The Politics of Standing Up for Farmers

Why governments need to actually listen before they regulate

Canadian agriculture has enormous potential. The land, producers, knowledge, innovation, and markets are there. But too often, the people who grow and raise our food are treated as an afterthought in the decisions that shape their future.

In this episode of The Future Herd, Jesse Hirsh speaks with John Barlow, Member of Parliament for Foothills and a long-time voice on agricultural issues in Ottawa, about what it means to stand up for farmers in Canadian politics.

The conversation explores the gap between consultation and actually listening, the growing disconnect between food literacy and farm literacy, and why food security depends on treating producers as partners rather than obstacles. Barlow discusses regulatory burden, the CFIA traceability debate, the role of research and innovation, the importance of stronger agricultural advocacy, and why governments need to understand the practical realities of farming before making rules that affect the people closest to the land.

At its core, this episode is about respect: for farmers, ranchers, rural communities, practical knowledge, and the people who feed the country.

Because food security starts long before food reaches the grocery store. It starts with listening to farmers.

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsch.

Welcome to the Future Herd.

Governments love the language of consultation.

They hold meetings, they invite submissions, they talk to

organisations, they publish frameworks.

They say they have listened.

But farmers know the difference between being consulted and being heard.

And that difference matters because agriculture is not

some abstract policy file.

It's land weather, animals, equipment markets, debt regulation, succession

research, transportation, trade, and most importantly, trust.

But it's also food security.

And the ability of a country to feed itself begins with the people who produce

the food being taken seriously, listened to and engaged on a substantive level.

So today, on the Future Herd, we're joined by John Barlow, member of

Parliament for Foothills, Alberta, and a longtime voice and champion

of agricultural issues in Ottawa.

And this conversation really is about the politics of standing up for farmers.

It's about why Canadian agriculture has enormous potential and why that

potential is so often slowed down by poor consultation, regulatory distance,

political neglect, and a public conversation that understands food far

better than it understands farming.

John makes a rather blunt case.

Governments need to actually listen before they regulate, not perform

listening, not check the consultation box, actually listen to producers,

ranchers, commodity groups, young farmers and the people closest to the

consequences of the decisions being made.

Because food security starts long before food reaches the grocery store.

It starts at the farm gate, and that's something I think a lot of Canadians

forget, but that John, to his credit, really focuses on in terms of his

job as an elected representative and as the shadow minister for

agriculture in our government.

I was really excited to have this conversation, and I hope you enjoy

it nearly half as much as I did.

John, welcome to the Future Herd.

Uh, it's a real pleasure.

Thank you very much for having me.

Now it is a pleasure for me.

Uh, I love talking policy on this podcast.

So to actually speak with a member of Parliament really hits home.

And of course, I do wanna talk about your constituency as well in

terms of understanding some of the concerns, uh, that the ranchers

and farmers that you represent.

I love to start off the show with a really abstract question that I ask all of our

guests, which is, what does the future

mean to you?

Well, in the future of agriculture, I, I think, uh, the

future to me would be us able to take advantage of the opportunities

that are right in front of us.

Um, but in many of those cases, we just can't get out of our own way.

Uh, so it's, you know, it's that, that, uh, gold medal is

right there within your grasp.

Uh, but in many ways you just have to, uh, remove a couple of hurdles to take

advantage and, and grab that gold.

And, and I think we can do it.

Uh, we just need to work together to achieve that.

Right on.

Right on.

And, and that very much aligns with my worldview, which is it's the obstacles

and hurdles that in life we need to be focusing on, not so much the, the,

the, the, the problems we might find in the present in terms of the future.

Now, the other second question I'd love to ask is kind of the origin story or lore.

And I kind of imagine in a parallel universe, you're a big

hotshot in the sports media world.

And, and I say this because it's remarkable how many of the guests

that I've had on the podcast either have a communications

background or a media background.

That leadership today really speaks to the ability to communicate.

So asking you what led to Parliament Hill, I'll frame that as,

Yeah.

would you still be working in the media today if, if the industry was

able to provide the kind of excitement and

opportunities that it used to?

Yeah.

You know, I, I love the career.

I, I really enjoy it.

You, you get to meet people your, every day's a bit different.

Very similar to, to politics I guess.

But yeah, had I remained on my path, I would've maybe been, uh, still in

the newspaper business in Alberta.

But if I go back, you know, 40 years, I would be, uh,

reporter for Sports Illustrated.

That's probably where the initial, the initial goal was.

But, uh, things get sidetracked a little bit.

Uh, the greatest time of my youth was the five years I had a

Sports Illustrated subscription, so

I could totally relate.

of course,

Well, and they gave you a, they gave you a,

yeah, sorry to say, they gave us a, they gave a sports illustrator, gave us a

discount if you were involved in media way back in the day, so that was even better.

Right on.

Right on.

Now, of course you do currently have what to me is a dream job.

And I say this only 'cause I'm a bit of a policy nerd and, and I

love kind of watching the front lines of how politics is made.

So my question for you here is how did you gravitate towards agriculture?

You know, partly in terms of you having the, the kind of shadow minister

portfolio, I suspect you could have picked a range of portfolio issues or policy

issues to focus on that that might have still been relevant to your constituency.

Why agriculture?

Well, I, I would love to give you this, uh, this very, uh, poetic

explanation of how this happened, but it, it doesn't really happen that way.

You know, after every election, you, you give the, the leadership

your list of things that you're interested in, and then they make

that decision on, on where you go.

And I, you know, I had to, in all seriousness, had to fight

for agriculture for a few years.

You know, I started in aboriginal affairs and natural resources,

which was, which was great.

Uh, but I didn't get the, the role in agriculture until I think 2018.

Uh, and then I've kind of been on that ever since.

So it took me a few years to get there.

Uh, but I will give, uh, Andrew Sheer, our former leader, all the credit, uh,

this was something he thought I would be, I would excel at, put me in this role.

And, uh, I've, uh, savoured it ever since.

And to your point, you have in, in my view, done a, a, a

fantastic job of, of elevating a policy area that I think y you and I

recognise as being valuable, it does tend to be ignored or neglected by the

kind of larger political discourse.

So why don't we start with that?

do you think needs to happen either on Parliament Hill or across the agricultural

sector so that we get more of the respect, more of the attention that we deserve,

given that food is kind of the basis of

everything else.

