Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 7 - Evidence, February 13, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 13, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:38 a.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 Jack Wiebe (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, our chair is in Toronto this morning at an important meeting, therefore I will chair the meeting.
I would like to welcome our newest member to the Agricultural Committee. Senator Ringuette-Maltais is one of our newest senators from New Brunswick. We are pleased to have her on our committee. With her legislative experience she will be a tremendous asset.
We are examining the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities. We are also examining the potential adaptation options focusing on primary production, practices, technologies, ecosystems and other related areas.
Two groups will appear before the committee this morning. The first group is the National Farmers Union, represented by Mr. Cory Ollikka, the Past President of the National Farmers Union, and Ms. Janet Duncan.
Mr. Cory Ollikka, Past President, National Farmers Union: Honourable senators, I am a mixed grain and livestock producer with organic certification. I am from central Alberta. With me is Ms. Janet Duncan, who is also a grain and livestock producer with organic certification. She is from Ontario. We welcome the opportunity to be here this morning.
We in Canada and in the Western society have constructed the most energy inefficient food production and distribution system in human history. With each passing year we increase the energy usage in, and the greenhouse gas emissions from, our food system. Its energy inefficiency, and inefficiency in many other sectors of our economy and society, now threaten to destabilize the natural systems upon which food prohibition is based. It also threatens to dramatically reduce the amount of food available to Canadians and to people around the world.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of taking swift action to deal with climate change. Your committee is aware of the difference between mitigation versus adaptation. Members of the National Farmers Union hesitate to engage with government and industry in discussions on adaptation alone. Farmers' interest in adaptation would be greater if we thought that the critical actions on mitigation were well underway. To put it another way, it is unsettling to talk about how to use technology and information to adapt agriculture to climate change while people in developed nations line up to buy larger sport utility vehicles and while we continue to tear up rail lines and replace rail transport with trucks and jets.
To disentangle adaptation from mitigation is impossible. Without aggressive mitigation our efforts at adaptation will be unending and probably unsuccessful. We will be constantly aiming at an erratically moving target. Lack of effective mitigation will undo our best efforts at adaptation.
Despite the preceding, however, the NFU will offer recommendations on climate change adaptation, but our organization urges all levels of government to make immediate and superhuman efforts to slow and reverse climate change.
Ms. Janet Duncan, Farmer, National Farmers Union: Canadian agriculture can do a great deal to adapt to climate change. It can use ground and surface water more efficiently, something it should do in any case. It can alter its practices to conserve rainfall and to maximize production in dry areas, a project that farmers in dry areas of Canada have undertaken for over 100 years. We can use now technology and public policy to maintain production in the face of more variable and less hospitable weather. The NFU offers the following example of potential agriculture adaptation.
Mr. Ollikka: Soils are the foundation of all life on earth. Despite technological advancement, humans are utterly dependant upon the biological processes that function in our soil. Countless soil organisms live in healthy soils. Soil scientists readily admit that we understand only a small fraction of the complex soil organisms and processes within the soil. Throughout history, civilizations have declined as a result of ignoring the soil.
In many parts of Canada, climate change may mean less precipitation and less predictable rains. When rainfall becomes erratic, the soil's ability to hold and store water between rainfalls becomes more important. Extended droughts, such as those occurring in Western Canada, can be self-perpetuating. As soil becomes less productive because of drought, the ability of soil to hold moisture declines and it becomes a vicious circle.
Agricultural practices can deplete soil, organic matter and humus. Improper rotations and too much tillage can reduce organic matter and the soil's ability to absorb and hold water. Healthy soils hold moisture and can help tide crops over to the next rain.
Preventing soil erosion is the most important soil management issue. Soil erosion can dramatically and quickly destroy soil productivity. There are many ways to conserve soil and manage moisture.
Organic agriculture focuses on using proper rotations, nourishing the soil, and building nutrients and organic matter with on-farm resources. In a Pennsylvania study, organic rotations with forage and green legumes increased soil organic matter levels 3 to 5.5 times higher than levels found in commonly used conventional corn and soybean rotations. Many other studies show that organic agriculture can increase soil and organic matter dramatically. Organic agriculture can help increase the health of soil and its moisture-holding capacity. Some types of conventional agriculture using reduced tillage and direct seeding can also help build soil organic matter and help retain scarce moisture.
In Western Canada, the majority of farmers are choosing direct seeding methods to reduce tillage. These methods are beneficial in reducing soil erosion and preserving soil moisture. However, direct seeding is dependent up the increased use of pesticides, which have many direct and indirect costs to human health and the environment.
Most relevant to the discussion of climate change, conventional and direct seeding methods are also dependent upon fossil fuel energy, especially in the form of chemical fertilizers. These systems, overly reliant on chemical fertilizers like anhydrous ammonia and fossil fuels, are not sustainable in the medium and long term. Higher energy costs will make these systems uneconomic unless there are dramatic increases in efficiency. Farming systems that use less fossil fuel energy and more renewable resources of energy must be adopted. Both organic agriculture systems and direct seeding systems have made significant technological advances in this area but more research is needed to make these systems truly sustainable. The key to developing sustainable agriculture is knowledge. Reducing greenhouse gas emission from agriculture requires replacing off-farm inputs with more knowledge based on farm management. A good example of increasing productivity in agriculture with knowledge-based management is rotational grazing. Rotational grazing improves the soil and increases feed production with no increase in off-farm inputs. The result is that we can feed more cows on less land. I know this to be true from anecdotal experience.
The National Farmers Union recommends that the Government of Canada invest in research to further develop knowledge-based sustainable agriculture systems such as organic farming and other low input farming systems. This strategy should also include training to help farmers understand the importance of soil organic matter and soil health in dealing with climate change.
We now turn to hog mega-barns. Despite the clear and looming threat, some sectors of agriculture are moving quickly to disadapt themselves to climate change. They are moving from low water use systems to extremely high use systems. One example is the hog mega-barn sector. Across Canada, corporate hog producers are replicating industrial production methods pioneered in the United States. In doing so, they are pushing family farm producers out of business and shifting hog production from the traditional dry straw methods to a water intensive slurry system. These mega-barn complexes often produce up to 50,000 hogs per year and use tens of millions of gallons of water per year. We are installing a wasteful flush toilet for each pig.
The alternative to this water-based system is to raise hogs on family farms using the dry straw method. Further, farmers could be encouraged to aerate and compost manure to reduce emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases. Liquid manure handling increases the emissions of methane gas and methane's heat trapping effects are 21 times larger than the effect of carbon dioxide. Hogs can waste water in other ways, by polluting surface and ground water. As climate change makes sources of fresh water increasingly precious, the pollution threat posed by hog mega-barns will be untenable. Moving hog production to a dry straw method not only reduces water use within the barns but also lowers the likelihood that these industrial facilities will foul precious rivers and ground water.
The NFU recommends that the Government of Canada induce and require hog producers to adapt to climate change and increasingly scarce water supplies by moving to a dry straw production system.
The next area is the production and processing of other livestock. Livestock production has the potential to allow farmers to utilize land that, as a result of climate change, may become too dry to produce conventional grain or other crops. Such shifts are not the ultimate solution, however, because the capacity of the markets to absorb more livestock production is limited. For related information on this topic, please refer to further suggestions in our brief on mitigation.
