Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 17 - Evidence - Meeting of October 27, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 27, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to continue its study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everybody.
My name is Senator Maltais, Chair of this committee on agriculture and forestry. Senators will introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Mercer: Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
Senator Merchant: Welcome. Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Senator André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett. I'm from Manitoba.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Boyd. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is continuing its study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
This morning, from Statistics Canada, we have Greg Peterson, Director General of the Agriculture, Energy, Environment and Transportation Studies Branch, and Stephen Boyd, Unit Head of the Agriculture Division. Gentlemen, you have a brief to read to us. Then, the senators will ask you questions. I ask that you all be brief because there are 11 of us around the table, and all the senators have questions. The floor is yours, Mr. Peterson.
Greg Peterson, Director General of the Agriculture, Energy, Environment and Transportation Studies Branch, Statistics Canada: We are pleased to be here this morning to present our data on the use and value of agricultural properties in Canada.
[English]
I would like to open by providing perhaps a little bit of context around agriculture in Canada. I believe a copy of the slides has been circulated beforehand, and I'm going to refer to a number of graphs on these slides in the interests of brevity.
If we concern ourselves with a few stylized facts around agriculture, if we take a look at agriculture as kind of a megatrend, I have, on slide 2, a graph that shows what's been happening since 1956, using the Census of Agriculture. If we take a look at what has been happening between 1956 and 2011, we see that the number of farms has declined significantly, by 64 per cent. Over the same period, we've had a slight decrease in the total amount of farm area, a decline of 8 per cent over the same period. Overall, in Canada, we have fewer farms; we have larger farms. Incidentally, in terms of a megatrend, over the same period, farm cash receipts increased about 20-fold. Smaller numbers of farms, larger farms, much more productive farms.
Again, a lot of the information I present is based on the Census of Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture is a very powerful tool because it's the only mechanism that we have to provide information at very small levels of geographical detail, but we only have data going up to 2011. The results of the 2016 census will be released in May. That said, I've pulled out a fair bit of data that's pertinent to the discussion here.
If I move to slide 3, keeping in mind that there has been a gradual decline in total farm area, the nature of land tenure has also changed. If we take a look at the percentage of farm area that is owned by the operator, we see that that proportion has declined between 1986 and 2011, the period we started measuring this phenomenon, a decline of 64 per cent of total farm area, down to 60 per cent in 2011.
Of course, there's a corresponding increase in the proportion of farm area that is rented. However, this increase is largely from area rented or leased from others as oppose to area leased from governments. The total area rented or leased from outside of government accounted for 22 per cent of farm area in 1986. Those rose to 27 per cent of farm area in 2011.
If I continue to slide 4, looking at agricultural land use, among the farmland that's used, cropland, of course, is the single most important use of farmland, followed by pasture. Again, based on the Census of Agriculture, the total area of land in crops and summer fallow has declined slightly between 2001 and 2011, by 9 per cent, to about 75.6 million acres.
Those are a few stylized facts around agriculture. If we look a little more specifically toward land use, on slide 5, we present a map of the census metropolitan area of Toronto. About a year ago, we started doing some work taking a look at ecosystems that surround census metropolitan areas, and we took a look at changing land-use patterns within those CMA ecosystems. The example I have here is for Toronto, but we have similar information for every census metropolitan area in the country. This map shows that the lighter pink is urban area back in 1971, and the darker pink is more recent development. We see that, as urbanization is spreading, it, of course, is encroaching on land that had been used for other purposes. What this chart shows is that the increased urbanization within the Toronto CMA occurred with declines in the amount of available arable land as well as the amount of natural land.
Senator Pratte: Where's farmland on this?
Mr. Peterson: Farmland would be arable land. It would land that could potentially be used for farming.
Senator Pratte: Okay, but what colour? Is that white?
Mr. Peterson: Light pink was the built-up area of Toronto in 1971. As we get into the darker pink, that's increased urbanization, and the graphs on the right show, with that increased urbanization, where the land has come from, where there has been decline in other types of land. So urbanization is occurring.
If I move to slide 6, it shows how the value of land in buildings per acre has changed over time, going back to 1971. The source data for this series is our farm financial program, which provides us with less detailed information than the Census of Agriculture but more timely information. If we take a look at the trend in the value of land per acre, it shows that, after a period of stagnant values from the early 1980s to 1990s, land values have generally been rising, with very strong increases from 2010.
If we take a look at the five-year period between 2010 and 2015, we see that the average value of land and buildings per acre has increased by 77 per cent, to reach about $2,700 per acre. This, of course, varies by province. Land values in Saskatchewan, over the same period, increased by 110 per cent; in Manitoba by 78 per cent; in Ontario by 84 per cent; and in Quebec by 73 per cent.
The value of land varies by province as well. Ontario has the most expensive property. The value of land and buildings per acre in 2015 was about $10,000 in Ontario, compared to about $5,500 per acre in Quebec and about $5,400 per acre in British Columbia. In 2015, the province with the lowest value of land and buildings per acre was Saskatchewan, at about $1,200 per acre.
If I move to slide 7, as I've just described, this increase in land value is not homogenous across the country. What we're trying to show in slide 7 is how the value of land and buildings per acre has changed over time using a geography called "consolidated census subdivisions." This is a census geography that covers the entire country. It does not necessarily correspond to agricultural growing regions. If you look at the map, of course, we know that there is no agriculture occurring close to James Bay. That just happens to be how the boundaries are delimited.
If we take a look at the census geography rather than this agricultural topology, I think this slide is important because it shows that there is an important sub-provincial spatial aspect to this data as well. Although this is by no means conclusive, it does suggest that proximity to urban areas may be playing a role in changing property values.
I will flip back to the actual value of farmland per acre. Slide 8 compares that same trend we had seen earlier in value of land and buildings per acre to other economic characteristics of the farm, namely cash receipts and debt. This graph compares the value of land per acre against the value of farm cash receipts per acre against the value of debt per acre, trying to put everything on the same basis. It shows that while the levels of farm debt and farm cash receipts per acre have been rising, the value per acre of farmland and buildings has been advancing at a stronger rate.
To get a fuller picture of what's happening on the farm in terms of its financial characteristics, my last slide, slide 9, shows how liabilities have been rising relative to the value of assets. If we were to compare data on farm assets and liabilities, again from our more current farm financial program, it demonstrates the total liabilities are increasing but not nearly as fast as the total value of land and buildings. If we net out assets and liabilities, total assets far exceed total liabilities.
If we focus on the last five years of this chart, 2010 to 2015, that was a period I described as a very strong increase in the value of land and buildings per acre. Again, the total value increased by a little over 70 per cent. Assets that are not land and buildings increased by 56 per cent over the same period. However, increases in liabilities increased by a much smaller 43 per cent. The graph shows that net farm equity is rising but it's very much as a result of increasing property values.
To close off the discussion on farm liabilities, we do keep track of farm debt and types of farm debt. Between 1995 and 2015, the total increase in farm debt has been fairly evenly split between mortgage and non-mortgage debt.
That is the information I wanted to bring to the table, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, gentlemen. You've provided some very interesting information, and you've also challenged my recent eye surgery to read your slides.
