Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 16 - Evidence - Meeting of May 1, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:03 p.m. to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector (topics: innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector from the producers' perspective; and soil conservation and its importance relative to innovation in agriculture).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I declare the meeting in session.
[Translation]
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. To the witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation. I will ask that the senators introduce themselves. We have two panels tonight, honourable senators, and each panel will be one hour.
I would ask the deputy chair to please introduce himself first.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Senator Frank Mahovlich, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth, Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, The Laurentides, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much, honourable senators.
[English]
Witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation and coming to share with us your vision and your recommendations for us going forward in agriculture for Canada, looking at the emerging and developing markets, domestically and internationally; enhancing agricultural sustainability; and also improving food diversity and security.
[Translation]
The committee is continuing its study on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector.
[English]
Today we will have two panels. First, we will be focusing on understanding innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector from the producers' perspective. The focus for the second panel will be on soil conservation and its importance relative to innovation in agriculture.
The first panel is composed of Ms. Lisa Campbell, Research Manager, and Mr. Jim Everson, Corporate Affairs Vice President, from the Canola Council of Canada. They will be followed by questions by the senators.
Mr. Everson, the floor is yours.
Jim Everson, Corporate Affairs Vice President, Canola Council of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to all honourable senators. Thank you for having us here today; it is a pleasure to be here to talk about research and innovation in the canola sector. I will start and make a couple of points, and then I will pass it over to Lisa Campbell, who will talk more about our research program.
Canola is a good example of how research and innovation can create success in the Canada's agriculture sector. Innovation and investment is the backbone of our industry. Our motto is "Innovative. Resilient. Determined to create superior value and a healthier world." Invented in the 1970s in Canada, canola is now the country's most valuable crop. Through research, the nutritional properties of canola oil and meal have been improved, and today canola is recognized as one of healthiest cooking oils available.
We would like to begin by telling you a bit about the Canola Council of Canada and the canola industry in Canada today. The Canola Council of Canada is a value chain organization representing the entire canola sector in Canada; we represent the producer point of view, but we also represent the entire industry in the value chain. The canola growers number 43,000. We also represent the seed development companies that produce the seeds that the farmers grow and add considerable new technologies and qualities to the seeds, year to year; the crushers that process seed into meal and oil; and the exporters who export canola as seed, which is processed in the country of import.
The Canola Council of Canada is the vehicle through which the industry comes together to set objectives and implement plans for the entire sector. Let me give you some basic numbers on our industry. Canola returns the highest value to farmers of any crop in Canada. In 2011, canola returned $7.3 billion in farm cash receipts to Canadian farmers. The industry supports 228,000 jobs across the country and contributes $15.4 billion annually to the Canadian economy.
Our industry has been working over the past several years towards a set of objectives for the industry, including a goal of generating demand and supply for 15 million tonnes of canola by the year 2015. In 2011, canola farmers produced a record 14.2 million tonnes, so we are confident this number will increase further and that we will meet our target by 2015.
Ms. Campbell will talk in more detail about our research priorities, so I would like to focus my comments on two areas in which federal government investment and support is particularly important to innovation in our sector. The first is in opening up and maintaining canola markets internationally. Our farmers and industry rely on international trade; we export over 85 per cent of everything we produce. As we produce more, that number will go up because there is a finite limit to the amount of consumption that will take place in Canada, so we will continue to be exporting more and more of our product. It is already an extremely high amount.
As a result, having predictable access to international markets is critical to our success. Government, through diplomacy and trade negotiations, has a big role to play in growing and maintaining our market access. Recent efforts by the government, particularly Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and International Trade Minister Ed Fast, have assisted the canola industry in prospering from international demand. Predictable and growing market access creates greater returns from the market in Canada, which are then reinvested in research and innovation. Much of this effort involves lowering tariffs on our products through trade agreements, and we welcome efforts to deepen economic ties with some of our largest economic partners, including the European community, Japan, South Korea and China.
Progress in eliminating non-tariff barriers is also important. A key focus in this area is establishing laws and regulations based on science. Canada has one of the most effective regulatory systems, ensuring that decisions on everything from crop inputs, plant genetics, biotechnology approvals and food labelling are based on sound science. Importing countries we export to also need to have science-based policies.
Investment in research and innovation depends on regulatory predictability. Without regulatory systems abroad that embrace quality science, our ability to advance our own research and innovation to improve the characteristics and sustainability of canola is compromised.
We encourage the committee to support an ambitious effort by the Government of Canada to promote open and liberalized trade, to be vigilant in maintaining access to our markets and to promote science-based policy and regulation.
The second area I would like to draw attention to is the importance of ongoing investment in public research. One area is federal-provincial agreement on a new farm policy framework. Ms. Campbell will be talking about some of the research success we have had stemming from the agri-science program, which is part of the current federal-provincial policy framework.
Federal and provincial agriculture ministers met just two weeks ago to discuss negotiations towards a new policy framework, federal agriculture policy being a joint responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. The new policy framework is called Growing Forward 2. The framework supports not only investment in research but also market development and competitiveness. A new policy framework is required to be in place by April 2013, just a year from now, to take the place of current programs. In order that our sector can continue to plan and work closely with government, we urge the federal and provincial ministers to conclude discussions and to agree to a new framework as early as possible.
Additionally, Agriculture Canada does important agronomic research work at stations across Western Canada, and it is important that this investment continue.
I will now turn things over to Ms. Campbell to outline our current research work and plans for the future.
Lisa Campbell, Research Manager, Canola Council of Canada: Thank you. With innovation at the core of the canola industry, today the Canola Council is leading a lot of research on canola oil nutrition, canola meal nutrition and crop production.
As Mr. Everson mentioned, the big story for us right now is our Canola/Flax Science Cluster taking place under the Agri-Science Clusters Initiative. This is a $20-million program that is jointly funded by the Government of Canada and the canola industry. Over the last four years, we can say it has been an unprecedented investment in the type of research we view as critical for the future of our industry.
Under the cluster, the Canola Council coordinates public sector research, including in both university and government institutions, which aligns with our industry priorities. It has allowed us to leverage our industry funds with government funds, which has allowed us to increase our investment. This has been a great program under the Growing Forward framework and has also been a true model of cooperation where we have been taking a lead in the type of research that will develop our markets both domestically and internationally and also work to improve crop production, which means core profitability and sustainability of our crop.
In addition, it has given us a unique opportunity. We have 81 researchers involved in this cluster, and it has allowed us to pull them all together to discuss this research alongside our industry stakeholders.
I will touch briefly on each of our areas of research, the first being canola oil. Canola oil has driven our industry's value because of its heart-health proposition. It is low in saturated fat and free of trans fat and is a source of essential fatty acid. What we know about it today is not quite enough, and we want to understand the better impacts it may have on things like diabetes.
One of the research projects we are coordinating under the cluster is a large heart-health study on the effects of canola and flax oils on biomarkers of heart disease risk. We have a lot of research to date that looks at canola oil and how well it impacts cholesterol levels. We do not have a lot of research to see how it impacts other heart-health parameters that are above and beyond cholesterol levels, which are becoming more and more important as we move forward.
In terms of our health research, the most important point I can make is how this cluster program has allowed us to do the type of clinical trials that beforehand were out of our reach. A more concrete example is the last heart-health study we funded prior to the cluster; we were able to put 36 participants through our special diet. Under this heart-health study I just mentioned, we could put 130 people through. That is significant, and it allows us to look at a number of parameters that we could not look at before, which will extend the impact and give us a lot more knowledge.
These trials are all moving toward conclusion, and the plans are already under way to take the results and get them in the hands of health professionals through our CanolaInfo program.