For farmers to survive financially as the weather becomes more severe and unpredictable, farmers need better safety net programs. Increasingly unreliable weather resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases is a problem created by all Canadians, by all citizens in other nations and by other sectors of the global economy. Unfortunately, most of the costs of crop failure fall on the shoulders of farmers. Larger portions of the cost of farm safety net programs must be shared by all Canadians.
The NFU recommends that the federal government increase funding to farm safety net programs to reflect increased risks facing farmers and to reflect shared sources of those increased risks.
With regard to agricultural prices, over the past century Canadian farmers have eagerly adapted to a range of new technologies and practices. Anyone who has farmed or visited a farm regularly knows how much farming has changed from one decade to the next. Increasingly, however, financial pressures prevent farmers from making certain changes on their farms that would be good not only for their operations but also for the environment.
The single most important factor to facilitate change on the farm level is prices high enough to give a family farm long term stability and capital to reinvest in itself. Fair and adequate commodity prices are essential if our farms are to adapt to climate change. One way that the federal government could increase grain prices is by working with our four other major exporters — the United States, the European Union, Australia and Argentina — to take a small portion of cropland in each country out of production. World grain stocks-to-use ratios are near 25-year lows and population is climbing. Everyone has heard of the expression hand-to-mouth. We are living close to the edge of our production in terms of what we consume daily. A small decrease in production could trigger large price increases. A recent government study confirmed that a modest 10 per cent acreage set aside among those countries would trigger a 20 per cent to 30 per cent increase in world prices. Land set-aside programs would help increase world prices, giving farmers capital and stability to undertake other changes needed to adapt to and mitigate climate change. By taking marginal land out of production, a set-aside program could help reduce greenhouse gas emission directly.
The NFU recommends that the federal government work with governments of other major grain exporters to take grain land out of production to stabilize world prices at significantly higher levels.
With respect to research, Canadian farm families have suffered as our publicly funded research system has been dismantled and replaced by a corporate system subsidized with public money. Farmers have seen their cost rise as new crop varieties are patented and sold for whatever the market will bear. There is little reason to believe that a profit- driven system will undertake the research needed to adapt to or mitigate climate change. Our corporate system focuses on research that develops products to sell. Who within this system would do research on how to reduce fertilizer use? Who would do research on how to create low input, local and thus low emission food systems?
The NFU recommends that Canada restore the independent, publicly funded research system that made Canada a world leader in food production.
As climate changes, many experts predict that Canadian crop production will shift northwards. Northern areas that are now forest will become suitable for cropping and some southern areas may become increasingly unsuitable.
The NFU recommends that the federal government act to ensure that young farmers will have priority access to new land at the northern edge of the grain growing region. We further recommend that the federal government compensate established farmers whose land is increasingly degraded by the effects of human-induced climate change.
With respect to irrigation, if climate change in some Canadian regions will mean less rainfall or more erratic rainfall, then irrigation is the most obvious adaptation measure. However, there is danger in putting too much faith in irrigation. Lower rainfall and snowfall amounts will mean lower river flow volumes. This can limit the amount of irrigation that is sustainable. We cannot use ground and surface water faster than its recharge rate. Doing so would simply be mining the water resources.
Irrigation volume should not be sized to the maximum amount of water available annually or even to the average amount. Irrigation volume must take a realistic account of the minimum amount available in dry years in the future.
Fees that farmers pay for water do not currently reflect water's true value. As water becomes scarcer, fees that farmers are asked to pay will surely rise. Irrigation projects that seem financially viable for farmers today may become uneconomic in the future for farmers.
In light of the potential of climate change to dramatically alter Canada's supplies of ground and surface water, the NFU recommends that Canada develop a long-term national water-use policy and allocation plan.
We further recommend that new irrigation projects and expansions of existing projects be evaluated within that long-term national plan.
In many parts of Canada, moisture levels are decreasing overall, but rain and snowfall, when it comes, can be heavy. Many farmers are simultaneously adapting to drier land, but also installing tile drainage systems to deal with occasional wet springs and heavy rainfall.
There is a need to improve and rethink drainage systems. Often the water from such systems is lost to the crop rather than being held for future use. Perhaps farming practices or drainage systems can be altered to retain as much water as possible in the land or reservoirs where appropriate. The NFU recommends more research into drainage systems and water trapping, and into helping farmers deal with drier conditions punctuated by increasingly concentrated rainfall.
I will turn next to water use, allocation, privatization and exports. Currently, industry is allowed to use water for questionable purposes. Many of you have seen the recent headlines in Alberta over the use of fresh water in oil wells. Companies pump fresh water down oil wells to force out every last drop of oil. The water is then lost. Other industries are polluting surface water and groundwater.
The NFU recommends that to adapt to climate change, Canada must stop the industrial waste of our increasingly precious water. One way to rein in the waste is to increase the fees charged for water. At the same time, we caution that water must not be turned into a commodity. Price alone will not ensure proper allocation of water. Farmers and rural residents cannot compete for increasingly scarce water if it is turned into a commodity.
Finally, water must continue to be a public good distributed by public utilities. It must not be privatized or exported. The NFU recommends that water must remain a public good, must not be commodified or privatized, and must not be exported or traded.
I turn to shelter belts and woodlots. Planting trees in shelter belts helps mitigate climate change. Trees absorb and sequester carbon, which helps in adaptation. Trees catch snowfall and buffer drying winds.
More intense rainfall will mean increased soil runoff into watercourses. Planting trees in riparian areas can protect rivers, streams and lakes from soil and chemical runoff. The NFU recommends that the federal government continue its support of the excellent Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, that it make the PFRA national, and that the federal government provide tax incentives to farmers who establish or maintain shelter belts or woodlots and reforest riparian areas.
I turn to the issue of supporting family farms and mixed farms. If, because of climate change, we do not know what the relative economics of grain production versus livestock production will be in any given area of the country, does it make sense to replace adaptable mixed production family farms with corporate specialized producers? To put it differently, climate change may make industrial hog production impossible in the future, through restrictions on water use, feed shortages or higher feed prices. If we transfer hog production to corporate mega-barns, will those corporate producers adapt and begin growing crops or raising dairy cows? Most likely, those corporations will simply leave.
Small and medium-sized family farms are adaptable. They are resilient and committed to their land. Over the past generation, we have adapted to market forces by shifting production between a wide range of crops and livestock. Many have made large transitions, moving from grain production to forage production, or moving from dairy production to beef production.
As variability and uncertainty grow in farming, adaptable family farm agriculture becomes increasingly important. The NFU recommends protecting and nourishing the family farm as the single most important thing that Canada can do to ensure that its food system can adapt to climate change.
Ms. Duncan: So what is our future? Is it huge corporate mega-barns that maximize the use of water in hog production and threaten to pollute the water they do not use? Is it these same producers that sweep into a community, produce for 15 years, and leave when the water runs out or the grain prices rise. Is it a smaller family farm production that adapts to change and clings tenaciously to the land? Will we take steps to end the farm income crisis and give farmers the economic stability they need to cope with increasing climate instability, or will we tolerate the status quo and add a climate crisis to the income crisis?
Climate change can smash Canada's food system if that system is brittle, if it has overlarge, overspecialized operations and lack of diversity, or if it is fragile and drained by constant working due to a grinding farm income crisis.
In evaluating Canadian agriculture's potential for adapting to climate change, we must not take an over-technical or narrow view. Will Monsanto develop a genetically engineered wheat that will grow in a desert? That view brought us to this crisis. Rather, we must look at our food system as a complex web of interconnected human and natural systems. The economic health of our family farms and the structure of our food system will play a decisive role in whether Canada grows and prospers during the next 50 years, or whether it declines under the onslaught of inhospitable and unpredictable weather.