You know, I, I, I think agriculture and food production as a whole needs to

be elevated to a top priority in Ottawa.

And then hopefully the mainstream media would actually pay attention

to what's going on in this industry.

Just say, I can't, I can't tell you the number of times I have had, uh,

phone calls or emails from people in the media, uh, the large media outlets

who will call and say, Hey, um, I've just been given the agriculture beat.

Uh, I don't really know much about it.

Would you sit down and kind of walk me through it?

I always say, yes, anybody who's interested in this industry, I

want, I want you as a partner.

Uh, I wanna help you in any way I can.

Um, those conversations happen and then never to be heard from again.

I think they just move on to other things.

So it's, it's kind of frustrating that you, like, I know there's a, a kind

of a simmering interest underneath the surface, but I think there's a

lot of that squirrel mentality, you know, something else comes up and

they move on to the next cool thing.

Um, and I really thought we had an opportunity with COVID where for the first

time in my lifetime, I would go to the grocery store and there was empty shelves.

Canadians were questioning or didn't, were open to education

on where their food comes from.

You know, who does it where, where it's, uh, produced.

And I think we really missed that all opportunity to grab onto that and,

and take that as a chance to educate Canadians, elevate this to a, a big issue.

Uh, I think that opportunity is right in front of us again, uh, with

food, affordability, trade issues.

If we do not take advantage of this, you know, don't waste a good crisis

if we don't take advantage of this and really reach out to Canadians,

educate them about where their fruit comes from, how we do it, why we do it.

Uh, I, I think this is yet again, uh, a failure on, on leadership,

not only politically, uh, but even with the communications of

the mainstream media as well.

You know, why don't you elaborate on that a bit and, and in, in

no small part, because I saw yesterday you, you put out a post on X that really

linked, uh, food security to the larger kind of research capacity that, especially

in rural communities, plays a, an important part in, in terms of the larger

agricultural sector and the rural economy.

Which to your point about the journalists who come to get the free crash course

from you and then ghost you afterwards, does seem to be a disconnect in our

media in terms of, to your point, not only helping people understand where

their food comes from, understanding the infrastructure that the sector

requires to thrive to prosper.

I I, I'd love for you

to kind of unpack that.

Yeah, I, I think the, the closure of the seven research, uh, stations

and experimental farms is, is a perfect example of microcosm what we're dealing

with here, where if you can't get the little things right, if you can't get

the very beginning, you know, we talked about reaching for that gold medal.

If you stumble out of the starting gates, you're probably

not gonna win that gold medal.

And by turning our backs on research and innovation, I think you were

getting the fundamental beginning of this, this race wrong, um, where

every single expert that we had said, this is the consequences of these

closures is potentially catastrophic.

But you also have a government that says, the Prime Minister says A country cannot

feed itself, has very little options.

So how do you say that on the global stage?

And then one of your first actions as a government when it comes to

a decision around agriculture, is to close seven essential research

centres, closures that will only save.

And I, I say only, you know, in the bigger scheme of things, about $200

million over the next 10 years, when you have a $75 billion deficit, I can

tell you, I can find that $200 million in a multitude of different places.

This is a decision not based on budgeting, but a decision based on values.

And this message to me is agriculture and AgriFood production is not

a priority with this government.

And that's what my video was really stressing is, uh, if we really care about

food safety, we really care about food security, food affordability, then we

should be augmenting and ensuring these research centres have the resources that

they need, not, um, stripping it away.

Uh, and, and I just, the, the message that this sends to agriculture

is, uh, is concerning for sure.

And, and this gets to one of the other things I was really excited

to talk to you about, which is part of the, the privilege of your role is, is

you get to hear from farmers, you get to hear from sectoral leaders, you know,

partly because you put in the effort, but partly 'cause they want to talk to you.

So it, it's kind of a two-parter.

I I'm curious on the one hand, what you're hearing from sectoral leaders who, who

are trying to do their best either in this case, to, to, to look at the loss of these

cuts and the impact that has, let alone advocate for other policies that, you

know, champion and reinforce the sector.

What you also represent individual farmers and ranchers who I have to

assume you're also in touch with.

And there's all another kind of source of intelligence of what's

happening out there on the ground.

So I, again, I'd love to hear what you are hearing to get a greater sense of

how the kind of larger food security or just the larger crisis around the

costs, uh, of farming, you know, what you're hearing in terms of the general

concerns as well as the kind of actions that we should be, uh, uh, looking

at and entertaining.

Yeah, certainly we, we take a, a two-pronged approach to

these, to these issues when we, um, are, are trying to resolve them

or, or find potential solutions.

Certainly, uh, the agriculture stakeholders have, you know, very

talented people in Ottawa as, as part of their, their lobby efforts.

Um, we, of course, we listen to them, we meet with them on a, on a regular

basis just to get the pulse of, of some of the concerns that they're having.

But I, I think it's absolutely critical, uh, for us to, um, I guess

to just reassure ourselves or to just quantify the, the actual priorities

by talking to farmers, ranchers, producers, processors on the ground.

Are these truly the priorities that they see, uh, are are they feeling the effects

of, of whatever this issue be, or are they focused on something entirely different?

Uh, and I think it's, it's absolutely critical that as elected officials,

that we keep our, our finger on the pulse of people who are, have their

fingers in the, literally in the dirt.

Um, so I'm very blessed to be representing Foothills in Southern Alberta.

So I have a, a wide variety of, uh, of agriculture folks in, in my

riding and, and I'm, I'm truly reach out to them on a regular basis.

I have some of the most, uh, talented agriculture people in the

world, uh, that live in southern Alberta, so I'm very lucky that way.

Um, but I spend, you know, uh, as much as my wife will wonder where I am

sometimes I spend a lot of time on the road in other parts of Canada as well.

Um, agriculture, as you'll know, Jesse, there's a lot of the same

issues, uh, permeate throughout the country, but agriculture's different

in every part of that country as well.

Uh, so I think it's really important that we, uh, spend as much time as

we can meeting with those people at their farms, uh, at their ranches, um,

you know, listening to them firsthand so they feel they have a voice, but

also then we can really, uh, assess what, uh, what their priorities are.