Our secondary investment is canola meal, or the by-product left behind after the canola oil is crushed. It is rich in protein and has been a valuable protein source for livestock feed, but because the canola industry has grown so rapidly, it is not as well understood as other common protein sources for animals and is undervalued for its nutrient content.
Under the meal research cluster, the focus is to increase the value of canola meal. This increases the economic contribution and results in putting more dollars back into farmers' pockets.
One of the research projects we are looking at in the meal section is to maximize the use of canola meal and dairy feeds. Canola meal has in the past been shown to have an increased milk production in dairy cattle and is prized for that attribute, but the studies we are doing now are trying to look at exactly why that is happening and whether it is the special makeup of the protein that is providing this beneficial effect to dairy cows. Once we know more about this, we can reach out to animal nutritionists, increase the value of canola meal and get it formulated correctly into the rations.
The largest area of research under the cluster, almost half of our investment, is in crop production or how the crop is grown. For the first time under this cluster, we were given the opportunity to formulate a comprehensive plan to solve some of the most pressing agronomic issues. Through about a year of extensive consultation, we developed a comprehensive strategy that is hitting seven key areas of crop production: crop establishment, crop nutrition, crop protection, harvest and storage management, integrated crop management and sustainability.
Under the crop production section are 31 crop production research projects taking place at various locations across Canada, with the end goal of improving grower profitability and enhancing the sustainability of canola production practices into the future. At this time, we are in the final year of the research, and in the works right now is an extensive technology transfer plan to ensure we get all of these crop production results delivered to Canadian growers so they can put them into practical applications on their farms as soon as possible.
The success of the cluster over the last few years and what it has allowed to us do have been remarkable. The cluster has brought together the industry and the government in increased collaboration in so many different manners.
Currently, the research cluster program is in its final year. It is set to wind up March 31, 2013, when the Growing Forward framework ends. Based on the success we have seen to date, we would love to see the program continue, and we look forward to further cooperation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for your presentations. I have one question for each of you. The first question is to Mr. Everson.
Can you comment on what your key export markets currently are? You made the comment about consistency in regulations, and I assume that is related to non-tariff barriers. Can you provide us with some advice on what the Government of Canada should be doing in terms of regulatory issues or non-tariff barriers?
Mr. Everson: The major export market for canola is the United States. The U.S. buys a combination of all the products that we produce — seed, oil and meal — and is our most valuable ongoing market.
That would be followed by Japan, which is primarily a seed market. We have a very stable and ongoing market for selling seed to Japan. In Japan, canola makes up somewhere between 40 per cent and 45 per cent of the vegetable oil market, so we are a very big part in the lives of the people of Japan.
China is a growing market for canola. China is buying increasing quantities of seed. They are also interested in buying more meal and more oil. It is an emerging market, one we are very interested in.
Mexico is another market, primarily for canola seed, and Canada is obviously a market for us as well.
In the last crop year, we sold into 55 different markets. We have a range of smaller countries that we also serve, but those are the major markets for the canola industry.
In terms of non-tariff trade barriers and regulations, it is a critical part of our ongoing business. We are increasingly, through international trade agreements and free trade agreements, reducing tariffs, which allows market access from a tariff point of view. However, effective market access also requires that you have access and that you are not blocked by non-tariff trade barriers and different regulations.
For example, in the area of approval of genetically modified products, our canola, for the most part, is a genetically modified product. A great deal of investment has been put into new approaches and technology that producers are able to use, which has given them a huge advantage in the marketplace and made the crop a more profitable one to grow. It is also a sensitive issue internationally, and the countries have no regulations to ensure that any product is approved in their marketplace.
The issue there is the approval process, to be sure that it is a science-based risk assessment process and a timely process, and that those markets approve products in a timely fashion so that Canadians farmers are able to adopt the technology and the seeds that provide them with new advantages to be able to export to those markets.
What the Government of Canada could do in that case is continue the work of advocating science-based policies, which our Minister of Agriculture does at every opportunity, when he can, to ensure that policies are based on science and that they are fair and equal; and also, through trade arrangements and treaties, look for ways to ensure that we are not only negotiating to reduce tariffs but are also negotiating to ensure that regulations are applied in a fair way and based on science.
Senator Buth: Ms. Campbell, Mr. Everson mentioned that canola is a Canadian innovation. It was developed in Canada in the 1970s. Neither of you mentioned the whole area of specialty canola. I am wondering if you can talk about specialty canola and where it fits in the canola industry and what it is used for.
Ms. Campbell: I talked a little bit about canola oil and how it is low in saturated fat and has a lot of heart-health characteristics. It is also a source of essential fatty acids, one being an omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid. We have new varieties on the market, called high-oleic canola. They are special varieties that do not displace regular canola oil but have come to light as a result of trans fatty acid labelling and the need for heart-healthy, stable oils that can replace trans fat and saturated fat in things like French fries, other fried foods, packaged foods, things that need a lot of heat stability or storage stability. Chips, yes.
We have really seen an increase in the acreage of high-oleic varieties. Their demand continues to grow. We see them in our 2015 goals as comprising up to 25 per cent of our acreage. Where they are going is into food service and industrial foods, and they give a heart-healthy alternative to the hydrogenated oils or animal fats that were previously used.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In response to Senator Buth's question, you spoke about genetically modified organisms, GMOs. This problem exists in Europe, does it not? You say you want to ensure that this is a scientific approach. For a lot of people, it is more of a feeling that we cannot justify and they would prefer not to see these kinds of organisms. How can we combat that feeling? The product has been on the market for a long time, and nothing has ever shown that it might be harmful to people's health, has it?
[English]
Mr. Everson: That is exactly right. I think you have defined and characterized the circumstance exactly correctly, that we have had genetic modification now for 15 years; it has proven to be a valuable technology for the producer, provides all sorts of benefits, and is clearly safe. I do not think there has ever been a scientific study that has declared it unsafe. I actually have a book with me, written by the European Union, and it is all about biotechnology and genetic modification. It essentially concludes that all their studies over the last 25 years have shown that genetic modification is no different than any other regular crop. Even the European Union, from a science-based point of view, has given genetic modification a clean bill of health, if you like.
However, there is a political issue there in terms of how people perceive it. That is why, for us, it is important that we pursue science-based policies. We are able to ship canola to Europe, and that is based on an approval process where they have done risk assessment on the genetic modification we have in Canada and they have determined that it is safe. They have allowed those approvals, and so we are able to ship there.
The challenge with the European system is that it is not entirely science-based. They have a science-based approval process through an administration called the European Food Safety Authority, which is a risk-based, internationally based science system, but it does not provide the full approval. When they are finished, they provide an opinion, essentially, to their political masters; and then it goes through another process of a political sign-off, which is not science-based and not as predictable.
Senator Robichaud: That is where the problem is?
Mr. Everson: We think that is where the problem is. The challenge is that if it were simply a science-based system, it would be a better system. One of the things that would be good about this particular issue is if all those major markets are able to approve products in relatively the same period of time. If you have an approval in one country and not in another, you still cannot commercialize the product because the other country has not approved it yet, and that can create some challenges. In our view, it would be better if it were non-political and based on science.
Senator Robichaud: You are hoping and praying, just like we are.
Mr. Everson: People need time to understand the technology more, and that is happening. We talk to your counterparts in Europe. We have done that many times as part of our work with the Canada-EU trade agreement. We are talking to European members of Parliament on an ongoing basis. There are some here this week visiting Canada, and we have a chance to speak with them again.
They are not as opposed to genetic modification. They understand science and the importance of science, but they are dealing with a political circumstance. I liken it to Europe's deciding they do not like the BlackBerry, and the kind of technology and investment that goes into that Canadian invention and how successful it is for us by way of the jobs and economic development it creates in Canada.
