Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry

Issue 13 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Thursday, October 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:35 a.m. to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada.

Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I will call our meeting to order this morning.

We have witnesses before us from the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. With us this morning are Bernie Ward, Director, Analytical and Communication Services and Gerry Luciuk, Director of Land Management and Diversification Service.

The PFRA has a long history in the Prairies, and it is a good history. We welcome you here this morning, and look forward to your presentation.

Mr. Bernie Ward, Director, Analytical and Communication Service, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

I have circulated two pamphlets. One describes PFRA. The second is a description of our rural water development program, which has been a popular program in the last two or three months.

I would like to make a short presentation about the history of PFRA, our current programs, and comment about the drought. I understand you have a copy of the presentation before you also.

The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration is a branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada dedicated to the economic development and environmental stewardship of Canadian agriculture, soil, and water resources to achieve a higher quality of life for all Canadians. In our department we have adopted three new business lines. Most of PFRA's efforts contribute to business line number two, the health of the environment.

Slide number 3 before you gives the early history of the PFRA and outlines its responsibilities. The PFRA Act was given Royal Assent on April 17, 1935. At that time, it was responsible for the rehabilitation of land resource devastated by the droughts of the 1930's. Its mandate was to develop and promote systems of farm practice, tree culture, water supply, land utilization, and land settlement that would afford greater economic security.

At that time, PFRA was mandated to operate in the Prairies. In a broader sense, however, PFRA may operate in other areas of Canada, where and when it is required to do so.

The next slide shows a map of the Prairie region, which includes the Peace River region of British Columbia. The colours show PFRA's five regions. Within each of these regions we have district offices totalling 22. In addition, we have three centres, an irrigation centre at Carberry, Manitoba; another irrigation centre at Outlook, Saskatchewan; and the shelterbelt centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan. Dispersed throughout the entire region is our system of community pastures. Eighty-seven operate today. Most are in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The headquarters for PFRA is in Regina, Saskatchewan.

The following slide is an organization chart of our branch. From left to right, the first column illustrates our regional operation service. Our regional and district offices report to our Director General.

Our land management and diversification service, directed by Mr.Gerry Luciuk, operates our basic programs, community pastures, irrigation centres, and the shelterbelt centre. The analytical and policy division is my service. Our technical service houses our engineering services, water quality unit and geographic information systems, or GIS. The last service is our administration division.

PFRA employs 693 full-time equivalents. Just over 200 people work in the headquarters office that is located in Regina. The remainder of the employees are dispersed throughout the country.

The base budget is approximately $52 million.

Infrastructure features include the irrigation and technical centres at Outlook and Carberry. We also have a number of irrigation projects throughout southwestern Saskatchewan. In total, these represent about 15,000 hectares.

The community pasture system represents approximately 900,000 hectares. Our tree nursery at Indian Head distributes 6 million trees annually. Its size is approximately 640 acres.

Slide number 7 shows there is a broad base of technical expertise in various disciplines. These varied talents can address a very wide range of environmental challenges. We do believe that it is this broad base of technical expertise is one of our greatest strengths.

Throughout the history of PFRA, the major emphasis of the branch has changed. It started with the act in 1935, with dugouts and land reclamation. At that time, we established the community pasture system.

In 1938 the PFRA became involved in large water infrastructure. One of its largest projects, begun in the late 1950s and early 1960s, was Gardiner Dam at Diefenbaker Lake. I believe that was about a ten-year project.

In 1972, reporting through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, PFRA was involved in community water supplies through the Agricultural Service Centres Program. In 1983 our emphasis turned toward soil conservation.

In the late 1980s we began to focus on rural development and delivered a series of provincial partnership agreements.

Our most recent focus has been to establish a water quality unit. This new focus began in 1994. As you may know water is a very important resource. Given Canada's current conditions and concerns about water supply and water quality, the water quality unit is always working hard.

Today our focus is water supply, water quality, resource analysis and planning, land stewardship, research and development, program delivery, and international activities. I have a series of slides that will describe each of those in more detail.

Water supply is the first topic I will discuss. Where runoff is sufficient, we concentrate on surface storage development. This water is generally of good quality but can be subject to drought. Where runoff is low, we rely on groundwater sources. While more drought-tolerant, in Western Canada the quality of groundwater is generally poor. PFRA has undertaken mapping activities to locate additional sources. We look especially for underground aquifers.

Recent advances in technology have made rural pipelines economically viable. In the last six years we have concentrated on supporting the development and implementation of rural water pipelines throughout the Prairies.

Since 1935, PFRA has assisted with numerous small water- development projects: 148,417 dugouts, 111,552 wells, 14,839 stock-watering dams, 10,723 irrigation projects, and 711 pipelines. Pipelines have become a priority.

The subject of water quality has two major focuses. Protection involves riparian area management. We make producers aware and promote the best possible management practices. We also concentrate on remote watering systems. These involve both riparian areas and the system of dugouts and stock watering dams that are used by producers. Efforts are made to keep animals out of the water source in order to improve water quality. We also have done work on aquifer protection planning.

The second focus of our work in water quality is on dugout water treatment. That involves coagulation, aeration, and dugout covers, all for the purpose of making water more beneficial for use on the farm. It becomes a water source for spraying annual crops and in animal production. The better the quality of the water, the more efficacious the spraying operation. The better the quality of the water the more productive the livestock. In addition, we have worked on treating the water for household use.

About 18 months ago we undertook a major study in PFRA called the Prairie Agriculture Landscape Study. It involved 20 to 25 people. The objective of this study related to earlier predictions from the Canadian Agricultural Marketing Council. The council suggested that a target for the agriculture industry in Canada would be to increase our export share of world trade from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, and to flip the ratio of value added to primary exports from a 40:60 ratio to a 60:40 ratio. The question we sought to answer was: What would that type of growth and development, in the Prairies, mean to the land and water resources? We wanted to project what that would mean by the year 2005.

We wanted to identify potential pressure points. In doing so we could build that information into the strategic direction of our branch. Knowing these pressure points we could retool and allocate our resources for the future.

Next, we will discuss the decision support systems. The concentration here has been on GIS or geographic information systems. We use this to incorporate spatial data. It is a tool that integrates resource, cadastral, demographic and economic data. It is used for land use impact assessment, land use monitoring, and feasibility studies. Perhaps its most interesting use is for intensive livestock siting.

Our pastures are managed for two major objectives; conservation of the resource and cost-effective grazing. The pasture system also maintains marginal land under permanent cover. We have found that the pastures also provide other environmental benefits for Canadians. Pastures impact biodiversity, greenhouse gas mitigation, and species at risk, et cetera. These pastures also provide a breeding service to encourage increased productivity of producers' herds.

We have jointly funded research facilities at Carberry and Outlook, and a newer initiative called the Canada-Alberta Crop Diversification Initiative that is located in Lethbridge.

Research focuses on variety trials, agronomic practices, water and energy-efficient technologies and the effects of irrigation on groundwater quality. We use a number of methods to transfer the technology to the farmers. This is done with brochures and reports and especially through annual field days.

