Agriculture gets little attention in federal elections which is not surprising as less than two percent of Canadians are directly involved with farming.
That’s it, a couple of points.
In the federal election the economy is being hailed as the important issue.
Statistics Canada defines the first six months of 2015 as an official recession and much of the campaign rhetoric has been around whether or not party platforms will help grow the nation’s wealth.
But even if we stay within a broad economic lens, agriculture should have a bigger profile in the election because of the profound impact it has to the country’s economic well-being.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Close your eyes and picture what manufacturing in Canada looks like. If you’re imagining an automotive or aerospace plant in Ontario or Quebec instead of a meat packing plant or pulse processing facility, then it might be time to update your perception of manufacturing in Canada.
Food and beverage processing is the largest manufacturing industry in Canada, accounting for 16 percent of the total manufacturing sector’s GDP. It is also responsible for 16.7 percent of all manufacturing jobs in Canada.
Canada’s thriving food processing economy couldn’t exist without a robust agriculture sector feeding it high quality and reliable products.
In fact, one in eight jobs in Canada are in our agriculture and agri-food sectors according to Stats Canada.
Now that is a big piece of the electorate pie.
The agriculture and agri food sector is a $100 billion powerhouse industry that generates around seven percent of Canada’s GDP. So why again has agriculture or food processing hardly been mentioned in the election?
Well, the agriculture and agri-food-processing sector is difficult to court as it’s spread out across the country.
A politician can make an announcement in a southern Ontario car plant and feel confident the concentrated votes in the riding affected by the promise could make a difference in terms of capturing a seat.
Agri-food processing plants are located all over the country, and the number of employees often does not add up to enough voters to get a good return on an election promise investment on a per riding basis.
There are enough people involved in agriculture in many rural ridings to capture a seat, however rural voters seemed swayed by policies and ideological stances that at times have little to do with agriculture policy.
Some of the safest ridings in the country are rural Conservative ridings. In the past there were issues like gun control that lured many rural votes into the Conservative camp, but in this election there doesn’t seem to be an obvious divisive issue that differentiates the parties platforms in terms of rural values.
There is concern NDP leader Tom Mulcair is anti GMO and it’s true Mulcair has in the past pandered to an anti-GMO segment in the NDP. However, it is unlikely he’d actually institute any anti GMO policy that would devastate Canadian agriculture.
His soft stance on GMO labeling reminds me of how some Conservative candidates have pretended to work towards reopening the abortion debate to appease a segment of their base, all the while knowing the file will not be opened in the foreseeable future.
Another reason political parties do not bother to spend time campaigning to the agriculture and agri-food processing sector is that it is not a homogeneous group.
What is good for one farmer may be terrible for another. For instance, in the TPP trade agreement prairie cash crop and livestock producers would directly benefit from the deal.
However, it could also undermine the viability of Canadian dairy operations.
In the processing sector, the TPP would likely see more processed grain and oilseed-based products heading to Asia, while New Zealand cheese and American poultry could be imported into Canada.
Agriculture policy is complicated, but it is possible to articulate a vision that can unite the sector.
In a panel discussion hosted by The Hill Times about agriculture, panel member David McInnes said a way to link up federal, provincial and municipal policies is by having an underlying goal — to make Canada’s agriculture food processing systems the safest and most environmentally friendly on the planet.
McInnes, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, said there is pressure from consumers in a growing middle class around the world that want food produced with a small environmental footprint.
He said Canada has a competitive advantage over many of agriculture and agri-food exporters in terms of our land and water assets. For instance, in Canada we have the ability to produce animal protein with a very small impact to the environment.
Our livestock operations don’t have to pollute our waterways. We have enough land to incorporate the animal waste created in large livestock operations, and livestock feed is produced locally. Meaning it doesn’t have to be transported across oceans or continents to be put to use.
On the crop side, McInnes said Canada uses less than one kilogram per acre of pesticides, which is well below what most other regions in the world use. American producers use more than twice as much pesticide as Canadian farmers on a per acre basis.
McInnes is not the only person to identify the shift in middle class consumer demand towards environmentally sustainable products. This summer, Alliance Pulse Processors executive Murad Al-Katib told Canada’s Farm Progress Show that western Canada will be known not just as the breadbasket of the world, but also the protein basket of the world.
He suggested that if you throw a nitrogen fixing pulse crop in the wheat-canola rotation, it will help to make western Canadian crop production the most environmentally friendly in the world.
That’s a huge marketing advantage for the country.
Canada could grab hold of a massive emerging market before other agri-food exporting countries have a chance, but we need the vision at the federal level to integrate our crop, livestock, and food processing research with our trade and environment policies.
It’s not a stretch to say Canada already produces the most environmentally friendly food in the world. But branding Canadian products at the world level is another matter and it’s an undertaking that would benefit greatly from a cohesive strategy at the highest level in Canada.
In terms of food safety, McInnes said there are already serious concerns about the food supply in countries such as China because of pollution in their soil and water.
In Canada over the past decade we’ve seen a reduction in direct inspections of meat processing facilities by CFIA, and the CGC has reduced inward grain inspections at our ports.
Critics say reduced independent inspection at Canadian packing plants led directly to food contamination, and some of Canada’s grain customers have complained about inconsistent quality in our grain shipments because of the changes in our inspection program.
Remember we are talking about a $100 billion industry operating within a very tough trade environment. Perceptions matter and we should not give any of our trading partners any excuse to erect trade barriers or undermine our image.
This includes our approval process for the products farmers can use on their crops and livestock. For instance, some canola producers are still unsure what to do with canola that was treated with Clever herbicide this year. Clever has received Pest Management Regulatory Agency approval, but some major grain companies will not accept canola that has been treated with Clever because Japan hasn’t set their maximum residue limits for the product.
It takes coordination at a high level to create food-safety policies that maintain our image as a safe food source, and it is shortsighted to use any policy that could be used to undermine this international image.
If federal parties want to rally votes from people involved in the agriculture and agri-food sector, they will have to articulate their vision for the industry. Explain to Canadians the big picture how they will grow the sector over the long term.
It makes sense to adopt the goal of bolstering Canada’s reputation as the safest and most environmentally friendly source of food on the planet, but there are other visions that would grow the industry.
The main point here is that federal parties need to articulate their vision, and start work toward getting all levels of government and industry stakeholders to buy in to it. They will have to help coordinate trade and environment policies as well as the research needed to mold the industry into their vision.
Agriculture policy is complicated and it’s difficult to rally the agriculture and agri-food vote, but with one in eight Canadians employed in the industry, it might just be worth the time for political parties to take the sector seriously.
