Although QFA extends its congratulations to the new incumbant, it also is watching carefully current dialogue conferred by the Senate and some within Canada’s linguistic minority communities who are questionning the validity of the appointment.
Marcel Groleau UPA President, Quebec Farmer’s Advocate, September 2017
This spring, at the end of a lengthy re-evaluation, Health Canada determined that products containing the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup®, Vision®, etc.) pose no hazard to human and environmental health if used according to the directions.
Health Canada’s decision was met with a negative reaction by a number of actors from civil-society actors and people working in environmental protection. They pointed out that glyphosate is classed as a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization (WHO) and called for it to be banned. However, even the WHO qualified its conclusion, adding that it is “unlikely that the residues detected in food are a cause of cancer in humans.”
However, Health Canada has countered that the WHO analysis “is a hazard classification and not a health risk assessment. This means that the level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account.”
One important thing to keep in mind: a ban on glyphosate in Quebec or in Canada would not apply to imported products and would not require special labelling under the current legislation.
The saga surrounding the use of glyphosate is no trivial matter. Pesticide use is a consumer concern. In response to this concern, the government has chosen the route of coercion and slapping anyone caught violating regulations with fines. But is this the best angle of attack? The answer is no.
For several years, the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) has been calling for a concerted agro-environmental action plan to guide producers in their efforts to guard against crop pests. Under such a plan, there would be access to specialized plant protection resources for farmers, knowledge transfer, and additional investment in research on ways in which pesticides can be used more effectively and, eventually, replaced.
Farmers don’t use pesticides for their own enjoyment. They do cost a lot of money, after all, and farmers are well aware of the public’s concerns about pesticides. Every year, Quebec’s market gardeners, fruit growers and grain producers sink large sums into centres of expertise to support pesticide research.
As it turns out, the UPA has its own plant protection action plan. The plan is intended to create an environment that is favourable to integrated pest management by emphasizing farmer training, research and development of replacement solutions, the creation of decision-making tools adapted to the needs of agricultural businesses, knowledge transfer, coaching from agricultural advisers, and the promotion of farmers’ efforts and successes in the domain.
Farmers and environmental organizations have the same goal in mind: to produce food without harming the environment. Things may not be progressing as quickly as some people would like, but the agricultural community is indeed working on it. I invite environmental groups to throw their full support behind our repeated demands for a concerted agro-environmental action plan. If we succeed in leveraging the collective organization of farmers, scientific research, knowledge transfer and plant protection expertise, Quebec could become a true leader.
In the opinion of the UPA, the action plan would be a quintessential ingredient in Quebec’s future bio-food policy.
Andrew McClelland
Advocate Staff Reporter
The second round of talks about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have closed and sources say that Canada has pushed off pressure from the U.S. about American dairy producers gaining more access to Canadian markets.
Canada, the U.S. and Mexico met for a five-day round of negotiations in Mexico City on Sept. 1. President Donald Trump initiated the negotiations in the wake of his now-infamous statement that he wanted “a lot more than tweaking” of the 23-year-old trade agreement.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said that she was pleased with the progress made at the talks, but that the major points are still undecided.
“I want to reiterate: This is Day 20,” Freeland noted, commenting that the schedule the U.S. has proposed is extremely quick for negotiations of this kind. “This is an extremely accelerated process. This is Day 20 of an accelerated and extremely comprehensive negotiation. We are running fast for (an agreement by) the end of the year.”
Supply management at risk?
Of course, one of the main sticking points in the negotiations will undoubtedly be Canada’s supply-managed industries, chiefly dairy. Canada’s supply-managed dairy system has been under fire from the U.S. for years, with American politicians claiming it violates the very nature of NAFTA and plenty of Canadian economists saying that supply management forces consumers north of the border to pay exorbitant prices for milk and butter.
The dairy sector was excluded from the original NAFTA deal, signed in 1994. Then, as now, Canadian industry officials cited that supply management was a domestic policy, concerned with producing and selling dairy within Canada’s borders.