The Shelterbelt Centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan, is the oldest part of PFRA. It is currently celebrating its 100th anniversary. It distributes 6 million trees annually. These are trees that are suitable for the Prairies. The centre investigates agri-forestry opportunities. We have found that shelterbelts have the ability to sequester carbon both above ground and below ground. The centre also works on community forests, wildlife plantings, and fruit varieties for economic benefit.

Beside direct program delivery, like our rural water development program and our community pastures system, we have been successful in joint partnership delivery. Listed are some of the more recent initiatives we have been involved in. One is the Prairie Grain Roads Program. I also note one other significant undertaking; the Western Grain Transportation Payments Program that began in 1994.

PFRA is also involved in international activities. We apply Canadian expertise abroad through CIDA projects. Currently we have projects in Egypt, China, Ethiopia and Ukraine.

We are currently embarking on a new sector strategy. We have developed a policy framework to implement that new strategy. Under this agriculture policy framework, which federal and provincial ministers agreed to at a recent meeting in Whitehorse, five priority areas are included. PFRA is most involved in the environment area. Our foremost challenge is to find a balance between producers' economic objectives and the proper management of land and water to ensure long-term resource conservation.

Given its history and present activities, you may ask why PFRA successful. We believe that it is successful because we have been able to adapt and remain relevant. We operate in partnerships. Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, and we have operated in partnerships throughout our history. We address issues using a multi-disciplinary approach that relies heavily on our broad base of technical expertise. We have technical expertise that is recognized internationally. Perhaps most important, we bring the federal government close to the citizen.

The next slide illustrates how PFRA works. We picked a current example representing a serious situation in Western Canada today. I am referring to the drought.

Our drought activities in PFRA revolve around monitoring, analysis and reporting. We have long-term programming and technical assistance that we apply to try and stabilize the Prairie economy. PFRA is the departmental contact for monitoring and reporting drought in Western Canada. PFRA sits on the provincial drought committees and works with its provincial governments.

Information networks are assessed for current conditions of PFRA pastures. The results are extrapolated into the total pasture resource of the Prairies and dugout levels for the total Prairie area. We assess current temperature data and precipitation data from Environment Canada. The department's research branch monitors insect population data. We analyze and interpret this information and report on it internally and also externally to the public.

Reports and information are continuously available on our drought watch Web page. I believe we had some current maps that describe that type of data that we did not circulate earlier. However, copies were made this morning, and will be circulated. We could discuss those at a later date.

At the start of the year when a drought is not anticipated, the data is updated monthly. When drought develops, we update more regularly. Most of the data is currently being updated on a weekly basis.

We implement the National Livestock Tax Deferral Program, providing long-term programming and technical assistance. Droughts are cyclical in nature. We allocate our resources through strategic programs that have a long-term focus. In this way we try to achieve solutions that will lessen the effects of droughts when they occur. An example would be our Rural Water Development Program. I have supplied you with a pamphlet. Our range management expertise, used for our own internal use in our community pasture system, is also used to transfer technology and information to producer patrons and other members of the livestock community.

Our water quality unit is very overworked. We are constantly allocating additional resources to that unit. When drought occurs and water supplies decrease the water quality decreases as well.

In May of 1999 PFRA senior management undertook the formation of a Prairie Agroclimate Unit. That unit was given the task of formulating policy around current conditions; around the applications to long-range climate forecasting; and around the climate change scenario and climate change adaptation. That unit has been very especially useful to us this year because the drought has been so severe.

Over time, PFRA has adapted to the changing face of agriculture. Since 1935 its flexibility has allowed PFRA to offer effective programs and services in an ever-changing environment. PFRA activities support Agriculture Canada's commitment to business line two; Health of the Environment. We believe the departments' integrated approach contributes to the socio-economic and environmental sustainability of the agriculture sector. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you for that comprehensive report on your activities in Prairie farm rehabilitation. I have one question. You say you have 693 employees. Does that include pasture managers and people who work with the community pastures?

Mr. Ward: I should point out that those are 693 full-time equivalents. This number does not include the community pasture system, recognizing that a considerable number of staff in the community pasture system and the shelterbelt are seasonal.

Senator Wiebe: I have three questions to ask. Earlier this summer, in Edmonton, I had the privilege of serving on the Prime Minister's Special Task Force on Agriculture. Our group had hearings in Edmonton. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the individual that drove up to Edmonton to make a presentation to us. He was from your Regina office. I found his presentation one of the two most forward-thinking presentations that our committee has ever heard. It was for that reason I urged this committee to invite PFRA to appear before us.

I hope that you will pass that compliment on to the gentleman that prepared that brief. I have copies of slides, and I will make those available to all members of the committee. Unfortunately, I had a meeting at 7:30 and was unable to get back to my office in time to pick them up to bring them here. It was a fantastic presentation. It dealt with what PFRA can do for the future sustainability of agriculture.

That is what we have to look at. I come from southwest Saskatchewan. The impression I was left with was that it was mainly PFRA that got the agricultural industry back on its feet after the 1930s. I strongly believe that if PFRA was given enough resources, it could do that again and deal effectively with the current situation. I am not talking about drought but agriculture generally. The outcome is tied to the amount of resources.

A government has gotten itself into a bind. We have encouraged farmers to go into livestock because of the low returns in the grains and oilseed industry. Whether it is our responsibility or not is debatable, but we have not bothered to educate them on the proper tools of management.

My farm is located in the Palliser Triangle, an area from Winnipeg to Calgary to Saskatchewan that is basically a desert. My grandfather told me that if I am to go into livestock in this area, there are two things that I have to do. One, I have to ensure that I have a deep well. Two, I have to ensure that a three-year supply of hay is on hand at all times.

That knowledge has passed down from generation to generation among some ranching families in Western Canada today. They are sitting pretty because they have followed that advice. There is no water shortage on their grassland and they have kept three years' supply of hay on hand. They resisted the temptation to sell hay at a high price last year in the expectation that Mother Nature would provide them with the hay they need this year.

We as a government we are being asked to provide freight subsidies and assistance so that ranchers can buy hay somewhere else. In that desert, over the long-term, as you said, conditions are cyclical. We therefore will have the good years in which to produce that hay to tide us over. I think where governments should have to be involved is in areas like southeastern Alberta, now in its third year of drought.

Does PFRA have an extension branch or service within their organization to provide that kind of information to people contemplating a move to the livestock or some other sector requiring that kind of management knowledge?

Mr. Ward: Yes. We do not have a specific extension service or extension component of PFRA. However, extension is delivered across a number of services. As shown on the slide of the geographic outline of Saskatchewan and the regional district offices, certain staff, provide technical assistance. Some staff work on water development to supplement the Rural Water Development Program and others provide information on livestock development, crop production, and in this case, forage.

In addition to that, we have the entire community pasture system with its pasture managers and range management specialists who could be more active if they had more resources.