The rest of our brief deals with mitigation issues. I wanted to touch on several highlights and recommendations before closing.
With regard to mitigation and stopping climate change, we have specific recommendations that the government swiftly implement the Kyoto accord and negotiate and implement new agreements to bring greenhouse gas emissions into balance more quickly with the global system. We also have specific recommendations on transportation.
Canadian grain transportation policies, such as tearing up branch lines and moving grain and food on to trucks, increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate change gases. World trade agreements that globalize markets and stimulate needless food trade have a similar effect.
Trains are two to three times more fuel-efficient than trucks. Train emissions are one half to one third of that for trucks over comparable distances. In 2003, six years after drafting the Kyoto accord, it is impossible to justify the tearing up and melting of railway tracks. This is perhaps one of the most wasteful policies that we have seen in the last 100 years.
The NFU recommends that the federal government alter its food and transportation policies to localized food production, and to maximize the efficiency of transportation when food must be exported or imported. To these ends, it should stop branch line abandonment and elevator closure, take food out of the WTO agreement, work with countries around the world toward food sovereignty, reverse corporate concentration within the food system, and stop the industrialization of agriculture and the destruction of family farms.
With regard to farming practices, we recommend that the government support organic agriculture and other forms of low-input agriculture to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. With regard to livestock production, we recommend that the Government of Canada regulate livestock production to encourage decentralized, grass-based production. We recommend the government regulate competition to increase the number of firms in the meat processing sector in Canada, and to increase the number of facilities they operate. We recommend government keep meat processing firms local and regulate meat processing in a way that protects the health of all Canadians but also fosters local, smaller abattoirs in communities across this country.
Ms. Duncan: In conclusion, localizing food production systems and moving toward organic agriculture can reduce energy use and CO2 emissions.
Rationalizing transportation systems and using existing rails can have a similar effect. These policies can help simultaneously to reduce climate instability, cut government costs, help Canada meet its Kyoto commitments and increase the net incomes of farm families. Unfortunately our national polices are driving us in the opposite direction. If our nations and cultures are to survive climate change, it will take all our cleverness and technology to adapt. Far more important, it will take all our wisdom to fundamentally alter the basis of our economies and cultures. Adaptation may buy us a little time for this transition.
Senator Gustafson: Thank you for a good report. I have a problem with it, though. For instance, rail-lines have already been abandoned and trucks are already moving grain, at least in the western Prairies. Many new grain terminals have gone up, and they are big. You have all heard about the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool not being able to finance their operations. Those rail lines are gone and the terminals are there. Much of that happened after the Crow debate that took place 15 years ago. We used to sit all night on the Crow debate.
I see no way that the situation will ever change. In fact, it is multiplying. On the Regina-Minneapolis line where I live, you see truck after truck, more than there were 10 years ago. Rail transport is history.
The organic approach is what my grandfather did. Few chemicals were used. Livestock was running on the land. We did not have the methods to keep everything fallowed black, so things were growing on the land. Again, we have moved exactly the opposite way. We have larger farms. We are into continuous cropping. We have to use sprays.
You have analyzed it exactly right. For instance, we are spraying for the plague of grasshoppers on the Prairies. Some say we will be infested to no end. We will go out there with sprayers to kill the grasshoppers, and we will kill every other bug in the field, too. That will do just the opposite of what you recommend.
To do what you suggest will take consideration by everyone in the country. You said we should take grain out of production. As ADM advertised this morning over CNN, the world is starving and we have to feed the starving world. Canadian Foodgrains Bank says demand for grain in Ethiopia and countries like that is more than we can give. I see no way out except to change our whole method.
I agree that we should talk to countries like Europe and the United States and other food-producing countries. As long as the farmer must pocket the expense, we will go in the opposite direction to what you suggest.
Our chairman will probably speak to the hog issue, but the large hog barns in the Prairies are a reality. A dry-straw operation could not handle the numbers of hogs in those barns. We have gone so far in the wrong direction there may be no return. That is not a good commentary on what has happened to agriculture in regards to climate change and the whole subject we face.
Mr. Ollikka: We do not suggest that we turn back the clock. I do not share the same sense of hopelessness. If all has progressed and nothing can be changed or altered, then I am wasting my time here and so is everyone in this room. Every time I breathe in air, I expel carbon dioxide. I do not need to talk to anyone on a hopeless cause and neither do you, senator. My point is, nothing will change if we do not collectively, as a society, think about these issues. We do not have to change overnight either. We have been going down this road for 15 years since we talked about the Crow rate. Many issues have been a long time in developing and some will take a long time to solve. We make no apology for that, but that does not mean we do not have the obligation to make hard decisions, not just on our farms but throughout industry and government. Everyone needs to take the bull by the horns.
Some of it is a matter of disinterested research. We pointed to some new ways in our presentation that can be developed with disinterested research. Right now, almost all research is done by the specialized private sector. Those people have a specific interest in anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, where a natural gas pipe comes in one side of a plant and another pipe of equal size comes out with anhydrous ammonia fertilizer. That is fossil fuel energy. Our agriculture system is increasingly dependent on that. We must start breaking that dependency. That speaks to a change in attitude as much as a change in policy and we are all responsible for that.
Senator Fairbairn: I will try to reign myself in here. What you said in your presentation is almost a picture of what exists in my part of our province, in southwestern Alberta. In almost every aspect, your report is like a template.This is not only a threat to our agriculture community but to the survival of our towns and small communities. Is this a view you share? Should we focus as well on developing alternate opportunities on the land where it may not be possible to grow things we have traditionally grown? I am thinking of things like natural fibre in terms of animals — alpaca, llamas, sheep, mohair. A major world export industry is developing that way. Should we look at those kinds of solutions or innovations?
You are a young person and you are still on the land. My concern is that families of our farmers who are watching their parents at this point in history will say, ``Good heavens, why would I want to go through that?'' We must have some kind of answer for them. It probably has to be a newish kind of answer. Perhaps in some of these side industries there are technological values that appeal to a growing part of our population of young Canadians.
We may be facing not only a crisis in climate but a crisis in farm population because of the lack of desire to fight the old fight. Can we give them a new option to keep them on the land and keep our towns alive?
Mr. Ollikka: Yes, those kinds of options are out there. It is not just a discussion that has to occur in rural areas. There needs to be a discussion and debate within the entire urban population who must take a holistic view as to where their food comes from, where all our food comes from and what types of production are necessary to bring food to them that is good for the environment and good for the economies of those small communities.
This speaks again to Senator Gustafson's point about feeding the world. If we talk about romantic notions for a moment, the family farm and the tangible grassroots economies of rural Canada and rural communities around the world are important. They are a romantic notion. However, there are tangible things that need to be nurtured specifically through policy. We need policies and incentives of all kinds to keep those grassroot economies going.
As far as that other romantic notion about feeding the world is concerned, gone are the days when we can focus on that. That focus has been part of the problem. Export-oriented agriculture around the world has been displacing farmers in developing nations. It has been forcing them out of business for as many years as we have been doing it.
All those rural economies and production systems have to be developed. There are places in the world that cannot feed themselves. We have to continue to export in those cases, absolutely. However, we have to focus on small economies and means of production to keep the wealth local and to keep all that production as localized as possible.