But some factions of the U.S. dairy industry are not happy that Canadian producers get to profit from price controls under supply management. More recently, U.S. critics have accused Canadians of selling skimmed-off diafiltered milk components for cheese-making. The lower market prices put the pinch on Americans, particularly in the pizza market.
What does Ottawa say?
From Stephen Harper to Justin Trudeau, no Canadian government has promised that it would not make changes to supply management if push came to shove in a NAFTA renegotiation. Federal Minister of Agriculture Lawrence MacAulay was no different when asked about the Liberal government’s stance.
“I’m not the official trade negotiator,” MacAulay said, speaking during a meeting of provincial and territorial agriculture ministers in St. John’s. “But without a doubt we will make sure that we have capable trade negotiators in agriculture and in the trade department who will handle these issues very capably.”
Union des producteurs agricoles President Marcel Groleau said he was confident the federal government knew where Canadian dairy farmers stand on the issue of supply management.
“I think the message to the U.S. negotiator is very clear from Canada, I would say more clear this time than in any other negotiation we have had before,” Groleau said.
Groleau, himself a long-time dairy producer, was quick to point out that the U.S. maintains some protectionist policies of agricultural products itself.
“The U.S. also has its own commodities that they’re protecting, like sugar and peanuts,” he said. “We import in Canada eight per cent of our dairy consumption. (The) U.S. imports less than two per cent. So our market is not totally closed.”
While negotiators remain positive about the progress made at the first two rounds of talks, there are still many hurdles to overcome.
The second round began with a threat from Trump to withdraw from NAFTA entirely. On the final day, he announced plans to cancel an amnesty program for young immigrants brought illegally into the U.S. by their parents.
The third round of talks will be done by the end of September, with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico hoping to move swiftly to an agreement by 2018.
Andrew McClelland
Advocate Staff Reporter
Canadians have had their say on what they want from a national food policy. Now, the only question that remains is what Ottawa will do with the tens of thousands of suggestions they’ve received for its long-term visioning project entitled, “A Food Policy for Canada.”
Over the course of the past four months, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has been holding public consultations asking Canadian citizens, agricultural producers, processors and just about anyone who has an opinion about what a nationwide policy on food matters should contain.
The response was so overwhelming that AAFC extended the comment period for its online survey by a month. The response shows that Canadians care about how their food is produced, inspected, shipped and sold.
AAFC states the food policy “will set a long-term vision for the country’s health, environmental, social, and economic goals related to food, while also identifying actions that can be taken in the short-term to improve Canada’s food system.”
Minister of Agriculture Lawrence MacAulay announced the consultations at the Canadian Association for Food Studies Conference in Toronto on May 29. Implementing a national food policy was a Liberal government election promise. When MacAulay was appointed to the cabinet position, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke of the priority of developing the policy in a published mandate letter addressed to the new minister.
Trudeau clearly stated that one of MacAulay’s key tasks would be to “develop a food policy that promotes healthy living and safe food by putting more healthy, high-quality food, produced by Canadian ranchers and farmers, on the tables of families across the country.”
The initial consultations for the food policy focused on four key themes: gaining better access to affordable food; improving health and food safety; conserving soil, water and air; and growing more high-quality food.
Those are things that Canadian agricultural producers have a vested interest in. The federal government has already heard from about 30,000 Canadians through its survey and public consultations.
MacAulay and other industry stakeholders met in Ottawa to hash out further details of the “Food Policy for Canada” on June 22 and 23. An “engagement session” was also held in St. Hyacinthe on Aug. 16.
“The decisions we make as a government, and as individuals, about food have a major impact on not only our health and well-being, but on our environment, our communities, and our economy,” said MacAulay in an official statement following the public consultations. “Conversations like the one we are having today are vital to ensuring the food choices we make are the right ones, while ensuring we meet the growing world demand for high-quality foods produced by our farmers and ranchers.”
A summary report based on the feedback received during the public consultations is due this fall.
