NANAIMO – Green Party caucus critic for agriculture and agri-food, Paul Manly (MP, Nanaimo-Ladysmith) warns that food security both at home and abroad is in serious jeopardy.

Manly said that events surrounding the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPEs) during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate how supply chains that stretch halfway across the planet can prove deadly in times of crisis. There are already signs that food production is decreasing while demand remains high.

This week, the head of the UN World Food Program warned that the world is “on the brink of a hunger pandemic” that could lead to “multiple famines of biblical proportions” within a few months if immediate action isn’t taken. In Canada, the closure of the Cargill meat plant south of Calgary due to a coronavirus outbreak among workers has exposed the fragility of domestic farm production and supply. On Tuesday, the Trudeau administration announced that they would be curtailing beef exports so as to meet Canadian food demands.

“The reality is that here on Vancouver Island we would only have a three-day food supply if the ferries stopped running,” said Manly. “It’s a sobering thought. This pandemic is showing us where weaknesses lie, in supply chain management, in the centralization of processing, and societal deficiencies. As we unpack the lessons learned from this crisis and move into the recovery phase, we must seek opportunities to decentralize food production and processing to strengthen food security here in Canada.”

Manly said that over the past several years, trade conflicts and changing environmental conditions have presented a challenging decision-making environment to farmers. Now the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the arrival of temporary foreign workers, creating the new problem of how to plant and manage crops with a drastically reduced workforce.

“Add to the mix flooding, droughts and wildfires brought on by the climate emergency and it is not hard to imagine how quickly Canada’s food supply chain could be interrupted, at grave risk to Canadians,” he said.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2018 temporary foreign workers (TFW) came from more than 100 countries to fill 54,734 jobs on 3,846 farms, primarily in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The majority (65 per cent) worked on large farms ($2 million or more in revenue). This week the CBC reported that many Canadians farmers are worried that the delayed arrival of TFWs due to COVID-19 could result in diminished production, potential food shortages and higher prices for consumers.

“It’s time to revisit our approach to farming and agriculture in Canada,” said Green Party Interim Leader Jo-Ann Roberts. “Here in the maritimes fruit growers were hit by a devastating frost in 2018, then Hurricane Dorian hit in September and now planting is being delayed by the wait for TFWs.”

“These climate challenges are only going to get worse, which is why we need to adapt fast. While the large agro-business model has provided us with an abundant supply of food to date, now is the time to invest in smaller, local, organic farming operations across the country. In this way provinces and territories can prepare to localize production and supply as much as possible, so that in an emergency they can be more self-sufficient.”

Canada’s 2016 Census of Agriculture showed a three per cent increase in the total number of young farm operators across the country – the first increase since 1991.

“As older generations of farmers retire, we need to support and encourage young farmers to step in,” said Manly. “As we do that, let’s grasp the opportunity to promote and incentivize more sustainable farming practices that will ultimately provide a stronger, healthier and more resilient supply chain.”

# # #

For more information or to arrange an interview:

Rosie Emery

Press Secretary

613-562-4916 ext, 204

rosie.emery@greenparty.ca

The post COVID-19 has exposed serious vulnerabilities in food security at home and abroad, warns Green MP Manly appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: A Food Policy for Canada

October 18, 2017

Dear Minister MacAulay,

Thank you for initiating this important conversation. Canada needs a fresh new approach to food policy. We are a nation of farmers and growing families, and what unites us all is a common interest in the food we put on our tables. We expect it to be grown sustainably, handled and packaged safely, and, most importantly, provide healthy nourishment to our loved ones.

The path from farm to table is a long one, touching on many elements of Canadian society and the economy and requires consistent, values-based government policies at every turn. I’d like to highlight a few policies on which the government should focus. I would also like to preface my recommendations with the following concern: increasingly your government has relied upon overbroad, meandering policy consultations that while creating a lot of sound and fury, ultimately signify nothing. I urge you to avoid this trend, and move quickly and meaningfully on the results of this consultation exercise. Canadians expect it.