I heard a metaphor from a woman by the name of Wendy Holm whom some of you may have met. She talked about capital. She said water is attracted to itself, just as capital is attracted to itself. If water is congested in large rivers that overflow its banks we know what happens. We have only to ask the people of Winnipeg. It wreaks destruction and havoc in its path and leaves the hinterlands dry and unproductive. However, if you spread water out, just as you spread capital out, thinly and over a vast territory, you start to germinate local economies. Things start to happen in those rural areas. That is where policy needs to focus to keep production germinating in the hinterlands.
Senator Day: My question arises from page 8 of your presentation under the heading ``Research'' where you talk about recommending an independent publicly funded research system that will make Canada a world leader in food production. This committee has had the opportunity to visit a number of Agriculture Canada research stations. One was in the Annapolis Valley and the other in Fredericton. We saw good work going on there.
My question is in two parts. First, do you feel that the research which is publicly funded now through these agriculture research stations is inadequate? Second, do you believe that genetic modification of plants and the use of science to genetically modify plants is a way of adapting to the rigours of climate change?
Mr. Ollikka: The answer to the first part of the question is that, in many ways, they are doing an excellent job. We encourage more public funding of more public research, which is explicit in our presentation.
Concerning research and its relationship between public and private sector research institutions, some say they work hand in glove, while others say they work hand in pocket.
The bottom line is you have to watch that fuzzy line between public disinterested research and private interested research. You have to find that line, make it distinct, remember who you serve and what the motives of the researchers are. It is as simple as that.
Senator Day: For clarification, are you suggesting that the current system is not working and we need more publicly funded research?
Mr. Ollikka: Absolutely. We need more publicly funded research with probably less emphasis on private research that has specific motives.
That leads into the second part of your question, senator. There has been a lot of that type of private research over the last 20 or 30 years. All of it has been great science and farmers have adapted to it willingly and energetically. We have been promised that if we continue to adapt to the nth degree in terms of new technological change we will be more profitable.
Anhydrous ammonia was going to make us profitable, as was Roundup. Many of these technologies were supposed to make us profitable. Over the last 30 years our exports have increased 500 per cent. We have cranked up production. That has been tremendously successful. However, realized net farm income on every farm in Canada has dropped over the same period of time, which goes back to the question of reinvestment in our farms. If we are not making money on our farms, then we cannot reinvest in sustainable production. If we cannot reinvest in sustainable production, then we will continue to follow these dangerous and environmentally hazardous trends. It is as simple as that. We continue to pump anhydrous ammonia, but to what avail?
I would like to relate anecdotal evidence from southern Saskatchewan. I talked to a farmer who is not an organic farmer but who attempts to follow some of these different methods. He used a green-legume plough-down. He ploughed in some alfalfa. In that way, he put nitrogen on his field to grow his next year's crop for less than one-tenth the price of anhydrous ammonia.
Private research into those types of technologies has been successful on one scientific end, but it has not made us more money on the farms. It has not done anything for the environment. As a result, we have to rethink where we direct our research dollars.
Senator Hubley: On Prince Edward Island we have both small and large farms. We have two of the largest potato producing plants in the world. I do not think that will change. As much as I like the idea of the family farm that seems to be more manageable as far as polluting goes, I think we still have to deal with the issue that there will be large farms. They will feed produce to these large plants that produce food. It is a business.
The large farms are more apt to be governed by legislation because they have the potential of being very damaging. They have to adhere to guidelines through legislation.
I will ask your opinion on what can be legislated concerning how companies use water, but I want to go on to irrigation. The same large processing plants, to ensure they get their product, are now putting pressure to use extensive irrigation systems. This will be a mega-use of our water.
On the side of the large processing plants, Prince Edward Island was impacted by pollution in the streams years ago, when emissions from these plants were flushed out. Both companies now have put in sophisticated systems to purify anything that comes out of their plant before it is put back into the environment. When that happened, they sought out the necessary information at great expense to the companies. Expensive systems were required to carry on business in Prince Edward Island. There is a certain comfort level for all Prince Edward Islanders because of that.
However, even small farmers have a responsibility. We were in Northern Ireland, where we visited farms that were designated as best farming practices farms. Those farmers were reimbursed for their efforts to make their farms more environmentally sensitive. We would call it a subsidy, but it was not mandatory. It was a buy-in system. If the farmer had the initiative to make his farm a best practice farm, he would be financially compensated. There were good systems, and these were small farmers.
To pull all this together, do we need legislation to make some of these things happen? Does legislation make it easier for governments to look at best farming practices and compensate farmers for their work to protect the water systems? We still have the same amount of water, but it is not as good condition as it once was.
Ms. Duncan: In Ontario, we are faced with a Nutrient Management Act. That law has come into effect and we are now dealing with the requirements. Farmers are giving input. The NFUO, the Ontario branch of the National Farmers Union, has put in several briefs on how to apply this law.
In general, we support the Nutrient Management Act, particularly as it applies to large farms. We ask for mitigation for the small and medium-sized farms to get up to speed, and we ask specifically for funding.
You heard the word on farmers' income across Canada. There is none. To keep people on the farm and feeling optimistic about what they do, they need support to deal with these legislations, which seem to be coming from everywhere. Rather than sitting firmly on the shoulders of farmers, the costs should be shared with people who eat the products we grow on our farms.
Is legislation necessary? Possibly, yes, perhaps across Canada, but always with the view, at whose cost? It is a big concern for us. I am on the upper side of middle-aged, but I still feel hope for farming in Canada. However, I feel the hope is in small and medium-sized farms that support their communities, care about whether they pollute the groundwater, and grow good food for their neighbours and people within driving distance of them.
There are areas where we could improve our farming condition. I am from Nova Scotia originally, but I love our farm in P.E.I. I am completely attached to it. It has been in my husband's family since 1820. We care about our land and we want to make a living there, but it is a difficult thing to do.
A lot of the reasons have to do with the kinds of policies that organizations like this have the power to make in Canada. You have the power to make recommendations to support us rather than grind us into the ground. That is why I wanted to be here to support this presentation by the National Farmers Union, who deeply cares about the condition of farmers across Canada.
Did I answer any part of your question?
Senator Hubley: Yes, you did. On behalf of corporate farmers, I want to say that we have good corporate farmers and sometimes they lead the way because public pressure can be brought upon a company. In support of them — certainly on Prince Edward Island — we applaud the work they have done.
Ms. Duncan: I do not wish to say I do not support all farmers; I do. I hope they will move in the direction that is more appropriate, but that does not mean I do not support them.
Senator Ringuette-Maltais: I appreciate the recommendations that you made, from the perspective of my northern New Brunswick area. I listened with keen ears to your comments about hog mega-barns. You better be careful at what time of the year you travel the roads from Montreal to the East Coast, because you can smell those mega-barns.
Many mega-barns have been built in the last year, particularly in New Brunswick. They have been contested by the local population and the general provincial population; supported by the potato farmers; and licensed by the provincial government, which funded the infrastructure with provincial government money.
Who is right and who is wrong? I see this as an education awareness program for consumers and producers. At one end, Canadians want good quality food at the lowest price. At the other end, some groups of farming communities support these mega-productions.
I see where you stand from your recommendation, but what is the degree of awareness within the farming community about these situations? Your recommendation has the support of the general population, but I do not see, in New Brunswick, support from the farming community.
