the food is processed — and when we talk about food being grown, I also talk about food processing, because I think sometimes we forget that the processing part is just as important. I believe in the food continuum, to go right from the farm to the table, and we need to treat all of it with the same respect that we have for the farmers as well.
Senator Black: My next question is to Ms. Keyes, and I so very much appreciate the work that you do as well, in your organization and your partner organizations. I spoke at a high school not long ago, and I sat in the cafeteria and watched young people hungry. It broke my heart. The question to you is this: On your website, you talk about the challenges due to record high food costs and increased participation rates. What sacrifices do your programs have to make when you can’t run these programs at full capacity?
Ms. Keyes: I will speak to Ontario, because that’s where I know best. In the last few years before the federal funding came onboard, there was a lot of strain on programs because they were experiencing what we are all experiencing, such as higher food costs. That meant more students were trying to access programs and the food cost more. Many of the programs in those instances reduced the amount of food served. They went from three food groups to one or two. They weren’t serving five days per week, only a few days, and some were shutting programs down. There were rallies at some high schools to get their programs back.
The federal funding has made a huge difference in that because we really needed that money here in Ontario. It has allowed programs to increase those food groups again and ensure as many students that need or want to access the program can. It’s a universal program, so anyone who wants to access the food can do so. It also allows programs to operate more days per week, not necessarily five but more. It’s really going a long way in terms of that.
Senator Black: Thank you for the work that you and your folks do.
Senator McBean: To Darcy and Pamela, if I can, schools, medicine and sport I think are three areas that improve our physical and mental health. I come here to the Senate, and I’m jazzed about doing a lot, and then you run into that little thing where they’re all managed provincially, and here I am in a federal role.
What are the barriers, or how have you worked on creating a curriculum that you want to deliver to kids across the country, but the curriculum is managed and delivered provincially?
Mr. Pawlik: That’s a great question. Perseverance certainly transcends from sports to what we do as well. It really takes that because getting into the curriculum requires a ground-up understanding of what exactly the needs are. We have provincial experts, and they become experts, to some extent, through experience. That’s really the pathway.
One of the challenges is that every province is different. We don’t necessarily have the capability to always share between provinces, but there are a lot of best practices that, when we come together provincially as a group — and Agriculture in the Classroom Canada helps to support that — we can share those experiences and resources. They can be tweaked and — I don’t want to call them upcycled — made to fit those different jurisdictions.
It would, however, be really fantastic. As we continue to understand Agriculture in the Classroom Canada’s role federally, we can figure out how to transcend that and how we can make sure we can find some balance and work together more proactively across provinces. That’s a great question. Thank you.
Senator McBean: Ms. Alexis, did you want to add to that?
Ms. Alexis: There are, as I call them, the champions from province to province who run these programs that fit their province so incredibly well. Agriculture in the Classroom has such a great opportunity nationally because we have these wonderful folks who deeply understand how to deliver these programs. Part of the success is that we’ve got great people in every province, and yes, they are very different.
Senator McBean: Sometimes I feel like I’m trying to lead you to say things so they’ll show up in our report.
What opportunities, maybe conferences or meetings, would exist to bring educators and more of these people together to better connect schools, students and even local producers across the country?
Mr. Pawlik: In terms of the producer part of it, we do have some of the different affiliate provincial members that maybe operate under the banner of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for example. Their members coordinate with the different provincial chapters. As much as is humanly possible, we are unifying across different value chain members, commodity and agriculture right through to production and transportation, you name it.
Where we do have the challenges is where I think bureaucracy becomes a little bit stifling, and it’s difficult to find that pan‑Canadian educator conference that might be supportive. That would be something that we’d really like to see get incorporated into the food strategy, for example, that Canada is looking at.
Ms. Alexis: Currently, there are 2 million students who have some form of programming from Agriculture in the Classroom. Obviously, that number could certainly escalate if we had more people trained to roll out these programs or more access to the programs. There is definitely a need, no question. I would love to see it more prominent in any kind of option for teachers to look at professional development.
Senator McBean: Ms. Keyes, you talked about infrastructure. I have a daughter who goes to school in Toronto. It’s a brand‑new school; they’ve barely built a kitchen. There is no kitchen, no fridge and no ovens. Most kids eat in the classroom.
How are we to be delivering good food to kids if schools aren’t including spaces to create good food?
Ms. Keyes: That’s why part of Budget 2025 allocated infrastructure money. Some of that money could support not only community food infrastructure but could be invested to go to provincial and territorial counterparts and invest in school infrastructure. Provinces and territories are obviously responsible for that, so they need to step up those investments.