Supporting family farmers through biodiversity

Sustainable practices, while overall more cost efficient, can place undue burden on small family farms, especially in the short term. The government must incentivize the use of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) that improve ecological outcomes for farmers, and, as a direct result, strengthen Canada’s biodiversity and climate adaptability potential. BMPs are toolkits to help guide and scale efforts to improve environmental and sustainable management of agricultural resources. As the Green Budget Coalition’s 2018 (GBC) report recommends, the government can, and should, leverage insurance mechanisms to promote their use on farmland by making them more affordable to producers.

The report also calls for federal fund matching for landowners who pursue restoration of ‘ecosystems goods and services’ (EGS). Alongside the GBC’s proposed National Perennial Cover Incentive program to improve grassland management practices, these programs represent concrete initiatives to appropriately compensate farmers and landowners as co-managers of our shared biodiversity. The way that policy makers increasingly reduce farmers to agri-food export producers, belies their role as long term partners in restoration and stewardship. The National Farmers Union submission to the Agriculture Committee’s study points out accurately that the government’s current approach, particularly laid out in the most recent Advisory Council on Economic Growth report, would “sideline farmers, consumers, food sector workers, and the democratic process that defines the rules and regulation governing our food system” and puts multinational agribusinesses in the “policy driver’s seat.” The report concludes with a dire prediction: if the Council’s report is followed, it will serve as a “blueprint for corporate rule.”

The National Food Policy for Canada has a chance to signal a strong commitment to farmers through concrete policy recommendations to support sustainable, small-scale farming. Family farmers are already at the vanguard of sustainable approaches – for example, Colin Rosengren in Saskatchewan.

His family has been using intercropping for over a decade, mixing canola and pea crops as well as chickpea and flax combinations. As a result, their farm is more carbon efficient and more resilient to climate change. As Colin tells it, the benefit of intercropping to soil resilience and health was a bonus. The real incentive was economic; greater yields, with lower upfront costs, including saving on seeds and fertilizer, as the intercropping naturally prevents weed growth.

Biodiverse mixed farming systems can help achieve pest management without harmful pesticides, and can be “two to four times more energy-efficient than large conventional farms, in terms of total energy input/output ratios.” The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (iPES) report also lays out that diversified agroecological systems can have beneficial impacts on soil health, combat erosion and degradation and encourage natural pollination and the restoration of nutrient cycles. The effects on human systems are also clear: biodiverse approaches to food policy can provide reduced risk for farmers of variable yields and seasonal shortages, and the economic damages from natural disasters.

Food Security

This leads us to food security. We must take concrete steps toward regional food self-sufficiency across Canada. Where I’m from on Vancouver Island, increasingly farmers are finding ways to grow the food our communities need. Southern Vancouver Island has specifically embraced the ‘200 kilometre diet’ and the benefits have been enormous. Locally grown food is sold at bustling farmers markets that promote local culinary tourism. But we can do more: promote rooftop gardens, cultivation of green urban space for agriculture, food production in cities and suburbs, and community gardens.

The roots of a reliable domestic food supply are in the family-owned and operated farms of small to medium size. They constitute the most reliable, high quality, and economical food production system, now and into our uncertain future. We must protect their right to save their own seeds and promote heritage seed banks and seed exchange programs.

Climate

The climate is changing rapidly and we must respond. Food production invariably will be a core element of our response as it represents nearly 20% of human caused GHGs. As the iPES report points out, primary drivers of GHGs in our food system are large-scale deforestation for cropland, and ‘feedlot’ animal rearing that is disconnected from “landscapes and local feed sources.”

Here too soil degradation plays a part. As Équiterre points out in their submission to the Agriculture Committee, soil quality and its capacity to act as a carbon sequester are intertwined. Taking steps to improve our soil quality, particularly by increasing its organic matter content through decreased use of synthetic pesticides, will benefit farmers, our environment and our global effort to combat catastrophic climate change.