To have someone, on the basis of a non-science principle simply say they do not like the technology, I do not think we would put up with that in terms of some our technologies. However, in terms of what we are producing for the Canadian farmer and what they are turning into value, this biotechnology has been really important. For feeding the world in the future, it will be even more important. These issues are important to address, and the way to do that is through these trade agreements, international treaties and supporting science-based regulations.
Senator Robichaud: As long as we do not put other sectors in danger, like supply management.
Mr. Everson: From the point of view of an export-oriented commodity, I think of the World Trade Organization process that started on trade agreements. The first thing all those countries do when they get together is talk about their sensitivities. Canada is not the only country at the trade table that has some sensitivities and concerns; all countries do. From our point of view, we would not make any recommendations about supply management.
Our point is that we are creating huge economic value for Canada through the canola industry. We rely very much on exports, and so we need to have access to these markets. I think the right approach to trade agreements is to open up and to be able to talk about everything, to put everything on the table. However, our negotiators are smart, and they understand what the Canadian sensitivities are and what other countries' sensitivities are, and that is what a negotiation is all about.
Senator Plett: I want to talk about canola oil. First of all, you answered Senator Buth's question about export, Mr. Everson. Would canola oil be exported to the same places as canola would be? Would that basically go hand in hand?
Mr. Everson: It depends on the market. Some markets rely pretty much on just seed or oil, and others will buy various different products.
For example, we have a free trade agreement with the U.S., and we find a market there for seed, oil and meal.
The case of Japan would be a different situation where they have zero tariffs on seed but higher tariffs on oil, and so it essentially is a seed market. We ship seed there and they do the crushing and the processing in Japan for the Japanese market. We sell very little oil to Japan. It depends on the market and the market circumstances.
Senator Plett: I believe we have a canola oil plant in Brandon; is that correct?
Mr. Everson: I do not think there is one in Brandon, not a crushing facility. There is a crushing facility in Altona.
Senator Plett: Is there not one in Brandon?
Mr. Everson: I do not believe so, no.
Senator Plett: I thought there was.
Ms. Campbell, you talked about the health of canola oil, that it is low in saturated fat and so forth. The question I have is somewhat on a personal basis. A lot of people my age have different health problems, and I was asked to seek the advice of a dietician. He discouraged me very strongly from taking canola oil. I actually thought I had gotten on to something. Some friends had given me some canola oil and said it was healthy, so I was taking that and he said he would prefer that I not take that. One of the reasons he said is that it is very, very fatty.
I am getting a mixed message. I would like you to explain that to me a little, and then I will go and see him. I will take the transcript and say I have different information. I found that interesting.
Ms. Campbell: That is interesting. Canola is oil, so it will have the same amount of calories per gram as any other oil. It will not be more or less fatty.
One of the big things we see changing on the nutrition scene, which we are seeing in some of the government guidelines, is that before we always talked about low fat and heart health and the need to remove the fat from our diet. Eat as low fat as possible. Now we are seeing a lot of work that says it is not the amount of fat in your diet but the type of fat, and then if the calories you consume are healthy fat, you will see some very strong heart-health impacts — as long as you are controlling for your calories, of course.
We are seeing a message that it is not so much low fat but that we need to look at replacing the saturated fat in our diet with a heart-healthy fat like canola oil that is rich in monounsaturated fat, or low in saturated fatty acids, and you will see the heart-health impacts. We are actively reaching out to dieticians and other health professionals to get this message across and clarify some misinformation that may be out there.
Senator Plett: I will give you the dietician's name off the record, not on the record.
Ms. Campbell: Perfect.
Senator Plett: I want you to contact him and straighten him out.
Ms. Campbell: We will give him a call.
Senator Plett: Mr. Everson, you said that canola was a $7.3-billion cash crop. How much typically? You said it was one of the most profitable crops as well, I believe. I am assuming that $7.3 billion is the gross proceeds of the crop. How much of that would be profit? How well do the farmers do on canola versus wheat?
Mr. Everson: You know, that is a good question and I wish I could answer it. You are right that the $7.3 billion is the cash receipts from canola back to producers, and it has been going up annually year to year. That is because producers are very interested in growing canola. They find real profit in canola relative to other grains.
Not being a farmer, I do not know that I can quantify exactly what the difference is between that and wheat or a pulse crop. However, the interest in canola is being driven by the profit-making possibilities that a farmer has by producing it. It has led to the increased acreage across Canada.
Senator Plett: Hopefully, we will get a farmer in here who can tell us how much money they are making.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Everson, to get back to the trade issue, as you know, we are trying to get into the TPP. Do you foresee any problems with canola in the trans-Pacific trade?
Mr. Everson: I think it would be a good thing for Canada, from a canola perspective, to be in the TPP, so I do not see any problems that way.
Senator Eaton: Do we grow enough canola? You are talking about U.S., Japan, China, Mexico and India. Can we produce enough to feed those export markets?
Mr. Everson: We need to be able to have a lot of export markets and predictable access to them, and that increases the value of our product going to those markets. We need to try to serve them. You are right that, eventually, depending on demand, there could be supply issues, but we are not facing those supply issues.
Senator Eaton: We do not have supply issues yet?
Mr. Everson: I would say we do not have supply issues now.
Senator Eaton: You both might want to think about this question: With genetically modified products and with your flax cluster, which is very interesting, are we aggressive enough in telling people about our science-based products? Do we do a good enough job at marketing the excellence of our agricultural brands?
Mr. Everson: I think you make a point about the number of markets we have and the size of those markets. When you are trying to tip the scales in terms of promotion of a product in a country like China or India, you are talking about billions and billions of people and all kinds of regional differences in those countries, so I think it is a real challenge to do so. I think we do as good a job as we can do, and we focus our resources as much as we can.
Senator Eaton: I am asking that question because we did not do as good a job as we might have in terms of some countries in Europe. I am thinking of Germany, perhaps, which is so against genetically modified crops. Have they not just done something to honey now, where they are trying to stop Canadian exports of honey if they test that the bee has been into a genetically modified field?
Have we sort of switched course? Are we trying to be more aggressive now in terms of our marketing in a science-based way?
Mr. Everson: I think we work as hard as we can at educating decision makers and consumers in other countries.
We have been working quite a lot in education about the source of issues that Ms. Campbell is talking about, the health value of canola, and differentiating it from other oils based on its low saturated fats and the fact that it has no trans fats. That really makes a difference to consumer acceptance and to our being able to increase our market share in markets like the United States and Mexico where there is an increasing understanding of the importance of diet to your health.
That is not the same in a lot of other countries. I think that level of understanding and the importance of diet are not as appreciated, say, in India, which is more of a commodity-driven market. However, we work very hard at differentiating canola based on that.
Senator Eaton: Do we have competitors in canola? Are other countries doing as good a job as you guys are doing in promoting canola?
Mr. Everson: We grow, in Canada, about 20 per cent of the world's canola, but we are responsible for about 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the trade in canola. We are not the largest producer. The European Union would be the largest producer of canola. We would be kind of second with China. China is also a very large producer, but the European Union and China, for the most part, consume what they grow. Our competitors would include Australia and, increasingly, the Ukraine, who are growing canola and rapeseed. The Ukraine is now selling a lot of rapeseed into the European Union for biodiesel production. When it comes to exporters of grain, Canada would be the largest, and Australia would be the second largest.
Senator Eaton: You expect us to stay ahead of our competitors?