And I think that's, that's absolutely essential.

And, you know, in indulge me with a few anecdotes and,

and I say this only because I, I, I am burdened, uh, uh, with the, of

being in Ontario and suffering from the insularity that Ontario fosters.

And one of the things I love about this podcast is I'm learning about all

the amazing agricultural innovation and practises across the country.

I'd, I'd love to hear some anecdotes, both, you know, from your writing, but

to your point, you get the privilege of, of seeing some incredible farming

operations across the country to your other point, our media kind of ignores and

we don't celebrate and we don't elevate, uh, uh, at the stage that recognises the

amazing work that the sector is doing.

So, help me out here, give me a couple of anecdotes that

I, I, I've really motivated,

uh, some of the work that you do.

Yeah, I, I think I'll give you a couple of examples that,

that actually happened recently.

And one would be, uh, the CFIA traceability rules around, uh, ranching.

Uh, if you remember, that came out about at six or eight months ago now.

Um, you know, we raised this as an issue in 2023, and, you know, no one seemed to

be really concerned except for some of the agriculture societies, rodeo groups.

Um, but then when it was released, uh, the ranchers in

my riding just went apoplectic.

They were like, what is this?

And it really showed me the importance of, of speaking to those people on

the ground because there was clearly a disconnect between ranchers, uh,

on the ground and what the Canadian Cattle Association, Alberta Beef,

Saskatchewan, uh, beef were, were assuming was the concern here in Ottawa.

There was a real disconnect.

So having those conversations with those ranchers on the ground right across

Western Canada, bringing that, you know, kind of connecting CCA and, and those,

like, it took some work, but CCA has come changed their position on, on these

traceability rules and now oppose them.

Um, and that just shows you that you can't always, you can't always assume

that the right hand knows what the left hand wants and, and vice versa.

I, I guess on the, on the outreach side, um, you know, I've, I've had

an opportunity to, to wander in a cranberry bog, which I'd never

thought I'd ever have, I've ever done.

Uh, I've been on a, a potato harvester, I've been down in my hands

and knees, uh, harvesting celery.

You know, you come from Western Canada and you kind of think, well agriculture's

tens of thousands of acres of, of grains and oil seeds and, and ranching.

But you have farmers who are toiling just as hard on a hundred

acres in a very unique, uh, very cool, uh, agriculture commodity.

Um, that's on a much, let's say a smaller land, land stamp, but.

It's just as lucrative and, and just as important to them as, as your, you

know, your 10,000 acres in Saskatchewan.

Uh, so just to compare how things are done, but the one common thread is how

much these farmers take care of their soil water management input costs.

Uh, so when, when we kind of joke that when they talk about regenerative or

sustainable agriculture, uh, you know, we take a drink because this is nothing new.

This is what farmers have been doing for generations and improving upon

that, uh, every opportunity they have because they have to, uh, if they

don't take care of their soil, their water, and their livestock, then they

don't have, don't have a livelihood.

Uh, so that's why I think it's important that elected officials get

out to the get out, literally get out to the field, see what they're doing.

It's an eyeopening experience, and you will have a much better

appreciation that farmers aren't out there destroying the land or, you

know, tossing chemicals willy-nilly.

Uh, they are trying to be as efficient and, uh, uh,

sustainable as they possibly can.

And that's not new.

And unfortunately, I think there's such a, a va a vast gap between what Canadians

think happens and what actually happens and what Canadians think happens.

I think permeates too much to the elected officials where they, uh, are

just so disconnected to what actually happens on, at the farm gate that, uh,

we have to find a way to bridge that gap.

Right on.

And, and, and that was one of those great answers where you, you kind of

spawned four questions simultaneously and, and I'm gonna try to start them

so we can get through all of that.

W with the key, which I wanna flag to come back to, and this has been a

recurring thread on the guest we've had in this podcast, which is the

need to align the leadership that farmers bring on their farms in their

communities the regulatory environment that many of them see as hostile.

And, and, and how do we get those aligned so that that leadership

amongst the farmers is there.

but you, you said something at the start, which I've been wanting to talk

about on this podcast for a while.

I've raised the question of the traceability issue with a few guests

and they didn't know about it.

You are the first guest who, again, because it's your writing,

you understood the issue.

I, I kind of came to it 'cause I'm a social media guy.

I learn about farming, I learn about agriculture through social media.

I saw that grassroots phenomena take off and I kind of had the front row seats

with, you know, people like Lance Nielsen, who's one of the social media users,

you know, really organising around it.

And, and it struck me how was a real moment for me in terms of not

just trust and authority within the sector, a new power that farmers and

ranchers are kind of coming into.

I, I, I would love to hear your thoughts on how you kind of helped mediate

that and helped bring people together.

And to ask a pointed political question, do you think the CFIA

recognised it for the crisis?

It is.

Or do they just think this is social media nonsense, which I don't think it is.

I think to your point, there are legitimate sentiments amongst farmers

and ranchers that people can't ignore.

A a again, i'd, I'd love for you to help educate us as to what you saw

on the ground there.

Well, I, I think the essence of it was a, a failure of whether that's the,

the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Canadian Cattle Inspection Agency,

um, a failure to communicate what the proposals were all along the line.

Ev every government would say they, they, they're consulting,

but clearly they're not.

Um, because I think what really happened to Jesse, as you said,

you saw out the explosion on social media is this farm ranchers just

felt that this was thrust upon them.

They had no idea this was coming.

Whereas, you know, those, the PE bureaucrats in the offices in

Ottawa say, oh, what do you mean?

We, we talked to Canadian Cattle Association.

We, we talked to them, but that wasn't, for whatever reason, that wasn't trickling

down to the rancher on the ground.

Uh, so whether this was a, uh, a malicious change in, in, uh, regulations, I'm

not, I'm not sure that was the case.

I think what really the essence of this was is ranchers and cattlemen

felt, did not feel they had a role in building or developing these

new, uh, traceability standards.

Uh, I think if, if they, if this happened at the beginning and they,

they helped them walk them through it and say, yes, this is possible, and

no, this is, uh, this is an overlap.

Uh, I think this must, must, might have been in a very different position.

And as you said, with social media, word spreads fast and the

anger with this spread incredibly quickly like a prairie fire.