I also agree with the Green Budget’s Coalition recommendation to invest in the science capacity, research and monitoring to increase public trust in Agriculture and to reduce potentially harmful and risky agricultural practices. Increasing the government’s capacity to preserve ecological integrity and the resilience of our ecological system is a crucial element of climate adaptation and mitigation policies.

Gender and social justice

Our national food policy should take an approach that considers the impact of our food systems on social-economic outcomes for women and marginalized groups. The iPES’s report on Food Systems is clear that “the general shift from traditional food crops to high-value cash crops has been associated with men taking control of land, water and productive resources at the expense of women.”

In Canada, the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) has become the primary vehicle for large scale farms to hire labour. In 2015, SAWP and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program brought in nearly 20,000 more workers than it did in 2008 and the rate continues to grow. Crucially, these workers pathways to citizenship are severely limited, despite being brought back to Canada year after year. And despite contributing to EI and other social assistance programs they are not full beneficiaries under them. This must change. I support the 5 recommendations of Food Secure Canada’s brief on migrant workers in Canada. I would bring to the particular attention of the government their recommendation to provide permanent resident status upon arrival – from this key provision would flow corollary benefits for this group that is often neglected under the law.

The agriculture sector has (along with the natural resources sector) the largest gender pay gap in the Canadian economy. Canada itself ranks in the lowest third of OECD countries when it comes to the severity of the gender pay gap. We must do more. Women face many barriers in working in the agriculture industry. Ensuring affordable access to child care in rural communities is one concrete way to help women farmers. Where women face the worst discrimination, however, is not out in the fields but in the board room. Women in agriculture consistently report that it’s in the business of agriculture that the ‘old boys club’ culture persists and is the most harmful.

Healthy Food

Canada needs healthier food for its citizens.  We must do more to make organic foods readily available and affordable for all. But at the forefront of our policy on healthy food should be providing access to affordable healthy food for Indigenous communities. I wholeheartedly agree with the testimony of Dr. Evan Fraser at Committee that the government should approach the issue of food security and affordability like it should all others with First Nations, Inuit and Métis – under a nation-to-nation framework.

Organic agriculture is also far healthier for producers – reducing farm family’s exposure to harmful pesticides. It also, as noted above, is far better for biodiversity, protects pollinators and improves Canadian water quality. We can also move to support local food markets, by encouraging adequate shelf space in grocery chains for products from local farms and local food processors. Additionally, Canada can work to address food waste in supermarkets and households while simultaneously providing greater access to healthy foods. The unnecessary disposal of food for illegitimate reasons, such as appearance, is a wasteful practice which must be ended. It is estimated that more than $31 billion worth of food is wasted in Canada each year. I support the adoption of legislation similar to that passed by the National Assembly, which would require supermarkets to donate food to local charities or food banks, rather than throwing them out. Local charities and food banks that frequently face food shortages would benefit from this law, ultimately helping many others in their communities who cannot afford to eat.

Energy-rich crops and their social prevalence remain a major factor in our obesity epidemic. We must do more to provide healthy food for our children. There are two concrete ways to approach this issue in Canada. The first, and most important, is a long needed school lunches program.  We must establish a federally funded, community-guided school lunch program that serves students across Canada. It would ensure that our children have daily access to healthy local food and the added benefit of teaching them about healthy eating and sustainable food production. Secondly, I support the creation of a tax on sugary beverages, and a banning of advertisements directed at children. It’s the only way to ensure that consumer goods harmful to children’s health are not within reach of most Canadian families. Revenues accrued from a sugary drink tax should be linked directly to fund the healthy lunch program.

Finally, I wanted to include a simple recommendation that I believe would benefit food and conservation policy a great deal, transferring responsibility for fish aquaculture from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to your department. Then DFO could resume its appropriate role of protecting coastal ecosystem health and wild fisheries rather than promoting what is essentially a marine-based agricultural sector. This is far more suited to regulation and oversight from your department.