Mr. Everson: Yes, I do. I think we do. We have a strategic plan to get to 15 million tonnes of demand for Canadian canola by 2015. About 18.5 million acres were assigned to canola last year, and Statistics Canada has just predicted that that will be increased to over 20 million acres this year. If that happens, and if we have a good crop, there is a good chance that we will be getting close to that target through this crop year.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Senator Mahovlich: What area of the country is most favourable to canola?
Mr. Everson: In terms of growing canola?
Senator Mahovlich: Yes. Out west? In the Prairies?
Mr. Everson: Yes, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. About 48 per cent of the canola would be grown in Saskatchewan. Alberta would be the second biggest production area, then Manitoba.
Senator Mahovlich: Where in Europe do they have a similar situation?
Mr. Everson: They grow canola in a lot of places in Europe — Germany, France and somewhat in England. There is a large production area for European rapeseed.
Senator Mahovlich: You say India grows their own?
Mr. Everson: India does not really grow canola. I do not know a lot about India's production. They grow a mustard oil.
Senator Mahovlich: Have they been introduced to it?
Mr. Everson: There is some canola oil in India, yes. I cannot tell you how much India imports. In India, I think there is a large importation of palm oil and soybean oil but not as much canola.
Senator Mahovlich: In my salads, I still do not use canola oil. Do a lot of people use canola oil in their salads?
Ms. Campbell: Yes. One of the messages we work to get out about canola oil is its versatility. It is perfect for salads. In fact, you can make your dressing, put it in the fridge and —
Senator Mahovlich: Is there is a name brand?
Ms. Campbell: There is a lot of canola oil in salad dressings. You can make your own with it. Canola oil can be used for anything you are making in your kitchen. It is one oil all the way across. You can use it to make your salads. It has a high smoke point and a high heat stability.
Senator Mahovlich: Scrambled eggs?
Ms. Campbell: Yes, scrambled eggs. You can fry with it. You can stir-fry with it. Then you can turn around and put it into your muffins.
Senator Mahovlich: When you sell seed, say you sell seed to the United States. Would they grow canola now? Could they grow their own seed?
Mr. Everson: They do grow seed in the United States, in the northern United States. North Dakota is a fairly large production area for canola, but canola is really well suited to the Canadian prairies. North Dakota is kind of part of that same geographic region. There are efforts to create different seeds for other parts of the United States where there is a warmer climate, but, for the most part, canola is grown in North Dakota. There are anywhere between 1 million and 1.5 million tonnes of production there.
Senator Mahovlich: In Ontario, there is no canola.
Mr. Everson: Some canola is being grown in Ontario. The biggest area for canola production is the New Liskeard area, but I think their production is in the area of 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes, so it is still small. There is canola grown there and some in Quebec, and they are growing some canola in Prince Edward Island.
Senator Robichaud: In New Brunswick also. It is those yellow fields, is it not?
Mr. Everson: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: They are experimenting with it?
Mr. Everson: They are.
Senator Mahovlich: A few years ago, we were growing ginseng up north. It has disappeared now. The farm that was growing it I do not see doing it anymore.
Mr. Everson: I think producers try it. They try different varieties and see whether it works. I think they look to the West and see canola production growing so quickly and being such a great opportunity for producers, so they want to try it in their region.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: My question is for Ms. Campbell. You talked a lot about the virtues of canola oil for health, and I agree with your theory. Could you tell me very briefly the difference between ordinary canola oil and light canola oil? Is that made, first of all? I do not know; I am asking you the question.
[English]
Ms. Campbell: I am not sure if I missed that. Did you say canola oil and light canola oil? High-oleic canola oil, the specialty one?
In canola oil and high-oleic canola oil, the level of saturated fat is the same. We talk about saturated fat as being the one that is bad for your heart. The big difference is the level of alpha-linolenic acid, the omega-3 fatty acid. The omega-3 fatty acids have really good health benefits. They are the fatty acids that will cause issues with long-term heating, like frying, or long-term storage of a cookie or a cracker.
In high-oleic canola oil, the level of monounsaturated fat — oleic acid — which is what we hear about when we talk about a Mediterranean diet, is higher, and the level of linolenic acid is lower. The omega-3 has gone from 11 per cent to probably less than 3 per cent.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: You spoke briefly about an oil that fascinated me when I was a child, flax oil. There were two types of oil that my mother made us take by the spoonful when I was a child: cod liver oil and flax oil. What are the health proprieties of flax oil?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: Flax oil is very different from canola oil. It has a very, very high level — over 55 per cent — of alpha-linolenic acid, the omega-3 fatty acid that I was just talking about. Flax oil has some definite health benefits. However, that high level of omega-3 fatty acid also lends it a lot of instability. You can take flax oil and keep it in the fridge in a dark bottle. You can use it to drizzle on something. You can have it by the spoonful, which is probably how your mother gave it to you, and put it in your cereal and that sort of thing. You cannot fry with it. You cannot bake with it, and you cannot keep it out on the counter. It is a specialty oil that has a valuable niche market for health, but it is not a competitor to canola oil in that it cannot be used in the same way.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: And if I asked you what the difference between cod liver oil and flax oil is, what would you tell me?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: Between cod liver oil and flax oil? Both are rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Without going into a long-winded scientific discussion, the type of omega-3 fatty acids in marine sources — fish and algae sources — is a different chain length and has a different functionality than alpha-linolenic acid, which is what we call a plant-based omega-3. Cod liver oil is rich in DHA, which has some very significant health benefits, and, again, it is an oil that has to be kept refrigerated and used cold or given out on a spoon.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I will recommend to Senator Mahovlich that he make his scrambled eggs with cod liver oil. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Duffy: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witnesses. Some of us who are from areas outside of the Prairies have listened with great interest to the wonderful properties and the profitability of canola. I must say that, in the last 30 or so years, the industry has done very well in terms of promoting itself, developing a new product and bringing it to market. This is a truly great Canadian success story.
I was in southwestern Ontario last week, and they told me that the only thing they could not grow there was canola because, I gather, it is too hot in southwestern Ontario.
Mr. Everson: I am not really the person to speak to the agronomics of canola in different regions. I think it is much more humid, with different soil zones, in southern Ontario. There are really big differences in the agronomic conditions.
Senator Duffy: They said it was not there, but, of course, I am trying to think of what can we grow in P.E.I. to provide greater cash crops to our farmers.
Mr. Everson: It is interesting, if I may, in terms of the innovation agenda that you are talking about. In canola, there is a large amount of private investment in new seed developments, which is a very welcome thing in our industry. Companies are always looking for ways to be able to provide new products to producers in different regions and to widen the scope of where you can grow all kinds of commodities, including canola.
I am from eastern Ontario, which was blanketed with corn for the most part 20 years ago. Now, there is a large amount of soybeans being grown too because they have produced a soybean seed with a shorter growing season, which is more friendly to those environments.
If there is interest in canola in Ontario and Quebec and other provinces in the East, it is a matter of time before the science is able to catch up. You can provide different varieties that may be friendlier to those areas.
Senator Duffy: Our big new thing in P.E.I. is crushing flower seeds for cosmetics. They tell me that the cosmetics we are producing from Prince Edward Island prevent aging. As you can see, it has worked really well.
However, when you talk about the development of new products, we talk about genetic modification. Surely the clearly known and demonstrated beneficial heart positives coming out of canola must carry some weight in Europe. The whole idea that we are developing products that are good for us, improving on Mother Nature, must have some kind of weight there. My colleague referred to "Frankenfoods" and all that crazy stuff. It is so emotional without the science. Surely when we have the science of positive heart-healthy benefits, maybe that would give us another weapon to use to educate people in Europe that GMOs can be good for you and healthy.