Here in Ontario, we haven’t had a specific school nutrition infrastructure allotment in quite a long time, so that would really go a long way. When schools are being built, we need those kitchens to be built within them. We need the education system to be funded in a way that they can afford to do that.
There are really great solutions, though. If we can’t retrofit every school, there are mobile kitchens that can come in and teach kids in terms of food literacy. In terms of getting a lot of meals to students, if you don’t have the infrastructure, there is a really great solution happening in a few places in Ontario. One is in Kingston. They’re using high schools as centralized hubs to make lunches, and they’re distributing them to feeder schools, the elementary schools all around. There are community kitchens that can also be used.
There are many really creative ways that school meals are being distributed, even though we don’t always have that in‑school infrastructure. I agree that we definitely need it in the long term.
Senator Martin: I had several written questions, but my colleagues asking their questions makes me want to ask a few other questions instead.
My first question is to Ms. Alexis, who served in cabinet in B.C. There are the transfer funds that go to provinces. There is education, and then health is a huge area where I feel like so much of the money goes. When it comes to the infrastructure of schools, that’s a provincial responsibility.
Would you speak to the kind of coordination that is happening between federal and provincial governments so that we are ensuring there is proper funding that goes to education for these specific programs? You’re speaking from experience, so I wanted to understand, from your point of view, how you think that is working.
Ms. Alexis: Absolutely. Even as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we rolled out a food program. It was probably two or three years ago now. I can tell you it was complicated. I was involved, but I had no control over the budget. The Minister of Education was responsible for rolling out the program, but Agriculture was there to support, not monetarily, but certainly to connect. Then Health was involved in some other food programs.
It does need streamlining, in my opinion, as far as who should generally be responsible. It’s a really good question. I can tell you, after the first year we rolled out the food program, it took a full calendar year to ensure the coordination of that program. We did reach out to local food producers who were connected to the food coordinator. That was the first step. That dollar value also hired food coordinators for each district, and then those food coordinators would have contacts in each school to ensure rollout. Yes, it is a complex issue.
Senator Martin: Ms. Keyes, you mentioned that with respect to the coordination capacity, really, there is a lot that is required to ensure that these programs are well run. There is a very specific example, and again, Ms. Alexis, and maybe even Ms. Keyes and Mr. Pawlik may have a comment on this, but I was in Tumbler Ridge a month and a half ago, and the school that experienced the tragedy was shut down for over a month.
While the school was shut down, they managed to get funding that allowed the students to eat together, which was so healing for the students, because they were all in portables. They weren’t in the school. They had this food program that was effectively run through the PAC.
Once the school officially reopened, although they were still in portables, they didn’t have a place like a cafeteria to see one another, and the funding ran out. Is there anything that could help a school like in Tumbler Ridge that experienced such a tragedy? I didn’t know the answer, but they need our support. It needs national attention because as a community, they just don’t have the resources themselves.
I don’t know if you have any suggestions for when such a special situation arises. Where do we go?
Ms. Keyes: In situation, the province stepping up to support them in building a permanent dining facility so that they could continue to dine together would be one option, I think, that could be explored.
That is the case in that situation in particular, but all students benefit from eating together in a shared space.
Senator Martin: It was so healing for them to be together is what I heard.
Ms. Alexis: Can I just add that the government is replacing the school, so there will be a new school built. But in the interim, they are making other provisions as far as where the students will attend and that kind of thing.
I would think that it would be the responsibility of the ministry of education to ensure that that shared space, which is so incredibly crucial to their healing and just being part of a larger group that has been impacted by such a tragedy, that that would likely come from the ministry of education.
Don’t quote me, but that’s what I think would happen.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. I think this is an issue that’s very close to everyone’s heart.
I was on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee when we looked at this National School Food Program when it was coming through and being passed. It has passed, and it’s permanent, and we talked about funding.
A couple of the sticking points that you mentioned, Ms. Keyes, regarding the evaluation and research, which was — I’m not sure if it was an objective or a principle — that it wasn’t a required reporting. The other thing was the procurement issues, and you talked about 25, 30, 45 and above, and development of local food systems.
You came out with a few recommendations, like having the research chair and some funding to follow that. How do other countries do it? Canada was a laggard in terms of the food policy, but how do other countries do it?
Ms. Keyes: That’s a good question, and we can learn a lot from other countries. We are one of the last G7 countries to get a national school food program. Some countries have been running these programs for a hundred years plus. We can learn a lot from other countries.
