Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 3 - Evidence, November 26, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 26, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:28 p.m. to examine the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options focusing on primary production, practices, technologies, ecosystems and other related areas.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is continuing its study on the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options. This committee is undertaking an intensive study of how our farming and forestry practices across the country must adapt to potential effects such as less rainfall, longer growing periods and much hotter temperatures. We will examine the potential adaptation options, focusing on the primary production, practices, technology and ecosystems. As we continue our examination within our mandate, other issues may require a closer look. The committee will table its final report in December 2003. We will be inviting experts, practitioners, community leaders and other interested parties to present their views. Since our time is limited during our hearings, I encourage Canadians to participate in this process by making their views known to us.
Last week we held a successful meeting on the science of climate change. Today's meeting could be dubbed ``politics of climate change.'' We will discuss Canada's current policies and initiatives and the federal government's plan for the future.
We have before us Ms. Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minster, from Environment Canada, accompanied by officials from Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada and Transport Canada. Ms. Smith will make the presentation and the panel will then answer questions. We will be hearing from Natural Resources Canada at our next meeting, followed by Agriculture and AgriFood Canada on December 3.
Ms. Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Environment Canada: I will be giving honourable senators some background to the Kyoto Protocol, a brief overview of the climate change plan for Canada released last week, and at the very end, I will focus on the agricultural component. I know honourable senators had Mr. Hengeveld from my department here last week and he gave you a dissertation on the science, so I will skip that part and focus in on the uniqueness of the Canadian situation.
We will, if we ratify the Kyoto Protocol, be the only country in the Americas to taken on a Kyoto commitment, and that has raised important and pertinent competitiveness concerns that have been a driving factor in the policy analysis and development work in putting together the climate change plan. It also presents competitiveness opportunities, in that it positions Canada to be at the leading edge of an economic evolution that will be gradually moving across the globe.
The approach to climate change policy has been put together to take advantage of innovation and technology and is aiming to position the economy at the head of that technological curve while, at the same time, we reduce emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol covers all countries in the world, but only the industrialized countries have responsibilities to make emission reductions in the first phase in recognition of the greater economic capacity of the industrialized world, to say nothing of our larger responsibility, in a historical context, for the greenhouse gas concentrations we currently see in the atmosphere. It is also normal, under large new international agreements, for the industrialized countries to take the first steps.
The protocol itself is the result of a decade of negotiations under the guidance of the United Nations, and its roots go back further than that. Canada hosted one of the very first international meetings dealing with climate change science in Toronto in 1988.
When the protocol comes into force, it requires 55 countries covering 55 per cent of industrialized country emissions and is expected to be the first of many steps. The framework convention that lies above the protocol, the Rio Convention, establishes the goal of stabilizing concentrations, and scientists believe we need to cut our emissions to 50 per cent below 1990 levels in order to achieve that goal.
Canada, as honourable senators will be well aware, has a long tradition of being part of the international and multilateral processes, and the government believes that our participation in the protocol will be important for its continuing credibility and ensuring that it can achieve its goals in both the short and the longer term.
I have mentioned that Canada will be the only country in the Americas to ratify, should the government take that step, and modelling and analytical work has been done to look carefully at the competitiveness implications. The modelling work suggests that it is possible to achieve our Kyoto target with relatively modest and balanced economic impacts across the economy.
In looking at the competitiveness issues visàvis the U.S., we have been following closely what is happening at the state level, because many U.S. states are beginning to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
We also have a cooperation agreement with the U.S. that is looking, in particular, at science and technology issues and is one of the ways we are trying to continue to encourage the United States to take direct climate change action and, eventually, return to the international consensus.
Canada's target is to reduce our emissions to 6 per cent below our 1990 levels in the first Kyoto commitment period, the fiveyear period from 2008 to 2012. The analytical work we have undertaken with provincial and territorial governments and the last consensus forecast that was developed in that context identified that, to achieve that goal of minus 6 per cent, we need to reduce our emissions by some 240 mega-tonnes. That is the much-discussed number, with which there are upside and downside risks, as there are to any point estimate. However, one of the main drivers in that estimate is the large growth in the energy sector, and without getting into the details of it, I would say significant growth is assumed in that sector in arriving at that gap analysis.
Canada was very much at the forefront in shaping a number of parts of the protocol in the international negotiations. Of the two I would mention in particular, the first is the Kyoto mechanisms, which enable Canada or Canadian companies to invest in emission reduction projects overseas and bring those credits back to Canada as part of our effort to achieve the minus six per cent. These mechanisms reflect the fact that climate change is a unique environmental issue, in that it does not really matter where the emissions come from once they get into the atmosphere. They could come from Canada or from Brazil or from Thailand.
The second of particular interest to this committee would be the sinks provisions, whereby sound management of our agricultural soils and forests, which enables them to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, creates what is called a ``carbon sink.''
We worked very hard in the negotiations to ensure there was full and adequate recognition of sinks. I will come back to that a little later.
The last thing I would say, in general terms, is that climate change may be the quintessential sustainable development issue. It affects all sectors of the economy and has many positive benefits as well, including clean air, clean water and measures such as strengthening transit systems to improve the air quality and the liveability of large cities. Those aspects are very much part of the consideration in putting together a climate change plan.
The first guiding principle of the climate change plan is that it is ``made in Canada.'' The Kyoto Protocol establishes the target and the time frame. It gives us some mechanisms we can use, if we so choose, but the rest is up to Canada to decide. Focusing particularly on the five years since the Kyoto Protocol itself was negotiated, there has been an extensive period of negotiation with provinces and territories, industry, nongovernmental groups and academics to do the analysis and develop the initiatives that we could follow in order to achieve our goal.
The first ministers met in 1997, hard on the heels of the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. They agreed on a number of principles that have been guidelines for all the work that has taken place since. One of those principles was that no region of the country would bear an unreasonable burden. A lot of the analytical work that has taken place since then has been to determine an approach that achieves that goal. As I mentioned earlier, the most recent modelling work shows we are coming close to being able to put together a plan that has very balanced impacts from coast to coast and across sectors, and which has identified those areas where we need to keep fine tuning in our consultations with provinces and industry.