There are many avenues of reform this government could take to improve Canadian food policy. The discussion at committee and with stakeholders has been thoughtful and should form the strong basis for a push for reform. While there are lots of issues to tackle, Canada would be served well by a new Canada Food policy that prioritizes access to healthy, local food: improving biodiversity, mitigating the most harmful effects of climate change, focusing on family farmers and improving outcomes for women, marginalized groups and Indigenous communities. We can, and should, do more to make Canada’s food supply a better, fairer and greener system for all of our citizens.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Member of Parliament

Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader of the Green Party of Canada

A PDF copy of the original submission is available, here.

The post Elizabeth’s Submission to A Food Policy for Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As greenhouse gases build in the atmosphere, the patterns that sustained a hospitable climate for the development of human civilization over the last many millennia are being disrupted.  The world has always known punishing droughts, floods and extreme events that disrupt agriculture, such as sudden early frost, or early thaw followed by a cold snap.  Weather is the constant worry for farmers, but climate was not something they have had to worry about – until recently.

The increase in extreme weather events due to human-generated greenhouse gas pollution, compounded by loss of forests, is already threatening global food production.  The agencies within the United Nations that monitor food security —  World Health Organization, World Food Programme, and Food and Agriculture Organization –  recently reported in their annual 2014 report that 805 million people already experience food insecurity. The good news is that that number is down 0ver 200 million since the early 1990s, and down 100 million in the last decade.  Nevertheless, the UN agencies agree that the climate crisis could reverse that progress:

“If we fail to act, we risk a downward spiral in which poverty and climate impacts reinforce each other. It is the poorest communities that will suffer the worst effects of climate change, including increased hunger and malnutrition as crop production and livelihoods are threatened. And poverty is a driver of climate change, as desperate communities resort to unsustainable use of resources to meet current needs. “

The Danish think tank, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, has calculated the cost of climate change on food production over the last few decades:

“Historical studies demonstrate that climate change has already had negative impacts on crop yields. Maize, wheat and other major crops have experienced significant climate-associated yield reductions of 40 megatonnes per year between 1981 and 2002 at the global level (Lobell and Field 2007)….

“Flooding due to climate variability is a significant problem for rice farming, especially in the lowlands of South and Southeast Asia. Flooding already affects about 10 to 15 million hectares of rice fields in South and South East Asia, causing an estimated $1 billion USD in yield losses per year. These losses could increase considerably given sea level rise as well as an increase in the frequencies and intensities of flooding caused by extreme weather events (Bates et al. 2008).”

One of the surprises of the warming world has been the way in which disappearing Arctic ice has created more extreme storms around the world.  Scientists at Rutgers University have identified the mechanism that over thousands of years kept the jet stream moving at mid-latitudes in a relatively predictable fast, east west clip.  The jet stream used to stay quite horizontal at the mid point between the Arctic and the equator.  The Rutgers research points to the mechanism that propelled that behaviour by the jet stream was the temperature differential between the cold Arctic and the hot equator.  As the Arctic ice melts and as its waters warm, the temperature differential has stalled.

In place of the relatively predictable east west jet stream, we are now experiencing the jet stream in long and lazy loops.  These jet new stream patterns now remain sitting on large areas of the northern hemisphere for a very long time.  Low pressure zones stick around for months.  Just on the other side of the stream, high pressure zones sit on other regions.  This summer, that pattern explains why central Canada was unseasonably cool while Atlantic Canada and British Columbia were unseasonable hot and dry.  Or a few years ago, in 2012, why Russia was experiencing drought and flames while Bangladesh was under water.  The loopy jet stream is also the likely cause of the intensity and abnormal pattern of Super storm Sandy.

Keeping ice covering the Arctic is critical if we are going to reduce the potential for the very worst potential impacts of climate change. While we must reduce greenhouse gases as rapidly as possible, we also must accelerate adaptation plans for food production – in Canada and globally.  We need to both aggressively and right now, we are ignoring both challenges.

Originally published in Embassy News, October 8, 2014

The post Climate Change is a threat to food production – one we are ignoring appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If we go to page 168 of the budget, we will see the figure of $51.2 million in new resources under “Strengthening Food Safety” in big letters. That $51.2 million is over two years, split between three different agencies: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency. By my reckoning, that is about $8 million a year if it were distributed evenly.