In speaking about food literacy education and embedding that into school meal programs, Japan and Finland are leaders in that. We can look across the world and see who are the leaders in the things that we really want to do. For food literacy, Japan and Finland are really leaders. They have food integrated into the curriculum. They teach about where the food comes from as they’re eating it. The students are involved in serving the food and cleaning up afterwards, so they’re building those food skills. That’s one piece of building a really comprehensive program.
The procurement piece, again, looking to those international leaders like France and Brazil to model our program off of what they’ve done. We don’t have any targets right now. Right now, B.C. is the only province that I know of that has a voluntary local food procurement target. It is voluntary, but they do have staff at the ministry of agriculture to support that.
We don’t have that across the board in Canada yet, but we do need that at the provincial and territorial levels so we can increase those systems of local procurement and increase that capacity to procure local foods.
Then, in terms of the required reporting, from our understanding, the provinces and territories need to report on the outcomes. It is just that that information hasn’t been made public yet. Right now, what we know is that they’re reporting on the number of students reached and the number of new programs and things like that, but the evaluation piece in terms of those outcomes that are changing students’ diets and behaviours, aren’t necessarily being looked at yet, but that’s why we need this research, because it’s so important to know if this investment is having an impact. If we put more money in, will it have a bigger impact? We need this in this program.
Senator Burey: This is to Agriculture in the Classroom Canada. Thank you so much for the work that you do. It’s outstanding. I’ve often been asked in my district, “Where is Agriculture in the Classroom?” That’s Windsor-Essex. I’m putting you on high alert.
I see so much synergy here between the school food program and Agriculture in the Classroom. Are you putting together this high-level kind of conference where you can work together to really amplify what you’re doing and not just at the federal level but also get that energy to take flight with what’s happening in the provinces, too?
The conference that you hinted at, Senator McBean, what about the high-level conference with organizations such as yours to find those kinds of synergies across Canada and provincially?
Ms. Keyes: Can I comment on that? We are actually holding a conference on June 3 and 4 in Montreal. It is the nourishing food in schools conference. It is a pan-Canadian conference that is bringing together 500 people from across the country — educators, non-profit organizations, folks doing school meals, folks doing food literacy education, school boards, government reps and all sorts of people to talk about all of these things in terms of how to enhance school food programs, food education, cultural food and how to make the best program in Canada that we can.
It’s a lot of visioning and a lot of knowledge sharing, and I hope that you folks are coming. I don’t know if you are. I’m not involved in all of the organization, so I hope that you can come.
It’s Farm to Cafeteria Canada, the Coalition for Healthy School Food, Équiterre in Quebec and Le Collectif québécois.
Mr. Pawlik: I will give you the short answer from the standpoint of Agriculture in the Classroom. We’re faced with a dichotomy. We feel strongly that we have to execute on our mandate of providing education to all the classrooms. It’s very difficult for us to try to gather the funds, even, to then go and travel and represent.
It sounds like a fantastic conference. There are many — whether it’s Food Day Canada when we try to get to Ottawa, or whether we’re trying to participate with some of the larger funders and help understand where they’re coming from to then share that across the classrooms, we very much appreciate it, and we’ll make sure our executive director can see if we can get there.
That’s the right idea. We will totally do whatever we can to get there.
Senator Muggli: Ms. Keyes, you talked about incentives, and you talked about programs in other countries having incentives.
Could you give us some examples of those incentives?
Ms. Keyes: Yes, in terms of local procurement specifically, in the U.S., there are three or four states that have incentive programs. If you purchase local food, you can put in a reimbursement. You either get reimbursed by weight or by type, and so basically anybody who is running school food programs are able to get reimbursed for that local food purchasing. So it offsets the cost of those purchases, and it incentivizes that concentration on the local food system.
Senator Muggli: Are there any other examples of the kinds of incentives? If you know of more, you could just send us a few ideas in writing.
Ms. Keyes: Yes, absolutely. I can definitely follow up with those.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Ms. Alexis: In British Columbia, we have one high school that started a vertical farm as part of the teaching that goes on in the high school. That vertical farm produces food for the elementary school for their food program, so they have a relationship. One school grows it and the other school eats it. That’s a really fabulous way to share the information that’s required. It potentially provides employment opportunities afterward. That is the kind of relationship — it’s all about relationships, really, when it comes down to it — between schools.
Be creative.
Senator Muggli: Sometimes, that takes a few staff in that school who are passionate and act as those leaders, yes. Thanks.
Ms. Keyes: There are great examples of that happening within a school system, too, of course. There are gardens, and community organizations partner with teachers to run these amazing programs where you’re growing food with the kids, they’re eating it and it’s going into the school food program. There are lots of really great examples that we need to make more common so it is not just the siloed champions that are happening, which are amazing. We need to elevate that.
