Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 22 - Evidence - Meeting of February 2, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 2, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:02 a.m. to study the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are continuing our study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
This morning, we have Mr. Michael Devanney, Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Agriculture, Government of Nova Scotia.
Before beginning this committee, I will ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Mercer: I'm Senator Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick. I'm replacing Senator Bernard.
[English]
Senator Plett: Good morning. My name is Donald Plett and I'm from Manitoba.
Senator Woo: I'm Senator Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Good morning. Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ghislain Maltais, and I'm the chair of the committee. Welcome.
[English]
It's now time for you.
Michael Devanney, Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Agriculture, Government of Nova Scotia: Thank you very much for having me here today to give the context from Nova Scotia on behalf of Honourable Keith Colwell, Minister of Agriculture. First, I'll give you a brief overview of the Nova Scotia agricultural industry as well as an overview of our agricultural land base.
In 2005, Nova Scotia's agricultural industry generated farm cash receipts of about $580 million. Our industry is approximately one-half supply managed. Compared to the Canadian average, Nova Scotia agriculture is relatively small-scale and diverse. As of the last census, 2011, we have approximately 3,900 farms, and we were the only province in the country to see a growth in the number of farms from the last census, 2006.
However, if we look at some of our administrative databases here in the province, we have 2,600 registered farms, of which 70 per cent report sales of below $50,000. Those numbers need to be qualified with the fact that many of these farms, in fact the vast majority, are very small-scale.
In terms of farm area, according to the last census, we have 412,000 hectares in total farm area. This is a bit misleading in that it includes woodlands and wetlands. When we strip that out, we have approximately 135,000 hectares in actual farming.
In terms of arable land — the distinction being land that could be used for farming but isn't necessarily used for farming — it covers about 30 per cent of Nova Scotia's total land mass. Our very best land, which would be Canada Land Inventory CLI 2 land — we don't have any CLI 1 land in Nova Scotia — makes up about 3 percent of Nova Scotia's land mass.
So of this best land, CLI 2, 29 per cent is used for farming, 7 per cent is used for urban areas, and the rest is in some natural state or cultivated forest. As two of the senators would know very well, one of the advantages of Nova Scotia is that our largest city, Halifax, basically sits on granite rock and isn't really impacting farmland. Much of our best land is within an hour's drive of Halifax, as well as close to other urban centres.
Another important factor in Nova Scotia, particularly when we're considering public policy, is that we have the second highest percentage of land that's privately owned in the entire country, at 70 per cent. And this is behind only Prince Edward Island.
Much of our arable land and farmland is near the coast and would have high amenity value for non-agricultural development. I sent these speaking notes this morning, so there are a few maps and tables that you can refer to at your convenience.
Moving on to the committee's mandate from the order of reference, specifically with the first point, the reasons behind value of Canadian farmland increasing, in Nova Scotia there has been an increasing trend in the value of farmland and buildings for the last 40 years. According to Farm Credit Canada's report, which I know you're all aware of, Nova Scotia farmland values increased 7 per cent in 2014 and a further 6.3 per cent in 2015. Farmland has increased in value in Nova Scotia in each of the last 10 years.
The report states that increased land values were noted in every region of Nova Scotia but particularly in the western region, home to the Annapolis Valley, which is our bread basket here. Competition for land was high, and parcels for sale did not stay on the market for long. Purchasers ranged from existing farmers looking to expand their operations to retirees seeking retirement properties.
Some more information that we've gathered here in Nova Scotia is that the highest land values are in the Annapolis Valley, where land is going for approximately $10,000 an acre. Established vineyards go for high per acre values, although there haven't been many sales. There are not a lot of transactions of established vineyards. Establishment costs are in the range of $34,000 to $38,000 an acre, so this really drives up the price.
There's a wide variation in the price of the land based on where you're at in the province and its relationship to the soil quality and the climate and blueberry land, with blueberries making up a large part of our industry. The industry has been suffering recently from a low price cycle, 35 cents per pound when the break-even is approximately 55 cents per pound. While this is anticipated to be a short-term issue for the sector, it's certainly part of the equation when we're talking about land values in Nova Scotia.
To reiterate a point that I alluded to earlier, farmland near the coast can attract higher prices for non-agriculture development, subdivisions and cottages.
The causes related to farmland values, of course, are related to changes in supply and demand factors. We're not able to objectively prove the relevant importance of each factor, but here are some general observations from our province.