Um, and I think there's a, well, I, I know there's a lot of distrust amongst

agriculture as a whole and CFIA and rightfully so, CFIA has become a

toxic culture, which is no longer an ally of agriculture is an adversary.

It needs a massive, um, reassessment, rebuild, culture change.

Uh, so all of that, that distrust with CFIA certainly planted to the seed here.

And now we're waiting to see if, if CFA actually takes the, uh, feedback from

producers and goes back to the drawing table and comes back with something that's

more workable and includes ranchers in that process, or if they've just kind

of gone into hibernation for a few months, they will come back with the

same thing and, and, and press forward.

We'll, I think that's something we're gonna see in the next, uh, few weeks.

Uh, and to your point, I think the legitimate sentiment

amongst ranchers, a a a amongst farmers is not gonna go away if they

feel that they're not listened to.

So, know, the, the, the follow-up question based on what you were saying before, and,

and this is where on the future herd we get to be, we get to imagine the future.

We, we, we get to imagine that the current obstacles aren't in place.

how could we create, what, what would a regulatory environment

that was led by farmers, that they viewed that regulatory environment

as positive as enabling, rather than their legitimate perception that it

hinders them, that it's oppressive.

What would that look like?

How do we achieve that?

And, and I say this 'cause I'm getting near a consensus amongst the sector,

that the status quo is not working.

That there needs to be a rethink about the regulatory environment.

Let's try to get ahead of the curve.

What, what, what could that look like?

How, how could we create an environment where farmers felt they were being

supported r rather than being, uh,

held back.

Well, I think the first thing right off the, the, the top, Jesse,

is that, like I said, those producers feel like they're part of the process.

And right now, um, there just seems to be a disconnect between, uh, the

bureaucrats in Ottawa and what, uh, the folks are trying to do on the ground.

And, and you have groups like the Canadian Catalyst Association who are trying

hard to bridge those gaps, but they're, they're kind of at a, a loss as well.

The, the government will say, oh, we're, we're consulting with you.

We've had meetings.

But if you're not actually listening to what we're telling you, then

that's not really consultation.

That's you ticking a box.

So I think that's first off, is you have to genuinely include the producers as

part of that discussion in that process.

Are producers always gonna be happy with what comes out in the end?

Probably not.

But at least they can say to their colleagues and, and their friends at

the, at the coffee time in the mornings that, Hey guys, this is what's happening.

We, this is what we proposed.

Um, you know, this is what we expect to happen.

At least there's no surprises.

The second thing is CFIA has to stop being, uh, you, you know,

uh, almost anti agriculture, let's say, and be, be a partner.

And this work on ensuring that decisions that they make have

a lens of economic impact.

And food security compliance cannot be the, the cudgel that

they do on every single thing.

CFIA was in essence to be a defender of Canadian agriculture on the global

stage, but that role has reversed where it is now, um, almost embarrassed

of Canadian agriculture despite the standards that we have set.

And CFIA is imposing standards on Canadian producers that it does not impose on

imports into Canada from countries around the world that is making Canadian

agriculture much less competitive, much higher costs, and much higher frustration.

Um, you know, some of the, the ridiculous decisions that CFI has made, you just have

you on, Jesse, I'm sure you've heard it.

You just have to shake your head and going, you know, there are

big problems for us to focus on.

Let's focus on solving those big problems and these tiny little micro

issues that you are, um, slamming down on, on producers and, and, uh,

processors and entrepreneurs, uh, is just making this, this industry untenable.

And until we get that culture within CFI and, and PMRA for that matter, uh,

adjusted to be working with agriculture, uh, I think it's gonna be very difficult

for us to, to, to grab hold of those opportunities that are in front of us.

Well, and how much does this tie back to something you said

earlier, which is, will rephrase, as a kind of urban rural divide where a lot

of people who live in cities understand where their food comes from, don't

understand the agricultural sector, don't understand the environmental

stewardship that every farmer practises.

And then you sort of acknowledge quite rightly that that permeates up into

urban members of parliament who then have a, a, a different, arguably an

inaccurate view of how food is made that then influences the regulators.

How, how can we address that?

How can that be either reversed or challenged?

So that, as I keep trying to emphasise, the people with the knowledge and

expertise lead the process, IE the farmers and producers, than people

who are multiple levels disconnected what is actually happening and

their understanding they're in.

I can't ask all politicians this, but someone with a media background, I suspect

understands the nuance or challenges that

come with this.

Yeah, I think you, I think you nailed it.

Um, that is, that is a big part of the, the, the challenge that we have

is that, that misunderstanding amongst urban Canadians, even Calgary and

Edmmonton, we're not just talking about Eastern Canada or Central Canada here,

um, about where their food comes from.

And, you know, if I could solve that, uh, I certainly would.

You know, we, we have programmes like agriculture in the classroom, four H,

um, programmes the liberals have cut funding to, by the way, um, that are

trying to do some of that outreach.

But we, we, you know, as, as most western Canadians and, and rural

Canadians, we either grew up on the farm or, or very close to it.

You're a grandfather or aunts and uncles or some, we, we spent time on the farm.

We understood, we understood it.

But now so many Canadians are generations away from really having any, uh,

exposure to what happens in agriculture.

And as a result of that, you have, uh, that disconnect.

But I think what's happening right now, and not only in Canada, but I would say

Europe is a very, uh, similar example is you have governments and elected officials

listening to the very vocal minority who have agendas, uh, for lack of a better

term, these are eco activists who see everything about agriculture as wrong.

Uh, they don't understand it, they don't try to understand it.

Uh, and they are very loud, very organised, and very effective, uh, because

they, they target their, um, urban elected officials and drive that message home.

And, and that's where you see a, a lot of these policies that, uh, you know,

you kind of throw your hands up and go, like, where are you coming up with this?

This is completely inaccurate.

The second thing is, as I would say, I, I kind of describe CFIA and P or PMA

A as the children of divorced parents.

They're kind of in agriculture.

They're kind of in health.

Neither minister really wants to take account for them or

take responsibility for them.

So they know they can go to one or the other, kind of get the answer they want,

or neither one will, will deal with it.

You know, for example, I'll go to the agriculture minister and I'll

say, you know what, uh, we're strict.

Nine's a good example.

Uh, we were trying to get emergency use for strict nine in, in,

uh, west Alberta, Saskatchewan.