The Chair: Ms. Keyes, do you have a definition of “local”? I’ve heard a lot about local food. What is local food?
Ms. Keyes: Great question.
I don’t have one in front of me, but I think of local food in terms of Ontario — as local as possible — within your community. Ideally, you are buying from farmers in your own community.
It’s not possible everywhere in a big province like Ontario, where we have different growing conditions. Regional food systems are the next step up.
When I think about local food in programs in Ontario, because we’re so diverse, the Ontario base would really be the bigger picture. Start as small as you can in terms of the local purchasing, then purchasing as much as you can within your province and then widening out to Canada would be the final version.
The Chair: Thank you.
This committee has heard and witnessed the social benefits — and we’ve talked about it a bit tonight — of people having food production nearby and what it means as far as strengthening the fabric of a community. I loved your example, Ms. Alexis, of one school growing it and the other school eating it — thinking about what it would mean for fostering those relationships. We see this disconnect in society between people.
I was thinking about some of the lessons that we had from COVID. You never waste a crisis and take what you can when you’ve gone through something horrible. During COVID I saw that it really showed a lot of vulnerabilities, in particular for our school food systems. You folks must have seen this. I know I was with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the time, and we heard from schools that there was a lot of concern. Not only were children not getting the food — because, for a lot of children in our country, the one or two meals they get a day might come from a school food program — but to build on the Tumbler Ridge example that Senator Martin brought, it also removed the ability to have that check-in on the social and physical well-being of a lot of these children. It meant that for super vulnerable kids, food in a school does more than just fill their bellies; it does a lot.
Does anyone want to take a minute and talk about something like that to get it on the record for us as we look at food security in our country?
Ms. Keyes: I’m happy to.
We know that food brings kids to school. We know it increases the social connection between the folks who are providing the school meals as well as the students they’re eating it with.
Food is a connector: It brings people joy and it brings people together. When you have strong programs and people are sitting down beside each other, they not only get to know each other but they can share how they’re feeling about the meal and stories about their day. It just increases that social cohesion of the school. We’ve heard that so many times from school meal providers that these programs lead to so many great outcomes, but that social connection piece is one of the really most important pieces because having that space to connect over food is just so important.
The Chair: You folks might be able to build even more beyond what it means to eat together but what it means for kids to learn what it means to produce food and how that also strengthens the fabric of our society.
Ms. Alexis, did you want to hop in?
Ms. Alexis: Just briefly.
I can tell you that the COVID experience isn’t over by any stretch. We’re seeing a cohort of students move through the system who have been deeply impacted by the loss of social connections. This is one way of getting their hands dirty — growing food — and reconnecting somehow. It was really nature that pulled us through. Everyone wanted to be outside during COVID and wanted to experience natural life.
Getting back to that — which agriculture in the classroom can offer — is a means of changing that whole issue we are faced with. It is an entire cohort that’s going through it. I talked to a lot of teachers, and we are in a very difficult time with that one particular group that was really cut off.
On food, I’m Greek. I come from a restaurant family. My dad had the restaurant. We all worked for my father. Food was the very essence of life, and it still is for so many.
The Chair: Mr. Pawlik, did you want to weigh in as well?
Mr. Pawlik: Very quickly.
Two of our most popular programs have to do with community gardens — Little Green Thumbs; we’re going through renaming — and Eggs to Chicks. There’s a lot to teach people. You’re going from a seed and understanding the soil, the chemistry and how climate impacts it all. You’re able to have a conversation with the kids. You can actually see on their faces the excitement and engagement going through experiential learning. We’re getting the feedback that it’s where the teachers want to see the programming expand — getting the kids out of the classroom — or even, in a lot of circumstances, getting the materials to have a mini greenhouse within the classroom.
Those are the types of experience that we really want to take into the North, but a key fact is that this is one of our most highly sought-after programming. We’ve got waitlists, and this is the formal part of demand success from what we can supply. We are woefully underfunded, and we need the people and resources because these are physical infrastructure pieces. We need the people to go out to the schools and do the teaching. We rely so much on volunteers, but we see that come into practice. Those are the folks who can work in the greenhouses if that’s the strategy we want to take. Those people components are really our enablers to food security.
Thanks for that question. It’s wonderful.
The Chair: Super. Thank you so much. Do you know about the Tater Tubs program in Prince Edward Island? Yes, that’s a good one, too. It’s always good to finish on a potato note. Thank you, everyone, for all the work you put into being here. Your presentations were great, and thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.
(The committee adjourned.)