AGRI Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
Dissenting Opinion: Growing Forward 2 New Democratic Party of Canada While we appreciate the content and much of the witness testimony identified in the Committee Report on Growing Forward 2, we feel there are several glaring problems with the report as it stands. The report does not sufficiently reflect important concerns raised by numerous witnesses who testified before the committee. It does not adequately acknowledge some of the most critical needs facing the Canadian Agricultural and Food sector, and under-emphasizes the important supports that producers, retailers, and consumers will need in the coming years. We applaud the recommendation relating to support for supply management in future trade negotiations. To adequately set the stage for a robust agricultural and agri-food sector, the New Democratic Party has presented an additional set of recommendations:
This dissenting report outlines these recommendations in order of their priority. Recommendation 1: Begin immediate development of a National Food Strategy The Committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada facilitate the development of a national food strategy and that it initiate discussion of the links between the strategy and Growing Forward 2. (OR of the inclusion of the strategy into Growing Forward 2) Canada needs a national food strategy that bolsters local food production, and builds linkages between consumers, retailers, public institutions, and producers. Such a strategy would also be an opportunity to address the need to reduce entrance barrier for new farmers, and restore Canada’s food safety system. Growing Forward 2 is defined as ‘Canada’s agricultural policy agreement’ (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website) and it therefore is appropriate that a National Food Strategy is part of that mandate: “Growing Forward 2 will represent an evolution of previous frameworks and will aim to help the industry position itself to respond to future opportunities and challenges and create the conditions for long-term competitiveness, sustainability and adaptability, with an emphasis on industry capacity and self-reliance.” (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website) Despite including a National Farm and Food Strategy in their latest platform, and despite hearing testimony from several witnesses about the important role the Federal government has as a facilitator of such a strategy, it was not recommended by this committee to include this process as part of Growing Forward 2: “In addition, to ensure our continuing efforts to support farmers are as effective as possible, we will develop a National Farm and Food Strategy to guide federal policy through the coming years. The Strategy will build on our efforts to sustain the Canadian family farm, to strengthen food safety, and to open new markets for the world-class products of Canadian farmers.” (Conservative Platform 2011) It is unfortunate that this campaign promise is not being kept. Given that numerous other OECD countries have adopted food strategies, including England, Scotland, Australia, and Ireland, Canada is being left behind. Furthermore, numerous Canadian organizations have developed National Food Strategies that should be reviewed by the Committee. These include: Food Secure Canada (People’s Food Policy), Canadian Federation of Agriculture Conference Board of Canada, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute . Furthermore, the NDP has begun elaborating a national food strategy (Food For Thought — Towards a Canadian Food Strategy). Recommendation 2: Establish transparent and timely performance management of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs Given that Recommendation 15 outlines the critical elements of timeliness and transparency in Business Risk Management (BRM) programs, the Department should institute a mandatory semi-annual review to ensure the department is meeting its commitments to improve the management of such programs and the program is achieving operational goals. We heard from several witnesses who felt the major concerns with BRM implementation were the lack of predictability and timeliness when it came to payments. Findings from Chapter 3 of the 2011 Fall Auditor General Report (Payments to Producers — Agriculture and agri-Food Canada) confirmed many of these concerns: The Auditor General recommended in 3.46 of the report: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada should analyze processing of payments for AgriStability and AgriInvest in a more systematic manner and follow up on remedies to improve the timelines of payments to producers. The Department agreed and committed to fully implement this recommendation by April 2013. The Department will more systematically review the design of income support programming gas part of Growing Forward 2 discussions and will analyze its payment processing system to improve the timeliness of processing of payments. In that regard, the recent implementation of an updated application processing system will provide the Department with the capacity to produce more systemic reporting on application processing. The Department will use the reporting capacity to further improve the timeliness of producer payments. This recommendation will be fully implemented with Growing Forward 2 by April 2013. We applaud the that Recommendation 15 addresses these issues, but feel that it does not go far enough in ensuring timely performance review. Given that these programs are a critical lifeline