You go to the agriculture minister, he goes, well, you need

to go see the health minister.

Pmra is in the health.

I'll go see the health minister.

She said, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you go talk to the agriculture minister?

So neither one of them is taking responsibility for, for an issue, and

neither one of their agencies are either.

So I think you have to take CFIA, put it back in agriculture, have

it operated and run by people who understand this industry.

Of course, it's gonna be the regulator.

There's gonna be rules there, but at least it's gonna be operated by

people who understand the industry.

We'll work with people we'll know who to reach out to when on certain issues.

Um, and then that you have this very strong minister that will hold them

accountable, will push them to be that partner that agriculture is looking for.

So I think that's a really important step, Jesse, is, is take CFIA, put it

back in agriculture where it belongs and, and reas and restructure that agency

to be a, a partner, not an adversary.

And, and, and I do wanna come back to that in terms of

imagining different, uh, portfolios or different structure of government

to really empower the sector.

But I, I think a really interesting question to ask before that would be,

you know, what's your advice to sectoral leaders, both as an elected official,

but also as a recovering media executive?

How should sectoral leaders be doing the kind of tactics you just described,

which is targeting the urban mps, educating the urban mps, you know, help

expanding their literacy of not just the sector, but the needs of the sector.

'cause to your point, their opponents are doing it quite successfully.

So what would your advice be both on a strategy and tactics

level to sectoral leaders who, who clearly need to step up their

game?

Well, I, I would say I would give them a couple of different pieces of

advice and, and they've, they've heard this advice from me, I'll just say

that, uh, they need to work together.

There are hundreds of agriculture stakeholder groups in the country,

almost too many in my opinion.

Uh, but they have to find those four or five top priorities that they all

agree on, put your resources together, focus on those few issues, and get out

there and start communicating that they are doing a, a much better job over

the last number of years in terms of having an, uh, um, having a platform on

social media where they are getting out there and, and, and, uh, talking about

having farmers talk about what they do.

And you were seeing some, some really successful agriculture influencers

who are, uh, trying their best to get that message out there.

But as we all know, um, with algorithms, if you are not looking for

that, you are not going to find it.

Uh, so they have to find different resources, combine their, their

talents and their resources.

Uh, and like I said, just just focus on a couple of different things at a

time, whatever your top priority are.

Um, whether that's TV advertising, you know, really lobbying hard on mainstream

media to talk about some of these issues.

Um, you know, ensure agriculture in the classroom has the resources

that needs to expand that programme.

We need to start getting to kids at a very young age to explain

to them what agriculture is.

And unfortunately, uh, those groups that, uh, we have talked about on the opposite

side of this are already in the classroom.

Uh, getting the teachers to, uh, show documentaries that show agriculture

in a, in a very poor light.

Uh, we have to have the counter to that.

And, uh, for, and the answer always, Jesse, and I know you've heard

this as well, is, Hey, we're busy.

We're, we're in the field.

We're planting, we're harvesting.

We can't use that as an excuse.

Uh, if we use that as an excuse, we will lose.

Um, we have to set priorities.

Uh, and this is a priority, is educating consumers about

where their food comes from.

Um, because bad policy comes from bad information.

And that's what's happening right now.

And, and let me uh, dig deeper into something you said

there, which tragically you are, I think the first guest that we've had

on the podcast who, who recognises the power of social media, especially

within the agricultural sector.

And while this is certainly true, uh, amongst farmers, amongst people

active in the sector, because social media is a hotbed of, of agricultural

activity, innovation, just storytelling.

But I, I find a lot of leaders have a disdainful view of social media.

To them it's just noise and the rabble, you acknowledge, at the very

least, that it plays a role within the larger communications ecosystem.

So I, I'd love for you to double down on why you think it is a key piece of the

messaging strategy of, of making sure that we are impacting public opinion,

let alone the people who had the power in public opinion, whether in the media

or on Parliament Hill.

Well, it's, it's simple.

That's where, that's where people are going to get their information now.

Um, they aren't going to the mainstream media for the most, the

most part, uh, the, the boomers and, and my generation certainly

still rely on, on mainstream media.

But those, uh, decision makers, the ones that we are coming up in, into

the system, the ones that we need to influence are going to social media.

That's where they're getting their information.

Um, and agriculture is certainly, uh, tuned into that.

And you are seeing some great work by some great people who are just filming

what they're doing on the farm every day.

Um, you know, potato tie in BC is a great example of the success that he has had.

Uh, you know, a, a farm girl in, in, uh, Ontario, I believe she's there,

uh, you know, incredible success some of these people are doing.

Um, and I'm hoping it takes time, but eventually their word will

start to spread and people will start to share what they're doing.

Um, but it is an, it is an essential communications tool.

And as I said at the beginning, we use, we that must use every tool at our disposal

to reach as many people as we possibly can in whatever medium they are fo looking at.

So we have to be on all of them.

Uh, whether that's the national post, uh, CTV or um, TikTok, uh, that we

need to be where, where viewers are.

Right on.

Right on.

Now I, I wanna come back to something that mentioned earlier, and this is

again, the kind of question that I, I, I can only ask someone as advanced

as you, you know, one of the threads I love to bring into the podcast is

getting people to talk about policy, which, which we've already been doing.

But I kind of wanna indulge your position and expertise to talk about governance.

'cause maybe to your point of having, you know, agriculture

treated as like the children of divorce or a neglected stepchild.

How, how could we, if, if you had the control of the PMO, whether you

were the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's trusted, uh, deputy, could

we reorganise ministerial portfolios?

How could we ensure that the AgriFood sector as a kind of larger

umbrella accurately positioned to be the global player that it is?

But I think everyone in the sector feels we could be even greater,

we could be even more prosperous.

We could rise to the challenge that the world kind of geopolitical

turbulence is offering us.

What would be the right configuration, uh, of government

resources that would achieve that?

Again, we get to do this on the future herd.

'cause we can, you know, blue sky this stuff.

But I suspect you're in a position to answer this question the way other

people might say, Hey, it's above my

pay grade.

Well, I, I think the fir it's, it's not a hard question.

I, I think the f the fundamental answer is it's, this is a values question.

If the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, does not see agriculture

as a priority, it will not be a priority.