Mr. Gerry Luciuk, Director, Land Management and Diversification Service: In response to the question of Senator Wiebe, I will add that in our community pasture system we have a range science group comprised of 10 specialists. This group specializes in range ecology and range management. We estimate that they spend about half their work time supporting our internal operation, or the grazing management of the lands that we own and operate directly for our patrons. The other half of their time is spent in various activities related to the promotion of newer technologies in range management, rotational grazing and water quality improvement for livestock productivity. Other activities involve biodiversity and environmental protection for environmental reasons.

Those activities are generally delivered in the context of one or another programs, for instance, the Green Plan and the Agri-food Integration Program in Saskatchewan. In these programs we work with partners in promoting various new technologies to address these issues.

Rotational grazing is a newer, more effective way of protecting the range resource, increasing its sustainability against drought, and its productivity. Resources permitting, we have focussed on areas involving a transition into the livestock sector. For instance, in east central Saskatchewan, west central Manitoba, the impact of freight rate changes have led to a large and increasing transition into livestock. Where resources permit, where the partners are there, and where there are appropriate programs, we try to extend our best knowledge to such issues.

Senator Wiebe: You do some extension work at present. If mandated to do more, could you handle it?

Mr. Luciuk: Yes. We have the expertise. It is a matter of time and resources.

Senator Wiebe: You talked about some of the other areas throughout the world in which you have done cooperative work. You listed three in your slide. I know that what we are doing there is helping them out with the expertise that we have.

Do you share expertise that may be applied here with other countries? For example, what relationship do you have with the United States with regard to their water management work? Their last 10-year farm plan or farm bill allocated considerable money to improve marginal lands for wildlife, soil quality and so on. In the new farm bill, it is intended that $16.5 billion be dedicated for expenditure in those areas. That is in the period of the next ten years. Do we have a partnership with the U.S., with this kind of working technology? I notice that this aspect is a part of your presentation here.

Mr. Ward: Yes. A number of our staff has working relationships with individuals in USDA.

Mr. Luciuk: We work with the Natural Resources Conservation Branch of the USDA.

Mr. Ward: We share technology through those staff relationships. In addition, much of the U.S. technology is published in a number of journals and reports. Our people keep themselves apprised of what is available. The 49th parallel is merely an imaginary line between the United States and Canada when it comes to the Northern Plains area.

PFRA did have a permanent cover program in the late 1980s and early 1990s to do some of the same things that the USDA are doing under their farm bill under the CRP. We have always supported that type of programming. Unfortunately Canada does not have the treasury the U.S. has.

Senator Wiebe: I am sure that if the federal government provided you with $16.5 billion over the next 10 years, you would be able to find a way to spend it.

Mr. Ward: I believe so. I think the farmers would show us the way to spend it.

Senator Wiebe: My last question deals with PAL, the Prairie Agricultural Landscape Study. Is this study ongoing or has it been completed?

Mr. Ward: The study is completed and has been published. It was released a few months ago.

Senator Wiebe: Would you mind making that available to all members of the committee?

Mr. Ward: Yes, I will.

Senator Wiebe: I believe it would be valuable to us. I believe the study is excellent. It is long overdue and we certainly need it in this country. However, that you would have used another word other than landscape because it sounds like you are planting flowers and shrubs in your backyard. It is difficult to sell that name to a beef or a hog producer or a grain farmer, or to convince those living in Montreal, St. John's or Toronto that this is money being spent on the future of agriculture production. That is just a personal view.

Senator Oliver: The Library of Parliament has prepared a number of questions for us to put to you.

In its presentation to the committee, Ducks Unlimited Canada, whose representatives sat here about four months ago, suggested that technological advances over the last 50 years, coupled with declining profit margins for agricultural crops, have resulted in agricultural activities that have negatively impacted water, soil, fish and wildlife resources and agricultural landscapes. Earlier in your presentation you talked about runoff of rain and so on.

Tillage of marginal and highly erodible soils, wetland drainage, overgrazing on native pasture and riparian areas, removal of vegetative buffer zones along waterways and field margins, and over-reliance on fertilizer and pesticide use are the key practices that contribute to the degradation of the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. How should the need for farmers to earn income be weighed against the impact of their activities on agricultural landscapes? What would be the impact on our agricultural rural communities and agricultural landscapes of ever larger and more contract farming?

I would appreciate your response to the excellent questions prepared by the Library of Parliament.

Mr. Luciuk: Those questions would take a long time to answer completely. They are indeed very good questions.

The question of how income might be weighed against environmental protection is what I understand the first question to be. That has been the mandate of PFRA from its inception. Both income and environmental protection issues gave rise to PFRA. Continual effort is required to deal with these situations. In some cases effort must be made relating to how lands remain or do not remain in cultivation and in other cases the method of cultivation itself must be studied. Programs are needed that promote the best, most sustainable technology in terms of agricultural production, and yet which are practical and realistic.

One could use many examples. Ducks Unlimited has proposed a whole gamut of land and water issues. It is difficult to address all of them in their entirety. One example, however, concerns protection of cultivated lands. PFRA promotes the concept of conservation tillage. When we embarked on our soil conservation initiatives about 15 years ago, conservation tillage was not in practice. Today, roughly one-third of the cultivated area of the Prairie region employs some form of minimum tillage methods. We have a long way to go. When commodity prices change again, associated issues will arise.

Senator Oliver: How long has minimum tillage been the practice?

Mr. Luciuk: In the last decade and a half, I would say. It has not been adopted by everybody but is increasingly seen as one of the solutions to the problem of soil erosion. Obviously, issues of environmental protection for water quality are a focus of ours to encourage producers to protect riparian areas. A livestock producer or someone who has just gone into livestock production may want to water their cattle out of sites with a water pump rather than driving the cattle down to the water's edge. Those are the kinds of efforts we have to make and understand.

The PAL study made an attempt to understand how the enterprise mix, whether producing cereals or oilseed or going into livestock, could be understood in the context of the lands that producers operate on. We tried to understand the problems first. I think you will find the Prairie Agriculture Landscape Study an interesting read in that regard.

The question is very complex. One must understand that agriculture is changing, the lands are fragile, and the economic environment is also risk-prone. This is a continual problem.

Senator Oliver: In Bermuda, which is a small island, domestic rainwater is captured in cisterns. Do you have in the PFRA any large cistern systems to catch and utilize the rainwater?

Mr. Ward: Yes, we have those systems. We use them on a larger scale. We collect the water not as it falls off a building but as it falls off the land, in terms of runoff. It is collected in dugouts and stock-watering dams. In larger projects, the snowpack is collected as it melts and runs off the mountain into the Prairie region. That is the same concept. Many agricultural producers have cisterns for their own domestic use.

Senator Oliver: I am from Atlantic Canada. The first word in your title is Prairie. Is there a comparable organization for Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada?

Mr. Ward: There is not a comparable organization within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. PFRA is mandated for the Prairie region. However, people have a way of adjusting to history. PFRA was put in place by the federal government as a response to the Dirty Thirties, and over 60-some years has developed in partnership with provincial governments. In those regions of Canada where the agency does not exist, provincial governments have established a different set of resources to handle similar problems.