I know the committee has been interested in purchases from foreign purchasers. We took a look at our property database and we found 18 properties that have been purchased by an agricultural investment firm, totalling just over 1,000 acres. It seems to be a relatively new phenomenon as well, since all these purchases have happened since 2015. They've all been located in the Annapolis Valley, which again is our major agricultural region.
In terms of foreign ownership, we also ask property lawyers to indicate whether a new owner is a resident of Nova Scotia or not. It's not an audited or regulated process, but from the stats that we have from this initiative, we can see that if we're considering foreign owners as simply non-Nova Scotian but coming from elsewhere in Canada, there appears to be an increase in farmland purchases by these purchasers with a record of 42 properties changing hands, totalling approximately 2,000 acres in 2015.
When we are considering foreign purchases as being from non-Canadian purchasers, the trend is harder to identify, but over the past 10 years we've had an annual average of five properties being sold to these purchasers for an average of 225 acres.
I have a few other relevant anecdotal points. Demand for farms looking to expand their own land base to maintain or expand their production is a factor. Again, the expansion of the grape and wine sector is a factor, as well as the reinvention of our apple sector. A lot of focus has been given to replanting with higher-value varieties such as Honeycrisp apples, and one source estimated that a Honeycrisp orchard could potentially go for $30,000 per acre. There is also increased subdivision and non-agricultural development on farmlands.
in terms of the second bullet in the order of reference, concerns of the agricultural stakeholders and the challenges they face, I believe you've spoken with the President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, so they may have already told you this, but they do have a policy statement available online related to agricultural land protection. They're looking for a well-rounded program to protect agricultural land, including a land bank system, zero taxation on agricultural land, access to Crown land for agricultural use, and support for succession, so new farmers acquiring land and coming into the sector. Our Department of Agriculture mandate has a couple of points specifically related to protecting and preserving agricultural land as well.
If I was to theme the general concerns, they relate to the ability of new and existing farmers to access land in general. Of course rising costs are a barrier, as well as the ability to find land of appropriate size and access to markets and infrastructure.
Another issue from the Federation of Agriculture is inactive farmland receiving the tax exemption. They are looking to address that issue. There is also the ability to afford the upkeep of our dike system. Much of our very best land is protected by a dike system on the Bay of Fundy, and of course this is a major concern with climate change and sea level rise.
The final point is the general loss and fragmentation of the agricultural land resource base. I do have some rough stats on this. Perhaps I'll leave that, if you do have questions. I know the presentation portion of this committee is supposed to be relatively short to allow lots of time for questions. If you are interested, I can give you some specific numbers related to that issue.
With respect to the third point in the order of reference, possible solutions, I will give you a quick background of what we've currently got in terms of agricultural land protection policies in Nova Scotia. There are four of them. We have a statement of provincial interest regarding agricultural land that gives the province some oversight when new municipal planning strategies are being drafted and finalized to look at those municipal planning strategies from an agricultural lens. That's our main tool.
Also, we have agricultural land tax exemption on land, not the buildings, as well as the potential to levy a 20 per cent change-in-use tax when land ceases to be used for agriculture. Third, we have agricultural conservation easements, so this relates to land trusts and land banks; and fourth, we have the Agricultural Marshland Conservation Act. That's the current situation for agricultural land protection policies in the province.
Certainly the issue of agricultural land protection and preservation has been on our radar over the last 5 to 10 years for sure. There have been two publicly available reports and an internal report related to the issue, and from these three reports, we have 60 recommendations or opportunities for a public role in protecting or preserving our land base. Currently, MLA Keith Irving and I are reviewing these 60 recommendations to determine which are most relevant and of highest priority.
Finally, for opportunities at the federal level, not in order of priority, first would be better federal mapping. One of the main challenges with agricultural land protection is just having good information. We do have some decent sources but not at the level that we'd like to see. It's a major challenge, particularly for a smaller province like Nova Scotia, to spend the money and the time resources to get this information, and we do think that the federal government could provide a leadership role in this area.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada already have important initiatives going on in this area, although as far as I'm aware they're not quite to the level that we can use here in Nova Scotia. Some more resources dedicated to that would help us out greatly.
More federal funding for dikes. I mentioned that our dike system is protecting a substantial amount of our highest quality farmland, and it's a major challenge to afford the upkeep, maintenance and upgrades needed to meet climate change standards. One estimate was that it's going to cost anywhere between $170 million to $230 million to bring our dike system up to 2055 standards, and obviously that's an immense financial burden on our small province.