If you do not have a strong minister in, in charge of this portfolio, who is

going to be a defender at the cabinet table, agriculture will not be a priority.

An example is the pri Prime Minister Kearney has an economics, uh,

committee as part of, of cabinet, an economic development committee.

Agriculture's not, the agriculture minister is not

a member of that committee.

So already you are saying this, you are at the kids' table.

Um, the Agriculture Minister should be one of the top, uh, cabinet positions on

in government, uh, for the last 12 years.

It has not, I would say we haven't had that person since Jerry Ritz, who,

uh, I think all of us would agree, was a very strong agriculture minister.

Um, but to me, Jesse, it's a values question.

You don't need to restructure, uh, cabinet and government.

You just need the prime Minister who sees this as the, uh, pillar to

our economic development as it is.

And I, and I agree with you 100% Canada, it should be the envy of the world.

We have what the world needs.

We have sustainable, affordable, quality agricultural products.

We have an abundance of natural resources.

Uh, we should be the wealthiest country on the planet, period.

Uh, but we do not see those two industries as critically important, and

we continue to kind of push them back hoping for better results elsewhere.

And that's, uh, you know, the, the rest of the world is, is laughing at

us for, uh, what we've done to two, two of our key pillars when it comes

to natural resources and agriculture.

So it, this is not a where you need to tear it down.

This is a just a, this is a values question.

You need people in those positions who see agriculture as

a critical pillar to our economy.

So let's, let's roll that forward.

What would be, you know, what would be the kind of policies, if the values

in place, if, if you were the minister or even the Prime Minister, would

be the kind of policy initiatives?

What would be the kind of rallying points that, that, to your point,

would allow us to actualize on our potential and, and be, if not the,

one of the wealthiest countries in the

world?

Well, I think the first thing that they, they should, uh, a

government should do, and, uh, this government has the opportunity to do it.

We've, we've talked about it.

We, we did a pretty extensive study on this at agriculture committee

last, our first, first, uh, job one when we came back after the last

election was, uh, harmonisation of regulations and red tape production.

So the first thing this government could do that would send a very

strong message to agriculture is harmonisation of regulations.

We actually have a private members' bill on the table right now

through my colleague David Betti.

Uh, basically what this does is any agricultural product, veterinary

medicine, crop protection product, uh, that is being used in, in another

country of which we as a trusted partner.

Uh, if that product wants to be used in Canada, if it's used in two other

trusted jurisdictions, the agriculture minister would have to give it, uh,

provisional approval within 90 days to use that product here in Canada.

So the CFIA and the PMRA are not redoing the science all from the beginning.

You have to take their research.

You can still review it parallel, but that product would be

able to be used in Canada.

That would send a very strong message to Canadian producers that you have

a government that's on your side, a government that recognises the

obstacles that you are dealing with.

Where we are continuing to fall, I think we are something like 35 out of

50 country, no, it's less than that.

35 out of 42 countries in the OECD in terms of, uh, regulatory

burden on agriculture and falling.

Uh, this would send a very strong message that we recognise this, we are going to

fix this, and here's one way we can do it.

Um, the liberal government's gonna be coming out with a, uh, food security

strategy in the next few weeks.

We've, we've kind of heard, uh, some rumours that it's on, on the way.

Include some of these things in that strategy and send that message to, to

producers that yes, we, we are listening.

We see the, the, the challenges you have and, and we are going to act.

Um, but thus far we haven't seen that.

Uh, you know, the, another one that's coming up right now is the Mercury

Trader deal, A trade deal with South American countries, Brazil and Argentina.

Columbia is the main ones.

Um, Canadian agriculture has raised the alarm on this, that, especially beef,

pork and poultry producers that you're gonna be opening Canadian market to, uh,

products that don't meet our standards, do not meet our, uh, animal health regime.

Traceability, you could be opening us to a foot mouth disease, African

swine fever, uh, BSE, uh, and yet the government is ploughing ahead.

It's gonna sign this agreement in a couple of weeks.

So there's another example of agriculture just not being listened to.

It's not that we're against free trade agriculture relies on free

trade, but doesn't mean you have to have trade with everyone,

especially if it's not reciprocal.

Uh, those countries have, um, allow about 1% of, of livestock

imports into their countries.

Meanwhile, 30% of, uh, domestic consumption of beef in Canada is imported.

So we've already done our part.

Um, but you need to be selective on which partners you, you want to agree

with instead of chasing new markets.

Why don't we look at the Canada European free trade Agreement, CA, which there

are numerous non tariff trade barriers that are been put in place, blocking

Canadian agriculture commodities.

Let's focus on fixing the ones that we already have, open those

markets to our full capabilities before, uh, chasing, chasing

others that are gonna be a problem.

Well, and I appreciate you brought up the, the merker

deal only because I, I have seen to your point, a lot of concern,

widespread concern in the sector.

And it, and it kind of raises a very political question, are, are you concerned

that in the government's attempt to try to address affordability, that

their ignorance or disconnect with the sector might mean that set affordability

comes at the sector's expense?

IE if you're importing cheap food that undercuts the sector's ability to produce

food, that's clearly not a net positive.

And so I'll add to that a second question.

To your ver very insightful point, not all trade is equal.

And we're in a world in which trade agreements are increasingly

becoming almost bilateral, although to your point, even the

multilateral have their complications.

How do we address that stuff?

Especially given the kind of the ignorance, for lack of a better

word, that we've acknowledged already, that exists amongst much,

much of the urban political class.

Like if they think they're doing the right thing in terms of affordability,

but actually sabotaging our own sector, how do we prevent that?

How, how do we communicate that effectively given the nuance

it requires and the kind of soundbite nature of our media

world?

Well, I think first off, Jesse, it's very hypocritical of the

liberal government to be ploughing ahead with this trade agreement.

On one hand, they're saying, we need to buy Canadian.

Buy Canadian.

We need to be self-sufficient.

Let's support Canadian products, Canadian industry.

On the other hand, you are gonna sign a free trade agreement, which

as you said, will undermine what are the pillars of our, of our economy,

which is our agriculture industry.

Um, this will, this is certainly focused on beef, pork, and poultry right now,

but there are other commodities that could certainly, could be challenged.

The United States is seeing the area of this with Brazil flooding its

market with, uh, corn and sugar.