I have stated that PFRA is a regional branch of the department. However, our deputy minister is engaged in implementing a new departmental management structure. Its objective is to integrate the branch resources into a horizontal team concept. PFRA is involved in a number of those teams. As the department moves to this new management structure, indirectly those resources will be further integrated and spread nationally.

Senator Oliver: The reason I ask is that in Nova Scotia, one of farmers' major concerns there is water, the use of water, and moisture retention. I am fascinated with the amount of research that you have been doing for decades on these very things. It would be wonderful if we as a nation had a way of sharing your expertise with other parts of Canada that do not have such an organization. You also do work in China, Egypt, and Ethiopia, and it would be wonderful if a little bit of that could be shared with Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Ward: It is probably a question I am not capable of answering. That is a question I am sure my minister constantly struggles with. The efforts, research and the study that we have completed have been published. We do go to workshops and conferences to share this information so it is not isolated information.

Senator Oliver: I think Senator Wiebe heard the information as well, and maybe that will get back to the Atlantic Provinces.

The Chairman: Senator Oliver, may I answer your question in these terms. When the West was first settled we were told by botanists and particularly by a man by the name of Macoun, from whom the town I live in gets its name, that the Palliser Triangle was a desert. Nothing could be grown there. Forget it. That was the attitude. Since then, as Senator Wiebe said earlier, a lot of production has come out of that very dry country. The average yearly rainfall is about 12 inches. In a year like this one we may not reach even five inches. We have had no rain, really, in the last three months. Once, however, that whole Palliser Triangle was known as an area that could not really produce. PFRA, of course, has worked hard to change that.

Ducks Unlimited appeared before this committee. As a result, there has been confrontation in Langenberg, Saskatchewan, between Ducks Unlimited and the municipalities and farmers. I believe the matter is in the courts at this time. Some people from the area drove down to my place and asked if they could appear before this committee, because Ducks Unlimited had made certain statements to us. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. Luciuk: I have had this question posed to me before in public presentations. It is a very complex question relating to water management. To a large degree, provincial jurisdiction is involved. Saskatchewan Water Corporation is particularly involved. Further east, there are cross-boundary drainage issues as well.

The Chairman: It is a very emotional issue because the farmers there feel that, particularly because a lot of American money is behind it, Ducks Unlimited is running roughshod over them. This is why the whole situation has ended up in the courts. However, it is a very serious issue for the farmers. I am sure that when they appear before this committee, they will make their case.

Their position begs another problem that we face. In Canada the urban dweller does not know much about agriculture or what is happening and the stress caused by drought. Is there any movement in your association to educate the general public of Canada about what is happening in rural Canada?

I go back to Mr. Alvin Hamilton, who served that area for years and was the Minister of Agriculture who was mainly responsible for the great sale of wheat to China. He said to me when I first became a Member of Parliament: There is an undeclared war, between rural and urban Canada, mainly because there is no understanding about what is happening or trying to be achieved in those areas. Those are very strong words.

Can you comment on that? Do you have any input to the general education of the general public of Canada?

Mr. Ward: Yes. We are constantly looking for ways to create awareness in our urban population. In PFRA we have a number of pamphlets and visual displays. We attend various exhibitions and fairs throughout Western Canada, where we have booths and staff available to answer question. There we try and educate the general public about agriculture and some of the resource issues farmers face. As well, we have undertaken a number of projects involved with schools, hoping that it may be easier to educate a young mind. Who knows how much is needed?

This is a country where food is in abundance. In fact, some of our bigger problems have been how to sell it and how to economically export it. This is not always an issue in the mind of an urban person. When I see polls and surveys that are taken and questions asked about the hardships that farmers are facing, however, I am surprised to see how urban people rate the issue of providing support to help farmers. They seem generally to be supportive.

The Chairman: May I say that in the mid-1980s I chaired the task force on drought for Western Canada. The Toronto Star called me one day and said: If there is any way we can help, we would be pleased to do that.

Regarding your point about abundance, we heard in Europe, when the committee travelled there and talked to different countries about the agricultural situation, that food in North America has been so abundant that it has just been taken for granted.

I believe that it is important that we communicate. Your organization would be one of the better organizations to take that challenge on. Your idea of fairs and so on is great. Maybe we have to go directly to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and other centres and have a target of making this possible.

Mr. Luciuk: If I may add to your question about awareness, it is a very large challenge at any given moment to educate the public regarding a very small sector relative to other production sectors of the national economy. In PFRA we have tended to focus on specific topical areas. A couple of examples will demonstrate how we can focus on a particular issue and achieve some measurable results.

Water quality is one of those. We have some specific initiatives underway with respect to how agriculture uses water and what the effects are. This initiative includes how it can improve water for its own benefit and better manage water supplies. Consequently there is a positive image of agriculture with respect to water management.

Another recent example concerns the Canadian Climate Change Action Fund. We are involved with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Soil Conservation Council of Canada in an initiative to promote greater awareness among the general community and farmers, particularly regarding agroforestry and the use of trees in remediation and adaptation to climate change.

We use demonstrations in targeting specific initiatives. Here is a partial answer to the Ducks Unlimited question, which is also related to awareness. We have worked with Ducks Unlimited in projects where we can show how agriculture and environmental community can cooperate rather than be confrontational. One of those projects has been a demonstration project in a Montrose community pasture. In fact, a Ducks Unlimited biologist was seconded to our staff. We worked together to demonstrate how rotational grazing and agricultural production have enhanced the environmental landscape of that particular pasture for the benefit of waterfowl, for instance. That pasture is often used as a demonstration of how one can cooperate with environmental groups and how one can use agricultural practice to enhance environmental benefits. I think the Minister of the Environment visited that pasture in the last two years.

Senator Oliver: How did that work? For one whole year would you not graze on it at all and the ducks and other habitat would be there?

Mr. Luciuk: No. We used an approach that understands the ecology. It uses a systematic rotation of cattle through pens. Production can increase. An added benefit to both the cattle and waterfowl is the cover that contributes to nesting success and proper management of the boundaries of any water bodies present.

If you put your mind to it, things can be accomplished which are win-win for a multitude of interests.

The Chairman: In rotational grazing cattle are moved, for instance, from a smaller area, rather than being permitted to graze it right down and destroy it. They are moved to another pasture and rotated around. The farmer can get more production that way, and it is much better for the land.

Mr. Ward: May I add that a number of studies show that when marginal annual cropland is converted to perennial forage, setting it aside, or non-use, does not result in the best ecology or maximum productivity of that land. By using that land systemically, with grazing, or in some places controlled burning or mowing, the balance of the biodiversity is maintained.

The following analogy is often used. Before the Prairies were settled huge herds of bison and elk did that to the Prairie ecosystem. When settlement came, and annual cropping, many people say the pendulum swung too far. However, when moving land back to permanent cover, one has to duplicate the bison and the elk influence on the ecosystem.

Returning to the awareness issue, Ottawa is hosting an event called Fun Fest, next Sunday, October 14. PFRA will be there with a display, where we hope to raise more awareness.