The study today is on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector. One of the things that you didn't talk about — at least I missed it if you did — is the question of land transfer, which is really the ultimate question for us. It's not only the cost of land. The average age of a farmer is well on; maybe not as old as those of us around this table, but he or she is moving on in age, and their concern, of course, is the transfer of that land, not only to their children but also to provide for their own well-being when they actually do retire, if they retire. Did you do any studies on the question of land transfer of agricultural land?
Mr. Peterson: No, we haven't done specific studies on land transfer. The question you raise is a really interesting one and highlights perhaps a gap we currently have within the statistical system. We collect a lot of information on farmers, so the demographic trends you're describing are things that we have been tracking primarily through the Census of Agriculture. You're right; the aging population is an important issue.
In the 2016 Census of Agriculture, we are going to start asking questions about succession planning, so we might get at how farms will pass through inter-generationally. The question of land transfers really goes to perhaps an incomplete set of information we have on property ownership. We do collect information on property values. We do collect information on building permits. The data I presented are the self-assessments on the part of farmers on the value of properties, but we haven't yet been able to collect detailed information on individual transfers.
Senator Mercer: On slide 3, you talk about the percentage of farm area that is owned, and it's declined from 64 per cent to 60 per cent. The analysis here would be to determine what has happened in the decline from 64 per cent to 60 per cent. Is it because that 4 per cent is now urban in nature because of urban expansion, or is it because it's now out of production?
Mr. Peterson: No. The graph on slide 3 is a proportional breakdown of all farmland. Everything on that slide adds up to 100 per cent, but the total is all farmland. There's less agricultural land available but, in order to compare things year by year, everything still adds up to 100 per cent.
Senator Mercer: Farmland that was owned has declined from 64 per cent to 60 per cent. That's the point I wanted to get on the table. There's more land being rented as opposed to being owned?
Mr. Peterson: That's correct, yes.
Senator Mercer: The other issue you didn't address is the availability of farmland. Around this table, we've talked many times about the fact that in 2050 we're going to have 6 billion people on this planet and we have to be able to feed them. That means that those of us who have the ability to provide and put more land into agriculture are going to have to, and we're going to have to be more efficient. But you haven't talked about how much land has been added. Your maps of urban areas and the one of Toronto are good ones, but there has to be another map that shows expansion of farmland or expansion of arable land that has been taken.
Mr. Peterson: I would have to go back and look at that. I don't have that map immediately available. But you're right that as cities expand, farmland is expanding into other arable land. We don't have a complete land inventory of Canada at Statistics Canada. We've really been focusing this analysis on urban sprawl.
Senator Mercer: Perhaps, Mr. Peterson, you can have a look at that and see if you have some data that shows the expansion or the spread of agricultural land, one would assume north, away from urban centres.
Mr. Peterson: Yes.
Senator Mercer: That would be useful for us to look at in this study, to see if there's a corresponding move from the map you showed us of the GTA and the perhaps north of Barrie, using Ontario as the study. I assume that would happen in all parts of the country, but we want you to tell us whether it does or doesn't.
Mr. Peterson: I'll look at the data we have, but I would also draw your attention to the graph on slide 2 where we look at the total amount of land that's farmed, and it is showing a gradual decline over time.
Senator Mercer: The question there is why. There is a theory that it's because fewer people are farming, and that may go to your slide 5 on urban sprawl.
Mr. Peterson: Yes.
Senator Mercer: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Peterson, when you find that information, would you be able to send it to our clerk, Mr. Pittman, so that we can complete our study? Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: This wasn't one of my original questions, but it was raised by what Senator Mercer was asking. On slide 2, you say the number of farms has been declining but not necessarily the acres of farms, or at least the number of farms has been declining faster than the farming acres. I think Senator Mercer and I certainly would want to know whether we're getting ourselves into trouble, because clearly production has increased. Are we on the right track to feed the 6 billion people or are we not? Are we going to be in trouble? If there are stats on that, I would be very interested in those as well, to see whether that in fact is the case. Production is always increasing, so how much can we decrease in the number of acres farmed?
Mr. Peterson: We don't have information looking ahead. My colleagues from Agriculture and Agri-food tend to do that type of forecasting.
Senator Plett: Maybe we have them coming and we can ask them that question. I'm not sure.
Mr. Peterson: In the interest of brevity, I focused this presentation on land use, but the agriculture sector is truly a fascinating sector to look at. We have a stable stock of land that's being farmed. It's declining a little bit, but it's pretty stable. We have a decrease in the number of farms, which is suggesting consolidation and perhaps farms having increased economies of scale, and we certainly see an increased incidence of larger, more complex farm operations.
What's missing from this presentation is a description of the entire stock of capital that's purchased in order to operate a farm nowadays. If we were to look at overall capital expenditures, not just land, I think you'd find that, along with the increased price of land, there is also increased mechanization happening, and all of this is leading to increased productivity on the farm level. The trend in terms of farm production is positive.
Senator Plett: Absolutely. Thank you.
I concur with Senator Mercer on the comment about his eyesight being tested a little bit, and I commend you in wanting to save the government money and not have too many pieces of paper here, but it is a little difficult.
I find it difficult to think that, in 1971, with respect to land values on average, it would appear they were worth less than $100 per acre in 1971. Is that in fact the case?
Stephen Boyd, Unit Head, Agriculture Division, Statistics Canada: That is correct, for some provinces.
Senator Plett: But that's average across the country; is it not?
Mr. Boyd: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Plett: I'm from Manitoba, and I would be interested in knowing. I would have thought land values in Manitoba were worth more than $100 an acre in 1971.
Mr. Boyd: In 1971, the Canadian average was $100 exactly. Manitoba was $72 per acre.
Senator Plett: I should have bought some land in 1971. If that's the case, I take your word on that.
We've had witnesses here telling us and you're telling us that the debt load is ever increasing, and it's not increasing at the same level as the increase in the farmland, and the productions are getting better so farmers are managing. But our interest rates are pretty good. I know you're here to give us statistics but, in your professional opinion, are our farmers getting themselves into trouble if we all of a sudden even have 10 per cent interest rates, let alone 21 like we had back in the 1970s? Are we going to get ourselves into trouble, or are the farmers going to get themselves into trouble if there's a 5 to 7 per cent hike in interest rates with the amount of debt that many of these farms — and profitable farms — are carrying?
Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the question. Coming from Statistics Canada, I've got to stick to —
Senator Plett: Well, let me ask you this question so maybe you can answer it, and if you don't have the number here maybe you can send it. Could you tell us what the average farm is carrying in debt? Would you have numbers on that? I think we can do a calculation ourselves. We were giving numbers here the other day where the average farm has $5 million in debt, and I can figure out what 5 per cent increase in interest rates would do on $5 million of debt. Could you give us numbers in that regard?
Mr. Peterson: We can give you average farm debt. We have all of that available. But if I could draw your attention back to slide 9, it shows a fairly long time series. It shows a modest decline in farm values as interest rates rose through the 1980s. It of course had a dampening effect on property values, and then property values shot up after that.