Mr. Ollikka: Every region of the country has experienced the hog mega-barn phenomenon over the last few years. Perhaps there are small demographic differences, but I can speak from experience in Alberta on hog mega-barns. Much of the support for those kinds of changes comes from desperation. People in those communities look for something that will give them a job. It is an investment in the community. The pitch from the promoters of mega-barns is that they are good for the community.
It is not whether an operation is a corporation or has a simple corporate structure. People need to focus on the scale and degree of meaningful ownership of those operations. The majority of large industrial-sized operations are investor- owned. Some are offshore. Wealth from those operations is exported and not reinvested in the community, by and large. Support in little pockets here and there for mega-barns is clearly desperation.
Through legislation and public policy, you can implement best practices and provide incentives to small and medium-sized operations. Through policy you can try to keep meaningful ownership in the hands of family farmers. You can have incentives and rewards also for best environmental practices and new, sustainable innovative techniques. There are many of them.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank both witnesses for taking the time to appear before the committee. Your recommendations have been well received. If you could see the frustrating looks that senators have given me because they have not been able to ask more questions, you would realize how popular your presentation has been.
Ms. Duncan: We have a farm outside the city. If you have not already seen what a real farm looks like, we have a medium-sized farm in Eastern Ontario. We invite you to our home to see our operation.
The Deputy Chairman: Could you give your card and directions to our clerk? We will leave that up to him.
Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Kamenz and Ms. Howe.
Mr. Geri Kamenz, Chair, Environment and Science Committee and Vice-President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: I am here as the Chair of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture Environment Committee. Nicole Howe is our policy analyst on environmental issues. Also, I chair the Environment Advisory Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which has given me the opportunity to travel coast to coast over the last nine months and meet with producers almost every province.
I also have the luxury to be a first generation farmer, with my wife. We farm in the urban shadow of Ottawa, about 45 minutes south of the city. We farm both extensively and intensively.
The extensive portion is our cattle operation, and wee grow field crops to propagate genetically modified seeds for further distribution. For all intents and purposes this morning the intensive part of our farming operation qualifies as a mega-hog farm. Moreover, we pride ourselves in running a profitable family farm.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents over 200,000 farm families from coast to coast. Our members include a general farm organization in each province and national commodity associations.
Our comments focus on adaptation to climate change by the agricultural industry and leave other issues for another time.
The premise that climate is changing is accepted by the international community and our federal government. The extreme weather many producers have faced over the past years has undoubtedly raised the profile of climate change in the agricultural community as well. Climate change is resulting in the increase of intense and severe weather patterns. Floods, droughts and extreme temperature fluctuations are symptoms of climate change.
It is almost ironic to talk about climate change and global warming today when the temperature outside is -25oC with a wind chill making it much colder. However, it is like a child on a swing set. Someone keeps pushing that swing. It gathers momentum and swings farther and farther and the extremes are farther apart. The cold is colder. The dry spells and heat are longer and more intense in duration. These are all symptoms of climate change.
This direct impact of climate change on a resource-based sector such as the agriculture industry is easy to understand. Weather changes that lead to intense floods, droughts, diseases and overall more extremes will significantly impact current farming production practices and programs. Producers face changes in growing seasons, rises in insurance costs, shifts in commodities and great pest pressures, among numerous other issues.
The agriculture industry is known for its ability to adapt to changes, but climate change poses direct challenges because of the complex nature of the issue and the lack of certainty surrounding the rate of climate change and inability to predict regional impacts.
Scientific knowledge regarding the impact of climate change is vague at best. For producers to prepare and adapt to a changing climate, we must better understand what the future holds for producers across Canada. Adaptation strategies must be targeted regionally to reflect the regional diversity of the agriculture industry and the varied impacts of climate change across the country.
The most stable area across the country in terms of climate change is 20 minutes south of the city. There is sometimes a lack of rain. At times, there is too much rain. However, it never goes from drought to flooding. As you move across the country, extremes are more extreme. It is difficult for people within this area to accept and recognize the true impact of climate change. In large part, this area is protected from the extremes.
The CFA strongly recommends more work to understand the regional impacts of climate change so accurate and adaptive strategies can be promoted to the agriculture industry.
CFA recommends that the government continue to direct resources toward understanding the implications of climate change. It recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada undertake a comprehensive impact study on the effects of climate change on Canadian agriculture.
As climate variability is further defined and understood, the CFA strongly supports ongoing research of practical adaptive options for the agriculture community. CFA supports adaptation options that are based on science but take into consideration the economic realities facing farm operations, the feasibility of options and the impacts on overall environment sustainability.
CFA urges the federal government to define a national strategy by working with the research community and agricultural organizations to facilitate the identification, coordination and funding of research priorities and technology transfer.
CFA recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada play an integral role in funding and coordinating greenhouse research to reduce duplication and provide a central location for the agriculture industry to access results of this research.
Concerning mitigation of climate change, producers need accurate and timely warnings of upcoming weather events. Accurate and timely weather forecasts can protect the environment. For example, a pesticide application before a rain storm causes runoff. Accurate and timely weather forecasts also allow producers to take actions to mitigate weather damage to their crops. Another example is frost protection in the fruit industry.
Improving weather information will benefit the economic and environment sustainability of farm operations.
CFA recommends increased funding to the meteorological services branch of Environment Canada to maintain and upgrade its weather services across Canada.
Innovations and new technologies from the biotech industry hold much promise in reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change. Adaptive innovations, such as new varieties and hybrids must be consistent with maintaining international competitiveness of Canadian agriculture.
Canadian farmers are leaders in sustainable agricultural practices. They have a history of developing and adopting techniques to benefit the Canadian environment. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture believes that great importance should be placed on environmental management to maintain land resources which provide food for the people of Canada and a large part of the world's population. Since producers take many stewardship initiatives on their farms that also benefit the Canadian public, farmers should be compensated fairly for costs associated with providing these public benefits.
CFA promotes ``mitigative'' or adaptive practices that are consistent with maintaining the international competitiveness of Canadian agriculture. The CFA also promotes practices that can be recommended to farmers based on cost effective and other benefits such as environmental improvements and that are complementary with ongoing environmental efforts and current farm management practices.
Climate change can affect farm incomes in two ways. First, more variability and extreme weather conditions will have a direct impact on primary production. Second, the combination of weather-related production losses and increased input costs would put pressure on both revenues and expenses. The drought in the Prairies over the past three years shows the devastation that extreme weather conditions can wreak on crop production. As well, environmental stresses such as extreme heat leads to lower productivity in livestock.
To address future weather challenges, Canadian producers of both crops and livestock must have access to effective insurance programs. CFA recommends that production risk programs be maintained and improved. In the absence of a disaster program that covers negative margins, governments must provide effective production insurance for all commodities that are not adequately covered by traditional crop insurance.
Also, increased energy costs will affect producers directly through increased energy bills on the farm and indirectly through increased costs for energy-dependent inputs such as fertilizer. CFA recommends a national safety net package based on four pillars: income stabilization, disaster assistance, production insurance, and companion programs to provide support when necessary.
Certain commodities rely on the system of supply management rather than on safety net programs to manage the risks of increased input costs. CFA recommends that supply management be recognized as a business risk management program under the agricultural policy framework. The CFA also recommends that the government recognize and commit to defending the three pillars that underlie supply management: border measures, the ability to set prices, and the ability to manage supply.