Senator Hubley: I, like Senator Oliver, come from the Atlantic region. I come from Prince Edward Island. We certainly share things in common. For instance, agriculture is the main industry in Prince Edward Island. Water and water use control are very important there too.

Concerning your slide entitled Irrigation Demonstration, do you have any information under the research focus? You were looking at the effects of irrigation on groundwater quality. What might be the things that you would be looking for there? Why would irrigation even be affecting the groundwater quality?

Mr. Luciuk: Irrigation in Western Canada uses water from various sources, usually on the surface. In some regions, however, particularly Manitoba, the water is derived from groundwater sources. In central Manitoba, it comes from a large groundwater resource called the Assiniboine Delta aquifer. Underlying the aquifer is a large sandy, coarse-textured deposit. Therefore, agricultural inputs, fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, can easily be leached down to the groundwater.

In addition, much concern has been expressed about the sustainable withdrawal of the groundwater for irrigation. This concern is linked with the allocation of water rights. One of our objectives, is to ensure we demonstrate the most sustainable practices above ground. We need to know how the water is used, and be aware of the various associated technologies.

Senator Hubley: I was looking at your map of the percentage of average precipitation in agricultural areas. In Prince Edward Island I think we would probably be average on this, although we look a little white there.

The work of PFRA over the years has been extensive. Moving from the Dirty Thirties, and the drought of the 1980s to the current drought, can you see the effects of your work? Are you able to maintain a certain part of the system that otherwise would have been devastated by a drought?

This is a very serious drought year. I am wondering if your work has been turned back. Has this drought destroyed some of the work that you have already done?

Mr. Ward: No one wants a drought regardless of its severity. However, a drought this severe shows how well some of the technologies that we have been promoting work. Levels of precipitation, in certain areas of the Prairies, are the lowest on record. That means that precipitation levels are lower than those in the Dirty Thirties.

In comparing this drought to the Dirty Thirties we see that indeed, this year, we have experienced loss and hardships. However, we did not have the large dust storms we have had in previous decades. Such storms are very costly in terms of the loss of soil and soil nutrients. We are experiencing herd selloff, but I believe that some of our activities through the years have reduced the degree of that selloff.

One activity that helped was our irrigation project, put in place to help sustain forage production during a low-precipitation year. Work is not finished, but we hope we have increased the stability of the area and reduced the hardships producers have faced.

Mr. Luciuk: Senator Gustafson noted that farmers, and ranchers in particular, adopt particular strategies in anticipation of drought. Our indicators show that the strategies have done quite well; better than in the past. A lot of progress has been made in the area of soil conservation and the intention to maintain residue. Optimized use of water allows a farmer to use available water resources better than in the past.

We are working on newer applicable technologies in PFRA. One particular interest of the Prairie Agroclimat Unit is the use of longer-term seasonal forecasting. You have probably heard of La Niña and El Niño. The idea is to use specific ocean temperatures to predict, six and nine months in advance, what their likelihood is. Predictions are not sounding good right now. However, if one knows now going to have a dryer and warmer winter, then one can adjust one's enterprise, if one is a rancher or a cereal producer. We are studying that.

Our grain scientists are also using computer modelling to understand how particular climatic parameters impact how much grass one may expect. Right now we are trying to predict the percentage of grass growth with normal, below-normal and above-normal precipitation. If that percentage can be predicted or better understood some wiser choices might be made next spring, summer or fall. A farmer has to think that far ahead. Some of that technology and science are still pretty fuzzy, but we have to keep working on those boundaries of science. Once we understand it internally, we can extend its use to ranches and the farming community. Many other advances have made it possible to better cope, even though we know that drought will always return.

The Chairman: I might explain that the move to continuous cropping and direct seeding means the land is not cultivated at all, just seeded in. Less summerfallow is done now than in the past.

Last night in Regina, the wind was reportedly so strong it overturned a small aircraft that was parked on a runway. Accidents do occur because of the wind and the dust and smoke it creates. It seems that the wind goes along with drought. I do not know why that is. You probably have some statistics on that. In the mid-1980s fence lines were covered over with dust. That experience fortified the move to continuous cropping and the practice of leaving the land fallow was stopped.

What is the percentage of land that is left to summerfallow? There has been a major shift in that practice, so far as I have observed.

Mr. Luciuk: I do not have the exact figure. Outside Saskatchewan, the summerfallowing percentage has dropped dramatically. There are much longer rotations. In the driest regions of southwest Saskatchewan and southeast Alberta, there is still 40-plus per cent. That is simply because it is so dry you cannot get away from it.However, farmers do summerfallow better where they have to use it.

In the last couple of years, and this may be an indicator of commodity prices, there has been an issue of two summerfallows in certain regions. This reflects farmers taking a least-cost approach to their enterprise. If you cannot afford chemical spray, you might just summerfallow. This minimizes risk.

The Chairman: That becomes an economic decision.

Mr. Luciuk: That is right.

The Chairman: As opposed to the best use of the soil.

Mr. Luciuk: That is correct.

The Chairman: That is evident in our area, where we have gone to continuous cropping. We, in fact, are producing more bushels per acre than we did under summerfallow, but it is costly. Up to $200 an acre can be spent on fertilizer and sprays. Sometimes one wonders whether the input costs are equal to the return. Over the last few years that has been the experience on our farm, and, I think, on many farms.

Senator Wiebe: In southwest Saskatchewan there is not as much continuous cropping. Farmers are summerfallowing; rather than turning the soil, they summerfallow with chemicals. It has turned out that spraying the stubble is cheaper than summerfallowing. Spraying conserves the moisture because there is not any growth. The moisture can be conserved for next year's crop, and you direct seed into it.

As a result of the work that PFRA has done farmers have adapted wonderfully well to drought. The present drought is one of the most severe in history, yet our drop in average production is only 20 per cent.

In my area of the province the rains came at the right time. The farmers produced anywhere from 31 to 45 bushels an acre, on less rain this year than received in the driest year of the 1930s. The technology is there in the development of new varieties of crops to grow. And there are new ways of doing it so that we now can sustain a one-year drought.

Look at what has happened south of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. They are now going into their third year of drought. There are no reserves there whatsoever. Next year will be the year that we will really have to watch. There is no groundwater left there for the roots to pick up. That is what saved us this year. If we do not get a good snowfall this winter, we are really in trouble.

Senator Tunney: Maybe I should just say that I am a farmer in Ontario. I farm about halfway between here and Toronto, on the lakeshore. I am not too badly affected by this drought. Crops on my farm will be very close to average this year.

Senator Oliver asked an excellent question, about any program in Eastern Canada comparable to PFRA. There is one but it is less extensive. It is called the Conservation Authority. We have a habit in Eastern Canada of electing premiers of provinces who do not want the federal government encroaching on what they perceive to be their authority. These are operated under the authority and legislation of the provinces. They work very well. They work with farmers, water quality, water supply and so forth.