Without question, the value of farm debt has been rising, which we'd expect to see in any sector of the economy with interest rates that are dropping.
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Peterson: That net equity position is still very positive, just given the value of that land.
Senator Plett: I understand that, but at a 7 per cent increase, all of a sudden that changes drastically. If we could get an average farm debt load, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Peterson: Yes. We can provide that.
The Chair: Senator Raine, do you have a supplementary?
Senator Raine: Yes. I'm sorry I was late, and you may have covered this in your remarks, but I'm assuming all your charts on the values are adjusted for the change in the value of the dollar, or are these today's dollars versus yesterday's?
Mr. Peterson: Everything is in Canadian dollars and in nominal values.
Senator Raine: So it's not adjusted?
Mr. Boyd: It's not adjusted.
Senator Raine: Okay, because the value of the dollar has changed.
Senator Plett: The price of land is more on the commodity.
Senator Raine: But we're looking at it in dollar value.
Senator Plett: It's more commodity than assets.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
Senator Unger: Thank you for your presentation. I'm just wondering if you keep statistics on corporations, pension funds and large organizations like that. Also, one issue that we've heard a fair bit about is the fear of foreign ownership. I'm wondering if you've done any tracking on that.
Mr. Peterson: Foreign ownership of property, not just in terms of agriculture but in terms of residential and non- residential investment, is currently a gap that we have in Statistics Canada. We have been discussing with others how we might resolve that gap, but at this point we don't have good information on foreign ownership of properties.
Senator Unger: What about land that's owned by corporations or big entities?
Mr. Peterson: That's something that we're currently not tracking.
Mr. Boyd: We do have data from both the census and from the agriculture taxation program to classify the farms as sole proprietorships versus corporations, so that data is available, and the corporation share has been increasing over time, but generally those are still family farm corporations.
Senator Unger: Thank you.
Senator Oh: My question is similar to Senator Unger's. I was told that there is some foreign ownership here, but they are farming. They are not buying land just to speculate; they actually go into farming. Are you aware of this?
Mr. Peterson: We've heard the same things, but when we're tracking farms, we're not asking about country of control or those types of questions around ownership, so we don't have statistics around that.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Merchant: Good morning. Some things have been touched on already, but I'm going to concentrate a bit on Saskatchewan because you made a couple of references. Is it because we've had a very robust, resource-based economy that some of the land is now taken over and used for purposes other than just urbanization? Are you keeping track of what's happening with the land and the changes that are occurring?
Second, because of the way that farms have changed, the family farm is, I think, a myth now, really. In 1916, you had a half section of land, you had six children, and you and your wife worked the land. Now the farms have changed. We may have fewer people living on the land as farmers but, because of the economies of scale and everything, are we employing just as many people or more people now in the agricultural industry?
We're always thinking that everybody is coming into the cities and nobody is out in the country, but somebody has to run these farms and run the machines. Maybe, instead of trying to fix your own machine, you have a mechanic right there. How is that changing? How is that picture changing?
Mr. Peterson: I'm sorry; for your second question, are you asking about direct employment on farms?
Senator Merchant: Yes, I would like to know.
Mr. Peterson: I'll answer your second question first and your first question second.
We can get exact statistics for you, but I think the trend has been downwards in terms of farm labour. This has been corresponding with increased capital spending, increased investments in machinery and equipment, perhaps coming from increased economies of scale. I think that's what's happening in that respect, but we can get more detailed statistics on farm.
In terms of land use, the maps that I provided on the CMA ecosystems come from our environment statistics program where we were taking a look at the impact of human activity on the environment. In order to do the type of analysis that you're describing, it would require us to undertake some type of enumeration of all of Canada's ecosystems. That would be an activity that we'd love to do, but it's an activity that we don't do because it would be a massive undertaking.
Senator Merchant: Could I then ask if you have some statistics — and I'm sure you have — about Saskatchewan? Has our productivity decreased? You said it has increased across Canada, so it has in Saskatchewan too, I would imagine.
Mr. Peterson: Yes.
Senator Merchant: Good; thanks very much.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for being here this morning.
Previous witnesses have explained to us that there's a lack of data on farmland use in Canada and that there is a need for more data, especially as it relates to soil mapping. Will Statistics Canada endeavour to obtain such data in the near future, or do you have it presently?
Mr. Peterson: I guess the short answer to that question is that we don't have all of the data that we would need in order to do that type of comprehensive land-use study. We have been discussing with other departments — Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-food — on possible ways in which we could undertake a census of the environment, if you will, and how we could make better use of earth-observation data and other types of climactic and geological information to map out land use and the characteristics of land use. We're still very early days in doing this, so we don't have any data yet. We're still trying to figure out how to do this.
Senator Tardif: It is an achievable endeavor, but not at this point, is what you're saying.
Mr. Peterson: That's right.
Senator Tardif: I guess I'll have to leave it at that. It's something that would be important, though, to have?
Mr. Peterson: I think it would be something very interesting to have. I think it would have all sorts of other positive externalities, but we're still very much in the exploratory stage.
[Translation]
The Chair: Will you send us the information if you can obtain it?
Mr. Peterson: It will take three to five years.
The Chair: We are not in any hurry.
Senator Gagné: I would like to follow on Senator Tardif's question. You said that you are at an exploration stage on this. Is there any intention to pursue the matter? What would it take for you to get to the point where you will be able to get more information?
Mr. Peterson: We are doing an assessment study to see whether it would be possible to have a list of all the ecosystems in Canada.
Senator Gagné: So, ultimately, you are doing a study on the environmental impact. Could an impact study be done on the structure of Canadian agriculture? You see how we can rephrase the question, or ask two questions?
[English]
Mr. Peterson: If I can answer in English —
Senator Gagné: Yes, sure.
Mr. Peterson: This feasibility study is being undertaken within our environmental statistics program, only because that's where that expertise exists, and it's addressing the broader issue of trying to better understand land use across the country, where, for sure, agricultural is a type of land use. We're not focused just on environmental impacts; we're thinking about the use of land across all ecosystems across the country.
But again, this work is very much in a feasibility-study phase; we're determining whether or not an exercise like this is even possible.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: My question has to do with the globalization of markets. We often follow global trends, and I am wondering if there are any comparative studies on changes in the structure of agriculture that you would be aware of, especially among producing countries worldwide. Does that exist?
Mr. Peterson: I think there are studies that were done by the United States.
[English]
They've done a number of studies taking a look at the changing nature of the farms. I'm not sure if it has necessarily been in the dimension of land tenure or land use, but, certainly, they're keenly interested in better understanding how farm structures are becoming more complex.
Senator Gagné: What about Australia? What about other countries like that? Are you aware of any studies that are being done that could be helpful?
Mr. Peterson: Not off the top of my head.
Mr. Boyd: I'd just like to add a couple of points about the discussion of soil land classes and land use. There are certainly maps mapping out all of the different soil classes. The trick is tying the land use from using the Census of Agriculture to those specific areas. When a farm producer reports on the Census of Agriculture, we get his headquarters location, but we don't know exactly where his cropland is located or where his livestock are located.