A federal ecogifts program would also be a major benefit in terms of agricultural land protection. There's an ecogifts program for ecologically significant land in Canada that is donated to a land trust. The main benefit of this program is that there's a 10-year tax rebate carryover period and the elimination of capital gains tax when land is donated or signed into a conservation easement. If we were able to extend this not only to ecologically significant lands but agriculturally significant lands, that would make the land trust/land bank conservation easement role a much higher impact in terms of protecting agricultural land.
Funding in general for land banks and land trusts. We do have one agricultural land bank that's in its infancy in Nova Scotia. It's a small organization that's making important strides, but the resources needed to sign on to a conservation easement, the legal fees, the monitoring of that easement is very difficult for a small organization like that to maintain. Funding in that area would help.
Then, of course, the best way to keep land and farming is for the agricultural sector to be profitable, as you know well, and of course the support for the next policy framework plays a major role in that area.
That's it for my speaking points. I'll allow most of the time here to field questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Devanney.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Devanney, for your presentation. I have a couple of quick questions. What has been the effect of the sale or merger, whichever way you want to describe it, of the two major dairies in Nova Scotia with respect to land use, both being involved with companies outside of the province? What effect has it had on land use?
Mr. Devanney: To be honest, Senator Mercer, I'm not prepared to comment on that at the moment. It's not something that I personally had looked into for this meeting. Feel free to follow up with us after the meeting, but I'm not prepared to comment on that at this time.
Senator Mercer: I'd like you to do that at a future date, if you could.
Mr. Devanney: Yes.
Senator Mercer: The grape and wine sector you mentioned, and those of us who live in Nova Scotia, particularly those of us who live close to agricultural communities, are aware of the large growth of grapes and the wine industry, particularly in the Annapolis Valley where grapes are becoming more obvious to those of us who travel through the valley. What crops are they replacing? Most of that land was in production before. What are the grapes replacing?
Mr. Devanney: I feel like this would be a question for our folks on the ground more than me. Again, Nova Scotia is a very diverse agricultural sector, so I think you would have replacement from a wide variety of crops, orchards and some forested land as well. We've got a good handle on the establishment costs between $35,000 and $38,000 an acre. It really would run the gamut of developing fallow land, replacing crop land and orchard. I don't have specific numbers on this, so I do apologize for that, but many sectors in general.
Senator Mercer: Let's switch from grapes and move over to blueberries. Blueberries are a significant crop in Nova Scotia. Is it safe to say that for the land being used for blueberry production, that is the only use you could use that land for in agricultural production because it is not prime agricultural land?
Mr. Devanney: Yes, you're correct. An important factor in the agricultural land context in Nova Scotia is that while, in general, we talk about suitable land being CLI 3 or lower, blueberry thrives on CLI 4 or worse, to a certain extent. It's very much removed from the general crop market, let's say. You're quite right.
Senator Mercer: It seems like we could grow stuff from rocks now.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Devanney, for being here. At the start of your presentation, I don't know what the amount was but you referred to a significant portion of land that could be used for farming but is not. What is that land being used for?
Mr. Devanney: Again, this points to the need for better information on agricultural land in general, but it would be cultivated forest or some other natural use. I don't want to give the impression that while 30 per cent is used for farming, 7 per cent is urban, that the remaining large percentage is just available. It could be underwater, to a certain extent, or slopes could be too high and the climate might not be good enough. There would be a large portion of that land that would not be suitable for agricultural production. Again, that's where we need help in getting a better handle on exactly what our agricultural land is being used for and over time.
Senator Plett: In your presentation, you talked about the percentage of farming that was under supply management. Are the orchards — the grapes, blueberries and apples — supply management product?
Mr. Devanney: No. Supply management would be dairy and poultry.
Senator Plett: The same as anywhere else in the country. Thank you.
My colleague here is from British Columbia. We've had people from British Columbia in to talk about their orchards. I know that in the Okanagan Valley, many of the orchards are owned by people that would, quite frankly, be able to sell and retire many times over if they could sell their orchard and develop the land into residential properties, but they're restricted from doing that, for obvious reasons. They need to keep the orchards in British Columbia. Do you have those restrictions in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Devanney: No. British Columbia and Quebec, of course, would be the leaders in Canada in terms of protecting their agricultural land. We have municipal zoning in the Annapolis Valley, which would have the same effect as the agricultural land reserve, but we do not have any provincial land reserve like British Columbia does.
Senator Plett: Do you have a restriction on foreign purchasers from other countries? Do you have any restrictions on people from the United States or Finland or anywhere else coming in and buying farmland in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Devanney: No, we do not.