In conclusion, agriculture is a high-risk business. Unlike many other primary industries, it is comprised of a large number of individual farms. A priority must be to provide Canadian agriculture with the tools to create a stable and healthy agricultural environment. Notwithstanding that good management is a prerequisite for success, a majority of the factors determining receipts and input costs are beyond the farmer's control. Variability such as unpredictable weather conditions, fluctuations in market prices and government support to competing farmers in other countries are a few examples. Climate change will undermine the ability of Canadian farmers to compete effectively. Governments, industry and the scientific community must work together to give producers the tools they need to offset the risks related to climate change.
Senator Gustafson: Your report seems to be the opposite of what we heard from the National Farmers Union. In the Rrairies, 80 per cent of production is produced by 20 per cent of the farmers. Many farmers have off-farm jobs to keep their farm alive. There is no question we are moving in the direction that scientists and good scientific research have directed the farm. Yet, the National Farmers Union this morning feels it is going the wrong way.
We cannot turn back the clock. Within five years, you will have genetically modified wheat. On my own farm, I would not even grow genetically modified canola, but it is a trend. The report you gave this morning identifies the scientific direction as the way we will go. The government appears to be backing that. Not much is said about genetically modified wheat, but do you think Monsanto will win the battle? You seem to be on the side of the scientific community, and there is nothing wrong with that. It may be entirely right. There is much discourse about that today, and the government is looking for guidance from their farmers on hog barns and so on.
Who does government take a lead from on these issues? It must be confusing for the Department of Agriculture to look at this situation. Yet, certain things are a reality.
Mr. Kamenz: Consolidation within the industry, within agriculture, within any sector of the economy, is nothing new. All one has to do is look back into history and recognize that consolidation has been happening since we settled this country. That is the road we are on. We can debate what events in history have sped that process up or slowed it down. That is the road I am on as an individual producer. I do not know within the greater social context whether that is good or bad. It plays out differently as you move across the country. In an urban province such as Ontario, people have the opportunity to find jobs within the urban centres so the social pressure is not there on the communities. As you move to Western Canada, it can be devastating, and it has devastated communities in Western Canada. However, producers continue to expand as a matter of survival. We are not building empires. We have to expand to stay in business.
In terms of genetically modified organisms entering the marketplace, the more pressures on the industry, the closer the relationship between the chemical and seed industry and individual producers and government. We are in a three- way partnership on many projects, to find solutions, because it is not just a matter of a Monsanto returning income to its shareholders. I am naive enough to suggest that we are working together to find solutions.
Senator Gustafson: This committee travelled to Europe. The average farmer here perhaps puts on 200 pounds of fertilizer, but in Europe, which prides itself on environmentally sound projects, they put on 400 pounds three times a year. That seems to be the trend.
On our own farm, we have gone to continuous seeding. Either we put in more fertilizer, or we do not grow a crop. That is the trend. The biggest part of the Prairies is in continuous cropping. While a few are moving back to summerfallow, they are very few. That seems to be the trend.
When you use more fertilizer, more sprays are necessary, because when you do not cultivate the land, more bugs eat up your crop — black beetles, grasshoppers, et cetera. That is the trend. That is where we are headed. We have done that to try to save our soil.
To produce more, because our incomes were low and we did not want to be big farms, we had no choice. You either expanded or got out of the business.
Mr. Kamenz: In the micro sense, as an individual producer, I go through the budget each year and see my fertilizer and pesticide costs creeping up. When you look at the country as a whole, we have much to be proud of. We can talk about climate change, but you cannot separate out the Kyoto agreement any more. One thing we are pushing hard for under Kyoto is recognition for early action. If you go back to the base period of 1990, farmers have reduced pesticide use by upwards of 50 per cent. That is something to be incredibly proud of when you look at the increases in production and also the amount of tillage. The Prairies would have blown away over the last three years had they not gone to direct seeding and conservation practices. In a small sense, we may seem to use more, but in the overall sense, we are doing a better job with less.
Senator Gustafson: You are farming in an area close to an urban centre. That gives you a tremendous advantage because the price of your land is higher. If you cannot farm and make a go of it, you can build houses on it and really make money.
A farmer in Kelowna tried to subdivide his farm and the city outlawed it. What did he do? He got himself 50 pigs and ran them up against the highway right in town. He will keep the pigs there until they subdivide his farm.
This does not happen in the Prairies. The United States, however, is taking measures, in particular around Atlanta, Georgia. I have driven through that part of the country. There are 15 acres here and there. Then you see a $1 million home with three horses in the pasture. They are losing their farmland. We in Canada are in the danger of that happening too, unless we have legislation to stop it.
It will not happen in Macoun, Saskatchewan, but it will around Toronto, in the Lower Mainland and so on. In the U.S. they have a 99-year program lease where the government pays the farmer for his land.
Mr. Kamenz: As a farmer, I view the luxury of high land prices as negative. All we farmers can afford to pay for land is what it is worth in terms of its productive value.
This morning, I passed many of my neighbours on Highway 416, most of whom are civil servants or work in the high-tech sector of Ottawa. For all intents and purposes one of my intensive operations is a hog barn. I must be able to balance the social requirements that those commuters have. We have been able to do that. There are production practices that you can use to mitigate against disruption to their lifestyle.
We absolutely need environmental legislation. In fact, we are getting it in Ontario. However, at the end of the day all the legislation has to be workable. It must be enforceable. There is no point setting the bar way up here with absolutely no intention of enforcing it. Last week we were on a farm in Alberta, which is moving toward stricter environmental legislation. The discussion we had concerned western feedlots at High River, Alberta. Cumulatively, they grow 93,000 steers at any one time. In that location, they had 30,000 steers on feed. If you set the bar high enough, the industry feels pushed to be big to comply.
We need environmental legislation, but it has to be reasonable. It has to be developed in partnership with industry and policy makers so that, at the end of the day, it will benefit society as a whole. As well, it must be workable legislation.
Senator Gustafson: The American program is so strong that they will not sell their farms. It is more beneficial to keep them and work under lease arrangements.
Senator Chalifoux: On page 4 of your presentation you talk about weather services. We have been informed in our northern and western caucuses that regional weather stations are closing. That concerns not only farmers but anyone living in rural areas especially. They are planning to move to five large centres in Canada. It is the same satellite that the United States uses. In Maine, two weather stations serve the whole country. What effect will closing regional weather stations have on farming?
Mr. Kamenz: For a number of years it has been a serious concern that both federal and provincial services have been withdrawn to save costs. At the end of the day there is potentially a huge environmental price tag on this. First, I want to get the maximum economic benefit out of the products that I apply as well as reduce or minimize their environmental impact. My inability to access accurate weather information limits and sets the stage for small incidents that could lead to major environmental disasters. We view it as a serious threat.
We come back to the whole premise of this discussion that weather events will be more frequent, more severe and more extreme in nature. Taking that major tool away from an industry that is weather dependent sets the stage for disaster.
Senator Chalifoux: Is your organization negotiating and working with government departments regarding this? Are you bringing your concerns to them?
Ms. Nicole Howe, Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: We have written to Environment Minister Anderson stating our concerns. He replied that there are financial issues with the Meteorological Service of Canada and he will work with the Minister of Agriculture under the agriculture policy framework to see what can be done. We will continue to push for more funding for that organization so that services can be provided.
Senator Chalifoux: They will save between $1 million and $2 million a year, which is nothing. We are heading for disaster.