Our approach has been one of great transparency. A lot of the analytical work has been done in collaboration and all of that analysis has been shared. It has been a stepbystep process, so while the plan has been tabled in Parliament, it is not, and will never be, final. The intent is to continue to consult, to elaborate, to learn by doing, and to adjust the plan as new technologies emerge and as provinces further elaborate their own thinking on what their priorities are. That is what we mean when we talk about keeping the plan ``evergreen,'' so it will be constantly evolving. It is an approach that uses a mix of instruments to minimize costs and maximize benefits. This approach puts a high premium on innovation and technology development, and recognizes the need for certainty and the minimization of risks. It includes specific measures in response to some of the issues raised with us by industry with respect to uncertainty and risk.
The plan proposes action in three steps. Step 1 is already underway, through Action Plan 2000 and other initiatives launched over the course of the last three or four budgets. Step 2 is expected to achieve some 80 mega-tonnes of reductions, working toward that 240 mega-tonne gap. The plan identifies a range of new actions for step 2 that are estimated to yield 100 mega-tonnes of further reductions. It also identifies options for step 3 that would fill the remaining gap.
I will now provide a little more detail on each. The actions for step 1 are underway. The government has invested $1.6 billion since 1998 in climate change action. Many of the initiatives have been in place for a year or maybe just over a year, so we are now at the initial stages of being able to begin the analysis of progress achieved and whether we are getting the anticipated results. The first report on the evolving progress of Action Plan 2000 is expected to come out sometime next year.
Within step 1, there are also 30 mega-tonnes of sink credits from the agricultural and forest management practices that are already in place in this country. There is also investment that is intended to help solidify our sinks credits and ensure that we can reduce the risks associated with achieving that goal.
For the new actions of step 2, there are three priority areas. There are two ways one can come at this. The plan itself takes a sectoral approach, but what I will be describing here is more of an approach based on what individual Canadians can do, what industrial sectors can do and what the government itself would do. First, the plan challenges Canadians to reduce their emissions on average by one tonne. Each of us is responsible on average for 5.4 tonnes of emissions in a year. We are asking Canadians to aim for a 20 per cent reduction, which is about what we are asking all other parts of the economy and society to do.
There is quite a range of initiatives in the plan, particularly in the transportation and the building sectors, and with respect to appliance standards and those sorts of things, which would put the information or the products in place that Canadians would need to achieve that goal.
Second, there is the approach for large industrial emitters, which is very comprehensive. It would be implemented via negotiated agreements, referred to as "covenants," which would be enforceable through a regulatory or financial backstop. We also would provide industry with flexibility in meeting their targets through a domestic emissions trading system, and by indicating that agriculture and forestry credits that are incremental to the 30 mega-tonne reduction under step 1 would be able to be sold into the emissions trading system as offsets.
The industrial sectors would also have access to the international market. The plan indicates a number of areas where the government is interested in partnering with industry to help them bring critical technologies to the commercial stage.
There is also the international market itself, where the government could be participating directly. It will certainly be working with industry to help maximize its effective access to that market.
For step 3, the remainder, the plan indicates a number of areas where there is potential for finding the remaining 60 mega-tonnes. I will give you a few examples.
We have not taken into account in the arithmetic of the plan any of the actions that provinces and territories would be undertaking on their own account. We have not tried to capture any of the emissions reductions that would result from investments in technology R&D through such programs as Technology Early Action Measures or the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund.
We have also not tried to estimate any of the reductions that might come from new partnerships with provinces through the partnership fund that was announced at the innovation summit last week.
Turning now to the agricultural component, you can see on this pie chart that the agricultural sector is responsible for 10 per cent of total emissions through fertilizers, manure, methane from livestock, and farm machinery.
There are three ways in which agriculture has unique opportunities for managing its greenhouse gas emissions. The first is carbon sinks, which I mentioned earlier. The second is by reducing emissions from livestock and converting soils from sources into sinks. In that category I should also mention the use of fertilizers, but I will leave those technicalities to my agricultural colleague.
There is, of course, the use of fuels on farms. In the fuels area, there are also interesting opportunities with respect to bio-products and, in particular, the use of farm waste products or grains of various sorts for the production of ethanol. The plan sets a national target for 35 per cent of our gasoline stream to be 10 per cent ethanol blends.
The following page gives you the arithmetic for the estimated 30 mega-tonnes for sinks. It is an estimate of what would be achieved in Canada. The top line makes it clear that we have more potential on the forestry side. Under the protocol, we have a 44-mega-tonne cap on the forestry side, but no cap on the agricultural side. Therefore, there is considerable room to move there through incremental investments and the expansion of current practices.
Finally, there are the specific agriculture and forestry actions that are underway or are part of the next step. There is the development of measurement tools and inventories that are needed to qualify for the use of the sinks credits under the Kyoto Protocol. There is a considerable amount of work to be done in that area to ensure our inventories meet the international standards. I would say that Canada is well advanced in that work, though we do need to continue to make those investments.
In addition, there are additional investments in agricultural sinks through improved soil management initiatives in Action Plan 2000, in the Agricultural Policy Framework and through the ``green cover'' program. We are also continuing to analyze the potential for largescale creation of sinks through plantation forestry.
Finally, as new steps underway, we would be establishing the framework by which incremental sinks credits would be able to be sold into the emissions trading system as offsets.
That is the end of my presentation. I have a number of expert colleagues here and we would be more than pleased to entertain your questions.
The Chairman: This committee is particularly interested in learning about aspects of adaptation, both in forestry and agriculture. Perhaps I can begin by saying that in the climate change draft plan released in October 2002, the government stated that its first priority area in assessing effects and preparing adaptation to climate change is to "develop approaches to adaptation planning."
Can you explain what that statement is intended to mean? After that, could you tell me whether we have to really determine adaptation strategies now, and if so, what should some of them be from an environmental point of view?
Ms. Smith: The gentleman who is the lead in that work is here. If you want to get into the details, I can ask him to join us at the table.
A very short answer from someone who is not a specialist in the adaptation field is that there is not much understanding about how to move from a recognition of the climate effects to what that means in terms of impacts, and then how we should be incorporating those impacts into our policy development and our longerterm science research and policy design. It is a fledgling field, if I can phrase it that way.
The Chairman: That is precisely what our study is about. However, perhaps that gentleman could come up to the table. I was told that he will be our key witness for Thursday. We do want to hear from him on Thursday, but perhaps he can explain what this language means.