Senator Oh: The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture said it was concerned about urban development within an hour's drive of good farmland areas. Is the government doing something about urbanization? Are they concerned? How do they contain the good farmland being used for industrial lands and any other urbanization development?
Mr. Devanney: Again, we have a number of agricultural land protection-related policies in place at the moment. We have the statement of provincial interest, which is our main policy and which gives us oversight when municipal planning strategies are amended and finalized.
We also have the tax exemption and change-in-use tax which, when applied, and anecdotally we're hearing that the change-in-use tax is not being applied in every case, or even in the majority of cases, a 20 per cent change-in-use tax would be a major disincentive to taking land out of agricultural production.
We also have the marshlands act which restricts development on our marshlands, and many of them would be within an hour's drive of Halifax, as well as our Conservation Easements Act. Those are the four policies that we have in place now.
We are actively looking at 60 recommendations from the three reports that I mentioned earlier to determine where we can make advances in the area of agricultural land protection.
Senator Ogilvie: Good morning, Mr. Devanney. First of all, during your verbal presentation you mentioned — and I don't have a copy of the written, so I don't know if it's the same in there or not — but you referred to the importance of diking on the Bay of Fundy. In actual fact, I think you meant to say the Minas Basin. I live on the Bay of Fundy, and the Minas Basin is that part that deals with the area from Wolfville-Kingsport, all the way down the Avon River and out to the Minas Basin. That's where the dike lands are. I think you meant to say the dikes on the Minas Basin part of the valley.
Mr. Devanney: Not quite. I think we'll have a debate over our Bay of Fundy jargon. I live on the end as well, actually.
Senator Ogilvie: I agree. There is that one section of the Bay of Fundy that sweeps up via Truro where that would occur. We won't go any further. You would agree that there's substantial diking on the Minas Basin and its tributaries?
Mr. Devanney: I would. For your background, there are dike lands that reach as far down as St. Mary's Bay, so it really does span the Bay of Fundy. We do have maps of that.
Senator Ogilvie: Good. I'll review your maps to correct my visual impressions.
As you know, we don't have printed copies of your report, so I'm trying to view your map on page 3. It's not possible for me to distinguish the different colours of green on a cellphone on that, so I'll restrict my questions with regard to the potential agricultural land to the following. You'll forgive me if I am misinterpreting your map.
You show a significant part of the land, much of it in that coastal area in the Bay of Fundy, where you say it's agricultural on class 2, 3 and 4. When you say agriculture on class 2, 3 and 4, does that mean that the land highlighted is actually in production for agriculture?
Mr. Devanney: Yes. Sorry for not getting these to you a little bit sooner. It is, admittedly, a very busy map, but you're quite right. You'll be aware in Hants County, I don't know if you can see it on your smartphone, but it's duller there. That's the CLI 2, 3, 4 and no agriculture, and the darker colours there, as you correctly note, are arable land — CLI 2, 3 and 4 — that is being used for agriculture. That's based on our best information, which is not perfect, and that's where we need help.
Senator Ogilvie: In understand. I'm just trying to get a feeling for it. It is possible that my travels in Nova Scotia are different, as we've already indicated, in terms of what I'm seeing visually as I move around.
If we take the area down Highway 215, the Avon River, down into the Minas Basin area, historically there were a very significant number. It was almost farm after farm after farm along there: small farms of 150, 200 and 250 acres with arable land along the coast and woodland behind. I'm assuming, then, that the colours here do not include those lands that were once farmed but which are now not being farmed and/or have alders or other growth on them. Is that correct?
Mr. Devanney: Yes. In fact, these data are from 1998, so these were the last, and that points to the difficulties we have with getting good information. In 1998, they used aerial photography from our Department of Natural Resources and ground-trooped it. They worked with the municipalities and they hired students to go out and drive around to make sure that what the folks in DNR were classifying as agriculture actually was agriculture. So it's 1998 and beyond. Anything that had been farmed, historically, before that that was in forest, would not show up as agriculture on this map.
Senator Ogilvie: I have two further quick questions with regard to the land use.
During the Save our Farms activity, which you will recall probably somewhat vividly, I was really surprised that during that time I didn't see any real figures on the amount of farmland that we had, or the potential farmland in use. I think you have explained why, perhaps, good numbers might not have been available for that debate.
I'm a little bit surprised, with the Centre of Geographic Sciences down at the end of valley, with their incredibly modern mapping techniques and capabilities, that we haven't moved forward in that area. I think this is a critical need for us in planning activity in the farming sector, which is valuable to us in that area and for the province.