In the West, I am fascinated by the methods that you have developed to water livestock on ranches and perhaps on feedlots too. You do work with sloughs, or dugouts as I call them. You have also mentioned that you are concerned with keeping the cattle out of the water. Because of the remoteness of electricity to move any water, do you use alternatives such as solar power or windmills, to generate plenty of power to pump the water?

Mr. Ward: Yes.

Senator Tunney: I was at Pincher Creek back in August. Between Lethbridge and Pincher Creek is absolute desert. No water is to be seen anywhere. The area is under water quotas for irrigating sugar beets and potatoes where water is available. Do you get to visit some of these critical places? I hope you do.

There was land up in the Stettler-Consort area back in the 1930s that I believe prompted the establishment of PFRA. It was called special areas. Special areas may not even exist as a term now. At the time it was ranched and paid for by the price of cattle. That is how the cattle ranchers paid for the use of the special areas. I just wonder if that is still there.

I am quite familiar with agriculture in Ukraine and Russia. I have been working there for several years with farmers, but with dairy farmers mostly. Farmers are still burning straw in Russia and Ukraine. I really do chide them for abusing the land that way, and advise them not to do it. Here in the West there was once a law against burning straw.

That is all I will tax you with right now.

Mr. Ward: I will start with your last question about burning straw, or stubble-burning. It is an issue. In Manitoba it is against the law. Saskatchewan does not regulate it, but provincial officials are concerned about it. In Alberta, I do not believe there is regulation against it but I am not sure.

The term "special areas" means that the land is owned by the Government of Alberta and has been leased to producers. The term is still used for that area.

I will leave the remote watering question for Mr. Luciuk to answer. These methods are being used in the extensive system of community pastures, including large, remote, unpopulated blocks of land.

Mr. Luciuk will also give you a little more information on his work in the Ukraine around the pasture project.

Mr. Luciuk: The watering of cattle is always a costly enterprise. Ranchers and cattle producers always look carefully at what kind of water supply system they will put in. On our pastures and generally in the private production sector, we do use many windmills. As has been noted, the wind really blows in the Prairies. Windmills are a standby source of pumping water. They do require maintenance. You must visit them or you can lose whole herds of cattle when the wind breaks down.

We have been increasingly using solar panels. We have been involved in joint studies with the research branch of our department. In one such study we found a dramatic improvement in cattle weight gains if you take the water out of the dugout and clean the dugout. On most sites, the extra cost will pay for itself.

We use pipelines in our community pastures. This may mean there are tens of miles of plastic pipe in the ground. In this way a secure well can water several sites.

These are all solutions we do ourselves. We also promote these solutions to the ranchers. That is a very important aspect of it. It is a decades-old solution, but we have found some new benefits from it.

In Pincher Creek and the water-supplied irrigation districts the irrigation supplies, in particular to the Alberta irrigation districts, come from the icepack in the Rocky Mountains. The situation is therefore not just a result of the current drought but also due to some of the climatic conditions that have contributed to snowpack in the mountains. We do not know how that will come out. It is not always related to the Prairie drought. We hope this year there will be improved flows of water out of the Rocky Mountains into the irrigation districts. It has been a dramatic situation there. Very little water has been available to some of the irrigation districts. That just compounds the problem.

We do not like burning straw. Nothing galls a soil conservationist more than that. I have also disabused my Ukrainian colleagues about why they have to plow the dickens out of their land and why they have to burn the straw.

We have been directly promoting the use of Canadian forest technology. We have provided policy advice to the state land resources committee on land transition and use of pasture grazing approaches. As part of that general effort, PFRA and others in Western Canada were pleased to note that a very large sale was made of conservation tillage equipment to the eastern Ukraine. The sale was very significant. It resulted in a win-win situation that gave us an economic benefit and induced them, we hope, to burn a less straw.

The Chairman: Senator Tunney will be hired as the government's historian on these major issues.

I have a few questions. I would like to hear your comments on farm size, hog- barn concentration, and environmental questions from consumers. Regarding transportation costs, have you seen major changes with the change of the Crow and so on in the Prairies, more particularly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

Mr. Ward: In this publication called Prairie Agricultural Landscapes we have some charts and text that speak to those issues. It also shows the trend in the reduction in summerfallow.

As to farm size, farm consolidation has existed ever since I was born, and it is continuing. There are fewer and fewer farms. What we have noticed is that at one time there was a normal distribution around farm size. The mean was the median. Most farms were the average size. What we found over the last four census years, or 20 years, is that today the large farms are growing. The number of very small farms, whether actually a farm or merely an acreage, is growing. The middle group, which used to be the biggest group, is declining. There has been a shift in both directions.

Transportation cost changes has given farmers in the West a very abrupt shock. People have started to adjust in anticipation of it and have been adjusting ever since. Farmers, especially along the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border, are moving to livestock operations. In other areas of Saskatchewan, west-central Saskatchewan, for example, there has been a significant move to specialty crops. This has been done to help alleviate transportation costs.

Throughout Manitoba, the hog barns have increased in hog production in response to the transportation costs. The economics there are that the grain-fed hogs reduce the volume of grain by a factor of 3.5 per cent. Not only has the number of hog barns substantially increased but their size as well. As developers or producers invest in hog barns, they appear to require 500 more sows every couple of years to achieve that economy of scale that gives them the lowest production costs. These changes have been very visible to the public and to other farmers in the community.

We have put much effort into assisting municipal governments in trying to site those barns. We use our geographic information system technology. Data is put on various maps to ascertain what the population is, where the aquifers are, where the road networks and utilities are. The ultimate decision is made by the developer and, in most cases, the rural municipality.

The Chairman: This last year, because of the economic situation and low commodity prices, there has been a lot of contract farming in our area. I can pinpoint at least four operations that have moved to handling about 100 quarter sections. They have leased these. Where they were probably paying cash of $4,000 a quarter, now the farmers are renting it for a small percentage just so they can pay the taxes. These are large operations. They moved to 100 quarters, and that just happened in the last year.

This seems to be happening more along the U.S. border than it does north of the border. Some farmers in our area are going up north to Bell Valley to farm large tracts of land. Some people in custom combining have gone south. They have a lot of machinery. That has been a mass move to an extent not seen until last year, at least in the Estevan-Weyburn area, and well into Manitoba.

Mr. Ward: I am currently involved in a farming operation in Saskatchewan between Moose Jaw and Swift Current. I see the same thing happening. My brother-in-law is now farming 14,000 acres. He is not generating any wealth, he tells me. He says he is taking in money and paying out money and trying to make a living. Margins are very thin per acre.

What we are seeing is the economic system at work. If the margin is very thin per acre, to survive one has to have a lot of acres in order to make that 30,000-40,000 that you need to make a living. Farms have to be that big in order to afford the modern equipment. To use the new air seeders, one needs a four-wheel drive tractor. That is expensive equipment. I am not sure what the solution is. However, we see farmers saying: I cannot survive at this size. I have my spouse working off-farm. What should I do? Should I go get a job? If I do, then I have to get rid of some of my land and become one of those smaller farmers. Or should I go to the banker and try to convince him to let me get bigger? Then I have to get somebody else's land. Consolidation has accelerated.