Mr. Paul Egginton, Executive Director, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada: In part, Ms. Smith has given the answer, but the reality is that most people have not started to think much about the issue of adaptation. Awareness needs to be raised. It is only in the last two years that people have begun to think about impacts and what we need to do about them.
The language there is meant to indicate that we are beginning consultations with provinces and territories. Institutions have been created to help us talk and think about the things that need to be done. We will talk about some of those on Thursday.
The Chairman: Is Canada behind other countries? Have other countries not already started thinking about these things and developing adaptation strategies? Where are we globally?
Mr. Egginton: We are not too badly positioned. Canada is recognized internationally as being one of the leaders in adaptation.
The Chairman: That is even though we have no strategy?
Mr. Egginton: We certainly do not have a national plan for adaptation yet. It is something we are starting to think about. The researchers are very well known. We have contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We are advising developing countries on strategies they can put in place. We are aware of the process. We are starting to talk about the things that need to be done.
The Chairman: When you come back the next time, we will want to ask you about where various scientists are and what studies they are doing on adaptation.
Senator Wiebe: I will ask much the same question that the chairman asked. I commend the government for its plan. I do not think there is anyone around this table who would fault it for recognizing that we do have to adopt Kyoto and it will cost money to achieve those goals. However, those will be longterm goals. We will not be reducing those greenhouse gases in a short period of time. We have always had climate change, as far back as the Ice Age, ever since Mother Nature first decided to form this earth of ours.
Climate change has been gradual. Especially in the agricultural industry, people have been able to adapt to that gradual change without much help.
Humans have caused the situation that we find ourselves in today, in that we have sped up Mother Nature. The climate change now is so much more rapid than in the past. The biggest problem is how will our farmers, who produce the food that we all need, adapt to this rapid climate change? I am disappointed to hear that we have just started to think about that. Adaptation is the key. The last five years have certainly demonstrated that, in this country and throughout the world.
Mother Nature is having quite a time, given what is happening with our weather. All areas of Canada will not be affected in the same way and there will have to be adaptation. Areas in the West that used to be traditionally dry, such as Saskatchewan, had 27 inches of rain this year. That is more rain than we have ever had. Areas of Saskatchewan that have never had crop failures had their first this year.
As a committee, we will have to come up with some answers for our agricultural people so that they can adapt quickly. I dare say everything that you have mentioned today about the climate change plan for Canada is going to take us many years to achieve.
I do not know how kind Mother Nature will be to us in that period in allowing us to bring it down to where it was in 1990, when we were beginning to see the rapid effects of climate change. Can you fill us in on any kind of research that the government, together with our universities and our research stations, has been doing in looking at how we could adapt to this? We are basically on a onetrack mission adaptation, as our chairman said.
The Chairman: Mr. Huebener, do you wish to respond?
Mr. Alrick Huebener, Manager, Policy Development, Environment Bureau, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: I wanted to put you at ease to some degree by saying that we do have some tools for adapting in the short term. You could look at the federal and provincial agriculture departments and see that they are working with farmers on research that addresses issues such as drought, water supply, et cetera. In respect of adapting to the kind of weatherinduced changes that farmers are experiencing now, you could say that the kind of research we do in crop development is helping now. There are two time scales in climate change. You have to be thinking about whether we have the tools to deal with the events that we see in front of us now. As a country we do have a reasonable tool kit.
There are longer-term climate changes, some of which are being felt now. Are we as well positioned to deal with that as we could be? We are saying that we have a tool kit now, we are using it and we are working with farmers through the Agricultural Policy Framework. We are looking at improving our use of climatic information in the short term, for managing now. However, for the future, we recognize that there is much more work to be done on adaptation to climate change. We have that shared perception, and I think Paul was talking about it, that we are at the beginning of the effort.
The existing science certainly gives us indications of what kinds of events agriculture could experience. However, if you try to apply that to specific land bases in the country, you will find that the information is at a fairly high level the resolution is fairly low. Now, we have to invest in the science that will provide us with greater resolution to allow us to plan better.
Ms. Smith: I will add that investments in science, impacts and adaptation, have been part of this entire subject for quite some time. There has been a block of resources devoted to that activity in the Climate Change Action Fund. However, as Mr. Huebener put it in his last comment, it is a sequential exercise that needs to begin with a further refinement of the modelling resolution to be able to understand the effects on a scale that will allow greater knowledge of what you might have to adapt to.
I do not want to say that it is entirely the case that A follows B follows C. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Paul and his team have been doing that. How do we bring what we do know down to understanding the impacts and begin the adaptation policy thinking? My department, which includes climatic science, is working hard on the refinement of the resolutions of the models to give experts in these other departments the tools that they need to take the next step in their work.
Senator Wiebe: I am sure you have heard the statement that there is nothing that can be produced out of a barrel of oil that cannot be grown in the ground. Our experience now with ethanol and bio-diesel is an example of that. It is my understanding that the U.S. has now funded three scientists. Fortunately, one is a Canadian. They are looking into producing rubber from sunflowers.
What kind of work has the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Environment done to encourage that old idea that instead of us as farmers, who are good at what we do — in fact we are too good and have created an oversupply throughout the world doing research on finding new ways to get more litres of milk out of a cow and more pounds of beef out of an animal, we should be doing research to discover different crops to grow?
What kind of research has been done to allow the farmers, rather than competing among themselves and with their colleagues in other countries, to compete with the oil companies instead?
Mr. John Jaworski, Senior Industry Development Officer, Life Sciences Branch, Industry Canada: There are a number of things to talk about. There are many alternate products that can be derived from existing crops such as canola, corn, wheat, et cetera. Your province, for example, has a fledgling bio-products research network, with funding from the Alberta Agricultural Research Institute. It is actively putting out requests for proposals for chemicals that can be derived from existing crops or alternate crops, although those are, perhaps, further down the road. Right now, farmers need additional markets for their surplus crops.
There is interesting work in the area of producing plastics from canola oil. There are some promising opportunities in our own backyard. Are they at the commercial level yet? No. There are examples in other countries of where some of these concepts have made it to the marketplace. South of where you are, there is a major plant producing a plastic from cornstarch, but they could also be producing it from a cellulosic material down the road, when the technology improves. This plastic material could be used to make a shirt or a candy wrapper.