The Deputy Chairman: The effects of climate change are now moving toward the extremes. There are extreme rains, frost and heat. Society has done a tremendous job in screwing up the climate around the world. I do not think any country is free of blame. Both presentations this morning centred on mitigation versus adaptation.
In what I have heard so far, mitigation is geared toward how we implement Kyoto. If we did all the things they want us to do under Kyoto, such as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all we would have done is slow down climate change. It will take a long time for that to happen.
Our concern, and mine especially, is how we adapt to those extremes, while protecting our food supply and farming industry. All the things we have talked about and heard this morning relate to mitigation. That will not solve the long- term problems, such as those caused by ice storms, or the flooding of the Red River in Manitoba, or the problem of drought three years in a row.
Has your association looked at adaptation processes in the event of severe floods and long-term drought?
Mr. Kamenz: When you said society has created this problem, I include myself as part of that problem. The best we can hope to do is minimize further impact, but we must recognize that we live on a dynamic and evolving planet. Climate change is part of the planet's natural evolution. Yes, adaptation becomes the key.
We came this morning with an eight-page brief, which is short because we do not have all the answers. We spend a great deal of energy positioning ourselves and lining up with people who are doing the science-based research so that, as technologies are developed and the science is formulated, we are at the table. We want the opportunity to access information and come back to a forum such as this with recommendations to encourage commitments in different areas.
I do not have the answers. You are right on the money in saying it really is all about adaptation. Regardless of what we do, the climate will continue to change. In Canada, we look into parts of the mid-west and see the semi-arid and arid areas growing, and the temperate areas growing as well. There will be loss, and potentially new opportunities or new areas for production. As we learn more about what will happen and where, we can position ourselves better to develop public policy to respond to those realities.
The Deputy Chairman: I hope your association will let us know when you do come out with new ideas, concerns and concepts. If we hear about them, we will certainly call you back.
Senator Fairbairn: There is much in this presentation and the other presentation that none of us would disagree with. When it comes right down to it, the question is how you do it. How do you make this a reality?
Farmers are ``doers.'' In my area, in late fall, researchers in the Alberta agriculture research branch observed that the province of Alberta needed a major snowfall down from the mountains, runoff, spring rains, and the whole thing. If the province did not get it, 90 per cent of the productive land in Alberta would not be productive. Ironically, in the worst part of Alberta in terms of drought, my area in southwestern Alberta, the climate turned in a peculiar way and we have had floods. One always likes to get water, but the floods came during seeding, so many farmers could not get their seeds in. They also came during that part of the fall, August and September, when many crops and vegetables, such as corn, sugar beets and potatoes, need a hot finish to harvest for the export market. Many crops are rotting in the fields now because it was cold and wet. The land is under stress and the people are under enormous stress.
We tell them that there may be ways to deal with climate change, and I see our friend from Ducks Unlimited sitting here today. It is sad. My part of the country used to be one of the most significant parts in North America because people came from all around the world during the hunting season. If you asked a child today where the wetland was, or what a marsh was, they would think you were nuts. They do not know. The ducks and geese live on Henderson Lake in the middle of Lethbridge now.
The Deputy Chairman: They come to Saskatchewan now.
Senator Fairbairn: These are such huge issues that it is hard even for a committee or people like some of our colleagues who are farmers themselves to come to grips with.
A fundamental question is how we get a buy-in from the farmers. How do we involve the farming community in the logical processes in your brief? We need them to actively participate. We can propose all the solutions, mitigations or adaptations that we could imagine, but we need them to buy in at a time when they are stressed to bits, more than they have been for generations. How do we make them active, creative parts of these methods you talk about? They are the ones who have to do it. They are the ones who are killing off their herds, which is one of the worst things one can ever imagine for a rancher to do. How do we bring them in and give them hope, other than their wonderful eternal hope that next year will be better? They may not have high-tech, scientific ideas, but the farmers know the land. They know sometimes that what may be suggested in Ottawa or Queen's Park or Edmonton, is not that workable or practical when it comes to down on the ground.
Mr. Kamenz: Your last comment is one that we should not take away from and one that we should really lend more credence to, and that is one of this eternal hope.
Producers are unique. Farmers are unique in that eternal hope is what drives this. The buy-in is there. Producers are adapting. Producers are pushing the envelope. Producers are putting in the water metres to see where their resources are going and how they manage those in the most effective fashion possible.
As to the wetlands having disappeared, we feel stressed when we see NGOs, governments or different sectors of society pointing at the farmer and saying, ``Those wetlands are no longer there because you drained them.'' Many of those wetlands are no longer there because it does not rain enough to sustain them.
Senator Fairbairn: Also, we have built suburban housing on them.
Mr. Kamenz: Exactly, or society has deemed its needs to be in excess of maintaining that wet particular wetland. That is the stress that the individual producer feels. As the stewards of Canada's natural resources, for the most part, we also are the centre of blame when things go off the rails. Society conveniently overlooks conscious decisions they make that their needs somehow outweigh the need to have those wetlands or those areas of biodiversity.
As to the suggestion that farmers have not bought in, we are all very much bought in.
Senator Fairbairn: I did not mean bought in, I mean brought in. You obviously represent organizations that focus on this but he issue is beyond the organization. I am putting the ``R'' in the ``bought;'' it is the ``brought.'' How best can we get this strong joint partnership that we will need in order to fight some of these natural and unnatural scientific pieces that we can talk about here in Canada and then find we cannot sell canola in Europe because they will not take it if it is modified?
Mr. Kamenz: Our brief speaks to some of the essentials. We would like to see commitment back into weather services, because that is an essential tool in the farmers' box that helps to make planning decisions.
Senator Fairbairn: Do we need more strength and broader connecting links, such as PFRA?
Mr. Kamenz: We should not limit ourselves to one agency as the be all and end all. To find those solutions, government and industry need to get closer together to find out what are the most cost-effective adaptation or mitigation strategies available to producers. At the end of the day, the producer — is in business risk management.
I can take a lot if I know that I am an integral part of Canadian society. When things go wrong because of extreme weather phenomena, I want to know that I am important enough to the Canadian consumer and the Canadian taxpayer that I have business risk management options available to get me through the crisis. Producers need that stability. It is not like the company is closing; we heard earlier that some of these people have been in the same area since the country was settled in the 1820s. I live in an area where the Canada Company deeded land to families. It is more than the business; it is a life. It is the Canadian heritage. It is imperative that we have adequate business risk management strategies in place for producers to get themselves through a disaster.
In the past, it has usually been price disasters. However, we are moving into an era where, more and more, it will be weather disasters. At the end of the day, the Canadian public has to decide: Do we value a domestic food supply? Do we value the people who provide the social fabric to the country? If we do, then we must put money into maintaining that.
Sen. Fairbairn: I should ask the question the other way around. I should ask you the best ways to bring the consumer into the picture. That is tough.
Mr. Kamenz: I agree with you 100 per cent. That is the tough part of the question.
Senator Day: I have two questions that arise out of your presentation today.
The first one relates to technological development. Farmers are an independent group; they like to make their own choices and do things that are right for their farms. I am intrigued by your comment with respect to genetically modified wheat. You suggest that the government of Canada should not register that at this stage. Surely registration is not forcing any farmer to use it; it is just making another tool available to the farmer. Why should government policy be used to slow down a registration process? Are we trying to protect the farmer from making a choice he should not make?
Mr. Kamenz: We tried to choose our words carefully when we expressed this thought. We were careful in saying acceptability factors should be taken into account before crops or products are registered for commercial production. All we said on the issue of transgenic wheat is that huge questions need to be answered in terms of what the impact will be on our foreign markets. Those markets provide, in many respects, the lifeblood to Canadian wheat production.