for farmers, they should be reviewed semi-annually to address any problems in implementation and ensure resources are directed accordingly. Recommendation 3: Reverse erosion of food safety That the Department ensures resources for food safety inspection are increased, and adopt immediately the major recommendations of the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak. Given recent cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, New Democrats are gravely concerned that the health of Canadians is at risk. The Department should immediately cease any cuts to frontline inspectors and ramp up resources in order to ensure the continued quality of Canadian food. The 2008 Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak included 57 recommendations, most of which have not been adequately considered or adopted by the Department. The Committee heard testimony that emphasized the need for further inspection in the importation of food substances: “Regarding import inspection and testing, the committee was led to believe that the rules are the same for both imports and exports, that producers in Canada have a level playing field, and that this is administered evenly. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is one set of rules, but they're certainly not applied the same way. Export inspection always gets top priority, because when you don't do it, the exports don't move. Imports are discretionary, and they get slid off the table in many cases. The ratio is approximately 100% of exports being inspected to about 2% of imports being inspected.” (Bob Kingston, National President, Agriculture Union, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, February 15, 2012) The Canadian Medical Association has warned Canadians to `eat at their own risk`. In regards to the Listeriosis outbreak, they have pointed to glaring errors in Federal policy: “Government policy errors helped bring about this epidemic… The listeriosis epidemic is a timely reminder that the Harper government has reversed much of the progress that previous governments made on governing for public health. … And listeriosis may be the least of it” (Canadian Medical Association, Editorial, October 7, 2008). Given these repeated warnings, it is time that the Department ensure a heightened state of readiness toward any emergencies in the food system, and that gaps in the current food safety inspection system are addressed. Recommendation 4: Strengthen public research and ensure long-term stable funding for agriculture innovation Funding for science and innovation provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada should be maintained at sufficient financial levels, quality of delivery, and time spans to ensure world class research at public institutions, and should be governed to monitor and address potential conflicts of interest in research and commercialization. Currently, the lack of predictable funding has an impact on research efforts. Research dollars provided by industry may be limited in scope, designed for specific needs of one self-interested company. It is imperative that public research is necessary to fill in gaps left by industry. A Spring 2010 report of the Auditor General found key areas for improvement in the research capacity at AAFC. They pointed to a lack of appropriate documentation, predictable funding, and misallocation of capital costs. This is unacceptable. We heard a large number of witness testimony that confirmed the need for long-term stable funding: “I would emphasize the importance of building long-term relationships between industry, commodity groups, and public research organizations.” (K. Peter Pauls, Professor and Chair, Department of Plant Agriculture, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, October 25, 2012) “...Third, develop programs for emerging issues that are not restricted to a five-year timeline.” (K. Peter Pauls, Professor and Chair, Department of Plant Agriculture, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, October 25, 2012) “Second, we're becoming too short term. We're moving from seven- to 10-year planning horizons to one- to two-year planning horizons. Our main competitor in many of our product lines is Australia. They took the lessons we showed them in the centres of excellence program and embedded them system-wide in the agrifood system through the GRDC. I think we should be re-examining our horizons there.” (Peter W.B. Phillips, Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, October 27, 2011) “Time now has become shortened on a lot of funding, and we need to think about that. As I look at Europe, most European countries now have plans out to 2025 or 2030 on their programs, and they don't change those programs. They might tweak them as they move forward, as they learn from this year and going into next year, but they have a plan that's out there for 20 or 30 years on how they want to develop their agricultural community. We tend to operate on a two-year to four-year timeline, so I think we need to think longer term than that.” (Dr. Murray McLaughlin, President and CEO, Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, October 27, 2011) “We're very worried that long-term research, which is the forte of public research in this country, will suffer in the near future, given the funding dilemma. That type of research is the basis for a lot of Canada's ability to lead the world in terms of its agriculture.” (Bob Kingston, National President, Agriculture Union, Evidence, 1st session, 41st Parliament, February 15, 2012) Recommendation 