Mr. Everson: That is what we are doing in promoting our canola oil in all parts of the world. We are differentiating it based on its heart-health characteristics and benefits. We continue to do so in Europe, and I think there is an appreciation for that in Europe; but we also have these trade barriers that we are trying to deal with.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Your presentation was clear. You gave good answers to all the questions asked. When you said 228,000 jobs, are those all direct jobs, or does that include indirect jobs?
[English]
Mr. Everson: Those would include indirect jobs.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: What formula is used? In economics, they say that one manufacturing job creates four indirect jobs. Did you develop a formula to arrive at that figure of 228,000 jobs, or did you employ the usual formulas; that is to say that one manufacturing job creates 25 per cent of indirect jobs?
[English]
Mr. Everson: I can send you the entire study that breaks all of that down. It is a very comprehensive study. I am not sure that I can recall exactly what the multiplier is that the person who did the work has applied to the jobs in the canola sector. We are very confident of the results and conclusions drawn from it. It breaks down those jobs and the economic growth based on provinces and based on the transportation sector and the handling sector and the agronomic sector. It is a very comprehensive and detailed study. Now we find that that was based on more modest production levels, so now that we have a larger production and more investment in the industry, we will probably find a higher number of jobs and higher economic impact.
Senator Plett: For the record, I need to clear up a couple of things from my earlier questions. The company in Brandon that does cold pressing of canola is called Shape Foods. They absolutely press canola. They do cold pressing apparently as opposed to refining. I do not know the difference, but you might know. I just spoke to them a few minutes ago. I at least want that on the record that we do some pressing of canola.
There is another thing I need to clear up, Ms. Campbell. The oil that my dietician said I was not to use was flax oil. I do not know whether that is any unhealthier or healthier than canola, but canola oil is still apparently okay. I apologize.
Ms. Campbell: You have saved me a call.
Senator Plett: I just needed to clear that up.
Senator Mercer: He must be in bad shape because he has his doctor on speed dial.
Mr. Everson: Thank you for that. I learn something new every time I come to the Canadian Senate. I was thinking of the large processing companies; but there are obviously others who are processing.
Senator Plett: I think they might take exception to saying they are not large. I am not sure, but next time you are in Manitoba, we have to take you to Brandon.
Mr. Everson: I will go to see Shape Foods.
The Chair: There is nothing like clarification and stating the facts.
Senator Robichaud: Somebody mentioned biodiesel. Does some part of the Canadian production go towards biodiesel?
Mr. Everson: A modest amount of Canadian production currently goes to biodiesel. The Western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all adopted mandates to have their diesel mixed with a biodiesel product; and they are different in each of the provinces. I think British Columbia is either at 4 per cent or will be at 4 per cent very shortly. The other provinces, I believe, are all at 2 per cent blend level. As well, the federal government has introduced a national 2 per cent biodiesel blend rate also. That is creating demand for feedstock to go into biodiesel production.
Senator Robichaud: When you say "feedstock," is it the whole plant or just part of it?
Mr. Everson: It is the oil from the plant. You process the seed by crushing it into oil. You further process it into biodiesel. On a 2 per cent mandate, we estimate that when it is fully implemented nationally we would use about 1 million tonnes of canola seed to produce for that 2 per cent national mandate. On a production of currently 14 million tonnes or so, that represents 6 per cent or 7 per cent of our production that would go into domestic biodiesel usages. For the very same reasons that it is good for the heart, canola is good for diesel purposes too. It is good for those industrial purposes. It is has low saturated fat, which makes it a better cold-weather product. Certainly it is one of the best feedstocks for biodiesel production.
Senator Robichaud: Growing canola is a fairly intense culture, is it not? You have a rotation crop that you have to use every so often in the fields for soil conservation purposes.
Mr. Everson: Canola rotates with wheat, pulse crops, barley and other commodities in the West. Farmers have different rotations depending on where they are in the West and on their own independent decisions they make. You can rotate canola on a four-or three-year cycle. Some producers will rotate on a once-every-second-year cycle. It is a crop that is grown in rotation with other crops.
Ms. Campbell: We are doing a lot of research in our science cluster on rotation, different types of rotations and how it will affect the long-term health of canola production.
Senator Robichaud: The next group of witnesses is about soil conservation. I wonder what kind of research you do to protect your soil because, at the very base, that is where you get your production.
Mr. Everson: With canola as a rotation crop, one of the developments over the past decade, and you may hear more about it, is more continuous cropping with canola as a rotation crop. Where previously a large amount of Western Canadian cropland would be summer fallowed over the summer, it is now more regularly in production. That mitigates against soil erosion, which was a major factor.
The Chair: Ms. Campbell and Mr. Everson, thank you very much for appearing here today. We appreciate your having shared your knowledge with us.
Our next witness is Mr. Don McCabe, President of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada.
Mr. McCabe, thank you for accepting our invitation. We look forward to hearing your recommendations, your vision and your advice on how the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry can make proper recommendations to ensure that the sector continues to move forward and that Canada continues to be a leader in the world.
Don McCabe, President, Soil Conservation Council of Canada: Thank you for giving the Soil Conservation Council of Canada the opportunity to appear before you. As background, the face and voice of soil conservation in Canada is the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. We are a national, non-governmental, independent organization formed in 1987 to provide a non-partisan public forum at the national level for soil conservation. The SCCC was created as a direct result of the report of the former Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry entitled Soil at Risk: Canada's Eroding Future. The Honourable Herb Sparrow, former chair of that committee, is a true soil champion in that he helped to bring that forward.
This a pivotal time for Canada to maintain and enhance our opportunities on the world stage. It all starts with the foundation of soil and comes back to the issues of soil health and soil conservation in a broad landscape context.
Producers across this country will employ the tools in their tool box to ensure the livelihood of their own farms but also, more importantly, the livelihood of a long-term resource.
As a farmer, I woke up one morning and learned that the weatherman had lied and the weather had turned against me. I ended up going to an auction sale, because that is usually the best thing a farmer can do at times like that. At that sale the family told me that when grandpa, their dad, bought a book, Ma bought a piece of glassware. I became the recipient of one of those books that day.
This is the first annual report on the Commission of Conservation for Canada in 1910. Within it, agriculture, forestry and fishery resources are highlighted. Yields are looked at, fertility of our soils is looked at, and the long-term issues that we are still grasping with today are highlighted within this context. Some things have changed, including the order of magnitude on the numbers that Ontario producers, New Brunswick producers, Canadian producers in general bring to the table.
The issue we will have moving forward is one of language. There cannot be anything wrong with the term "intensification" because the bottom line is cities have not figured it out yet. When it comes to soils, the city of Toronto grows a mile every year. I do not mind my consumer base getting closer to me, but I can truck that far. The reality is that soil conservation and research is the basis for a long-term foundation for this country and its needs. Another term that is coming out is "sustainability" as we head towards a Rio+20 summit in Brazil. With a whole raft of opinion of the way the world should work, we seem to be fundamentally forgetting the issue of soil and the need for farmers the world over to have tools in their tool box.
One time I stepped out of the offices of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Toronto and a fellow asked me what I did for a living. I said, "I am a cash crop farmer." He said, "Do you grow money trees?" I said, "If I did, they all died. I grow corn, soybeans and wheat." He said, "I love your corn; I eat it all the time in August." I said, "No, you do not. I do not grow sweet corn." "You mean I eat cattle corn," he said. I said, "If you want to call it that, sir. I call it an opportunity because 25 per cent of the grocery stores with Canada contain corn somewhere."