The Chairman: This trend is snowballing so fast that I am convinced it will forever change the situation on the Prairies. Many of the farmers who are leasing their land are older farmers who want out. It is their way of retiring. However, because of the drought and the prices they cannot sell their land for a reasonable amount of money, so they are leasing it. Some have leased it in our area just for the taxes. Others have leased it for 10 per cent of the return. The days of $4,000 a quarter, in our area, at least, are over.

There are pockets where that is not the case. Senator Wiebe comes from an area where crops have been excellent the last three or four years so one year of drought does not really affect them. In other areas this is a very, very serious problem. The banks have stopped financing the farmers. Now the machine companies are financing them. They will say to a big farmer: Take two combines. They are $600,000, but roll them over 150 quarter- sections of land.

The machine companies are staying alive this way, because the banks are no longer offering financing. The machine companies are their own finance company now. This trend is growing so fast that I wonder if we have a handle on it. What it is going to do to rural life I do not think we can imagine.

Mr. Luciuk: This trend has been continuous in agriculture. We may not understand its speed and gravity. However, we can recognize two specific issues. Does that kind of consolidation have an environmental impact? If it does, then we hope what we are doing will address that issue, given the emerging forms of enterprise and management.

The other aspect is the economic dimension. Extensification, or the move to larger acreages, leads to situations where lands go from cultivation to permanent cover. A second issue is that land can be managed or farmed under livestock in a somewhat different economic profile. This leads land use trends in that direction as well. I am not sure that we fully understand these trends. We know that people have been converting land. They have been seeding land for forage and are going into cattle. There is a land management issue there and a question of how much of this can go on and at what cost to the community.

The Chairman: This committee was in the United States in July. It appears that the Americans have moved away from moving to large land areas. The farmers are now not selling their land. They are receiving such a good deal from the government to keep it that they will not sell their smaller farms.

What is happening as well is that there are programs to preserve agricultural land in the United States. Our neighbours right on the U.S. boundary are telling us that land worth $100,000 a quarter U.S. there and the farmers will not sell it. On the Canadian side, land is selling for about $50,000 Canadian, or $30,000 U.S. To my mind this difference will pose a major problem for the entire Canadian economy. With the low dollar, we are now into a situation where it is will be a long way back. I believe we need to look at this if we are going to survive as a rural community.

Mr. Ward: There are certainly areas in the Prairies where farm consolidation is not being offset by any additional value-added development. I come from an area like that. In other areas, as consolidation occurs in the grain-farming sector, there has also been an expansion in hog barns, feedlots, grounding operations for beef cattle, and occasionally some additional poultry operations.

In the grains industry, there are seed processing plants for the specialty crops. Unfortunately, there are not enough of those operations. At the rate they are being built, there will never be enough of these operations to balance that out-migration of farm people.

Senator Wiebe: I have a couple of observations on the special areas. Part of what I think has precipitated development is that farmers, whether in cattle, hogs or grains are price-takers. We are not price-makers. To offset that, the economy of scale has played a major role. What is happening in the hog industry, I think, will happen in the oil and grain seed sectors as well. In 1971, I built a large hog operation because I felt we had far too much grain. I thought we could market that grain through those hogs. At that time it was one of the two largest hog barns in the province. Today, anyone trying to build a hog barn that size would go belly up before opening the doors. Economies of scale are now expressed in a 200-1,000 sow hog operation. Their margins are very tight.

Eventually, economies of scale can only go so far. Farm size, I think, will eventually reach a size where economies of scale no longer apply. We need take a serious look at what is happening in agriculture.

To reinforce your observation about what happened on transportation, I was looking at the ADA payouts for Western Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. I could not figure out for the life of me why the average ADA payouts for Manitoba and Alberta were so much higher than in Saskatchewan. The explanation I got from the department was basically that, when the Crow went, most farmers in Alberta and Manitoba made the decision then to diversify into livestock operations. The ones in Saskatchewan decided to diversify into pulse crops. As a result, because of the base average of ADA, with livestock so much higher because of that diversification, the payouts are so much higher. The base level for grains and oilseeds was much lower than the base level for livestock. When I talk about the base level, I am talking about the five-year averaging that goes into determining that. What you just said in your comments certainly demonstrates that reasoning. Why the Saskatchewan farmers made that decision vis-à-vis livestock, I do not know. I wish I knew because then maybe we could address it. However, that is certainly a logical answer.

Water is a natural resource. PFRA over the years has been able to work very well together with the provinces in Western Canada. The provinces guard that natural resource. It is theirs. PFRA had begun some enterprises that have been operated and managed very well. In my province, Saskatchewan Water Corporation has taken over some of those enterprises. The response from the farmers and those involved was not as positive towards Saskatchewan Water Corporation as it had been towards PFRA.

I am just using this as background. We have to remember is that water is not only a resource but also a food. You and I cannot exist without water. It is a food. We have to start classifying it as a food. The demand on that food not only by Canada but also by the U.S. and other countries, and the temptation by some of the provinces, as was illustrated in Newfoundland, to maybe sell some of that resource, will make water a serious problem in the future.

Are you anticipating those kinds of problems? Do you feel that your cooperation with the provinces in the West is going to continue? Or is that a hindrance to some of the development and the work that you would like to do?

I am asking you to look into a crystal ball.

Mr. Luciuk: We continue to work with our provincial agencies. For example, we do participate in the Prairie Provinces Water Board, an organization that deals largely with inter-jurisdictional issues of water management. We have traditionally and continue to be a part of that process. At the working level, in the past 15 years, we have not undertaken any major infrastructural initiatives with any of the provinces.

Our efforts generally have been directed to the softer side, on water use and applied research, demonstration and management initiatives with the appropriate provincial agencies. To some extent our efforts have extended to the area of water resource management and water policy. To that extent, we have interacted with our provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, that is the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. In Alberta, there is the Alberta Environment and other agencies. I will give some specific examples. In Manitoba, there is the Water Resources Board: In Alberta, our participation there has been in the Year 2000 Study, a major overhaul of Alberta's provincial legislation in respect to water allocation. PFRA contributed to and participated in those studies. We were not a large player. However, we were at the table and learned from that process how to plan and allocate scarce water resources. Primarily this involves allocations to irrigation districts.

In Saskatchewan, we have cooperated with the Saskatchewan Water Corporation mainly in the area of applied research and demonstration, and programs for the promotion of irrigation development. We have been similarly involved in Manitoba. As well, in Manitoba we have been supporting efforts to resolve policies towards the allocation of groundwater resources. These involve sensitive environmental considerations in the general public.

To that extent we continue to be involved in water resources management.

Large projects can make a lot of water available to a lot of people. In the past governments have generally not invested in such initiatives. At the management level, however, we have. I think you make a good point that those issues will become increasingly important.

Our principal focus has been on water quality management at a microlevel, particularly in light of public demand in Walkerton and North Battleford. We must strive to maintain resources dedicated to that.