Senator Wiebe: Is it biodegradable?
Mr. Jaworski: Biodegradable and recyclable. It is a remarkable product. I am sorry that I did not bring my Tshirt with me. There are some interesting properties to this.
It is a valueadded product that competes well in the textile and plastics market. MacDonalds uses it for their clamshell salad containers. Coca-Cola use its for their disposable plastic cups. It has been well received. It is one of the ``poster child'' products for this new bio-products economy that might start to make its presence felt within the existing conventional economy.
Senator Wiebe: Are both provincial and federal governments putting enough money into research? I ask that question because for the last 10 years, governments have decided to back away from funding research at our universities with the hope that private industry would take up the slack.
Many of the grants for research are coming from industry rather than governments. The problem is that industry wants a return on its investment over a period of four to five years. We have lost what we had at our research stations. Those researchers looked into the future and did research for the long term.
Many of the benefits that our farmers are using today to survive in this type of economy are a result of the research that these farthinking people started working on 30 years ago.
We have lost that during the last 10 years. Are the provincial and federal governments starting to reenter that field? Are we still leaving it to the private sector?
Mr. Jaworski: We could say that there is a good start in this area. Last week at the innovation summit, the concepts of bio-products, bio-processes and bio-fuels were discussed in the environmental break-out session. There is a sense that this is an area of opportunity. Some of the existing major initiatives, such as Genome Canada, are looking not just at the health applications of genomics, but also the environmental and industrial aspects.
This is new, but it suggests an increased investment in this area in the future. You will see a section in the Climate Change Action Plan that talks about biotechnology and efforts to develop a technology road map for identifying opportunities for further research and technology development. There are elements within the research community that are making their case amongst all those other applications, such as human health and the need for better technology in the health care system, et cetera. They are making the case that these other areas, offering both economic and environmental benefits and sustainable products for consumers, should also start to get incremental funding. It is our hope that this message will be heard and incremental resources will become available to attract research into this area.
Mr. Huebener: The Department of Agriculture considers the entire area of innovation as important. The expertise for the kind of technology about which you are talking exists in many different areas. There is much interdepartmental work to coordinate activities.
Page 16 of the climate change plan refers to biotechnology. For us, those are important words that the government is using in the climate change strategy under the Kyoto Protocol. Innovation and the biological technologies will play an important role. Biotech, in this context, does not mean only the genetic side. All of the biological technologies will play an important role.
In the Agricultural Policy Framework, which is also part of the government's commitment, there is a component called ``innovation.'' It deals with the scientific resources in our department as well. There are people in our department who are committed to working in this area.
Senator Wiebe: Words do not cost very much, but putting those words into action does. We must concentrate on that.
Senator Fairbairn: I am blessed, in that I come from Lethbridge, where we have a fine and ancient agricultural research establishment, which is now certainly moving, with every partner it can find at the university or wherever, into the area of innovative research.
To follow on from Senator Wiebe's comments, it is also still working on stuff that it has been doing for years, which is now producing some fine results. It is not really as though it were standing still.
I was at Olds College last week outside Calgary. The project in which I was involved was one to which you may have referred. It was the use of natural fibre in their innovation centre. You see more and more alpacas, llamas and goats in the fields around Southern Alberta. They are now able to send the wool and the fur to Olds. It goes through a system that I could never understand. I received a very nice scarf produced in the area.
You are speaking about markets that are not just Canadian or Albertan. They are global, and that is exciting. Hopefully, it is also exciting to young people. The more we can let them know about it the better. In view of all the information about how many young people are leaving the farm, this is the kind of stuff that might motivate them to stay around.
Our very good witness last week explained something to those of us who are frustrated at being burnt out by drought year after year. That is supposedly not climate change; it is a cycle. We were told that we have to think in much longer terms when we are talking about climate change. If we have to do that, then anything we need to do to offset it is also going to take a long time.
Your entire presentation was filled with evidence that there has been much close work between the federal government and the provinces in all sorts of areas on this major issue.
We are in a terrible fight in my province. However, I gather that work has been done with the energy industry to mitigate some of these critical areas associated with climate change. Could you comment on that? We hear from one or two companies, such as BP or the like; however, I believe there is more going on in this area than we are hearing about. It would be helpful for Canadians, and Albertans, to understand this, because it might not be as dire as it is being painted.
Can you help me with this? It sounds as though much is being done, but we do not know about it.
Ms. Smith: I will start by describing the nature of the federalprovincialterritorial process that has been engaged in over the course of the past five years. It actually goes back longer than that. I believe it goes back to the late 1980s. The first formal intergovernmental climate change process started in 199293. I will focus on the past five years, since the protocol was negotiated and signed.
A committee of energy and environment ministers has met nine times in the past five years, and six of those occasions have been in the last twoandahalf years, so they meet fairly regularly. The committee that meets most frequently is at my level, of assistant deputy ministers of energy and environment from all the jurisdictions. We have been meeting probably nine or ten times a year for a minimum of one day, and sometimes two to three days, working through the various aspects of the climate change issue.
We have been supported by an extensive group of other stakeholders. Sixteen issue tables were set up involving some 450 people from government, industry, nongovernmental groups or universities. It was set up largely by sector, so that there were transportation, buildings and municipality tables, et cetera. These tables spent a considerable period of time analyzing the technological opportunities in their sector, the challenges they face and the competitiveness issues. I did not sit on any of those tables. Mr. MacLeod did and perhaps Mr. Lyman did. They could describe more of the dynamics if honourable senators wish to have more details. They were intense discussions. It depended on the table, but many of the groups met frequently and produced comprehensive studies.
There was another body of work done in a federalprovincial context. However, it was done by sitting down with each industry to understand the nature of the market in which they work. Therefore, the report would identify things such as, in this particular Canadian sector, 50 per cent of its product is exported, of which 30 per cent goes to the U.S. and 20 per cent goes to a range of other countries, and the other major producers in the world are these countries. Then the report would discuss the market dynamics and the extent to which they are the price takers or price makers, and those sorts of things. It is a very comprehensive study.