Greg may know more about this than me, but, for the 2021 census, it's being investigated to use using mapping techniques where producers, when they're completing their census, could indicate precisely using a graphic. We're very pleased at the electronic questionnaire uptake we had from the 2016 census, so this is something that we're looking at for 2021 so we could maybe get cropland and livestock mapped exactly where they're located.
Senator Raine: Just really as a follow up to my colleague, on the subject of the land, I know from our notes here that Australia recently implemented a foreign-owned agricultural land register, and the first report was just released in September with comprehensive data on the actual level of foreign ownership in Australia. The result indicated that 13 per cent of the country's agricultural land was foreign-owned.
I'm just wondering if we are going to do any kind of collection of data on non-Canadian ownership of our agricultural land base. Would you consider looking at what Australia has done and following a similar method?
I know that land ownership isn't just of concern with regard to agricultural land but just in general. We have a lot of different departments in our government, so is there a relationship between Statistics Canada and Agriculture Canada, of course, but also Natural Resources Canada on the understanding of the land use?
Mr. Peterson: The question of property ownership is a big one, not just in agriculture but —
Senator Raine: And it may be provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Peterson: Yes. But we do know that this is a gap within the statistical system. We're looking at how we can address this gap, again not just in terms of agriculture but in terms of residential and non-residential properties as well.
There are jurisdictional issues. If we were to tap into the administrative data that may contain this information, a lot of that is provincially held. I think a fair bit of work has to occur to acquire whatever administrative data is out there and try to negotiate adjustments to that administrative data so that it's collecting that type of ownership information that you're after.
Senator Raine: So you would work with the provinces on that, not start over.
Mr. Peterson: If we're acquiring administrative data, our general approach is to try to work with the holder of that administrative data.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Foreign acquisition of land is one of the aspects threatening farmland. Although laws exist, there is still urban sprawl. In Quebec, land cannot be sold as we wish, but take the example of Laval, north of Montreal, where there was excellent farmland that was sold to real estate developers, which allowed some farmers to retire comfortably.
What recommendations could we make that would help you to delve deeper into your statistics to help the agricultural community, among others, to deal with the land acquisition by foreigners and real estate developers? We can make all the laws we like, but when there is pressure because of urban sprawl and there is excellent land to sell, laws can sometimes be changed.
Mr. Peterson: As I said, we unfortunately have a lack of information on the purchase of farm properties by foreigners. However, as you saw on the fifth slide, we have data on urbanization for every city in Canada.
[English]
We have this for all census metropolitan areas across the country, so we can certainly do this for the Montreal census, the metropolitan area. In terms of that urban encroachment, we can describe where that increase has happened. Is it coming from arable land versus other natural land? We can certainly make that report available.
Senator Pratte: I have a question about slide 4. From 2001 to 2011, there's a slight reduction in the land in crops and summer fallow. Of course, it's still the dominant use of land, but the reduction is still something like probably 8 million acres or something, which is a significant amount of acres. Has there been any analysis on the reason for this? The other land use categories do not seem to increase much, unless maybe it's woodlands and Christmas tree areas. Is it because Christmas trees are increasing that much? Has there been any analysis as to why this is decreasing?
Mr. Boyd: I can touch on that. We had a fairly big decrease from the 2006 census results with cropland decline and an increase in, as you say, the woodland, wetland and other land category, which includes the farmyards and the barnyards. The main reason for the decline between those years was due to the flooding. Farmers were reporting their land as other land because it was too wet to seed. That continued to a lesser degree with the 2011 census results. It will be interesting to see when the 2016 results come out whether some of that area has shifted back to cropland or whether we're going to see continual declines.
Senator Pratte: So it has nothing to do with speculation or anything like that, not as far as you know?
Mr. Peterson: We wouldn't know that with any degree of granularity, no.
Senator Pratte: That's my second question. That's the data you have. You don't go into more detail. Those data are not available in more detail than that, as far as land use is concerned.
Mr. Peterson: That's correct. Something to keep in mind is that in all of our collection of agriculture statistics, the unit of observation is the farm. We have very few statistics where the unit of observation is the parcel of land. To do that type of analysis would require looking at what's happening to sort of parcels of land as opposed to asking questions of a farmer.
Senator Pratte: The timeline that you have here, which is 2001, 2006, 2011, is that the timeline that you have, or can you go further in the past than that?
Mr. Boyd: Yes, we can.
Senator Pratte: Is that decline a long-term trend, or did it just begin in 2001?
Mr. Boyd: The census questionnaire on the land use changed a little bit.
Senator Pratte: So you can't compare it.
Mr. Boyd: We can only go back so far, and 1986 is the furthest back we can go looking at those specific land use categories, where everything was comparable. There have been very slight declines. Between 1986 and 1991, there was a 1 per cent decline; there was a 1 per cent decline in the census following that, 1996 to 1991. The bigger declines have been in the last 10 years. As I said, the respondents told us it was a lot to do with the flooding.
Senator Pratte: You say the data from 2016 for that precise slide will be available in May. It should be interesting to see the data at that time.
Senator Mercer: Gentlemen, this is an interesting discussion. I think we've given you more work than you anticipated.
I do want to follow up on an earlier question about incorporation of farms. I don't think we want to leave you with the impression that we're talking mainly about large corporate entities, although that is one of the principal questions that I have.
I think you'll find, since you haven't collected the data, that a lot of farms are now incorporated. Family farms are incorporated. These are the smartest entrepreneurs in this country. They look at the tax laws and they find a way to make them work for them, and if a corporation is one of the ways that helps, then they are going to do it, and they are doing it in droves.
You need to understand that the information we want is how many farms are incorporated, but we also want to know how many of them are Canadian-owned by the old family farm incorporation or by actual foreign entities. So as you do the research, it's the foreign entities that we're interested in. We're also interested in knowing how many Canadian farms have been incorporated by the family farm, as we would traditionally know them as a family farm. I'd like to add that to your work list for the next census.
Mr. Boyd: Just to follow up on that, we do have data on the proportion between and the numbers of sole proprietors versus corporations. That data is available in the census.
Senator Mercer: But my understanding was you didn't have the data on the foreign corporations versus Canadian corporations, and of course it gets even more complicated because there are large Canadian agricultural corporations who own farms. Then there is the family farm that is incorporated for tax purposes and also for purposes of future splitting of their land as the principals, namely, the mom and dad, decide to retire. This is a way to get the assets split so that mom and dad are taken care of in their retirement.
Mr. Peterson: That's a very good point.
Senator Mercer: It is important. I've been on a very small farm in my province where the farmer, his wife and his two children are on the farm, but his mother and father still live on the farm, and the farm was split. His brother lives in the other part of the farm.
I don't want you to go into this without thinking of all the complications of farmland ownership because we really would like to have the data for everything. There's another shopping list from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.
Senator Raine: Earlier you said you didn't have the stats on country of control. Really, when we're analyzing these kinds of statistics, we have to look at who is the owner. It might be owned by a corporation that's a Canadian corporation, but the country of control is perhaps the long-term concern. How do you define that term? Is that what you're going to look for if you look at the foreign ownership of farmland?