We do continue to work on the use of water for production purposes. Our recent initiative, the Alberta Crop Diversification Initiative is in partnership with Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The initiative promotes irrigation and diversification practices in the Lethbridge area. This is a smaller initiative. However, we continue our work, anticipating that water will continue to be a very important issue. Given the geo-political global considerations you have noted, there will be increasing pressure on water use.

Mr. Ward: Throughout PFRA's history, we have relied on working through partnerships in all areas of our development. What you have said to me, I think, is that those partnerships will be even more important in the future. We have every intention of continuing with those partnerships and strengthening them.

Senator Wiebe: That sounds encouraging. Thank you.

The Chairman: You mentioned the word global.

Mr. Luciuk: Water export is a global issue. I note, with interest, the debates that are going on with regard to water export. They impact very quickly.

The Chairman: I do not know that much about it. Some material crossed my desk from an organization that is supposed to be organizing to move great amounts of water south. It appears to have done a lot of work toward this goal. This raises a major political question. Alvin Hamilton, who seemed to be always 20 years ahead of everybody else, suggested that water was our greatest resource and one day would come into its own. Much debate has centred around what should or should not be done about that.

Senator Hubley: I just wanted to comment that we do have a department of the environment. That department should be dealing with this issue. On Prince Edward Island, however, the farming community itself has been very cooperative. It has developed practices such as crop rotation, restoring the greenbelt areas around all the waterways, and putting back the hedgerows, areas that split the fields and disappeared when the larger pieces of equipment came on to harvest the potatoes and other crops.

I am quite sure you also find the farm community is very cooperative in any of the initiatives that you would suggest.

Senator Tunney: Regarding land use and farming practices and minimum or zero tillage, I think there has to be a tremendous amount of research done on what we should be doing differently. In my area, no-till is quite popular. You talked about the big machinery that goes along with no-till. No-till was supposed to diminish the use of machinery but it has not. Instead of being reduced, the cost of the machinery has multiplied.

I think that we are losing a lot of opportunity in zero-tillage by not working the subsoil. Machines such as chisel plows, which I use, and other better machines, will break the hardpan and open up the subsoil below it for water storage. Thus water can accumulate that would otherwise not get through the hardpan. Over years, machinery travels over that land and packs it so hard that the water will evaporate or run off. If the subsoil is worked, the water will flow through the topsoil, through the hardpan and store itself in the subsoil. Plants can use that in a dry year.

What do you think about that?

Mr. Luciuk: It is a technical question. These situations are specific to certain soil zones and their soil types. The scenario you presented is an issue. I can only respond that research continues at our research stations, and better ways of doing conservation tillage are continually being pursued.

I think that is a valid observation and topic for study. Indeed tillage is very instrumental to water storage. In fact, conservation tillage is generally more water-efficient. There may be issues within that which still require further advancement.

Mr. Ward: When we do that research, we need to remind ourselves of the issues of global warming, climate change and greenhouse gases. A whole other body of technical advice states that tilling the soil in any way will release more of the organic matter, the carbon, which is stored in the soil. This then creates different greenhouse gases. If Canada ratifies Kyoto, we will have certain obligations there. It will be interesting research.

Senator Tunney: Could I turn our chairman and Vice-Chairman, with their personal farm experience, into witnesses just for a minute or two?

The Chairman: Speaking on that subject, we get very cold winters. The frost tends to crack the land open. That may not be the case in Ontario. I only know of one farmer who has done that deep type of tillage. He has taken a Cat and put one big prong on and gone down I do not know how deeply. I do not believe there was much change in his land. However, the frost in our country, with a few nights of 40 below, gives the land quite a shaking. I think that takes care of that.

This morning has been very interesting, I must say. There might be no end to questions. The question I have concerns spraying. On our farm, when we have gone to no-till, we raised our best crop. However, no-till requires a lot of spraying. From an environmental standpoint, I am not a great supporter of sprays, especially where we went after the grasshoppers with different sprays.

I honestly believe that there are some dangers involved and some environmental questions. Nevertheless, an awful lot of spray is used. You cannot really compete in an agricultural production today unless you are into sprays. When we were in the U.S., the President of the Wheat Growers gave us the same testimony. He said: We are going to no-till. We spray everything. We may not at this time even know what the impact will be of all these chemicals going into the land.

Mr. Ward: I agree. When using no-till in the Prairie region, one must use a large quantity of chemical fertilizer, or livestock manure when available. When one feeds the crop, one feeds the weeds. Weeds must be controlled or one will have a wreck. As you commented, we are using increased volumes of sprays.

We have to do more work on best management practices around integrated pest management. In addition, research is coming out with a wider variety of herbicides for use in specific situations. My understanding is that those new chemical sprays, in comparison to older sprays, are more environmentally friendly.

This is not to suggest that we do not have the problem. Perhaps, however, we can find something positive in it.

The Chairman: Next time you come, we will get into a discussion about genetically modified crops.

Senator Wiebe: I have a comment on Senator Tunney's comment about deep tillage. Saskatchewan has every imaginable type of soil. It varies over a few miles. In my area, in a normal year for moisture, when getting ready to harvest the crop, if we have a breakdown we usually lay a blanket on the soil. Our soil will have an inch to an inch and a half crack in it. If you drop a wrench down there, it is gone. Such cracks in themselves do wonders. However, this does not occur on sandy soils. On those soils you do not require deep tillage.

Mr. Luciuk: I do not have the exact figures. However, you would find it interesting to search out what happens to the microbiology of soils with zero or minimum till. Biological activity increases very significantly. Tons of earthworms, which would not be found in cultivated lands, can be found in the soil that has had zero or minimum till. This marked change in the biology has a large impact on the water regime of the subsoil.

Senator Wiebe: What I mean by "zero-till" is, the land is left idle for a year. You do not continuous-crop it, but you also do not till it. On the land where we continuous-crop, I found when I started going into zero-till that in the first three years my fertilizer bill was unbelievably high. I was testing my soil. I was putting on more pounds per acre.

Starting with the fourth year, my fertilizer requirements went way down. There was not that much difference between the fertilizer requirements per pound. The formula changed but the poundage did not differ much from my summerfallow acres. During the first three years the inputs were extremely high. After that, whether because of earthworms or the breakdown of all the straw left there, which generates nitrogen as well, the cost went down.

As well, good crop rotation in continuous-cropping puts a lot of those nitrates back into the soil without the cost of fertilizer.

The stories so far are positive. Some bad ones are coming out, but also some excellent ones. We may need a few years before we can say that it is definitely the way to go.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for a very interesting and enlightening morning. I would like to emphasize one thing from this committee. Anything you can do to communicate the importance of these methods is being used. Polls in the States have found that 75 per cent of the population want to support their farmers with subsidies or whatever it takes. In Canada that percentage is very low. In my opinion, it is very important that we emphasize the importance of agriculture for our economy and our long-term outlook for Canada. Your department is well suited to accommodate that task, with your years of experience.

Thank you very much. It has been a good morning of exchange.

The committee adjourned.