Both the industry sectorbysector competitiveness studies and the work done by the issue tables were part of the core work that was used as input data for another federalprovincialterritorial group called the Analysis and Modelling Group. This group found the best economic models in the country, a microeconomic model and a macroeconomic model, and spent many years tailoring and enriching the capacity of those models to analyze climate change policy and to absorb the information coming from this analysis.
The analysis reported in the annex of this plan was undertaken by the Government of Canada on what we refer to as a ``reference case,'' but using the models, data and input from all those sources that I have just described. It has been a very exhaustive process. Some have been involved longer in this process of engagement on these issues.
Another important committee, called the Industry Steering Committee on Climate Change, meets frequently as well.
Another aspect I will mention is that members of Canada's delegations to the international negotiations have been working with industry, other stakeholder groups and provinces to help us analyze issues so that we could position Canada well within our negotiating mandates.
That is the process that we have gone through, and are still engaged in, with the provinces, territories and stakeholders. The issue table committees are no longer in business, but the other components that I have mentioned are. As you know, it is hard to build consensus in this country. Despite the fact that we spend much time together assessing these issues, there are still differences of view from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Neil MacLeod, Director General, Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada: All of these joint efforts have been useful and productive. It is also interesting to see the concrete things that have happened as a result. There are examples of where we have worked with our stakeholders in the private sector and at the government level. One is the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. It is a voluntary program involving over 20 industrial sectors from the mining and manufacturing industries.
Together with the federal government, we have established 22 different task forces. Every year we set voluntary targets for emissions. We track the emissions with them and monitor the results. As a result, all the industries under that large federal-private sector umbrella have kept emissions stable between 1990 and 2000. Often, when you hear that, you think that must mean stable as a percentage of output. It is not. The emissions from these many industries that have been working with us have remained stable in absolute terms.
We have a couple of examples of where provinces have said, ``We share the goals of the federal government in some of its programs to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency, so we want to contribute as well.'' We have a national program in British Columbia that gives financial incentives to building owners to make their properties more energy efficient.
British Columbia wanted to do the same thing. Rather than duplicate the program, they wanted to work with us. Officials work handinhand in shared office space in British Columbia to do just that.
We have another program in Quebec that rewards owners of new buildings. If the building will be energy efficient, we give out a financial incentive. Gaz Metropolitan wanted to contribute to that, so they top up the federal program with provincial money if they meet the federal criteria for making their buildings more energy efficient.
We do have examples of different provincial governments wishing to work with the federal government. The Government of Ontario announced an interesting one yesterday, whereby they are going to give a financial incentive to homeowners who purchase Energy Star appliances. That is another program that we run. Energy Star refrigerators are the most energy efficient in their class.
We promote this through our publicity work and we try to encourage citizens to act. This is a recent program in Canada. It has been around in the United States and Europe for a few years.
The Government of Ontario wants to use the federal government's criteria as a basis for giving out these financial initiatives to consumers who purchase energy efficient appliances.
Senator Fairbairn: Could any of you give the committee some examples? Obviously in our part of Canada, regardless of the context, we are having a lot of trouble with the weather. It really is just crippling our agricultural industries. It is difficult to give suggestions to people about what they can do when they do not have enough water, or else they have too much.
Could you give examples of the kind of things you are doing with the agriculture sector that give hope to the people who are still on the land and also have a positive effect in dealing with climate change, whether it is the development of products or whatever?
We on this committee, like many other Canadians, are trying hard to understand the measures that, we are told, can be taken.
Mr. Huebener: I will try to answer some of that.
There are other people in the department who are more expert than I on drought and drought programming, that kind of thing. It may be worth your while to talk to those people as well.
I will give some examples of past success and also some future work that we are looking at in the department.
Widespread adoption of better soil management practices in the Prairies is an example of the combined efforts of industry innovators, government researchers, particularly soil scientists, conservation organizations like the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and provincial governments.
Soil conservation has been an issue for a very long time. It becomes even more of an issue under extreme conditions. You could say that we are probably handling some of the extreme conditions we are experiencing today better than we did in the past because of adoption of the soil management practices.
The adoption was facilitated by better scientific research into what are the good practices for agricultural soils, and then farmers deploying those practices with assistance from governments, including information and programs. It is not an instant solution. These are long-term and systemic items that effect entire ecosystems.
The ability of governments and the private sector to work together in the future to deal with climate change, whether on the emissions reduction side or on the side of adapting your systems to climate change, serves as an example to me of where we can make a difference.
There were dust bowl conditions back in the 1930s, and the kind of farming practices that were introduced, particularly in the Prairies, were depleting the soil. Once the research showed that those were not good farming practices, people made an effort and it is turning around.
Currently, the Canadian experience at both the research and the expert level is being used in other countries, like China and Africa, which are facing some of the same challenges.
You also need to take a look at the Agricultural Policy Framework within which we are working. There are some elements in that such as better soil, land and water information systems. It does not sound very sexy because it does not immediately solve the problem.
However, some of the tools that will be created through that work will become important for agricultural management in the future. Also, some of the agri-environmental indicator work and technical work underpinning it will be very important to both levels of government in coordinating action.
Work is going on. There is also considerable work looking at exactly the questions you are raising, such as the longterm solutions to water supply issues. They are complex questions.
Senator Day: Ms. Smith, gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
I am sitting here looking through all this paper and thinking it is difficult when science mixes with politics and you are trying to balance these things.
First of all, could you put out of your minds, as far as you can, the issue of the government's policy to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol? Let us just talk about rural communities, the impacts that this trend that we are seeing might have, how we might adjust and what we might recommend for these communities that rely on forestry and agriculture.
How do you deal with the issue that in the United States, scientists are saying that many of the premises that at one time had been accepted are really no longer viable, that the modelling is not reliable, and we cannot really predict what this warming trend is going to do. Therefore, why should we sign any protocols? We should be putting our money into more science to find out what is going on.
Ms. Smith: President Bush dealt with it best when he asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which they did. They confirmed its conclusions. Life is a bell curve. There are always people on either end of any argument.
Senator Day: We had Henry Hengeveld from your department here. I asked him a similar question and he gave me a similar answer.
It was just the next day that I read an article in the paper that caused me some anguish. You are probably familiar with it. I will read a couple of excerpts from it and then I will give you the article. It was in the National Post. It was replying to comments from a Dr. Weaver from the University of Victoria, who said:
...that only a few ``skeptics'' scientists ``at the margins of the issue'' practising ``outlier science,'' as the Minister said last week have problems with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord.