-30-
The federal government’s food policy consultation focuses on four key themes. Here are a few facts and figures that touch on each of these subjects:
Compiled by Brenda O’Farrell
Source: Government of Canada
Increasing access to affordable food:
In Canada:
– In 2016, Canada ranked 8th out of 113 countries on food affordability, availability, and quality and safety.
– A total of 1.1 million – or 8.3 per cent – of Canadian households experienced food insecurity in 2011-2012. Food security is deemed to exist when all people within a household, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for an active and healthy life.
– 863,492 people used a food bank in Canada in 2016.
– Eight out of 10 provinces saw increased food bank use in 2016. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, food bank use increased by more than 17 per cent.
– In 2015, the average Canadian household spent $8,629 on food.
– In 2015, households in Iqaluit and Nunavut spent an average of $14,963 on food.
In the world:
– The world’s population is expected to hit 9 billion by 2050, up from 7 billion in 2017.
– In 2015, 795 million people across the globe were considered undernourished.
Improving health and food safety:
– In 2011-2012, 6.9 million Canadians over the age of 20 were diagnosed with hypertension. The prevalence of this disease has been increasing at a rate of 2.8 per cent per year since 2000.
– In 2013, 6 million Canadians – that’s 1 in 4 adults – were deemed to be obese.
– In 2012-2013, 31.4 per cent of Canadian children between the ages of 15 and 17 were overweight or obese.
– Only 11.2 million Canadians – 39.5 per cent of the population – eat fruit and vegetables 5 or more times a day.
– Fruit and vegetable consumption peaked in 2009, when 45.6 per cent of Canadians ate them 5 times per day. That figure has been dropping every year since.
– There are 4 million episodes of food-related illnesses each year in Canada, including 11,600 hospitalizations and 238 deaths.
Conserving soil, water and air:
– A total of 7.2 per cent of Canada’s land base consists of farmland.
– From 1981 to 2011, there has been a 7.6-per-cent increase in soil cover, an indicator of improving soil health.
– In 2011, 35 per cent of farms in Canada had an environmental farm plan, which covered half of all agricultural land in the country. This is a 7-per-cent increase from 2006. Producers with a plan are considered more likely to have adopted a variety of beneficial management practices to minimize on-farm environmental risks.
– In 2015, agriculture was responsible for about 10 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. That’s an 18-per-cent decrease in net emissions from 1990.
– Each year in Canada, about 40 per cent of all food produced goes uneaten. In 2014, that represented $31 billion in waste. The sources of this waste include:
Households: 47%
Food processors: 20%
Retailers: 10%
On the farm: 10%
Hotels and restaurants: 9%
Transportation: 4%
Growing more high-quality food:
– In 2016, agriculture and the agri-food sector represents $112.1 billion in economic activity, or 6.7 per cent of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product.
– In 2016, agriculture and the agri-food sector employed 2.3 million people, representing 1 in 8 jobs.
– Canada is the world’s 5th largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products, representing $56 billion in export sales in 2016. From 2007 to 2016, these exports have been growing at an annual rate of 7 per cent.
– In 2016, the food and beverage processing industry was the largest Canadian manufacturing segment, representing $28.5 billion, or 16.4 per cent, of the manufacturing sector’s GDP.
– There are 193,492 farms in Canada, a 5.9-per-cent decrease from 2011. The exceptions were the number of farms with fewer than 10 acres, which increased by 2 per cent, and farms with more than 3,520 acres, which increased by 8 per cent.
– The size of the average farm in Canada was 820 acres in 2016, up from an average of 779 in 2011.
– The age of the average Canadian farmer in 2015 was 55. The proportion of farmers under the age of 35 increased in 2016 for the first time since 1991.
By Brenda O’Farrell
Special to the Advocate
Last month, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture travelled to Washington, D.C., to take part in a joint press conference with his counterparts from the United States and Mexico on the day talks were formally launched to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. The heads of the national farming groups had a clear message for negotiators: “Do no harm.” In the agricultural sector, they said, NAFTA was a success story for all three countries.
Was the trip worthwhile?