I do not know the answers. We are not saying that we should not register wheat. We are saying that you need to address those questions before you introduce that product into the marketplace so that we do not jeopardize those markets.
Senator Day: Are we confusing market economics with science? Should not the process for registering or not registering be science-driven? The market economics is another decision that should be made; perhaps you cannot get insurance for planting this product, or that kind of thing.
Why should we use the science-driven policy of register or not register, which should be based on science? Why should we say to government: Do not register that right now, even though it is good science, because the markets are not good for it?
Mr. Kamenz: In simple terms, we do not see the level of commitment from our administration to protect the price risk that potentially will go with destroying that market. We are taking a pragmatic approach in saying we need new technologies, but let us recognize and understand the economic impact of that.
As Senator Fairbairn indicated, the Canadian taxpayer is not ready to bail us out if we employ a new technology and the price goes in the tank because we no longer have a market for it. As producers, we are not sitting on the fence. We are being pragmatic and saying, let us understand the implications of some of these technologies before we go down that road.
Senator Day: To bring up the ghost of senators past, if Senator Tunney was here, he would like your comments with respect to supply management. With respect to business risk management from the federal point of view, have you done an analysis of the proposed agriculture policy framework and the income stabilization proposals that are currently being put forward? Do you have a written analysis of whether that is adequate — other than from a supply management point of view — to help with respect to the other crops from a business risk management perspective? You are right that it is critical to concentrate on that because this process is slow.
Mr. Kamenz: The business risk management chapter of the agricultural policy framework is largely that outstanding issue that many provinces have. They have taken that position because they have been directed to do so by their producers.
Negotiation is underway. We have tabled our position with both the agriculture ministry and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture. We recognize that the situation is evolving. I do not have the answer here this morning, other than to say that what is on the table now is not entirely agreeable to either provinces or producers. It needs more refinement.
Senator Day: Ms. Howe has a comment. Following that, could I ask for their written proposal to be given to us?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, it is on the record.
Ms. Howe: Neither Geri nor I are an expert on the business risk management portion. However, I could put you in contact with the staff and the producers at CFA who are more involved with that consultation.
Senator Day: Could you provide us as well with your written submission?
Ms. Howe: Definitely.
Senator Hubley: Climate change is going to be dramatic and, in some instances, there will be long-term impacts.
Does the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have any idea if the global food supply will be jeopardized at some point? If you want to engage the population, the thought of the lack of food would certainly do that. Do you have any sense that the global world may not, at one point, be able to feed its population?
Mr. Kamenz: At this point, we do not. We fall back on that historical notion that necessity breeds innovation. We see it at the producer level, and we see it driving science innovation. We will respond to the needs.
We are at the lowest stocks-to-use ratio that we have been in my life as a producer. Taking areas out of production and potentially creating shortages to force up the price is not the direction we should go.
Senator Hubley: You said the stocks-to-use ratio is at the lowest level in your lifetime. Do you see that trend continuing?
Mr. Kamenz: In all facets of society, we have become a just-in-time society. I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that people want the luxury of knowing we have a closet full of food. I see that trend continuing. That is my personal observation and feeling as a producer.
Senator Gustafson: I have a question in terms of the food basket, the amount of food that we are producing and who makes money out of it. If you look at the Canadian history in processing and the families that hold the money and have made money, many are in food processing in a big way. There was a good example of it the other day in terms of billions of dollars.
On a loaf of bread that might be $1.20, the average farmer probably gets six cents. No one is dealing with that situation. I do not like government intervention. Farmers, for the most part, want to be independent. We have a cheap food policy. For the most part, the primary producer gets little of it in terms of dollars.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is an extensive organization. Have you looked at that and what could be done?
Mr. Kamenz: Yes, we are aware of what sort of action individuals are taking.
The anecdote we use now is if you go to a restaurant and have a meal, the tip that you leave is greater than the farmer's share of that food basket.
Producers are starting to line themselves up in what we call value chains. They work more closely with the processors to find out what the processor wants, what the consumer wants, and you connect the dots. At the end of the day, they get a premium by being part of that value chain because they provide what the end-user wants. We are starting to develop those relationships between producer, retail and processing, anew level of cooperation.
The other thing we see is this new generation of co-ops. We are independent, but independent minds can think alike when there is an economic advantage for them. Producers are lining up and putting serious dollars into their own processing plants. An excellent example of this is how effective the Okanagan is at marketing and selling their apples. By Christmas, they are sold out. When you go to a store, you buy Washington apples. There are many excellent case studies of adaptive approaches that producers use to get more of their market share.
Senator Gustafson: What I get from marketing board people, especially in the milk industry, is that if the World Trade Organization rules against them, many would not survive because the American system that is working in such big numbers would overrun them.
Mr. Kamenz: I will fall back on what Ms. Howe said earlier. I am merely a farmer who has an interest in environmental and climate change issues. You are now talking about the trade file. Our President, Bob Friesen, is in Tokyo now because that is his area of specialty. I do not know the answer.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kamenz and Ms. Howe, thank you for being with us. Your presentation has generated a tremendous amount of interest among committee members.
Mr. Kamenz: We appreciate your offer to leave the door open because we see this as an evolving issue. We will try to keep pace in our own policy development as public policy develops.
The Deputy Chairman: We have four motions. The first one deals with transferring $3,000 from the heading of transport and communications to the heading of professional and other services. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: The second motion, the Agriculture and Forestry Committee approved the transfer of $1,000 from the heading of ``Transport and Communications'' to the heading of ``Other Expenditures.'' All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: You have been furnished with advance copies of our budgets.
Senator Day: We have passed these two motions. Now our chair takes these to the Internal Economy Committee?
The Deputy Chairman: No. This is within our own committee.
The next two motions deal with what goes to the Internal Economy Committee. This one is to complete the current study to the end of the year. We are asking for an additional $19,700 for the committee to do its work.
Senator Day: This is for the rest of this fiscal year?
Mr. Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: It is for the new year starting April 1 to the end of the study.
Senator Day: Is that enough?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
The other motion for $514,860 deals with the whole committee.
Senator Day: I will move the smaller one.
The Deputy Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: The last business to deal with is the budget for the new study that the committee will undertake in the year ending March 31, 2004. You have the budget before you. The total figure is $514,860. Are there any questions that you would have of the clerk?
Senator Day: We propose travelling to Western Canada, Eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec. I think that is absolutely critical.
Senator Gustafson: Has that budget been approved?
Senator Day: We are asking for approval.
The Deputy Chairman: What is your wish?
Senator Hubley: I so move.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Day: Before we adjourn, Senator Gustafson brought up the point that the minister is away dealing with an agricultural issue, matters which are of importance to this committee. Can the steering committee make an approach to the minister to let him know that we are engaged in this second study and if he is traveling we would like to have a representative to report back to us? Can we let him know that our committee should be considered on those kinds of trips?
The Deputy Chairman: That is an excellent suggestion.
Senator Day: We all cannot go, but a representative of the committee could.
The Deputy Chairman: Someone from the committee has always been invited to go with the minister. It is worthwhile reinforcing.
Is the position you would like us to take that the chair write a letter to the minister in that regard? I, too, will correspond with him.
It might not hurt to have a motion in this regard, honourable senators.
Senator Fairbairn: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.