That is the first comment. Then he said that:
...hundreds of climate scientists in Canada and around the world are now beginning to question the validity of projections made with today's insufficiently verified climate models.
Over to the next page:
Dr. Weaver says confidently, ``...humanity is the primary cause of late 20th century climate change.''
We saw that on the overhead that Mr. Hengeveld displayed last week.
This is unfounded.
The article goes on to say:
More and more atmospheric scientists are now questioning the real cause of recent warming. According to Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, the warming may be entirely due to natural atmospheric variability.
The Canadian climate centre model performs worse than a table of random numbers when applied to a 10-year average of U.S. temperatures.
The Chairman: Dr. Weaver will be appearing before this committee in a month or so.
Senator Day: Maybe we should also have Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar. Do you know that name?
Ms. Smith: I have heard it, yes.
Senator Day: He claims to be a former research scientist with Environment Canada. He holds a Ph.D. in meteorology and has worked in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography for over 45 years. I will give you a copy of that, which might help. I will give my colleagues a copy, too.
If we cannot counter this kind of skepticism, how can we talk about forecasting what might possibly happen in our rural communities, and how can we talk about adapting forestry practices to meet change when we do not know what the change will be and cannot properly model this thing? Can you help me at all with that?
Ms. Smith: I am not a climate scientist. As you mentioned, you probably covered some of this turf with my colleague, who is a climate scientist, so I hesitate to weigh in too deeply. I would simply say that the National Academy of Science in the United States is only one of 17 such national scientific bodies around the world that have undertaken that same exercise and reached that same conclusion.
As for the capacity of climate models, I know that there is no climate scientist in the world who would not like to have improvements to climate models, but it is my understanding from briefings I have received from them that the type of weather patterns we are seeing today are entirely consistent with the things that their models are suggesting we ought to be seeing at this point.
Canada does not have the only climate models in the world. We are probably one of the top four meteorological associations worldwide, and as I understand it, there is some considerable consistency in the results from those models. I should not go further because I am not a climate scientist.
Senator Day: Are you confident, and is Environment Canada confident, that we can do modelling to the degree that we can say to our rural communities, ``Rather than waiting for generations for natural reforestation, you should be thinking in terms of new species of trees, because that is what will grow well here in 25 years''?
Ms. Smith: That is exactly the type of refinement of the climate models that is underway right now. As I mentioned earlier, the resolution of the models is too large to instil the type of confidence that you need to develop that kind of specific advice. The understanding of the climate system is adequate at this point to give much larger-scale forecasts with a fair degree of confidence, such that the climate scientists have no hesitation in saying it is time to act, and the resolution of the smaller scale is much needed.
One example is ecosystems in British Columbia. Because it is such a mountainous area, it is very difficult to say anything specific at this point about how the Okanagan Valley, for example, might be affected by climate change. They are doing a lot of work to try to improve the resolution of the model such that they would be able to answer that type of question. At this point, they are at the level of being able to say what they think might happen to the Great Lakes ecosystems, but they could not tell you what would happen to St. Claire. They project, but they do not have the model resolution. That is the type of refinement they are working on now.
Senator Day: It is too soon for me to go back and talk to my colleagues in New Brunswick about planting grapes and starting vineyards.
The Chairman: In planning for adaptation strategies, how do we deal with the uncertainty about the affects of climate change that you have all talked about today, and what do policymakers need to know to minimize the costs of climate change for the agricultural and forestry sectors?
Mr. Huebener: Again, if I understood the question correctly, part of what needs to be done now is to invest in the kind of science that Ms. Smith has described, because that in itself will reduce the uncertainty. You need to start reducing the range of your projections and bring them down to more local areas, so people can see what the possible impacts would be. It will still probably be a range of possibilities, but if you can narrow it, that gives people something with which to work.
Generally, in terms of adaptation and mitigation, we are talking about prudent management. There is a fair degree of scientific confidence about the causes of climate change and that climate change is a fact for which we have to plan. I would argue that for agriculture and forestry and people who live in the rural landscape, while in a country like Canada that population is small, the land that they manage directly or are responsible for is extensive.
If you look at the charts, agriculture produces approximately 10 per cent of Canada's emissions. That means that the other 90 per cent comes from other sectors. Agriculture has a stake in the behaviour of others, not only in Canada but also in the rest of the world. The Kyoto Protocol is a tool for achieving global cooperation in this area. That will take a substantial effort over time. However, agriculture in Canada will be affected by the emissions in the rest of Canada, which is about 2 to 3 per cent of the emissions in the world, and the behaviour of other countries. If we show some leadership here, we are acting prudently to protect our land by encouraging a much larger world to be responsible in its management of greenhouse gases.
The other side of prudence is acknowledging that even with our best efforts, because of the history of the growth of greenhouse gases, there will be some impact on our lands. Prudence is trying to, at the same time, invest in the science and the knowledge systems and begin to develop our knowledge of how we can plan to adapt. We are not ready yet to be prescriptive in the way you were talking about grow this instead of that. A member of the House committee told us today that if the government tells you to do something, do the opposite, because that will probably be good for your business. As for the notion that you can talk prescriptively to over 200,000 farmers out there, well, there are limits to that as well.
We have a strong tradition of the research centres across the country providing useful information to farmers on what to grow based on research and knowledge. If we improve that knowledge, I believe we have the systems in place in this country through those centres, and what the provinces and the private sector do in their extension networks, that we can help the agriculture sector adapt.
The Chairman: Are you orchestrating that research across Canada?
Mr. Huebener: I am a nonscientist as well, but there are people who are doing that kind of work.
My question deals with the money we are putting into mitigation to meet protocol limits versus trying to understand what the impacts might be — $1.6 billion dollars has been spent since 1998 and I have the sense that most of that has gone into mitigation-oriented issues. Would you agree with me that if you had a limited amount of money and your objective was to try to predict for your rural communities, your forest industry and your agricultural industry how they might adapt to the inevitable changes, be they fast or slow, that perhaps a little more of that money should go into the science of looking into the future?
Ms. Smith: I think we will see that gradual shift over time. With respect to the $1.6 billion, I do not have the exact figures in my head, but I would guess that in the order of $100 million has been put into various aspects of the science impacts and adaptation package.