Mr. Peterson: Country of control is a concept that we use throughout the economic statistics program. It's essentially asking the question of what country controls enough of the equity that it's making decisions on the part of that enterprise. It's based on shared ownership.
The Chair: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Boyd, thank you very much.
[Translation]
We are waiting for additional documents that you could send to our clerk.
We now have Don McCabe, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Welcome. We know that you have a presentation for us, and we ask that you be as brief as possible because many senators have said that they want to ask you questions, and we have only 50 minutes. Go ahead.
[English]
Don McCabe, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Thank you. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. I also apologize for my tardiness and the lack of ability to be here on time. I will take that up with the taxi driver later.
The opportunity to appear before this committee on the issue of land acquisition is very important to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I know you have just received an opportunity to discuss the matter with our national counterpart, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, earlier this morning.
First, I'd like to set out who the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is. They currently represent 36,000 farmers from across the province, from Manitoba to Quebec to Pelee Island. The issue for Ontario farmers is an issue of land acquisition, and we have to share one landscape with a number of various entities and the provincial government and federal government in that same process.
Also, the reality I wish to put on the books is that agriculture is the number one industry in the province of Ontario. It is now north of $36.5 billion in impact on GDP, and that includes the complete chain from farm to consumer. Toronto is now noted as number two in food processing in North America and requires the inputs to make that happen, and that therefore requires the land to make it happen.
Next, I'd like to divide Ontario into two large segments. Number one is that 87 per cent of Ontario belongs to the Crown and 13 per cent of Ontario belongs in private hands. Within that 13 per cent of privately held lands are cities like Ottawa, Toronto, London, Windsor, Kingston, St. Catharines and all the rest. They really screw up farming, but the bottom line is they eat so we put up with them.
When moving forward, the issue is the impacts that come along from farmland acquisition. Again, I would draw your attention to what I believe you just heard about from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There's not too much that I can offer in direct broad headings that they haven't already covered on issues of urbanization.
I can touch on something I believe is more important, and that is some of the applications that Ontario has attempted when dealing with farmland acquisition and some spots where we're still missing. Yes, the issue of urbanization is massive. To give a direct impact in Ontario, from 2006 to 2011, using census data, we lost 350 acres a day to expansion. When you now have lands that are held for development into the future, you can find that some of those lands are now being stripped of topsoil with a small part replaced to ensure they can be farmed until ready for a crop of houses. However, that's also to avoid other regulatory impacts like endangered species that may choose to move onto that land. The developer who now owns it wishes to make sure it's always ready for houses, not necessarily a crop.
There is the issue of folks who wish to move out into the countryside and buy their acreage, who may choose to buy 50 acres or 100 acres, and all of a sudden that land is no longer farmed. They put their house in the middle of the acreage — a house that looks more like a starter castle — and wish to ensure that the land around it is not impacted by what they consider noise or other impacts.
The issue is also one of infrastructure and our need to be able to handle that because Ontario will be receiving 4 million more residents in the very near future and therefore has to have a growth plan to accommodate that. But this then becomes the issue of ensuring there are intensity targets met to make sure that transit itself is actually viable. Therefore, why are we looking to build out more on farmland when it becomes an issue of whether there is enough intensity in these places to get things done first?
As we move forward here to the issues of laws coming down, in Ontario you have a provincial policy statement that is then corrected to put agricultural land in the number one spot of protection, but it's also in competition with other areas. That means that things like heritage lands are still up there, and this becomes a lack of understanding of the fact that ecological goods and services are just as good on agricultural lands and, in some cases, better for some services than others. Heritage has its own route also.
At the end of the day you have planners and councillors who are not totally versant on the issue of the business of farming and, therefore, what it takes to maintain these things. Therefore, they also may have a certain history of dealing with issues in other ways, and official plans, therefore, can be detrimental also to the acquisition of farmland.
I have not touched on the issue of the financial portion of young farmers and all the rest of it. I think that's a fairly well known story. I will also add, though, that that's the reason there are family corporations or family farmers who are corporations, which is a totally misused label because 98 per cent of the corporations out there farming are family farms. It allows for succession and allows young people to come in, so let's be careful how we throw those labels around.
At the end of the day, the reality of farming is that it's the soil that counts. Our soils are a function of climate, parent material, topography, biota and time. When I buy that farm, I can't change the climate and I can't change the parent material. I might be able to change the topography with a big fricking dozer, but I didn't want do to that. I wanted to buy it for farming.
What I do get to play with is biota and time. Biota means the plant and animal life that's there — that's called crop rotation. Time is pay the mortgage. Reality of farmland acquisition, then: I need to be as close as possible to my markets, but I also need respect from those markets for what I'm trying to do and how we're trying to do it.
The reality of dealing with climate change in the future, the resiliency of it and the drainage that needs to pass through this comes back to where I started. This is one landscape. It has to be shared. It has to be shared in an appropriate fashion.
We also need to understand that grandfathers turning from farming now are leaving an industry where they as a child saw their grandfather leave with 50 per cent of Canadians still farming and 50 per cent in towns. They were leaving at a time when horses were leaving the farm and tractors were coming on.
The farmer who is leaving today is leaving at a time of even greater intensification, and that's not a bad word. There are also issues of precision ag that are coming to bear, but there is only 1.4 per cent of Canadians left farming. Farmland acquisition is a big issue, and there will be corporations out there holding land for farmers to farm.
We can overcome all of this, but it requires a very level playing field, and I refer back to some of the issues that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture will have already put on the record.
Thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCabe. For the first round of questions, Senator Mercer and Senator Plett will start.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Mr. McCabe, thank you very much. It was a very interesting presentation. You said 1.4 per cent of Canadians are farming, and you talked about some of the problems related to it. Then you said we can overcome this. The simple question I have is how.
Mr. McCabe: Awareness. As farmers, we've done a pretty lousy job of telling you what our job was. We just kept adopting technology and moving ahead. We can overcome this through clear policy. Again, this comes back to the awareness of municipal planners who are helping to put together the official plan based on provincial statements.
From a federal government perspective, it's the issue of recognizing these limitations that we currently have in the system and how you wish to set policy moving forward for the agricultural sector as a whole. Right now, we've seen a rapid rise in agricultural lands because there was some good pricing.
I think we have to be realistic as to why that good pricing came around. It really had nothing to do with policy from anybody; it had more to do with the issue of a drought in the U.S., and the Chicago Board of Trade responded. At the end of the day, there are only two forces in my life right now that impact that thing called the Chicago Board of Trade. That's U.S. government policy, which impacts it by how they react to other governments in the world, and Mother Nature.
The reality, then, is after that, we will, as farmers, look at the issue of business and how I get a hold of farmland. Do I rent? Do I lease? Do I buy? Therefore, what type of farmer am I? If I'm grain and oilseeds, I need a lot of acres because that's how that one works.
When it comes to greenhouse industry, the land is usually not the cost; the infrastructure is. But where is that infrastructure? Do I buy the land in the right spot?
When it comes to cattle in Ontario, they're going to have to move north. The reality of that particular sector is that there's not enough land left at the prices required to allow them to graze in southern Ontario. That's why you have seen the decreases you have.