My final question is: Is it your perception that we have seen a fairly substantial, and sometimes even dramatic, upgrade in the last decade in the modernization of our farming practices in Nova Scotia and the ability to quickly adapt to higher-value crops and rotation even in the apple and other orchard varieties?
Mr. Devanney: On your first comment, you are quite right: the Nova Scotia Community College's Lawrencetown campus Centre of Geographic Sciences — I can't remember what their official label is now — does have excellent faculty down there in technology to get good information on agricultural lands. In fact, you'll find that for specific areas — Annapolis County and Kings County, to a certain extent — we do have very good information on farmland.
The issue is that that doesn't extend to the other areas of the province and it's not regular. Ideally, we would have province-wide information updated annually, bi-annually or maybe every five years. Really, we need to look toward Prince Edward Island. Obviously, they are small but they, as far as I'm aware, have the best geographic information on agricultural land in the country.
To your second comment, yes, I would agree that agriculture has become increasingly mechanized and — this is personal opinion here — I would say it is somewhat resilient, but agriculture is a very long-term business, and I think that's at the crux of the problem.
I read the transcripts from the British Columbia meeting that you had previously and they, and someone earlier, had mentioned about residential land owners holding orchards and being able to develop it into residences when they chose. That's the issue: Agriculture is a long time frame activity, and all that has to happen is for someone to own the land that doesn't intend to farm it, or for a farmer to be forced out of production due to the economic realities of a couple of years, and then we lose that land base forever, essentially.
While I do agree it is more mechanized and somewhat resilient, there are challenges that individual farmers face. In terms of orchards, we have had major success here in Nova Scotia revitalizing our industry by replanting with high- value varietals like Honeycrisp, but that does take time.
Senator Beyak: I wanted to ask you about taxes. You mentioned them several times during your presentation, and when the president of the Federation of Agriculture was here, he told us that Nova Scotia municipalities have a zero- tax policy. Could you elaborate more on that, tell me if it's working, what the purpose was and if other provinces perhaps should implement it?
Mr. Devanney: Thank you for the question. It's actually somewhat difficult to get good information on the rationale of this policy when it was initially incorporated, but what I've heard is that the intent of the zero taxation on agricultural land was to equate the tax burden of farms on the rural-urban fringe with those in a more rural area. You are right in that the policy is zero taxation on the value of the land, so the municipalities receive a rebate from the province of approximately three dollars an acre to compensate them for the forgone tax revenue. Another component of that is the 20 per cent change-in-use tax.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Devanney. I would like to draw your attention to young people. Could you elaborate on any solutions that work to attract or retain young people in the agriculture fold as investors or workers? Does the province have the conditions to attract young people to agriculture, or at least to keep them in agriculture?
[English]
Mr. Devanney: I think succession planning is of critical importance. Specific activities we have related to that include programs called THINKFARM and FarmNEXT.
THINKFARM is more of an educational program, to my knowledge, helping to provide information to new or aspiring farmers on how to effectively enter the industry.
The FarmNEXT program reduces the principal of a loan from our provincial Farm Loan Board to reduce the burden in affording the capital start-up costs, which are huge for new farmers. It reduces the principal by, I believe, $30,000 and, of course, has interest savings associated with that reduction.
We do have those two specific policies, and then many other ag-awareness related initiatives that really provide efforts to educate the public and farmers. Of course, we have the Dalhousie Agricultural Campus that used to have much tighter links with the provincial government officially, but still maintains important linkages as well.
All of these assets really do help impact the ability for new farmers to enter our industry, and it's an identified critical area for us to promote.
We also did a study with the THINKFARM program that I mentioned before that looked at barriers to growth of farmers entering the industry. That report is not finalized yet so I can't give you the results of it.
But all that is to say we took the initiative to specifically look for the issues that might be hampering efforts for new farmers to enter and succeed in the industry.
Senator Pratte: You mentioned lack of information on farmland, and that's a problem mentioned by many witnesses in front of this committee. Would you elaborate a bit on what information on farmland that you have at present, and what it is that you are lacking?
Mr. Devanney: We've gotten information from a number of sources. The census would be one, Statistics Canada. Most of our information on agriculture statistics comes from Statistics Canada and we are very appreciative of that. I personally serve on a federal-provincial agricultural statistics committee that helps to ensure we are getting the most relevant and accurate statistics.
But when we are talking about land — I have a small amount of GIS background, geographic information systems — I want to be able to see information visually so that I can look for patterns of agricultural land change within the province and within the country. We're really not there in terms of that geographic information.