In an interview with Ron Bonnett, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, earlier this month, the answer was a resounding yes – for two reasons:
First, the trip there provided the opportunity to send a strong message to the U.S. Congress, who was ultimately the target, Bonnett said. The national farming groups wanted to underline to the elected members how many jobs were at stake in the agricultural economy.
Second, the return trip was perhaps even more successful, because Bonnett’s seat on the plane from Washington to Toronto was right next to the one occupied by Chrystia Freeland, federal minister of Foreign Affairs, who was returning to Canada after presiding over the kick-off to the trade talks. The seating arrangement offered Bonnett a unique opportunity.
“It was kind of nice, just having a conversation,” Bonnett said, explaining the exchange was very informal in nature, and lasted the length of the flight, about an hour and a half.
“She was completely aware of what we were doing,” he said. “I feel very confident she has an understanding of the issues. She understands the sensitivity of supply management.”
Bonnett stepped off the plane at Pearson International Airport more confident about the negotiations than he was when he left for Washington. He said Freeland, who grew up on a farm in Alberta, has a very knowledgeable grasp of the issues Canadian farmers face. Both her father and paternal grandfather were farmers.
As the third round of negotiations is set to begin, Bonnett is confident. Issues related to agriculture have not been dealt with in a substantive manner yet, he said. And he recognizes that pressure by the White House “to more than tweak” the accord is worrisome.
“This is the strangest negotiation we have ever seen. Everyone is keeping their heads low,” he said. “Mexico and Canada are united in the desire to improve the agreement.”
But he acknowledges that because of the pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, there is a lot of posturing. “Don’t believe everything you read in the media right now,” he said.
On Aug. 16 in Washington, the CFA, the American Farm Bureau Federation and Mexico’s Consejo Nacional Agropecuario issued a joint statement outlining five areas where the NAFTA accord could be improved:
1. Increased and improved regulatory alignment.
2. Improved flow of goods at border crossings.
3. Further alignment of sanitary and phytosanitary measures using a science-based approach.
4. Elimination of non-science based technical barriers to trade.
5. Revisions that reflect technological advances, including digital trade.
Quick Facts:
Agriculture and agri-food systems in Canada generated $106.9 billion in 2013, accounting for 6.7% of the country’s GDP.
Agriculture provides one in eight jobs in Canada, employing over 2.2 million people.
The performance of the agriculture and agri-food system depends on their ability to compete in both domestic and international markets.
Canada was the world’s fifth-largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products in 2013, with 3.5% of the total value of world agriculture exports.
The U.S. is Canada’s most important export destination, accounting for 50.8% of total Canadian exports. China accounts for 11.2%, while Japan, E.U., and Mexico account for 17% combined.
In the U.S., under NAFTA, U.S. farmers and ranchers have benefited from an increase in annual exports to Mexico and Canada, which have gone from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38 billion in 2016.
20 percent of U.S. farm income is based on exports.
Source: Canadian Federation of Agriculture and American Farm Bureau Federation
BRENDA O’FARRELL
Special to the Advocate
Marking a historical first, representatives of the Quebec Farmers’ Association and the Union des producteurs agricoles met earlier this month with a delegation of Chinese agricultural officials interested in learning more about Quebec’s farming industry.
The landmark meeting with 19 representatives of Chinese agricultural groups and senior members of the local level of government from Heilongjiang province in northeastern China signals the first time the QFA and UPA have participated in a dialogue with Chinese interests.
“The purpose of the visit was to make introductions and share information on respective Chinese and Canadian industry,” said Dougal Rattray, the executive director of the QFA, who facilitated the encounter at QFA headquarters in Longueuil. “They were seeking knowledge on how the UPA is structured, how QFA fit in, and how each organization represents the interests of the farming community here in Quebec.”
Although preliminary, Rattray explained the meeting marks a significant step: “This visit ought to be viewed in the context of recent international trade developments,” he explained, pointing to the formal public acknowledgement during the same week of a $225-million investment by a major Chinese dairy company to build a milk-processing plant in Kingston, Ont. Negotiations that led to that deal, which will see a 300,000-square-foot facility built in Kingston’s industrial sector to produce baby formula primarily destined for the Chinese market, began with similar meetings with Chinese officials in Kingston last year. The investor, Feihe International Inc., operates seven manufacturing plants, including four in Heilongjiang province, the same region the delegation that met with the QFA and UPA is from.