The same thing can be said about canola and wheat, but it all comes from the soil. It is an issue to ensure that our research will maintain that opportunity moving forward. The best way I can paint a picture in your head is to draw the following graph: Put "years" on the X axis and "yield" on the Y axis and go back to Lincoln in the White House in 1865, right straight through to the Depression in 1930. A fellow by the name of Norman Borlaug started to look at a green revolution. There was a straight line from 1865 to 1930, where corn yields did not move. If it was not for technology and permits and research and improvements in how we manage our soils, we would not have the improvements today and the intensification that brings us to where we are. That is how I ended up answering that fellow in Toronto. I might be a corn, soybean and wheat farmer, but I am really a manager of carbon and nitrogen cycles — with the interception of the water cycle — to reduce starch, oil, fuel, fibre, energy, protein, while providing animal habitat and improving soil, air and water quality. I would just like to get paid for something.
To me, that is what the context of this committee is all about. Canada has been a leader in making sure we had the research done. We came to this country, we settled and we have learned many things in a short period of time. We now have to export our vision also on our abilities into the world of sustainability. We have an obligation by 2050 to feed the planet. We can do it and we will, but it will mean we have kept the basic tenets of research here with us as we move forward.
I wish to close off saying that it is not only a food issue. It is not only a biofuels thing because there are no arguments of food versus fuel. I am a walking testimonial to food safety or obesity, take your pick. The reality is that I grow things, and I grow them even better because I have had the opportunity to make use of tools given to me by industry, by government. I need those tools to continue, and I need extension to move those tools forward. At the end of the day, research is the basic, fundamental tenet, and your soils are your basic fundamental tenet. Soils are a function of five things: climate, topography, parent material, biota and time. As a farmer when I bought the farm I got climate, topography and parent material. I get to mess with biota and Father Time takes care of the rest. I need your assistance to make sure our research is the best possible.
The opportunity for recommendations that I bring to this committee is that we need an agriculture research and innovation committee that includes leading producers from across Canada. Why? Producers know the issues. We are the best sources of identifying innovative methods to address the issues. When I see my neighbour next door doing something in the spring, nothing will drive my farm out faster than seeing someone else move. Nothing will motivate me faster than seeing that they are doing something different. However, now I have to go to the restaurant to find out what they did because I cannot ask them directly and I know no one in the government knows a damn thing, so I have to talk to them at the restaurant. In the fall when they take out more crop I have to go back to the restaurant and find out how they did it. I thought I was going to an auction sale when they were going to go broke, and they did not.
The priorities and the research we need to look into are things like precision farming, variable rate technology, measurement of soil health and quality indicators and the agronomy of new crop varieties and rotations. There is not a lot new under the sun in some of these aspects, but it is the reality that we have better crop breeding techniques and better applications moving forward. Let us highlight those and export it to the world.
Increased research in soil science and innovative soil management practices: Soil is the foundation of the sustainable agriculture sector. Soil is the foundation of a world society. I stress that when I say "world society," it is not only the food issue. There is an emerging bioeconomy, where Canadian farmers will be at the forefront of supplying the feed stocks for the next chunk of plastic that is around your next smart phone or whatever it needs to be, because we do it all. We need to strengthen the extension on technology transfer of new research information to producers, and assess the potential economic and environmental impact of research projects. Third-party technology transfer through producer organizations such as the Soil Conservation Council of Canada has been proven to be an effective mechanism for delivery of research findings.
Finally, we are very pleased that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has taken a leadership role in championing soil sustainability for agriculture. Retired Senator Herb Sparrow is a great example of a politician who led a change in farming practices and made a difference. We are here to partner with you folks and do what is necessary for Canadian consumers, bar none. In the closing remarks of this text from 1910, comments are made about how you cannot keep the farm boys on the farm anymore because they are going to town. We still have the same issues today if you wish to look at it that way, or you can say it is a success of what we are doing today because we have found ways of doing this.
At the end of the day, as a farmer I am a manager of carbon and nitrogen that makes a Canadian farmer equal to a Chinese farmer, Chad farmer, Chilean farmer, Czechoslovakian farmer. I do not care which "C" country you throw at me, it is an issue of scale. However, let me do what I do best, and I need your help to do that. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCabe.
Senator Plett: Thank you for your presentation, sir. You have a number of recommendations here, and all good recommendations, I am sure.
Could you briefly tell me what you mean by precision farming in your second recommendation?
Mr. McCabe: Precision farming sir, is the fact that now with the satellites that encompass the earth and allow us to have instant telecommunications and to have GPS in our vehicles, the same equipment is being employed on the farm today such that we can specifically put down exact amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and potash where they are needed to conform with the variability we see in the soil of that landscape, and then have the exact needs for that crop met, and by the same token, absolutely follow within, in some cases, down to a quarter inch or a few millimetres, the issue of being very accurate in that placement. It is no longer just throw it out there and see if the plant uses it.
At the end of the day, I buy it retail; I sell it wholesale; I pay the trucking both ways. That means I like my input supplier but I really do not need the nice calendar. I just want to use what the plant needs and make sure that I have done my best job in environmental stewardship. Precision agriculture is an emerging tool that allows me to do that.
Senator Plett: Is most of what you have suggested not already being done by most large farms?
Mr. McCabe: It is being done by some farms that are either very large or have specific need for it. I will pick on potato farmers or tomato farmers because it is the issue of exact precision there and the value of return on commodity. Agriculture has come through some tough years for profitability. Where we are at now, when there is some money in the bank, farmers will instantly invest. The issue is that we have the technology to gather this information. We do not have a full analysis of what this information means. We need to compile it year after year after year, so we can start to see how this landscape evolves and what the story is telling us.
Senator Plett: Your first recommendation says to set up an agricultural research and innovation committee and then at the end you suggest that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry take a leadership role. We will write a report when we are done with this. Who should be setting up this research and innovation? Who should be the partners in setting it up? I certainly agree with you that farmers, if they have some extra money, will invest, and they would be great partners I am sure in this, but who should the players be in setting up that research and innovation committee?
Mr. McCabe: If I could propose a possible timeline, I would go back to a certain report called Soil at Risk; within that particular report one of the recommendations was that there needed to be a national organization that focused on soil conservation. That is how the Soil Conservation Council of Canada was born.
This is an area of absolute importance. I am not saying you need another organization. I now say that we need tremendous partnership. A portion of these partnerships already occur within the Canadian landscape. I will use the Soil Conservation Council of Canada as an example of that. On our board of directors we have the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, another producer organization. Soils are not all about crops; they are also about pastures and the issues of biodiversity that arise from them.
By the same token, we have the Canadian Fertilizer Institute plus CropLife Canada sitting there, because those are our input suppliers and we want to work with them wholeheartedly to see what technologies they are thinking about and where we can take this and how we can embrace this. They are also in a battle on a global scale to bring dollars back to Canada. When you are competing with other emerging markets, sometimes it is difficult to remember where to put the dollars, and we want them to come to Canada.
This is not only about producers but also the input supplier side. By the same token, there are issues here for Agriculture Canada to look at, but let us not ignore Environment Canada, which seems to somehow look at a problem and decide it requires only one tool, and it is usually a hammer. It is a tad annoying part of the time and, yes, they are starting to learn a little bit broader mandates, but that is what we have seen on the issue of regulation. A bunch of this does not need to be done through regulation; it needs to be done through learning and extension.
With regard to Natural Resources Canada, the farms that I work, there is forestry land at the back of them. We have one working landscape, sir, and it needs to be looked at in a partnership and needs to bring the players together.
Senator Plett: The government should take a lead role or a partnership role?
Mr. McCabe: It should take a partnership role. The government, in the aspect of the report you can offer up, can be in a leadership role to establish this, but if we want the translation on to the ground, it will have to be taken there by producer organizations.