My colleague thinks it is more. We are bracketing $100 million.
Senator Day: You would like to see more go into adaptation-oriented science?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Senator LaPierre: The Canadian people are at a loss, I would think. They do not think anything is being done. They think essentially that they are the victims of government inaction, of battles between provincial, federal and territorial governments and all the rest. We have 22 task forces collaborating on all the things you have described to us. Even the Province of Quebec is helping you in this field in its own jurisdiction. It certainly would not do that in the field of education.
I find that there is a communications problem here. We are weakening the resolve of the Canadian people to participate in this because it appears to be so burdensome.
My question is a constitutional one. As you all know, there are three steps in the ratification of a protocol. Once you have ratified, you must move into action.
The federal government can only act in spheres of its own authority and provincial governments must act in their spheres. The natural resources that commit us to this dilemma are provincially owned, and the Supreme Court has decided that the provinces are the masters of those resources. Therefore, are we losing on the constitutional issue? Are we minimizing the role of the federal government in this process?
If that is a political question, do not answer it. I meant it to be a constitutional one.
Ms. Smith: I can answer it, although perhaps not with the precision you might be looking for. The question of the Government of Canada's constitutional authority to act in this field has been extensively researched and we have been given solid assurances that we have all the constitutional authorities we would need to act.
Senator LaPierre: Why now? I am 73 years old and I have heard about climate change for the past 50 years. Why did we not do something 50 years ago?
Ms. Smith: Perhaps precisely because of the long process I have been describing. It was not really possible earlier than a year ago because it was only in November last year that enough of the details of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol were worked out. It was only within the last year that it became possible. The longer you wait, the harder it is to achieve the goal. That is the balance that needs to be judged in determining when to act.
Speaking from the point of view of a policy analyst, with the amount of work that has been put into this, it is hard to imagine what more we would analyze at this point. There will always be more to learn as we begin to take action and gain experience, and as technology evolves. There is always more to learn, but I think what is known now has been analyzed to death.
Senator Wiebe: You may find this question impossible to answer, or you may wish not to answer, but the former president of the United States was one of the original signers of Kyoto. In discussions I have had with senators from the U.S., they have told me that since that time, they have passed some pretty stringent emission legislation. They have certainly led the field in ethanol, mostly through states passing mandatory regulations. They claim to be quite a bit further ahead than Canada in terms of legislation relevant to many of the goals that we hope to achieve under Kyoto.
Is that a fact?
Ms. Smith: From a purely analytical point of view, where we are relative to the U.S. on the scale is very difficult to answer. There is no doubt that there is a lot happening in the United States. President Bush, in his climate change announcement this past February, announced the investment of billions of dollars in technology research, development and deployment, as well as in science and programs in the area of agricultural and forestry sinks. They are putting significant money into climate-change-related issues. They are making huge investments in solar panels and wind energy. They have rebates for lowemission vehicles and all sorts of other programs. State governments are doing the same thing to varying degrees. Some are very aggressive and some are less so, but there is no doubt that a lot of action is taking place in the United States.
The Chairman: Is that the case in the large industries such as oil?
Ms. Smith: The ones that come most readily to my mind are in the electrical-generating sector. Quite a number of state governments are acting on that.
The Pembina Institute produced a very thorough review of what is happening in the United States. Perhaps your researcher could find that for you. It was done within the last six months or so.
Senator Wiebe: The discussions we had with them were on energyrelated areas such as the generation of electricity, the production of oil and that sort of thing.
Senator Fairbairn asked about the problem that is seemingly being created in her home province in terms of Canada coming to an agreement.
It seems that the U.S. recognizes the definite need or danger that is out there with climate change, and for that reason, they are spending the dollars that you talked about and implementing legislation to try to correct it.
The oil lobby in the U.S. is so strong that the current president basically took a political decision and said he was not going to ratify the Kyoto agreement, but they are still going ahead and tackling the greenhouse gas emissions.
In Canada, we decided to lead by example, and I congratulate our government for taking a stand on Kyoto. However, the provinces that seem to be complaining the most about this new plan are the ones that are doing the most polluting, and that is Alberta, and my province of Saskatchewan; they are concerned about the oil industry.
Had the U.S. signed on to this agreement, would we be having this fight with the provinces? They are basically saying, ``Look, we are afraid we will lose our oil industry to the U.S. if we sign on, or it will cost us a tremendous amount of money. We do not want to share the cost with the people of Canada. We want to hang on to the dollars we have here.'' Is that an unfair question to ask? That is my impression of what is happening.
Ms. Smith: It is a hypothetical proposition that I do hesitate to wade into. I might evade your question by describing a couple of things that are happening in the oil and gas sector.
We are working on a pilot project in collaboration with the United States on the capture of a pure stream of CO2 from a demonstration clean-coal power plant, and the piping of the CO2 into the Weyburn field in Southern Saskatchewan. It is a real leadingedge project.
In fact, I should let Mr. Lyman talk about this one. I should let him describe the Weyburn project and the impact it could have.
Senator Wiebe: I am aware of it, but I think my colleagues would like to hear about it.
Mr. Robert Lyman, Director General, Environmental Affairs, Transport Canada: The project supports the enhanced oil recovery project in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. A pure stream of carbon dioxide is imported from a coal gasification project in North Dakota and then injected into the oil reservoir at high pressure, thereby allowing a higher rate of recovery of the oil. This particular project is expected to extend the life of the Weyburn reservoir by 15 to 20 years, yielding significant economic benefits for Saskatchewan, and, obviously, the companies involved.
It is also the subject of a study by the International Energy Agency and a group of other countries that are evaluating the impact of this carbon dioxide sequestration on the reservoir, and it is hoped that the information gained will allow us, and other countries, to assess the ways in which carbon dioxide flooding of reservoirs can proceed in the future in a way that both optimizes the oil recovery and the ultimate sequestration of the carbon dioxide in the ground.
Ms. Smith: A really interesting synergy comes from making this type of technology work successfully, from one end of the project to the other. Alberta and Saskatchewan have extensive coal resources and so much of their electricity is generated from coal. If we are able to demonstrate this clean-coal gasification generating technology in Canada, with Canadian coal and Canadian climatic conditions, we then have the potential to produce electricity with a very low contribution to air contaminants, and which is a very low emitting source from a greenhouse gas point of view, with the added benefit of enhancing oil recovery from fields that are near the end of their productive life.