If we go to the fine print on page 261, which my friend from Welland noticed, we see $2 million less this year, $10 million less the next year and on an ongoing basis $56 million less. Does my hon. friend agree with me that there is less money for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, relying on the facts in the budget?

Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, as much as the other side continues to say that opposition members do not read its budget, lo and behold, we do.

There is one thing I can say about being a Glaswegian, that when it comes to numbers and money I am always looking. I will always find if someone is trying to shortchange someone else, because a nickel or penny to us Scots is expensive, and we are going to hunt for it.

I found that the budget intends to give less on an ongoing basis, as we head forward. Yes, my colleague is correct. It is written in tiny print, but I do wear glasses and if I have to really work at it, I shift the bad lens to the bad eye to make it look bigger and I can actually see it. That is how I am actually read that tiny print.

The post Emergency Debate – Food Safety appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We should be talking about the science. We should, as Parliamentarians, regardless of party, be acting responsibly as the evidence piles up. Every day it seems there is new evidence, always more worrying. Climate change is no longer creeping slowly. It is galloping, spurred on by dangerous feed-back loops. The Arctic ice is shrinking in ways that spell danger for all of us, permafrost is melting threatening the release of vast deposits of methane (a very powerful greenhouse gas), oceans are acidifying, food production is threatened, and around the world lives are lost in extreme events from floods to fires to mudslides to tropical storms and tornadoes. We should be talking about how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible in hopes of avoiding ever-more-likely runaway global warming. I don’t like thinking about- or worse, talking about, the worst case scenarios of global warming. But former French President Sarkozy was right: the survival of human civilization is at risk.

Those are not the words of the leaders of the mainstream parties. In the House, we get a Punch and Judy show of feigned outrage. Instead of talking about what we should be doing, the main parties are stuck in a Mobius loop of distortion. Yesterday, I couldn’t finish asking a question due to the heckling of the NDP caucus. What was the trigger for otherwise civil folks, many of them people I love, to act out so rudely? I had the effrontery to mention that there had once been a plan to meet Kyoto targets.

I did not do so to laud the Liberal record. The Liberal record is one of broken promises starting when Jean Chretien dumped the promise in the 1993 Red Book to reduce GHG by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. I am cursed with a good memory. I remember the day we found out Chretien would not allow the federal, provincial, multi-stakeholder taskforce even to analyze carbon taxes as a possible mechanism to meet the Liberal target. I remember his trip with Anne McLellan to the oil sands to drop a few billion and promise rapid development. I remember feeling like I’d just been sucker-punched. But it is absurd for the NDP to want to re-write history to say there was never a plan. I was about to say in the House, that the plan came very late – in spring 2005. But, again, I remember the struggle to get the plan approved. The day to day battle with Natural Resources Canada leaks, undermining Stéphane Dion and Environment Canada with daily front page stories in the Globe and Mail attacking a plan that was not even public yet. It was not a perfect plan. I would not have designed it the way it was designed. But, according to reliable experts, such as Pembina Institute, if the plan had been implemented, Canada would have come very close to our Kyoto targets. Of course, less than a year later, Stephen Harper killed it and the billions of dollars in programmes that had been in the 2005 budget.

The NDP is right to call out the Conservatives for lies claiming the NDP supports a carbon tax. As Jeffrey Simpson points out very clearly in today’s Globe, the cap and trade carbon pricing advocated by the NDP is no different from what Stephen Harper once said he would do.

On the other hand, while the Conservatives keep accusing the NDP of favouring a carbon tax, and the NDP deny it, what gets lost is that we actually need carbon pricing urgently – as in a decade ago. And even with a carbon price, whether through the free market mechanism of cap and trade or through the more efficient means of a revenue neutral carbon tax, we will need far more in programs, regulations, job-creating initiatives in energy efficiency and renewables, to have any hope of playing a responsible role in the world. Greens favour a carbon tax as the best way to reduce GHG and put money in the pockets of Canadians. On the other hand, if a cap and trade plan was properly designed, I wouldn’t oppose it. This is not Lilliput with a war over which end of the egg gets cracked. It should not be a phony fight over mechanisms. We should actually be talking about doing something.