Um, you know, the United States was looking at this as well until American

ranchers basically lit their hair on fire saying, if you start bringing

in a bunch of cheap Argentinian beef, this will destroy our industry.

So even President Trump backed off and he said, okay, I, I, listen, we're not

gonna, we're not gonna go down this road.

We are doing the opposite.

Despite the concerns that are being raised by our industry, we're, we're going ahead.

So you, you can't on one hand tell consumers when you go to the grocery

store, look for that Canadian flag, buy that Canadian product, and on

the other hand, start bringing in a bunch of, uh, low quality, uh, uh,

international imports that, that are gonna undermine our own Canadian products.

So that, that is the problem.

And I'm not sure if the, the liberals are actually focused on affordability here.

I think this is two things for the liberals, A this is gonna

give them a great media soundbite.

They say, Hey, look at us.

We've signed another trade deal with the fifth largest trading block in the world.

And it gives 'em another chance to poke Donald Trump in the eye.

Um, they love nothing more than making sure that Trump is, is the boogieman.

And anytime they can kind of stick it to him a little bit, um, 'cause the

United States, Jesse, as you may know, has flagged this agreement as a problem.

They do not wanna see the, that cheap, low quality product coming

into the United States through the back door, through Canada.

So, once again, our most important trading partner, the trading partner

that our agriculture industry is fully integrated with, has told us, Hey,

uh, we see this as a big problem.

Uh, you want to keep trading with us in the way that we do agriculturally.

Uh, you better not be signing this agreement, but they're gonna go ahead

and do it anyway because it's gonna look good in the media for about two days.

Uh, meanwhile, Canadian producers are gonna be suffering, uh,

through this as we've already seen.

Uh, with the uk for example, UK beef imports into Canada we're up almost 700%.

Uh, beef exports into the UK are at zero, same as pork.

Uh, so the liberal government is not defending Canadian agriculture

producers on the global market.

They're capitulating.

Uh, and, and we, and again, to your point, the fundamental issue

here is those urban voters or those decision makers really don't see it.

They don't understand the consequences of it.

They are so far away from it.

Um, you know, those of us who represent rural parts of the country, uh, we are the

ones who are, uh, there at the forefront defending, uh, defending this industry

as, as wholeheartedly as we possibly can.

Um, but I, I think that's really the two, two issues that are at stake here is.

Um, this is gonna be a great media soundbite for, for the Carney

liberals, despite the devastating consequences that it could have

on, uh, on Canadian producers.

And it's another opportunity then for them to kind of stick it to

Donald Trump despite the warning United States has given Canada, uh,

should they sign this agreement?

I also think it's significant to your point, that it was a, a, a,

a large number of American ranchers who really sounded the alarm on, on

the impact that this particular trade deal would have, and, and credit to

the Trump administration that they heard that and, and, and responded.

It, it strikes me that we, we have a problem here in Canada that our,

our ranchers don't have the same political weight, at least in Ottawa.

They, they certainly do in Alberta.

How, how do we get Canadian rural voices, whether agricultural or otherwise,

to have greater influence and, and power in our public conversation.

I think part of that, as we've sort of alluded to, is a media problem, but I,

I, I suspect you're not the only member of Parliament who really feels that their

constituents are not getting a fair shake.

How do we address that and is that an opportunity for the agricultural

sector to help champion because of the, the benefit they would have in

rural voices having more influence in, in ultimately in policy?

Well, I, I think when they do focus their message, they, they are effective.

And, you know, we look at, we talked about the traceability rules.

Um, you know, CFIA did pause that.

Uh, we have had success in them, them pausing some thing things in the past.

The P two plastic span is, is another one where industry came together.

Uh, the, uh, our bill 2, 3, 4, uh, to eliminate the carbon

consumer carbon tax on farm fuels.

Every agriculture group came together and it was very successful.

Uh, I think on these existential threats, uh, the different commodity groups need

to find common ground and work together.

And when they do, they have a very powerful and effective voice.

But unfortunately, government can be very effective in divide and conquer as well.

Uh, the liberals are experts at it.

They will go to the different groups and they will, they know, they will

not come to a consensus and they'll say, Hey, you know, we consulted.

You guys could come to an agreement, so we're gonna do X instead of y.

Uh, the commodity groups, uh, on these times of, of real threats

need to, to come together.

And I know they do.

I know they do.

Um, and, and they need to be loud and they need to be aggressive sometimes.

'cause the other groups, as you said, we said at the beginning, are they are

very effective and, uh, very aggressive.

Uh, so we will, I, I know the Canadian Cattle Association is gonna be working

very hard with its partners trying to gain, um, allies on the Mercer, uh, deal.

We, we have been working very closely with them, and they've,

they've been really effective.

And the second thing is, is they, they, agriculture groups are all not always

just meeting with, uh, rural mps.

They're meeting with everyone from all the different parties.

And I, I think that's a really smart strategy, is they need to make sure

that everyone hears, uh, what the consequences of the impacts are.

And they bring solutions, which I think is also really important

that they, they aren't just coming here and, and, uh, and complaining.

They're coming with real, tangible, uh, solutions to their problems, which I think

is, uh, critically important as well.

And we have, we have a really good group on the agriculture committee.

Uh, I think all of us, uh, represent rural writings that, that will be

impacted by some of these decisions.

Uh, so that, that's helpful if the Minister and Cabinet will listen to

the recommendations that we bring forward from the agriculture committee.

Right on.

And I am conscious that we're, we're just about out of time because I'm kind

of tempted to spend another hour just talking about the, the, the tactics of

how to get everyone on the same page.

'cause that is a recurring desire amongst the sector.

Sometimes easy, sometimes not.

the second last question I always throw to the guest is, is there anything

we haven't talked about that, that you think is really important to

mention, especially in the context of, of championing Canada's agricultural

sector?

Well, I don't know if there's anything that we, we haven't talked about.

I think, uh, the, the, the big message I would want for people to, uh, to get

from this is, you know, talk to your neighbours, talk to your family who

live in urban centres, or maybe don't under, you know, the people who are

gonna be listening to this podcast, Jesse, obviously understand what

we're talking about for the most part.

Um, but I would really encourage them to, to try and share their message

in any opportunity that they have.