No specific plans for investment projects were discussed with the Chinese officials, Rattray said, but this may be an initial step that leads to further dialogue.
“Canadian milk has a very strong reputation – high quality through stringent control measures that are recognized beyond Canadian borders. Our supply-managed model provides milk producers with a degree of stability in an otherwise volatile market place, but through World Trade Organization (WTO) rules we also have an opportunity to consider a diversified market.”
Rattray met with another delegation on Aug. 15 from Sichuan province. This may signal deeper interest. “Only time will tell,” Rattray said.
Rattray consulted widely with industry experts prior to meeting the delegations. In one such conversation a caution was raised: “We can only be interested in trade where producers are paid above the cost of production,” said Robbie Beck, president of the Pontiac region Dairy Federation.
Besides being a potential ‘in’ for Quebec and Canada, both meetings are significant for QFA as they “display the position of the English-speaking minority language farming community as a window for dialogue,” Rattray said, adding, “If foreign interests who may themselves have language limitations wish to pursue relationship-building initiatives with Quebec, connecting with the minority-language community can be a means worth investigating.”
“QFA has a well-developed network that can work to the advantage of the farming community as a whole. Of course, it is important to be cognisant of potential impacts – both negative and positive. But being open to exchange that results in mutual and equitable benefit that helps nurture trust and respect is an initiative that warrants pursuit.”
In comment, QFA President John McCart added, “It’s important our members – and non-member constituents – understand that QFA is involved in these types of discussions. When people pay for their memberships, they’re directly supporting these types of initiatives,” he said. “We are working diligently with a strong board that balances the needs of all in our farming community. It will be interesting to see where this initial conversation leads us.”
-30-
Andrew McClelland
Advocate Staff Reporter
Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Lawrence MacAulay and provincial ministers of agriculture emerged from two days of meetings in St. John’s, Newfoundland, on July 21 with a new agreement that will shape Canadian farming regulations.
Its name? The Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP). A five-year, $3-billion investment, the agreement focuses agricultural policy on what Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada calls “six key priority areas.”
“The Canadian Agricultural Partnership sets the direction for the future of the sector to help it continue to innovate, grow and prosper, and position Canada as a leader in the global economy,” said MacAulay. “Together with provinces and territories, I am committed to expanding business opportunities for our Canadian producers, ranchers and processors, and strengthening the middle class.”
Quebec Minister of Agriculture Laurent Lessard voiced his approval and support for the agreement, stating that cooperation between Ottawa and the province’s ministry of agriculture is essential for developing Quebec’s agri-food businesses.
“That the budget allocated to the next strategic framework be maintained is excellent news for our industry, as well as respecting the level of flexibility that Quebec will have in setting up initiatives that meet the needs of the sector,” said Lessard. “In addition, I am pleased with the stability of the risk-management programs maintained as part of the agreement for the next five years.”
Saskatchewan unhappy
While all territories and provinces have signed the new agreement, not everybody is happy.
Saskatchewan in particular says it does not support late participation in the AgriStability program. That’s the federal program that protects producers from large declines in their farming income caused by production loss, increased costs or market conditions.
The new Canadian Agricultural Partnership would allow producers to sign up for AgriStability after the deadline, with payouts being reduced by 20 per cent. Saskatchewan says that goes against the principle of support and relief programs, where participants are asked to sign up before losses occur. The Prairie province will not be allowing its producers to sign up after the deadline.
“I’m saying today that Saskatchewan will not be triggering late participation in AgriStability,” provincial Minister of Agriculture Lyle Stewart said. “It’s still (the producers’) responsibility in Saskatchewan to sign up (on time) or manage without.”