It also means we need a Crown to wake up to the issue that farmers were sent to northern Ontario as a reward after serving their country in world wars only to not have the ability to maintain an operation up there. We need to change that philosophy and get back to it.
At the end of the day, this all boils down to an issue of awareness. As farmers, people will make decisions. Some of them will be good; some of them will be extremely stressed if interest rates ever change. But they made a business decision, and that will get sorted out as time evolves.
Senator Mercer: That's a pretty concise summary, and I appreciate it. For those of us who have been on this committee for a number of years — I'm the longest serving member of the committee — awareness is an ongoing issue that we face every time we talk to people who are not people such as you about farming and agriculture. Their eyes start to glaze over until you drive home some of the economic numbers. Your statistic that Toronto is the number two food processing centre in North America is a startling statistic for most Canadians, and it's probably a startling statistic for Torontonians, but it's a fact.
Canadians need to start to realize that agriculture is big business. It may be small farms in the concept of the country, but it is big business. What do you think the role of the federal government should be in changing that attitude?
Mr. McCabe: Well, April 1, 2018, we will have Growing Forward 3, the next policy framework, or a label I haven't heard yet, that will replace Growing Forward 2. Within a portion of that discussion, I'm hearing through the information being released that there will be an aspect of public trust or social licence or whatever else needs to be in there. We need to ensure that that issue of building that trust back is maintained and brought forward.
Again, it comes back to the issue that we as farmers have not been as open as necessary to ensure that people understood what we were doing because we were busy doing it. We were so busy doing it that in all rough guesstimations of every year — I choose this because it's the holiday that people will remember towards as opposed to an exact date — roughly Valentine's Day or before, you've got your food paid for in Canada for a family of four, and that includes making sure that Galen Weston can scrape by one more time.
Senator Mercer: The last time they had a tag day form, I refused to give.
Mr. McCabe: I have selective habits also in shopping, sir. The issue is the farmer was paid on January 10. That's our contribution back to Canadian society.
The reality, then, of moving forward is that the farm sector is are very prepared for the opportunities ahead, provided we're able to have the appropriate dialogue to be able to translate things into the issues and statements that farmers are ready to work with. Because these same folks at Loblaws or Metro or Sobeys or wherever else want sustainability. So does McDonald's Canada, but, "Oh, no, we can't afford to pay anymore." Well, guess what? We can't do it with one arm behind our back and the second one forced there.
Sustainability and climate change all have to be dealt with in the same issue. When I look out my back door, that is my farm and that is a farming system. That is dealing with water. My definition of farming, senator, follows the following definition: I may be growing corn, soybeans and wheat, but I'm actually a manager of the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, with the interception of the water cycle, to produce starch, oil, fuel, fibre, energy and protein, while providing animal habitat, improving air quality, improving soil quality. I just want to get paid for something.
Senator Plett: Thank you for being here, sir. I have a couple of questions, and the first one is, I think, fairly simple. Did I hear you right? I thought you said that 87 per cent of all land in Ontario belongs to the Crown? Is that what you said?
Mr. McCabe: Yes, sir.
Senator Plett: I find it astronomical that they would own 87 per cent when they don't own the farmland. What would the Crown own in Ontario? Give me a bit of an idea. Forest, I guess maybe, would make up for a large part of it.
Mr. McCabe: Well, there is definitively forest there. There are a whole lot of wetlands. There's a whole lot of everything. Let's just think about it as we look at the map of Ontario. Say you were in Toronto and drove to Barrie up Highway 400. Once you get north of Barrie, you're starting to slowly ebb out of very productive agricultural land. By the time you hit North Bay, you're now getting more and more into where the Crown owns the soils because there has been no real pressure to go there.
By the same token — I'm not wishing to be sarcastic here — I'm very thankful that I learned, essentially the hard way, that, with two days of driving, you can still be in Ontario if you leave my home in Inwood, Ontario. That also means don't go through Michigan to try to shorten the trip.
The reality is that we have a very big province; we have a very big country. Only 7 per cent of this entire country is still agricultural land. Where we started farming way back when is also where the best lands were, and that's where the villages started. Now we actually have soils that are extinct in this country because they've been paved over, and you're never going to get them back again. When you have that storm water collected there and want to send it down through a drain, then we're handling that because it has to come through the same waterways that we're dealing with water on.
At the end of the day, on our issue of looking at these lands, I'm sure you've been introduced to the concept of Class 1 through 7. Classes 1 through 3 are the best lands there are. Class 1 is the absolute best soils we have, and Ontario is blessed because of where it sits in latitude. Remember, we're pretty well straight across from a thing called Iowa. So every time somebody tells me I don't know how to grow corn, I have an opportunity to point out to them that we kicked Iowa's butt a number of times on yield. By the same token, class 7 is this Crown land we're talking about. It is rock. It is not really soil. It's just a nice way of giving it a category. It's only there to keep the sunlight out of hell. It won't do anything.
Senator Plett: Clearly governments, unfortunately, make policies based on what will get them the most votes. I'm from the province of Manitoba, and we've had 13 years of a government that gets its votes in urban centres, so they make decisions based largely on what will get them votes.
It's the chicken or the egg. A few years back, farming wasn't as productive as maybe it is today, certainly in Manitoba and, I believe, in other provinces, certainly Ontario, where, as you said, people want to go out and want to buy 100 acres and want to build their starter castle. But the opposite is also true, that farmers weren't making a lot of money planting crops. Instead of selling their land in Manitoba for maybe 3 or $4,000 an acre, they were selling it for 20 or $30,000 an acre and breaking it into five-acre pieces of land, not 100, but five-acre pieces of land, and people were building their big houses on that. As you said, now they don't want the noise and the other thing. And, of course, it's broken up, and the farmer can't plant a proper crop. But the farmer initiated some of that by selling that land in the first place.
So who's the most at fault here, and how can we stop that if the farmer wants to continue to do this? We believe in free enterprise in this country. How do we control this?
Mr. McCabe: With due respect, senator, I would say the game of Monopoly still has rules, and the reality is that those farmers who chose to split off five-acre pieces had to go through and make sure that they could turn that into title and lot. They were able to do that because they were in the right location, close enough that somebody was willing to still drive back to the urban centre they wanted to be in. Those are the rules that are there, and that's the reality of where we now need to be.
Your statements around the intensification of farming are totally valid. If it was not for the fact that we're essentially pulling five times more yield out of that same acre, we wouldn't even be able to do all of these other things on the same landscape.
Senator Plett: But close enough to where you want to be in our country, sir, is within an hour-and-a-half of where you want to be. People are used to driving. In Toronto, they drive an hour-and-a-half to go to work. Obviously, that's a fair distance. That will almost include the entire province of good farmland.
Mr. McCabe: It can now mean, in Toronto, an hour-and-a-half of an opportunity to stare at somebody's bumper in front of you, and then you still get to work. I've had my fair share of congestion, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on this fact that we've already built infrastructure in certain spots. That then becomes the failsafe backwards. Here's the infrastructure; we just add to it.