And that is what is not being discussed. The Conservatives are telling lies about the NDP wanting a carbon tax and the NDP are telling a lie that there was never a Liberal carbon plan, and the Liberal attacks on Mulcair over his comments on Dutch disease (a reasonable issue for him to raise) are also spin over substance. It’s all spin.

It would be easy to say “a plague on all their houses.” But global warming is a plague on all our houses. We have to stop the spin and focus on what matters. Science is divided on whether we still have time. For my children’s sake I refuse to accept that it is too late. I will keep telling the truth about who did what and when, but history is just that. We better start talking about what we plan to do. NOW!

The post Climate change in the spin cycle appeared first on Elizabeth May.

After an 11-day visit to Canada, during which he met with citizens across Canada and received testimonies in-person and by mail from Canadians, including significant interaction with Canadian First Nations representatives, the Special Rapporteur issued his preliminary report May 16, 2012.

“We are deeply indebted to the United Nations and the Special Rapporteur for highlighting the crisis in social assistance and food security in this country. We share his concern regarding the deep and severe food insecurity faced by aboriginal peoples across Canada living both on- and off-reserve in remote and urban areas as well as the food insecurity faced by families on social assistance. 1 in 4 First Nations children live in poverty, with poverty affecting some 3 million Canadians. It is completely unacceptable,” said Vanessa Long, Social Services Critic for the Green Party of Canada.

“As Minister Kenney pointed out, we are a wealthy nation with a high standard of living and M. De Schutter was right on that our privileged status makes it even more unacceptable that 1 in 10 families with a child under 6 are food insecure,” commented Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, “Canadian Parliamentarians committed in 1989 to eradicating child poverty by 2000 and here we are 23 years later and the levels are basically the same. Ineffective policies and lip service have been paid to the issue but we are forced to ask if they really care at all.”

“M. De Schutter has very clearly connected the dots between callous government policy toward our most vulnerable citizens, the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor in Canada, social assistance levels that every year fall further behind the rising costs of living, and Food Bank usage that is increasing,” Ms. Long continued,  “These are not merely accidents of a global economy as our government would have us believe, but the logical result of decades of mismanagement by this country’s governments at all levels. Canada has no national food policy or strategy and no means to deal with systemic issues relating to food, hunger, and food systems.”

“The current government has made it clear that they do not consider food security a right for all Canadians and their policies and inaction in the face of a national crisis in our poorest households fits right in with their emphasis on oil and gas first, everything else last As Greens, we are a values-driven Party, and one of our six values is social justice. You can be assured that eradicating child poverty would be a top priority with any Green government, in Canada or elsewhere,” Ms. May concluded.

The post Greens Commend UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post 1.15 Agriculture and food appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports that almost a billion  people are going hungry, 13.6% of the world’s population, due to neglect of  agriculture, the economic crisis, and the increase in food prices, exacerbated  by climate change.

“The G20 Agriculture Minister’ meeting is an excellent  chance to coordinate regulatory changes so that we can get a grip on food price  volatility,” said May.  “We must improve our systems of producing food,  including moving toward small scale farming that takes into account soil health  and water protection.  Climate change must be front and centre, as we will only  see further negative impacts on food production due to the climate  crisis.

The Greens are supporting Oxfam’s efforts convincing Canada  to get behind proposed measures to stabilize food prices  including:

• Establishing regional emergency reserves of  food,
• Publishing information on actual and forecasted food  stocks,
• Improving regulation of commodity futures markets,  and
• Preventing food crops being used to produce  biofuel.

Oxfam reports that while Canadians spend on average about 10%  of their income on food, a family in a developing country could spent as much as  80% of their income on food.

“Access to food and fair distribution of food to people in  poverty is critical to global security,” said Elizabeth May. “Canada needs to  take a lead.”

The post Food Prices on agenda at G20 Agriculture Ministers Summit appeared first on Elizabeth May.