Senator Robichaud: How much degradation happened in the last, I do not know, maybe 10, 20, 30 years, if it has happened at all? Is that a major concern where research should be directed so that we reverse a trend? Can you enlighten me on that?
Mr. McCabe: You are leaving a very wide open door there, senator, on the definition of degradation.
Senator Robichaud: Go for it.
Mr. McCabe: Thank you. My definition of degradation usually means the pouring of concrete and asphalt because it is hard for me to get a potato through that. The issue that we have not come to grips with yet is the whole issue of urbanization and its intensification. For me, that is an issue of degradation.
Within the agricultural context directly, I would take the example of a province called Nova Scotia. I would also introduce the concept of classes of soil. We have a class system that is defined that runs from class 1 to 7. Class 1 soils are ideally suited for any type of production you wish to do in Canada. Class 7 is essentially rock. It is there to keep the sunlight out of hell. In between, you have all different levels of topography, slope and soil quality.
Nova Scotia has no class 1 and 2 land, because the glacier that went through there did not leave it with a whole lot of good stuff to work with and there has not been enough time for that soil to continue forming, because soil formation is so slow, but you have a lot of potato production within that land. If that is left without doing a crop rotation, you can have a lot of degradation on slopes and a lot of loss of topsoil.
Within the largest issue of degradation that I see, and this is worldwide, is the loss of soil organic matter. That is why Canadian agriculture again is a leader in recognizing that we are a solution-provider and can reverse degradation. We started down the road of the Kyoto Protocol in this country. At that time, agriculture took a look at what was going to happen. It was going to impact concrete, pesticides, fertilizers and fuels, everything that I have to buy at retail. We took a look at this situation and we came to the very strong conclusion that we had better get in front of this bus and slow it down. At the end of the day, we realized that agriculture is 10 per cent of the problem because 8.3 from Environment Canada is too hard to remember, but we will be 20 per cent of the solution if you give us the opportunity, and better, if you give us more opportunity.
That is the issue, that our plants are excellent at putting carbon back into the soil and building that organic matter, and you build more resilient soils. It is not only the issue then of mitigating risk but adapting to the future. It does not matter what word we invent; the soil is your foundation.
Degradation, yes, has occurred, but I would argue that our degradation is reversing itself over the last 10 years. I am more concerned about the issue of urbanization over the last 10 years. If you had asked me this question in the 1960s or 1970s, some of the strong winds that the Prairies have felt this year and what I have felt in southwestern Ontario, where I farm, we would have had black stuff sitting at the corner of Portage and Main because it would have been the soils moving in. That did not happen. That is because farmers have already learned. We have adopted direct or no-till seeding or whatever else. We are reversing that degradation, but that means also that as we move towards a bioeconomy we cannot afford to reverse our good fortunes here and remove too much residue just because someone wants to pay us for straw.
At the end of the day, senator, I do not have any agricultural waste, nor any lost commodities on my farm. I only have underutilized, underpriced opportunity. That is the issue that we have to resonate throughout the Canadian economy so that we do not end up with degradation, because degradation leads to waste. I am not in this business for waste.
Senator Buth: It is nice to see you again, Mr. McCabe. If you could give a report card grade on soil conservation now compared to 1987 when Senator Herb Sparrow chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee, what would you give it?
Mr. McCabe: That is a good loaded question. The reason I say it is a "loaded question" is because I can offer up different grades depending on which audience I am speaking to.
Senator Buth: Well, you are speaking to senators right now.
Senator Plett: What riding are you running in for the next election?
Senator Buth: Give us your senator answer and then give another answer that you would give to another group after that.
Mr. McCabe: I will give you my rounded answer. My rounded answer is that it is a B minus, headed for an A plus. I say that because a B minus was usually an indication around our household that my butt was too sore for supper but I knew that I had to work harder to get to the next step. We are still at the point of needing to work harder to make our report card even better. We are certainly way up from the F that we were in the time that Senator Herbert Sparrow did his job.
Senator Buth: Would you give a different grade to a different audience?
Mr. McCabe: If I were talking directly to the finance department of this country, they would be getting an F right now. We understand clearly that there is a budget deficit out there, but there are a few foundational things that we should never turn our back on — that is, the sovereignty of our country. The sovereignty of our country is best done by making sure our soils are the healthiest they can be and the food quality and quantity is the best that they can be, and that we are helping other nations in that process.
A small investment here moves farming and the agricultural community ahead with great strides and leaps.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much.
Senator Robichaud: On a supplementary, a small investment would go a long way. You are not talking about dollars for the farmer; you are talking about research here and innovation?
Mr. McCabe: I am talking about research and innovation directly because we need to always filter through. Research can fall into many categories from basic to applied, and that sort of thing. What I find disheartening in this world of vast information — and, unfortunately, I am not being sarcastic here with my next comment — is that my best source of soil information right now happens to come out of the Central Intelligence Agency of Washington, D.C., because we do not have a proper soil survey really left in this country. We do not have digitized soil maps available to us at a time when it could be of the utmost importance for sustainability. It is being worked on, but I have heard that a lot. If you do not know what you have in your own resources, you do not know how to plan.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
Senator Mahovlich: Herb Sparrow, Soil at Risk: Canada's Eroding Future. Is he quite happy with the position that we are in today? Have we got more soil now than we had 25 years ago? Is it better-quality soil?
Mr. McCabe: You will have better-quality soil in certain areas of the country, sir. You have fewer arable acres, per se.
Senator Mahovlich: We have less?
Mr. McCabe: Yes, because we continue to build on it. Again, not to be sarcastic, sir, but even with global warming, we are not going to gain arable acres in this country. There is a thing called the Canadian Shield. It has not weathered in 4 billion years; I do not think it is going to start tomorrow. That is the reality we face.
Senator Mahovlich: We will lose soil?
Mr. McCabe: We are losing soil in areas. However, because of intensification, of how farmers are improving and of the resources we have available to us, I will bring you back to my example of yield. In Ontario, we have taken it from 30 bushels an acre of corn in 1930 to, in the year 2010 in Ontario, record wheat, soybean and corn acres. We had record yields occurring now in the West. Your last witnesses I am sure painted an accurate picture of the canola industry and how that was a Canadian homegrown invention. If it was not for those innovations, I would be pessimistic about our future. Right now I am very optimistic that my niece will have an opportunity to do what my grandfather gave me the opportunity to do, and that is farm.
Senator Mahovlich: Very good.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. McCabe, you clearly explained that soils have been eroding for many years now. Several witnesses have told us that we will have to increase agricultural production by approximately 70 per cent by 2050. In your opinion, are soils in their current state capable of this kind of overproduction, if it can be called that?
[English]
Mr. McCabe: I will address your question from two perspectives: first from the perspective of Canadian soils; and second, from the concept of world soils.
In the concept of Canadian soils, I believe that there is a United Nations statistic out there that illustrates that within the next 20 years there will be only six countries left in the world that actually have an opportunity to export food to the remaining 200, more or less, countries of the rest of the world.
It is the quality of our soils and our ability to produce from them that will allow us to do that. Those six countries, if I remember correctly — and this must be checked — are Canada, the United States, Brazil and Argentina. Russia comes in there, but there is a small issue in there of political turmoil. I think France got in the door just because they wanted to give someone from Europe an opportunity to be part of a list.
At the end of the day, it is the issue for us in Canada that I have opportunities to work with good partners like the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and CropLife Canada to find technologies that continue to move me ahead, to work with crop breeders, researchers and machinery providers, too, and in order to do what I have to do.