The reality needs to be now, though: Let's look at that infrastructure and go up instead of out. We can house people up. We can't invent more farmland. We have to ensure specific areas within Ontario. We have a fruit land belt in Niagara that's under pressure, and it has now moved very much into a world-renowned grape industry. It's why you've also had cattle leave the province, because the land price there and the opportunity for those cattle to go to find their energy off of that landscape is not there because it's better to put it to a higher use.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for such a thought-provoking presentation on your part. I asked this question to witnesses we had on Tuesday from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was a question on farmland acquisition by Canadian investors, investors from pension funds that are buying up the land in order to get a return. Is this happening in Ontario as well?
Mr. McCabe: Yes.
Senator Tardif: Is it becoming more widespread? Are you seeing it increasing?
Mr. McCabe: There's an increasing force out there. It's very difficult to track any of this because of a lack of recordkeeping specific to these matters, and I think that's something that was also raised by the CFA and something that the OFA has been wondering about for some time.
It's very simple. The issue is that if they can buy the land at an appropriate level, then when you do the math and can rent it out at this level, this is a better return than having it sit anywhere else. It's a more secure investment. As long as land prices keep rising, they will get a return if they need to liquidate it, but they have an opportunity to get back what they want on the rent and move ahead accordingly.
Senator Tardif: Some of the provinces have restrictions on farmland acquisition by foreigners. Does Ontario have such restrictions?
Mr. McCabe: Not that I'm aware of.
Senator Tardif: Is there a movement to push the province to put in place restrictions?
Mr. McCabe: There is a concern certainly raised. I would offer that, before any good decisions are made, you need good data. I would offer that Canada is sorely lacking in good data right now, no matter where it is.
Senator Tardif: We've heard that from many witnesses. Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. McCabe. We sometimes wonder if the federal and provincial decision-makers are on the same wavelength when it comes time to create programs to help farmers.
Are the funding packages or programs that have been put in place used to vitalize the agricultural industry? Does this help the agricultural industry? Can you elaborate on that? Otherwise, what difficulties does this represent, since the various government programs can be fairly complicated?
[English]
Mr. McCabe: I would ask for a clarification, sir, on your definition of "implemented funding programs." Are you referring to safety net programs specifically?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Yes, the security programs, among others. I imagine that both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec, as well as the federal government, are trying to support farmers, either through financial insurance or other means. Do you find this complicated or does it help farmers continue to operate farmland?
[English]
Mr. McCabe: This is a question that has a wide base that needs to be touched upon. First, the reality is that between Canada and the provinces, it's a 60/40 reaction — 60 per cent responsibility for Canada and 40 per cent for the provinces — in how they necessarily do policy. If one government doesn't agree with the other, the other one can go with a unilateral program.
When it comes to the issues of the safety nets — and to be clear on what I mean by that, there is a whole number of programs that start off with the term "agri". There is AgriInsurance, there is AgriStability and there is AgriRecovery, and so on and so forth.
The issue of insurance is exactly what it says. It's the opportunity to have a commodity covered, and not all commodities in Canada are covered by insurance, especially when it comes to fruit and vegetables or some livestock. I grow corn, soybeans and wheat, and I can get coverage for those. This year, when we had drought occurring in Ontario, I was very pleased to have been carrying that coverage, and I'm amazed at how Mother Nature gave me rain that allowed me to not partake in that program.
One of the issues that came up here previously, under issues like AgriStability, is programs that dealt directly with price and were rewarded on that. Those were considered trade sensitive by certain people, and we did not want to stay in that arena and we challenged on countervail and whatever else.
We were also told non-stop by economists, "Oh, my God, these farmers are going to take all this money and they're just going to capitalize it back into the land." I would offer that history has now proven that that is not the case in any way, shape or form. What it took was the opportunity to actually get returns from that land and get increased receipts. Government programs didn't do it. Again, I would offer that this becomes one more statement of the only reason that we have economists is to make historians look good.
At the end of the day, programs need to be in place to allow farmers to be competitive with our international counterparts who may have other programs in place. At the end of the day, the reality is that we react to market signals the best we can and we have to react based on where we are in the landscape.
I don't grow hard red springs because I would never get a yield, and I don't expect a whole bunch of big moves in canola either in southwestern Ontario. At the end of the day, Ontario receipts are roughly — depending where you want to measure — 20 to 25 per cent of Canada's response. That has nothing to do with the reality of programming. You look for the programming after you've been trying to deal with the market and make the best decisions. Nobody in farming is looking for a handout. We're looking for a level playing field.
Senator Unger: I have a question about the Greenbelt Act, which was passed by Ontario in 2005 to protect environmentally sensitive agricultural land located near highly urbanized centres in south central Ontario known as the Golden Horseshoe. Has the agricultural zoning policy introduced by the Ontario government been effective in protecting agricultural land in that area?
Mr. McCabe: With due respect, senator, that depends on who you ask. From the perspective of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, what putting a line on a map did was cause a great deal of unease within the farm sector. It also just meant that developers were able to suddenly figure out where that line was and jump over it.
The issue then is within the greenbelt, as I mentioned, farming is decreasing in the actual numbers of participants, but you still require a full operational system for those farmers to operate. My definition of "system" means that I need to be able to get parts for equipment and I need to be able to deliver to necessary market points. Not everybody wants to take their goods to town and be part of a local food movement. Some people are interested in doing export commodities and that sort of thing.
The greenbelt may be the number two best thing that the Ontario government has ever been polled on, and they love that concept. On the same token, it has not led to a real retention of farmland. And back to the other point, I will be very clear on this: There are certain farmers who felt very ripped off by the fact that that green line now meant that they weren't going to be able to experience the retirement that they thought they should. That's just a matter of policy and they're not going to fix that one because somebody is impacted any time a line is drawn.
At the end of the day, as I understand the issue of housing and where the lines are drawn now, that particular region of Ontario has enough land and opportunities already set aside that will take them out into 2031.
You may wish to look for a report by the Neptis Foundation. They will be able to back a portion of that up on those statements. However, I would prefer that we look at good policy to be good policy and not how it works when it was imposed. I think John Diefenbaker said it best when he said, "Polls are for dogs."
Senator Unger: Regarding that report, would you be able to send it to this committee?
Mr. McCabe: I can ask one of our research staff to look at it. I would also offer that we just completed sending in a response to what was called the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review because the Greenbelt Act is not the only thing that's working in that arena. There is an Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, a Niagara Escarpment Plan and a Proposed Growth Plan.
In relation to farmers, I'm going to pick on one operation that happens to be in the Niagara area. These folks were maple syrup producers and wanted to expand their home operation in that area. They also had fruit orchards. They felt that there were now enough folks who came out to their farm to partake in pancake breakfasts that they were more than happy to expand their business. One small issue: I may have mentioned only four acts, but by the time they got done, they had 27 permitting processes to go through. Paperwork is necessary, but not that much. The reality is when policy gets on steroids, it's not pretty.
Senator Unger: I couldn't agree more with what you just said. My last question is: In your opinion, do farmers generally have enough opportunity to give input to their provincial government to be able to have their voices heard?