5: Assess and respond to the regional needs of Agricultural and Agri-food sectors Due to the sector’s determination to supply the local food market, The Growing Forward 2 framework should include government policies that assess and respond to the needs of regional producers and distribution networks, thereby supporting local food systems that meet consumer demands closer to home. There has been an increase in demand for local food products (demonstrated by increase of farmers’ markets on an annual basis). A 2009 Ipsos Reid poll found that “the popularity of farmers’ markets is at an all–time high, with almost nine in ten respondents saying they enjoy visits to farms and farmers’ markets where they can buy their food fresh off the farm and meet the grower in person.” There were 28 million shopper visits to farmers’ markets in Canada in 2008. (Farmers’ Markets Canada Economic Impact Study, 2008). Witnesses attested that: “Local food systems are useful for two key reasons. First, they foster greater food literacy (which will be critical if the predictions are correct and food prices continue to rise for the next generation). Second, alternative food systems provide a buffer between urban consumers and the international market.” (Evan Fraser, Evidence, Meeting No. 8 1st session, 41st Parliament, Ottawa, October 27th, 2011) There is currently a lack of leadership in identifying the needs of the growing number of local producers and their regional customers. Growing Forward II should adopt a regional approach with the aim of identifying opportunities and barriers in local food markets, and potential strategies to meet producer and consumer needs. Recommendation 6: Adopt a prudent risk management approach to the use and uptake of biotechnology 1) That the government undertake a comprehensive review of the regulations governing GE seeds, fish and animals with a view to:
2) That an independent body be created to peer-review relevant scientific data 3) Impose an immediate moratorium on GE food/ animals/fish, alfalfa and wheat until such time as a regulatory review has been conducted and modernized rules brought into effect Given the scientific complexity of genetically engineering vital food crops and the numerous economic, environmental and social considerations that were raised throughout the Committee’s study of biotechnology, New Democrats believe the government has a clear obligation to act on these recommendations. On the whole Appendix A: Committee Hearings on the Biotechnology Industry During the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session of the Growing Forward II report has taken a balanced approach in documenting what was heard from various witnesses. However, it is unfortunate that the logistics involved did not permit the committee to continue with the study after the election of the 41st Parliament so that a full report with appropriate recommendations to the government for a direction in going forward could have resulted. Appendix A documents many significant concerns which were expressed throughout the study period concerning genetically engineered seeds, fish and animals. At many times, the gaps and oversights in Canada’s regulations governing this technology were pointed out which are seen to have not kept up with the growth of the industry. It is no small matter that under the current science based approach to our regulations, which relies on privately owned science and a secretive decision making process, there is no mechanism to allow for consideration of market rejection, or even a special category dealing with genetically engineered animals. For instance, farmers concerned that their established markets would be jeopardized by the commercialization of a GM seed such as Alfalfa or wheat or a GM Animal such as the trademark Enviropig, have no recourse but to organize public protests and enter into time consuming lobbying efforts with the government. This is exhausting and takes time away from actual farming which farmers can ill afford. As studies have shown, the benefits of GE crops, as espoused by its proponents, are often overblown and, in many cases, outweighed by negative impacts such as increasing pest and weed resistance to the GE crop’s companion chemical applications, market rejection, and unwanted contamination of non-GE seed stock, to name just a few. So far, the oft repeated promises that genetic engineering would revolutionize agriculture in terms of reduced chemical use, increased yield, climate tolerance and nutritional improvements remain mostly promises. Meanwhile, the fact remains that improvements to plant and animal qualities are still derived in the greatest degree from conventional breeding methods. GE ‘benefits’ are mainly limited to rendering certain high-value commodity crops impervious to the killing effects of pesticides and herbicides. An estimated 130 different types of weeds are now resistant to Roundup, forcing farmers to resort to higher amounts and more toxic varieties of herbicides, which will inevitably lead to even more resistance. A lot of discussion is centered on the fallacy of ‘co-existence’, the ability of conventional crops to exist side by side with GE crops. Unwanted contamination happens and will continue to happen. The introduction of GE Roundup Ready Alfalfa, a perennial crop pollinated by bees, would establish beyond a doubt the futility of coexistence. What is certain, however is that GE Alfalfa would be highly damaging to both organic and conventional farming. In February 2000, the Royal Society of Canada (RSC), Canada’s senior