I mentioned that we have the 1998 Agricultural Land Identification Program. That's the information we need, but there are accuracy issues. This relates to another component of our agricultural land information. Our Department of Natural Resources flies the province with a plane, takes pictures of it and covers the province over a 10-year period. Obviously, the issue is that by the time they're done in the southwest, the northeast is 10 years behind. We don't have consistent information from that source.
The other problem is that while we have the imagery, someone needs to go and basically trace a line around the farm field, digitizing that and saying this is farmland. You also need a mechanism to check that. This is the ground truthing that I mentioned, which took place in 1998. This costs time and money, and we literally have no staff within our ministry to do this work that would need to be done.
I see a fair amount of effort happening at the federal level, specifically with AAFC, doing the same type of thing. They focus their efforts on the Prairies where it's much easier to use satellite imagery, in this case, to identify what is agricultural land. These are huge swaths of lands as contrasted with Nova Scotia where you may have an irregularly shaped five-acre field in the middle of a forested area. It's difficult to do that here, but they are going down that road. They have the imagery, so it's human resources in order to digitize that information and give additional insight that needs to be applied to a diverse, small-scale province like Nova Scotia. That would really get us where we need to be.
We also have some administrative sources of data that aren't perfect. We have a Property Valuation Services Corporation in Nova Scotia that classifies land as agriculture, but they don't have — again it's related to resource capacity — the ability to determine when land has ceased farming. You can imagine the incentive structure here. If I own a piece of agricultural land, I'm receiving the tax exemption that we talked about earlier. They are attempting to develop an audit process, but officially they don't have one, so they are relying on me to either sell or transfer that land to someone else, and then they see that and can check and see if it's still farmed or not. But failing that, they are relying on me as a citizen to go and say, "I'm no longer farming this land. Will you please start charging me taxes?'' And I don't think that happens very often.
Senator Pratte: In your presentation, you talked about our concern for institutional investors buying farmland. You mentioned, I think in 2015, 15 transactions. Would you just repeat that statistic, because I'm not sure I got exactly what kind of investor had bought that land?
Mr. Devanney: I said a record 42 properties in 2015 totalling 2,000 acres. That was the foreign ownership and that was non-Nova Scotian ownership. And then the truly foreign non-Canadian purchases were an average of five properties and 225 acres over 10 years.
Senator Pratte: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Thank you for your presentation. I have two questions. The first one is on the diking system. I don't want to get into debates about geography or geomorphology, but you implied that the diking system is inadequate to deal with future environmental and climate changes. I have just come from meetings on disaster management and black swan events. Could you speak a bit more about the risk assessment done on the diking system, the assumptions about whether it's a catastrophic event sea level rise that require these upgrades to the diking system, and what sort of thinking is going on about how adequate those preparations are?
Mr. Devanney: Sure. I was personally involved in a marshland study over the past couple of years that looked into all of this information. Our dike lands have been identified as critical infrastructure with our emergency management office. We have 241 kilometres of dikes protecting 17,500 hectares of agricultural land, and this is some of our best land.
I threw around some numbers earlier, and it's in the vicinity of $200 million needed to upgrade the dike system to meet 2055 climate change standards. We have a fair amount of information on what sea level rise will look like in these flood prone areas. Basically, we looked at where the high water mark is anticipated to be in 2055, and we looked at the height of our 241 kilometres of dikes. There are varying levels of status of those dikes. Some have had no maintenance, aren't being used very much for farming and aren't protecting huge amounts of non-agricultural infrastructure, all the way to dikes that have been already updated to climate change standards that are protecting hundreds of millions of dollars of non-agricultural assets, including public infrastructure.
All you have to do is drive from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick across the Chignecto Isthmus, and you can see the Trans-Canada Highway and rail lines are protected, and that's keeping us connected to the rest of you.
We looked at the height of the dikes, what they needed to be for climate change standards and did engineering estimates on the amount of fill that would be needed to bring them up to the climate change height. Rock armour is a major component of the cost, if you want to put huge boulders on the front of dikes so they don't erode as fast. The structures themselves are very costly. We did a cost estimate for each individual dike based on its height and the height it needed, the amount of fill and rock armour it required. All of those estimates went into the ultimate $200 million-ish value.
Senator Woo: My question was really about the risk assessment process rather than the cost and what it would take to improve the dike process. You don't have to supplement, but the question is really about whether the sensitivity analysis is sufficiently robust given the accelerating pace of climate change and the possibility of the 2050 or 2080 events happening sooner than that time. That is an editorial comment today.