Mr. McCabe: Opportunities are there for consultation. But I will also expand your question, if you don't mind, senator, to the issue of the federal government. The federal government is currently doing a great number of consultations, as I alluded to earlier, for the next policy framework of Growing Forward 3. They're saying there is all this opportunity to get on the Internet and do it.
I wish to offer that we have a number of combines out there now in rural Ontario that can send thousands of pieces of data a minute up to the Cloud. We can pull together yield maps and do a better analysis of our own farms. One small issue: I can't receive the data back at my house because I don't have broadband Internet. Consultation through broadband Internet is pretty much a slap in the face to most of rural Canada.
The reality is that it's 2016; we deserve rural infrastructure that matches it. We're not in that position because Bell, Rogers and a few others know where the intensity is. Right now, consultation opportunities are there, but you also need to remember the makeup of the crowd that you're dealing with here. They are very intensive people to their own occupations. They wish to make sure they have the best animal welfare out there. And you've also got two demographics of people now. You've got an older crowd who are getting ready for their own retirement and have owned everything all of their lives and see that as their assets. You have a younger crowd that comes out to the shed and, where dad would've taken a look and said, "I need to trade that, and I own those three, and one more payment and that is mine," they go out and turn off the light because they're taking their daughter to hockey and their son to piano lessons or whatever else. They know a whole different world of apps.
Right now, Canadian agriculture is falling behind on the issue of being able to have proper infrastructure, whether it's broadband Internet, natural gas or a few other things to be able to maintain our pace of being able to help the world to meet its own targets for 2020, 2030, 2050.
Senator Plett: One brief question, sir: Again, as you mentioned in your opening comments, I think you said that we would have 4 million more people in Ontario in the next while. That's more than 10 per cent of our entire population at this point. How soon is the next while? How much land is being bought up around urban centres for speculation, and how much of it is being bought up for immediate needs?
Mr. McCabe: So "next while" is because my memory is not telling me what the exact year is, but I believe it would be found under the Places to Grow Initiative. I'm going to state right now — and it could be incorrect — that we expect 4 million more people in the province of Ontario by 2030.
I've also alluded to the issue of the land that's already been bought up and is hiding in that Neptis Foundation document. To be specific on whether this has been bought for speculation, I cannot answer that. Everybody has their own reason for buying land and whatever return they may wish to have on it. I don't have a data source that's specific to whether it's been bought for speculation or an absolute purpose, because the definition of speculation could include developers who see an opportunity to build on that land as they move ahead. But, again, I can't directly answer that question.
Senator Plett: Then a brief follow up: By 2050, I think we're supposed to have 6 billion people in the world, and obviously they will all need to be fed. In your opinion, will Canada be up to the task to do their share at the rate that we are losing farmland?
Mr. McCabe: I would offer that I believe the numbers may be a little closer to 9 billion in 2050. I would then immediately offer that Canadians right now are enjoying a vast opportunity in the fact that they are now getting used to the idea that a strawberry that could be used in a slingshot to take out a squirrel is normal because they are picking them green in California to send them here because we want them 365. I would offer that Canada is one of the few countries in the world, of about six, who are still estimated to be able to export food at that point.
The biggest issue of all here is that, right now, about 40 per cent of food is wasted. I would offer that, when I am attempting to sell a commodity, it's not in my interest to waste it. It's not in my interest to have it go bad in storage. It's not in my best interest, in any way, shape or form to have that loss.
I would offer some very recent news articles — I believe it was CBC and possibly through their show called Marketplace, but it was probably on the National. Certain large companies that now are wishing to push down through the value chain onto farmers, wishing to have even greater attributes and a cheaper price, even after a contract has been signed, are some of the sources of this food waste. Since it's on public record, there's no sense wasting words here. Walmart is one of the best at chucking stuff out the back door, it seems, according to Marketplace.
Bottom line, it's back to the issue of awareness. Canadians have no real understanding of what it takes for their food, for their logistics, and then they're wondering what's going on with climate change and all of the rest of it. Farmers and foresters are the only two that are going to be able to put carbon back into the soil through carbon sequestration. We're not being recognized for that. This is the other issue that all comes back to this issue of system.
I have absolutely no qualms in dealing with the issue of what's coming in 2050. If most of those are my relatives, they will expect me to do the dishes too, and I have no problem with that because they are all going to be recyclable. We can do this issue of a low-carbon economy, but a bunch of the language being introduced right now is totally asinine. We do not decarbonize this economy. If you decarbonize this economy, good luck with ordering off of the menu tonight. You're a carbon being yourself. The reality is: Let's get back to realistic language, realistic logistics, and make sure all of these pieces knit together. I have no issue with dealing with 2050.
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe, for your presentation. It's been very informative, and entertaining to a certain extent, but I was doing okay until you scared the hell out of me. We've always quoted around this table, for the last couple of years, 6 billion people by 2050. I was in a conference in Europe this summer where they quoted 6.6 billion, and that scared me. But you said 9 billion, and now I'm even more frightened. That was not the essence of my question. I just wanted to comment on what you said. Whatever it is, we have a lot of work to do if we're going to feed these people because there will be civil unrest if we're not able to feed however many people there are in 2050.
I did want to talk about one very specific thing. One of the problems that we've heard over the years at this table is the difficulty of transferring the ownership of the family farm to one or more of the children of that family. Do you have any comments on that? Do you have any suggestions on how government can either help or get out of the way?
Mr. McCabe: I alluded earlier, I think, senator, to the issue of why there are corporations with family farms, and that is part of the reasoning behind that statement. The issue here is that the value of the farm operation now is multimillion dollar. It doesn't matter what size the business is. I come back to the 36,000 farmers at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I don't care how big a farmer you are; I care about how good a farmer you are. The reality then becomes: If you're a good farmer, you're going to build a good business.
Some of the more financially intensive farms are on the smallest acreages because they are greenhouses, or they can be aquaculture or, or, or. The reality becomes: How do you move those assets? If you have somebody who is interested and wants to do this, maybe the best way is for them to illustrate that they are wanting to put their money down in buying shares in this corporation to move it ahead and get started, because nobody can borrow the kind of money that's going to be here now to make some of this happen.
The longer term views on a bunch of this are that I'm not seeing anything yet that I can point toward that is a silver bullet on all of this. It's going to be the issue of me requiring silver buckshot. Everybody needs to be able to go and find the tools that they require at the time they need them. After that, it will be the proverbial issue of human nature.
Who is ready to move on here? As to the issues that we sometimes hear about with regard to estate taxes being laid and whatever, it's also the older generation who have not done their planning. They've not figured out how they want to do this. If you're going to be vindictive to the grave, keep on spinning when you're in there because you screwed it up before you got there.
The Chair: Senator Plett, a supplementary?
Senator Plett: Not really a question, I just need to, for the record, say that Mr. McCabe is, in fact, closer to the correct number than Senator Mercer and I were. UN projections are 9.7 billion. So we were certainly out a little more than he was.
The Chair: Mr. McCabe, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. McCabe, for testifying before our committee. It was very interesting. If you have documents for the committee, please send them to our clerk. I am convinced we will find them helpful.
(The meeting adjourned.)