In a world context, it is why I use the definition that farmers are the same the world over. We manage carbon and nitrogen cycles, but we have to fully understand the diversity of soils that are out there. When we are at the equator, sir, we mine ores out of the equator right now for silica, aluminum and iron. That is because there has been 4 billion years of weather, climate and leeching of those soils such that they are down to being basic ores.
In Canada we were very blessed because roughly 12,000 years ago there was a mile of ice over our head. That refurbished our soils and brought us new opportunity. That is why, with our opportunities now to move this ahead with our partners again, we are able to do what we can do.
I honestly believe that we are able to apply the technologies that CropLife Canada is illustrating through its opportunities at the world level, which are brought to bear in African countries or in other areas where we will see it. I recently had an opportunity to travel to Argentina. When I was there, I learned from Air Canada's perspective that you need to go on a milk run to get to Argentina. The situation is that you land in Chile first. When you leave Santiago, you are essentially leaving Abbotsford, B.C. Down there it is the Andes and here it is the Rockies, but you fly over beautiful mountains and all of a sudden you see foothills below you. Then you see the Saskatchewan landscape of potholes, but then you land in Rio de Janeiro and you might as well be landing in Winnipeg because you saw the same landscape beneath you.
Down there they have a warmer climate, and in the period of three years they will have the opportunity to do four crops. I will never get that opportunity, but with our good management we need to remain a leader. To remain a leader, I need research and innovation to help push me there.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, Mr. McCabe, for being here. We appreciate your time and your advice.
Climate change has had an effect on your business and you have had to adapt to that. What would be the major change with respect to soil that you have had to deal with in the past 15 years because of climate change?
Mr. McCabe: I would argue that I did not make the changes that I did in my soil management practices based on climate change. Climate change is a driver that is in the back of my mind, but first and foremost I have a little thing called the Royal Bank that wanted a mortgage payment as of today.
Senator Mercer: I know them too well.
Mr. McCabe: I hear you. The reality is that a farmer has to react economically first, but every farmer is also cognizant of the fact that they usually have been around a milk stool somewhere in their past. Every milk stool has three legs. Environment and social make up those other two legs, along with those economics. You bring me an issue like climate change and my response to that is the fact that I will be putting one draw bar into a sunflower drill. I will put an 1155 Massey at the front of that drill. I am going to mitigate and adapt, and I will hopefully make money. I am going to make sure that I have the social impact when I am done.
The most important aspect of all of this is I will improve my soil health. I have adopted a soil management practice called no till or direct seeding that will then produce a crop in which I have seen corn yields on my farm increase by 50 per cent. That is because of crop breeding. However, when I apply beneficial management practices, I then increase that even further.
Climate change is not a direct driver in my life, but it is certainly an issue that I consider. From the climate change perspective, I also need to consider the fact that I grow crops that respond to carbon dioxide in different ways. There are C3 and C4 cycles to which crops respond. No matter what I do the weeds will win, but that is a whole different issue.
The issue comes back to the fact that I have to always be looking for that next piece of research and innovation that will assist me in getting the best information. As soon as the weather channel says one thing, I still have three plans in my back pocket and one of them included an auction sale.
Senator Mercer: The interesting thing is that you talk about a 50 per cent increase in the yield of corn, which is a significant increase obviously. Do you attribute that purely to your management of the soil, or are there are some other improvements that happen in seed and in fertilizer?
Mr. McCabe: My direct response to that is I do not know the formula for agriculture because as soon as it gets predictable I will quit. It will not be any more fun.
The reality is that I have to make decisions based on what I am observing. Right now, yes, until yesterday the corn planter was running in our neck of the woods. Last year at this time it was not. I did not get the last of the corn in until June 10 and I was scared silly about what would happen. Mother Nature gave us the weather to finish a crop.
My colleagues in Manitoba were soaked last spring but had a dry fall. I had a wet fall. It meant that I was not able to maintain my crop rotation. The best thing that I can ever do is continue to constantly try to incorporate at the end of the day the best technologies, the best seed improvements and look at how it fits my crop rotation and my business plan. My crop rotation is my absolute kingpin that I have to consider, and make sure that I continue to improve my soil. I will do so one carefully measured step at a time because nobody can afford to go out and suddenly decide they will plant all one thing this year. It is the fastest way to destruction I know.
Senator Mercer: Senator Sparrow is a pretty tough cookie. He was here when I arrived, and I had a lot of respect for him. It was as time went on that you learned his reputation from this committee and previous versions of this committee. I know he is legendary in Western Canada. His methods that the committee outlined not only affected crop production in Canada but changed crop production around the world, if I understand correctly from people who followed the recommendations.
What do we need to do to go to the next step? What is the next phase? Senator Sparrow brought us to one level. There have been improvements since then, but is there a next big step that we need to take? I do not mean government alone, but government, the producers and the industry that supplies the sector as well.
Mr. McCabe: That is an excellent question, and there are many answers to it. First and foremost, it is the issue of soil erosion. We have not solved it in its entirety. I do not wish to leave you with that impression. However, we certainly have curtailed it. There is still room for improvement there, and that is the whole issue of further extension and further information to allow farmers to make the best decisions on their own land.
There is also the issue of being prepared to address new markets. I referred to a bioeconomy. I happen to also have the opportunity to serve as the vice-chair of the Bioindustrial Innovation Centre in Sarnia, Ontario. Sarnia is a refinery town. They do not like the price of oil now any better than anybody else does. They are starting to realize that farmers, foresters and ranchers are the only people who actually manage carbon, and we might have a source that they want to consider. The next step, then, will ensure that we have a definition of sustainability and soil health that allows us to maintain our leading opportunities and where we go and what we do.
The final issue that I think that is most important here is one of education. I wish to highlight that by the fact that the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, in partnership with the United States and a number of our industry partners, will be happy to host the Sixth World Congress on Conservation Agriculture in Winnipeg in the year 2014. I extend to all of you the opportunity to come and be part of a world event where we will showcase North American technology.
Senator Mercer: That sounds like a good opportunity, Mr. Chair, which we should follow up on.
What improvements would you propose for soil conservation? What could we be doing today that we are not doing generally? I know you talked about education, but are there some things we should be doing today? We will be writing a report. When we talk about soil conservation, et cetera, what should we put in the report that would be helpful right away? We are going to be talking about innovations and research that would be futuristic, but what could help today?
Mr. McCabe: What would help directly is the usual issue of basic research. However, at the farm gate we react to markets because that is what pays the bills. Alberta has established a market for carbon. That market for carbon had soil tillage — and in particular no till then — as the leading opportunity for them to abate greenhouse gases in that province. That put money directly into the hands of Alberta producers for doing the right thing.
Bottom line: If you want to incentivize further action at the farm gate, ecological goods and services is the measure to do that. I put that carbon back in that soil; now I have taken out of the air what you could not. I had plants put it there for you, and now I am agreeing to hold it.
Now that I put it there, I will purify water for you. I will hold soil there; I will hold nutrients there. I will filter out nutrients for you. I am doing all of this on behalf of society. At the same time, all of a sudden the biodiversity increases, and you will see it right straight through to the largest mammals showing up on your farm.
Bottom line: Incentivize me a little bit and I will turn the next opportunities into realities for Canadian society as a whole.
Senator Mercer: That is a great summary, sir. Thank you very much. We really do appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe.
In closing, there are two items that we will be asking the clerk to send to you through a written question. The first relates to your mention of the role of the CIA, and that is a first in the little experience that I have in agriculture. The second thing is also getting your data from.
The second thing is that we will have the opportunity to have the equipment dealers in. Mechanization has an impact on soil conservation — the type of equipment we use, soil compaction, et cetera. We might be sending you a few questions following your presentation.
With that, Mr. McCabe, if you do not have any more comments in closing, we thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us. Honourable senators, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)