Stewart and other provincial ministers were quick to remind farmers that, while the Canadian Agricultural Partnership replaces Growing Forward 2 as Canada’s chief agriculture policy framework, there is no new money in the agreement. Funds have been shifted around as a result of the arrangement producers are used to under Growing Forward 2.
For instance, the allowable net sales eligibility under AgriInvest will be reduced from $1.5 million to $1 million, and annual government matching contributions will be limited to $10,000 rather than $15,000.
“Producers shouldn’t get their hopes too high, because there is still no new money,” Stewart said. “So, anything that’s done that costs money to help one program will have to come out of another; so I wouldn’t expect major things to change, but, hopefully, we will find some small tweaks that will be helpful.”
Highlights
The meeting between Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture, which is held in a different Canadian city every summer, holds a few promises for improving the nation’s agricultural landscape over the next five years.
Ministers agreed to a review of business risk-management programs — like AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery included in Growing Forward — that Ontario and several farm organizations have been arguing for. Ontario Minster of Agriculture Jeff Leal said the review will include “meaningful engagement” with producers across the country.
Agriculture Canada says CAP will focus on six priority initiatives. Canadian farmers can expect money to be directed into these areas in the next five years.
• Science, Research, and Innovation: Helping industry adopt practices to improve resilience and productivity through research and innovation in key areas.
• Markets and Trade: Opening new markets and helping farmers and food processors improve their competitiveness through skills development and improved export capacity, underpinned by a strong and efficient regulatory system.
• Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change: Building sector capacity to mitigate agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, protect the environment and adapt to climate change by enhancing sustainable growth, while increasing production.
• Value-added Agriculture and Agri-food Processing: Supporting the continued growth of the value-added agriculture and agri-food processing sector.
• Public Trust: Building a firm foundation for public trust in the sector through improved assurance systems in food safety and plant and animal health, stronger traceability and effective regulations.
• Risk Management: Enabling proactive and effective risk-management, mitigation and adaptation to facilitate a resilient sector by working to ensure programs are comprehensive, responsive and accessible.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership is set to come into effect on April 1, 2018.
-30-
Marcel Groleau UPA President, Quebec Farmer’s Advocate, June 2017
A recent article in La Presse+ referred to a report by the Institute for Governance of Public and Private Organizations (IGOPP) that suggested that the UPA exerts “inordinate influence” over the decisions of the Financière agricole du Québec (FADQ). I was not misquoted: UPA representatives have always been a minority on the board of directors, in accordance with the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec, and they provide crucial information throughout the decision-making process.
Their contribution is furthermore aligned with the founding principles of the institution. As then-minister of agriculture Rémy Trudel said in December 2000, the presence of the UPA allows the FADQ to “develop products and services by offering the expertise of agricultural producers.” The IGOPP report shows a rather poor understanding of the institution and underlying legislative intentions.
I would point out that the UPA representatives are the only ones with such specific knowledge of the issues facing the various production sectors, and are therefore able to assess the impact of FADQ decisions on farmers.
Would the general interest, as well as the interests of producers, be better served by farmers appointed by the minister based on political allegiance? Let’s not forget that farmers bear 30 to 40 per cent of the cost of insurance programs, and that their contributions to the FADQ coffers currently top $400 million. It is therefore utterly appropriate that the UPA, which represents all Quebec producers, partake in monitoring the management of those funds.
La Presse+ also refers to various reports and events at which “the UPA threw its weight around.” Unfortunately, the article does not include my response to that comment. The Gagné report offered maple syrup producers the option of going back to a time when they were paid whatever was offered based on seasonal volumes. Collective marketing has provided producers with negotiating power, which the Gagné report sought to undermine. The producers rejected the report, having already lived through an unhealthy dependence on maple syrup retailers.
The farm property tax reforms undertaken by former minister of agriculture Pierre Paradis, meanwhile, overlooked negative financial consequences for the vast majority of farms. Those administrative changes would even have allowed for compensation to landowners who do not produce crops or rent their land to producers—$5 million to non-producers!— while cutting compensation for professional producers. The UPA rejected this flawed reform proposal. Once again, the involvement of producers made all the difference.