Mr. Devanney: We can follow up on that. If you send me a request, we do have a land protection office that would know this information better. But I think you're right; it's a moving target. So all we can do is based on the current assumptions of sea level rise and climate change that we know. But if some of the worst-case scenarios come to be reality, you can anticipate that the risk assessment will fall out and the costs will be higher.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I have a supplementary question. With respect to sea levels, will the current and future hydroelectric projects happening in the Bay of Fundy have an effect on sea levels? Already, the highest tides in the world are in the Bay of Fundy. Will the hydroelectric experiment happening in the bay right now have an effect?
Mr. Devanney: You are really testing my area of expertise. With no engineering background whatsoever, I cannot imagine it would affect sea level rise. These are literally turbines, imagine a wind turbine, under water, so it's really working with the current that flows by it. I can't imagine that it would impact sea levels. It's not a dam structure at all.
Senator Mercer: That was my understanding as well. I just wanted to get it on the record for the report.
Senator Woo: My other question is on the demand side of agriculture. Could you tell us a bit about the role of exports in agricultural production in Nova Scotia, and more particularly whether there is any correlation between the foreign investment you have seen in agricultural lands and use of that investment for export to overseas markets?
Mr. Devanney: I'll try my best. Exports are certainly a very crucial part of our industry and are growing as well. I think just under $300 million would be our most recent exports stats. A very large portion of that would be frozen wild blueberries, as well as vegetables, which is all coming from one large company, for the most part.
Another significant export from our agricultural industry is mink fur. The mink industry has been under major pressure in the last few years, so the relative importance of the fur exports has gone down, but yes, it is bringing money into the province, so it's something that we're looking to grow in exports, in tandem with our fishery exports. The giant really is our fish exports.
Exports in general and specifically related to agriculture and fisheries have been identified. There was one Nova Scotia report, also known as the Ivany report, that really gave a nod to these two industries and specifically to exports as crucial for our economic sustainability in the future, and we are very close to meeting those goals already in terms of exports, particularly on the fish side.
In terms of foreign ownership, as I mentioned earlier, that's a relatively new phenomena. We have seen 18 properties purchased in the Annapolis Valley as of 2015, so we don't have the information to know how those properties are being used at the moment. My understanding is that this firm looks to lease the land to farmers for a flat rate of return. I suppose a rough, off-the-cuff analysis would be that considering 50 per cent of our industry here is supply managed and 50 per cent is not, you could hunt and say, "Well, maybe 50 per cent of that land is being used to export or for domestic markets,'' but that's very much speculation.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Mr. Devanney. Clearly, the Government of Nova Scotia wants to protect farmland. Earlier, you mentioned the whole issue of succession planning for farmland. Do you have a good idea from your analyses about the profile of landowners, of the demographics? Looking at the trends over the last 10 years, what can we expect to see in the next 10 years in terms of the transfer of farmland?
[English]
Mr. Devanney: It's a very important question. I believe as of the last census, we have the oldest or very close to the oldest average age of farmers in Canada as a province, somewhere in the vicinity of 53 years old. Succession is a key issue for our industry and for the province in general. We have a very elderly population.
The trend has been an aging farm population over the last 10 years. We are seeing more young farmers enter the industry in tandem with the local food movement, and that's very encouraging to see. As you know, farming is a very capital intensive business, and the start-up costs can be prohibitive. That's why we're looking to understand better the profile of our farmers and their challenges to entering and succeeding in the industry. Basically we are reliant on Statistics Canada information for that, but also some of these ad hoc studies that we have taken the initiative to look into ourselves.
Going forward, our hand will be forced on this issue one way or the other. Our older experienced farmers will not be able to continue forever and will need something to retire on. This is a direct impact on the agricultural land protection question. I would imagine that most farmers would prefer to sell their land to a new farmer who will continue that tradition, but if a new farmer can't be identified, if they can't afford it, these farmers still need to retire and probably need to capitalize on the value of their farm. It's a major concern.
Agricultural protection policy plays a role, but we also need to be fair to the farmers and not allow them to bear that cost 100 per cent individually, so it's a difficult question to answer.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question that many children in Quebec have asked. Nova Scotia grows excellent, high-quality products, one of which is prized by Quebec children. Unfortunately, this product, the famous Honeycrisp apple, is not available all year round. Although it is expensive, it is very popular with children in Quebec. However, it is only available on the market for three or four months a year. Do apple growers plan to produce more to meet the demand in Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Devanney: I think we'd love to. The ability to access farmland to expand the orchards would be a challenge in that area. I hate the term "consumer,'' but consumer tastes and preferences change quite rapidly today, so I can imagine if I myself was an apple farmer and had reinvested all my money in a Honeycrisp orchard, I would be quite happy today because, as you point out, we do have a competitive advantage in Honeycrisp apples. They are a high- value variety and times are good right now. I would personally be concerned if those tastes change to a different variety because replacing apple trees again points to the longer-term considerations of farming in general. It's not an annual crop, of course.