Um, don't, don't be scared to have a little bit of a heated

discussion with someone.

Um, stand up for what we believe in and, and we believe in the, uh,

uh, the, the tradition, the values, uh, the innovation, uh, of Canadian

agriculture and, and food production.

And I would always, I always highlight that, Jesse, is, is talk about it as a,

as a, in the frame of food production.

I don't think people understand what agriculture is, but they certainly

understand the food on their table.

And these farmers and pro processors, ranchers are producing

the food that's on your table.

And I think that is an important distinction to make.

Right on.

And it's similar to advice I give to city people, which

is make friends with a farmer, which now thanks to social

right.

Yes.

pretty easy.

you know, the last question

and if you ask.

So I'll just say if, if you ask a farmer to come and visit, they

will be happy to show you around.

A hundred percent and you'll experience things that you will

never experience in a city.

uh, the last question

That's right.

guess I is kind of the shout out.

It, it, it's really who are the leaders who inspire you?

Who, who are the people that you think the rest of us, uh, should

be tooting into or following you?

You dropped a few names earlier in terms of social media influences,

but who, who are the folks that you look up to that you think deserve

more attention?

Oh man, that's really gonna be a challenge.

'cause like I said, you know, my riding, I've got some of the incredible

agriculture leaders, uh, you know, in the world, not just Canada.

Uh, so, you know, I, I started a bit of an agriculture round table of

representatives from, just from my riding.

And the first time that we sat down with everybody, I kinda looked around

the room and I'm like, oh my gosh.

I am, I am totally blessed to be representing these people and I

could learn so much from them.

You know, uh, Kim McConnell from the founder of Ad Farm, for example,

uh, Ted Menzies, former President of Crop Life, my predecessor, uh, you

know, Roy Newman, a a very prominent, uh, grain farmer in, in Blackie.

Uh, you know, you know Sherry Copthorne Barnes now the Vice President of

Calgary Stampede a a rancher in, uh, uh, the western part of my riding.

You know, these are, these are incredible people who do incredible things and,

you know, first and foremost, they're, they're farmers and ranchers and, but

they have taken on, uh, incredible leadership roles, uh, around the world.

But, uh, you know, I, I have those types of people that I reach out to right across

Canada, and I'm, I'm very blessed to, to call them friends and, and, uh, and

call them mentors in one way or another.

But, uh, I think most, most importantly, uh, I rely on them for, for good

information and honest conversations.

Um, they, what I love about what I love about a farmer is they tell

you that God's honest truth, uh, they are not gonna sugarcoat it.

If you are full of beans, they're gonna tell you you're full of beans.

And, uh, I think that's really beneficial to me as an elected official

and, uh, hopefully a policy maker, a decision maker that, uh, I'm getting,

I'm getting the unvarnished truth.

And they don't tell you just what you, they think you want to hear.

And you know, to be honest, John, the, the proof has been

in this podcast episode because I am a hundred percent allergic to bullshit.

And you brought none.

This was rare for a politician perhaps,

Well.

for someone who, to your point, is held accountable by

farmers and ranchers.

Well, I, I, Jesse, now that I know, I could said bullshit, I would've said

it a long time ago, but, uh, I never, I never consider myself a politician.

And I think, uh, I, I just, I'm, I represent my riding.

Uh, I don't think I've ever changed.

And, uh, my friends and neighbours, uh, would certainly give me an earful if

they thought my head was getting too big.

Uh, so I, I appreciate, I appreciate that, that maybe this

is a bit of a different tone.

Uh, but I can assure you this is the tone that I, I have

in, in all my conversations.

Uh, I don't, you know, I don't think it, uh, it helps us at

all if we are just filling each other full of, uh, of bullshit.

We, we need to be honest with one another.

And that's how hopefully, uh, those changes that we've talked about today

can actually come through fruition.

And, uh, you know, I, I am really optimistic, I have to say, I always try

and finish with this, that, you know, although we've talked about some real big

concerns, I am truly optimistic of the future of Canadian agriculture because of

the potential that we have, because of the people who are involved in that industry.

Some of those names we, we threw out here today.

But, uh, the young people who are getting involved in agriculture, that

entrepreneurial spirit, that, that openness to new ideas so exciting.

The one thing that we have to do is we have to make sure those young people

see Canadian agriculture and food production as a viable career choice

with a, a real future to grow and thrive.

Uh, and I think if we can achieve that, um, the potential for Canadian

agriculture is, is really unmatched.

Right on.

Fantastic.

Thank you, John.

what I really enjoyed about this conversation was how

quickly it moved past slogans.

Food security can sound like something that belongs in a strategy document.

Agricultural innovation can sound like something that belongs

in a funding announcement.

And consultation can sound like something that already happened

because somebody held a meeting.

But today's episode with John really brought those words back down to

Earth and speaks to the kind of integrity and commitment that we

expect of our elected officials.

And to which John, I think, to his credit, lives up to, you know, to the rancher,

trying to understand a new rule to the farmer, waiting for a product approval

to the producer, wondering whether Ottawa understands the cost of delay

to the next generation deciding whether agriculture still looks like a future

worth building in this context, I think John's argument's pretty direct Canadian

agriculture does not lack ambition.

It does not lack talent.

It does not lack people willing to work, adapt, take risks, and feed this country.

No.

What it needs is to be taken seriously by folks in cities,

by people who make decisions.

And that means listening before regulating.

It means treating producers as partners in food security

rather than obstacles to policy.

It means recognising that the knowledge closest to the land

is not a special interest.

Quite the opposite.

It's a form of national intelligence, and maybe most of all, it means

agriculture has to keep finding its voice in Ottawa, in the media, online,

and in the everyday conversations where Canadians learn where their food comes

from and who's actually producing it.

'cause the future of food will not be built by people talking

about farmers or around farmers.

It'll be built by people willing to listen to them.

And that's really what we seek to do here in the future herd.

It's not just hear from people like John, but from people like yourself.

So if there's a subject, a topic, an issue that you'd like us to dig deeper into,

send us an email, or better yet, check out our website where you could find that

email address as well as all the episodes and knowledge and briefs that we put out

to help you understand our AgriFood sector so it can truly be the best in the world.

I'm Jesse Hirsch.

We'll see you soon here on the Future Herd.