The government has indicated in the plan its keen interest in working with provinces and the industry to make the investments to prove these technologies.
Senator Wiebe: My next question goes back to the Agricultural Policy Framework that was mentioned earlier, and, of course, my concern about our ability to adapt to change.
The agriculture framework will be centred around two risk management or protection areas, NISA and crop insurance. NISA is basically selffinancing. Crop insurance is not. If the kind of climate change we have seen over the last two years continues, then crop insurance will be a tremendously expensive venture for either the farmer or the government. Of course, the farmers and those involved in agriculture are hoping that it will fall on the government's shoulders rather than on theirs.
As someone who is developing policy in this area, what thought have you given to the enhancement of crop insurance to protect against these variables of either too much or not enough water?
Mr. Huebener: You have hit upon an important area. It is one of the reasons why, from both a farmer and a government department point of view, climate change matters. It is a pocket-book issue.
The problem with the current state of the science is that it is hard to define what the impact from climate change will be down the road. We know that weather is an important factor now. Farmers face two annual major impacts. One is weather and the other is world market price.
I do not have a systematic knowledge of crop insurance, but some of the firms that handle reinsurance are looking at worldwide risks in terms of weather-related disaster, and they are starting to increase the rates. That is an example of how global weather instability will affect insurance rates for farmers.
We have raised this issue internally with the people who work on climate change. At a meeting about a year ago of our crop insurance people with all the crop insurance managers of the provinces, a climate change expert was invited to talk about the trends and how can we start thinking about this issue. We started the process of working on it as a department. Right now, we cannot draw too many conclusions. As we look at that language that you referred to earlier, on climate change planning and a framework, we have to look at how climate change scenarios would affect crop insurance and other major systems in agriculture that provide some stabilization. As you know, the safety net side is one of the major expenditures of our department.
If you look at the Agricultural Policy Framework in terms of how to adapt to change, it might mean changes to the risk-management programs.
That is one of the tools, but at the same time, if you do not want to face high costs on that front, innovation is another. For example, if they can raise certain kinds of crops that are more tolerant of these regimes, farmers might not face the same variability on the income side. The safety net tool therefore becomes less important when looking at things like water systems or renewal of water infrastructure. These are all part of the mix of tools you would need to consider in an adaptation-planning framework.
We are not there yet. We are looking at putting together a package of tools, building the information system so that people can make sensible decisions in the future. My personal way of looking at this is to provide a future generation with a tool kit that they can use to manage better than we can now.
Senator Wiebe: My wish would be that you convey the message back to people within your department, your deputy minister and your ministers, that much effort and dollars should be put into solving climate change, and that the key word for us is ``adaptation'' to climate change. The same kind of emphasis should be placed on that, because controlling climate change will be a longterm program and adaptation may need to happen faster.
The Chairman: I would like to go back to Ms. Smith's presentation and the section dealing with actions underway. There you are talking about developing measurement tools and inventories needed to qualify for credits through international rules as a result of existing good agricultural and forest management practices.
What are some of these measurement tools? Are you talking about computer models?
Mr. Huebener: The tools will vary, but agricultural scientists have been doing soil research for a long time. Some of it is computerbased, taking measurements on a small-plot level and then scaling them up to a larger landscape to draw some conclusions about the amount of carbon gain.
We have been working with the provinces, with universities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. There is the Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project, in which they are looking at measuring this in a systematic way, because you need agreed-on scientific protocols for emissions trading regimes. There has been a joint effort in designing those research protocols.
My answer will be fuzzy because I am not a scientist. There are people who are working on greenhouse gas measurement and verification systems. We have the most confidence in the carbon soil side of it. There is much research into the other greenhouse gases involved in agriculture, nitrous oxide and methane, because they are less understood. It is really a question of whether it can be measured and what is the technique. If you want to take a trip over to the Experimental Farm and walk through what is now a snowfield and was a cornfield in the summer, you will see a set of lasers on a post, and a set of mirrors about 100 yards away. Those are being used to develop new, more precise methods for the measurement of greenhouse gases. That is an example of one project amongst several to deal with the greenhouse gases and the sinks.
The thing to remember about agriculture is it is a cycle. There are greenhouse gases being emitted, and then some of them are being absorbed into the ground. The scientific work is to develop a set of rules and procedures for our method, share that with the international community through things like the IPCC, and then make sure we both meet and influence international standards.
Canadian agriculture and soil scientists are taking part in IPCC work to determine the acceptable measurement methods.
Senator Fairbairn: Those of us from the Prairies have come to value the work of PFRA tremendously over the years, and part of the reason is the degree to which the people there are ``on the ground'' more than many other folks. Is that agency factored into your process of dealing with these climate change issues?
Mr. Huebener: My office in Ottawa is a far-away-from-the-ground kind of place, so I too value the PFRA people greatly.
Yes, if you look at climate change from our departmental point of view, you will see that the greenhouse gas management and climate change are included in the Agricultural Policy Framework as a broad objective, so it is there on a strategic level.
We are doing some innovative things in organizing departmental activity in terms of teams, and many PFRA people are contributing to what is called the ``environment team.'' They are making a substantial contribution with their practical knowledge, and they are involved in program and policy design.
That expertise in the department is well used, and they have tremendous linkages to the farm sector and to the provinces. That is an important technical base within the department. They are also, by the way, partners in a climate change awareness project funded under the Climate Change Action Fund, in which they are working with farm organizations to build awareness in the sector of climate change issues. That is an important project.
Ms. Smith: To complement that, I would say that on the international negotiating teams of which I have been part, the forestry and agricultural experts have not been from Ottawa. They have been from Winnipeg and Vancouver, I think, and Saskatchewan.
Senator Fairbairn: That is rather comforting.
Senator Wiebe: Over half of Saskatchewan is forest, although many people do not realize that. They think Saskatchewan is nothing but flat prairie.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the panel. It has been enlightening. It might be interesting to have you back in a year's time, after we have heard from many other people.
This is only our second meeting, so we are only just getting our feet wet, but we thank you for helping to guide us along the way.
The committee adjourned.