As for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race, it is disingenuous to blame the UPA for Maxime Bernier’s defeat. It was Mr. Bernier himself who attempted to hitch his campaign to the Union and to its producers, despite calling them economically illiterate.
The UPA had nothing to do with it. Maxime Bernier reached out to farmers himself. The UPA is a big organization, built on the engagement of producers and its directors. For 93 years, the UPA has been as strong as the sum of its members’ involvement in the organization, supported by rigorous analysis and sound and timely proposals. Looking ahead to the challenges to come, collective engagement isn’t a threat, but rather the solution for society as a whole.
Andrew McClelland, Advocate Staff Reporter, June 2017
Canadian agricultural producers know that when the census rolls around every four years they have more forms to fill out than the rest of the population. But all that form filling late at night at the kitchen table has been collected by the folks at Statistics Canada. And it paints a vivid portrait of how farming in Canada is changing. As everyone in the business knows, farms in Canada are getting fewer—but larger. The number of farms in Canada has decreased since 2011—when the last Census of Agriculture was conducted— but the acreage of farms has increased.
The average size of a Canadian farm in 2016 was 820 acres, compared to 779 acres in 2011. The highest percentage of farms are still small and hobby-sized to medium-sized. The majority of Canadian farms are between 10 and 69 acres, with 32,036 falling into that category, while another 9,089 farms are 3,520 acres or larger. Total farm area is measured at 158.7 million acres, with 93.4 million acres used for crops.
The data counted 193,492 farms across the country, down from 205,730 farms recorded in the 2011 census. That means there are fewer farm operations being run in Canada all the time.
The farmers themselves
While there may be fewer farmers on the whole in Canada, there are signs that younger farmers are on the rise nationally.
According to Statistics Canada, 271,935 people identified themselves as farm operators in 2016. That total number is down from 2011, but the number of farmers under 35 appears to be increasing. A total of 24,850 farmers across Canada are 35 years old and younger, up from 24,120 in 2011.
“This was the first absolute increase in this category of operators since 1991,” Statistics Canada said in its release. The governmental agency noted, however, that key operators on the farm are still aged 55 and older, in keeping with the general population’s rise in age.
“The average age of operators— individuals who make management decisions for the agricultural enterprise—edged up from 54.0 years in 2011 to 55.0 years in 2016,” Statistics Canada said. “This trend parallels the aging of the general population.
Among Canadians aged 15 to 64, the share of people aged 55 to 64 years old (all baby boomers) reached a record high 21.0 per cent in 2016.” There are 77,970 female producers in Canada. Women account for an increasing share of farm operators, rising from 27.4 per cent in 2011 to 28.7 per cent in 2016. In the 2016 Census of Agriculture, 77,970 women were listed as farm operators. Women were most prevalent among farm operators aged 35 to 54 years (30.7 per cent), followed by those aged 55 and older (27.7 per cent) and those under 35 years of age (26.4 per cent).
Quebec in the census
Quebec has long been its own agricultural entity with regards to the rest of Canada. For instance, the province boasts hosting 90 per cent of all the maple taps in the country, and it has more pigs than any province at 4.5 million head in 2016.
Quebec counted having 28,919 farms during the census, a drop by 1.8 per cent from 2011. That’s better than the national average rate of decrease of 5.9 per cent. From 2011, total farm area fell by 1.9 per cent to 8.1 million acres in 2016. All in all, agricultural operations in the province employed 55,866 people in 2015.
La belle province also counted a drop in the number of dairy cows to 347,038 head in 2016. Grain was the largest grown crop.
Off-farm work
Of course, the census reveals that a huge portion of Canada’s farmers supplement their farm work with off-farm jobs. The survey found that 44.4 per cent of all farm operators did some off-farm work. Just over 3 in 10 operators worked an average of 30 hours a week or more off the farm. British Columbia had the highest incidence of off-farm work, as well as the highest proportion of farms with total sales under $10,000. Just over half (51.1 per cent) of farm operators in British Columbia reported receiving a wage or salary from another job or operating a business unrelated to the farm.