Where possible, within the limitations that I mentioned earlier, we would like to see continued expansion in that industry. It's absolutely the bright spot for Nova Scotia agriculture. We are proud of the strides made in that area, and currently it's a good-news story.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mercer: I have three very quick questions. I'll start with the one that is probably the easiest first. Should we be asking StatsCan to expand their rural census in the next census to help provide some of that data that you seem to be missing? I assume that, if you're missing it, other provinces are missing it too. This seems to be a very fixable thing, by putting it to StatsCan to expand their census in the future. That's the first question.
The second question —
Mr. Devanney: Go ahead, and I can answer them all at the end.
Senator Mercer: Good; that would be preferable.
You have not mentioned in your presentation something I thought would have made your presentation — the federal Department of Agriculture's research station in Kentville and the importance that has had and the importance it plays in agriculture in Canada and how it has helped farmers in Nova Scotia to adapt. They have done a lot of good work in blueberries and apples. I don't know what other products, but I am aware of some of the work they have done on blueberries and apples. Is that still of major importance?
My third question, so you can give it all together: For my colleagues who may not be aware of this, the Nova Scotia Agriculture College, which is based in Truro, Nova Scotia, has recently joined Dalhousie University as the Faculty of Agriculture. Has that made a difference, positively or negatively, on how we're training young farmers and any research that is happening outside of the research station in Kentville? Those are my three questions.
Mr. Devanney: The first one, yes, absolutely I think that Statistics Canada can play — they certainly do play — a very significant role in our agricultural statistics.
In terms of agricultural land information, again, we need to distinguish between the survey-type information that Statistics Canada often produces and the geographic information that I personally think that we really need to answer these land issues. I mention that because I wouldn't like to see reinventions of the wheels here. Statistics Canada would already be well aware of the information going on in the area of remote sensing. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is doing work in that area that Statistics Canada would be aware of. I think that there would be a role for them to work together and with the provinces as well to make sure that the outcome of these initiatives are what we need, but I wouldn't want to see AAFC doing it and Statistics Canada doing it, of course. But, yes, I think Statistics Canada and AAFC should work together, along with the provinces, to look at what their role could be in this area. I think it really does need to lie with them at a federal level.
Your second two questions are quite related. I'm thinking of agricultural clusters of information here. Both the Kentville Research Station and Dalhousie Agricultural Campus, formerly NSAC, play a major role in the development of our industry not only in Nova Scotia but in Atlantic Canada, and their mandate has always been Atlantic Canada. We're very lucky to have them. Just down from the road from me is Dalhousie Agriculture Campus. I'm a graduate from that school; there's my Dal Agriculture water glass there. So it's very unique assets, and the research and the development industry that flows out of that research are of paramount importance. Their continued and increased impact on the sector is something that we would welcome in the province.
Senator Mercer: You get an extra fundraising letter from Dalhousie for just putting the glass on television.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Devanney. I am sure you have been able to notice the senators' interest in this matter. Your testimony will help us prepare our report that will be published in the coming months. Thank you very much and good luck in your research.
Before we adjourn, we have two very important messages. The first one is a mandatory motion from Senator Mercer, so Senator Mercer, please go ahead.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I move:
That, pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2016, the membership of the Subcommitee on Agenda and Procedure be increased by one non-voting member chosen from the senators who are not members of a recognized party, to be designated by the usual consultations.
That is my motion and I assume that, at some point after my motion, someone will make a nomination.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you want to discuss the motion or adopt it? It is very simple.
Senator Gagné: I move the motion.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Gagné and seconded by Senator Woo.
Senator Gagné: No. I move that Senator Woo be the designated person.
The Chair: It is a motion. Is anyone against it? The motion is carried unanimously. Congratulations, Senator Woo, and welcome!
The second point is that you have received or will receive in the next few days a copy of the report that we will have to read and study together on Valentine's Day, on February 14. You have a week to read it, and if you have annotations, amendments to propose, this is the time to prepare them. At the February 14 meeting, we will review it and make corrections so that we can adopt it at the end of February. Thank you, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)