national body of pre-eminent scientists and scholars, convened an “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology” at the request of Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Panel was asked to evaluate the Canadian regulatory system and the scientific capacity needed to cope with products in the future. The RSC Panel made 58 recommendations for changes to the regulatory system, many of which would have profound implications. The Government responded with an ‘Action Plan;’ but ultimately only one of these recommendations was ever implemented. Furthermore, to avoid specifically having to regulate the infant science of genetic engineering, the Canadian government created the new term and category "Plants with Novel Traits" (and "Novel Foods") which includes GE but also crops produced by other technologies such as traditional breeding and mutagenesis (where chemicals and gamma-radiation are used to induce mutations in genes). There is no labeling, traceability or human health studies to discover potential problems post-market. Appendix A mentions there are those who believe that genetically modified crops are by and large equivalent to conventional crops. The facts however show this claim to be completely false. In natural history, the exchange of genes between species has not been possible except in certain cases such as, for example, horizontal gene transfer between species of bacteria. Species that are closely related might be able to interbreed, like a donkey and a horse, but their offspring will usually be infertile (e.g. mule). Recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering allows scientists to move genetic material between species and even kingdoms, such as, for example, between a tomato and a fish. Many studies continue to raise questions or add to the slowly emerging public body of scientific literature regarding the processes of genetic engineering that point to the inherent unpredictability of transgenic manipulation about which there is an implicit need for greater study. Recommendation 7: Support consumer driven demand for more humane livestock conditions This committee recommends that the government support industry with efforts to transition to more humane enriched housing systems in order to satisfy consumer demands and trends. On May 4th, 2012, Tim Hortons announced major initiatives to improve animal welfare for pigs and chickens. The company called for elimination of gestation stalls for sows and committed to more than 10 per cent of egg supply from more humane enriched hen housing systems by the end of 2013[1]. Just recently, McDonalds, Wendy’s, and Compass Group, Burger King announced a new policy of eliminating the use of both gestation crates and battery cages from their supply chains in the United States[2]. Witnesses to the Committee also identified the growing power of consumer-driven changes in animal treatment: “We know that consumers want more information on how farm animals are raised. Mandatory labelling of cage eggs is already used in countries around the world. These labels, mandatory in parts of Australia since 2010, have increased sales of cage-free eggs by 90% in some stores. In the European Union, mandatory labelling of eggs with the method of production used was required from 2004 to January of this year when a ban on the use of battery cages came into effect. In the United States, mandatory labelling has been proposed as part of the Egg Products Inspection Act amendments of 2012, which were presented to the United States Congress last month, jointly supported by the United Egg Producers and our partner association, the Humane Society of the United States.” (Sayara Thurston, Campaigner, Humane Society International/Canada, Committee, Evidence, Meeting No. 26, 1st session, 41st parliament, Ottawa, February 27, 2012) Growing Froward II should identify best practices in ensuring the success of efforts to transition to more humane enriched housing systems. Any regulatory or legislative barriers to improving systems to respond to consumer desire for more humans systems should be addressed. Recommendation 8: Investigate concentration in retail and distribution markets This committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada investigate potential imbalances of market power in the food chain. Given the worrisome consolidation of producers and retailers in the Canadian food sector, this is an important area of investigation for the Department. While the Competition Bureau in Canada tolerates a high level of consolidation in the agricultural and agri-food industry, more evidence from other diverse markets, such as Europe, would help to inform regulators in Canada of the distinct criteria and benefits of a truly diversified market. Furthermore, more in-depth research is needed on the changing characteristics and effects of vertical consolidation in the Canadian food sector. This investigation is critical given the recent changes with grain marketing due to the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board Single Desk. Recommendation 9: Encourage the development of the co-operative sector This committee recommends that the Government re-institute the Co-operative Development Initiative (CDI) as part of Growing Forward 2. Co-operatives have been a powerful tool for agricultural and rural development including both primary production and value added production. The Government has recently cancelled the Co-operative Development Initiative a program which since 2003 has helped to develop hundreds of co-ops across Canada. |