THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
MONTREAL, Thursday, October 5, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:31 a.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, deputy chair of the committee. I would like to start by asking my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Good morning. Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec, from the Montreal area.
[English]
Senator Oh: Senator Victor Oh from Ontario.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Deputy Chair: Today, the committee is continuing its study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the Agriculture, Agro-foods and Forestry sectors. We are happy to be here in Montreal — and who’s not happy to be here in Montreal at any time; today just happens to be another happy day in Montreal — to hear from stakeholders from Quebec involved in the sectors of agriculture, agri-food, and Forestry.
For our first witnesses, we welcome a group from FP Innovations, Mr. Pierre Lapointe, President and CEO; Mr. Jean-Pierre Martel, Vice-president Strategic Partnerships; Mr. Patrick Lavoie, Senior Scientist; and Mr. Richard Hamelin, Researcher with the company.
Thank you for accepting the invitation. I’d like to invite you to make a presentation, and we’ll follow up with questions from my colleagues.
[Translation]
Pierre Lapointe, President and CEO, FPInnovations: Thank you. I am pleased to be here. Thank you for your invitation. We will be making our presentation in French. You have received a copy of the various slides, which are in English and French. Please feel free to ask questions because all four of us are fully bilingual.
I would like to start by telling you who we are. FPInnovations is the result of an amalgamation of Canada’s forest sector research institutions by the country’s forest industries, the federal government, and the governments of Quebec and British Columbia. Today we have a vision, which is to make a piece of wood fibre part of your everyday lives. We will be showing you the forest sector transformation that we launched a decade ago. In slide 3, as you can see, FPInnovations it is a not-for-profit company headquartered in Montreal, although we cover all of Canada.
We have nearly 200 people in Montreal, 200 in Vancouver, and some 60 in Quebec City, including 40 industry agents scattered across every province. We have an annual budget of $75 million to $80 million, one-third of which comes from industry members. We have 170 different companies across Canada. The second third of our budget comes from the federal and provincial governments. The only province not involved is Prince Edward Island. We also have two territories, including Yukon. The final third comes from contracts, services, royalties, licences, and so on.
Getting to the heart of the matter, in slide 4, what are the risks of climate change for the components of the forest sector? One of the most significant types of events in the past two years has obviously been forest fires. We have two striking examples of that, the one in Fort McMurray and the other the fire that ravaged British Columbia this past summer.
The second danger is the destruction of forests by pests. We have the spruce budworm in Eastern Canada and the mountain pine beetle in the West. It is important for us to be able to control this situation because it determines the availability of forest biomass.
Climate change naturally means — and the researchers can tell you about this — that the species we must plant to replace our conifers and hardwoods will change over time, and we will outline the issues related to all that for you.
Naturally, all this has a major impact because forestry is done in the regions, and is thus part of the regional economy, and jobs are crucially important for those reasons.
Slide 5 shows two observations that are easy to make. First, to mitigate climate change, it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and store more carbon. What we will show you today is that the forest and forest sector can really play both roles and do so efficiently.
In slide 6, we want to illustrate the forest carbon cycle for you. Trees store carbon dioxide. We can process them. We can build vertically. We can recycle them. We can use them to make bio-chemicals. We can use them to replace hydrocarbons. The forest carbon cycle is thus a unique solution in combating climate change.
The other point I consider important is that trees do not have two legs and cannot leave Canada. I think we need to understand that simply because trees are renewable, and they also belong to us.
Let us look at slide 7, opportunities for the forest and forest products to contribute to the fight against climate change. Tree regeneration naturally ensures that CO2 is efficiently sequestered. These days — and this is why Richard is sitting next to me — the issue of species genomics, which species we will have to plant in future, is becoming increasingly important.
There is also the long-term storage of carbon in wood products. Consider wood buildings, for example. Under the Canada’s Building Code, we can now construct six- to eight-storey buildings. However, British Columbia and Quebec have been the pioneers in this field because there is an 18-storey wooden building on the UBC campus in Vancouver and a 13-storey one in Quebec City. A project consisting of three eight-storey wooden condo buildings made of cross-laminated timber is also going up near us here in Montreal.
One of the most important transformation elements for the forest sector is green chemistry. Consequently, bio-fuels, bio-chemicals, and bio-materials, all these transformation elements are important and will be the future of the forestry sector. This bio-economy is the industry of the future, but it has already begun. You will see very real examples of these figures in the next few slides.
In slide 8, we have identified four areas of intervention: transportation and mobility, energy production, buildings, and energy in processes. Senators, I would like to point out to you that the little bus you see in the picture is an electric shuttle that was built from FPInnovations’ technologies. They are operating in Terminal 2 at Calgary airport.
Why does FPInnovations conduct a major line of research in transportation? Because transportation represents 45 per cent of the price of wood. Consequently, we take the technologies developed for the forest sector and transfer them to the commercial sector.
Slide 9 concerns transportation and mobility. You can see this electric transportation element. The picture in the bottom righthand corner illustrates what we call “platooning,”a three-trailer convoy operated by a single driver. This saves on energy and costs, of course, since there is only one driver, but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions because the second and third trailers generate energy savings of up to 18 per cent. So that is relatively key.
Another interesting point about the new electric transportation economy is that Quebec has decided to make it a priority. FPInnovations, ABB, and Ericsson have already established a partnership to move forward with a forest and natural resources transportation project involving a reduced number of drivers and the increased replacement of biodiesel.
One of the major biodiesel projects is being carried out in the committee chair’s Senate division of La Tuque. We are involved in a project with the Finnish company Neste to make biodiesel. A plant will eventually be built in La Tuque with an investment of $1 billion.
Consequently, under this transportation and mobility heading, the forest sector is transferring its forest information, science, and innovation to the commercial sector, resulting in energy savings, labour savings, and savings in all areas.
Slide 10 concerns energy production. We can extract sugars from cellulose and use them to make products that will replace hydrocarbons. As I said, we have a major biodiesel project in La Tuque. That project could be exported across Canada to support transportation development on a much sounder energy basis.
Slide 11 provides several examples of vertical wooden construction. The Building Code currently permits six or eight storeys, but, in the near future, it should allow even higher works, very likely up to 18 storeys. Once construction is under way, it is done much more efficiently and in a much more environmentally friendly way. What is important to understand is that, with cross-laminated timber, or CLT, you can put up a building with nine people, one floor a day, without producing waste or blocking traffic.
I also invite you to look at a YouTube video that was made about Brock Commons, a 17-storey building constructed in Vancouver. It is a student residence on the UBC campus. The whole thing was built by nine people in three months. This is the future.
You can also see a picture of a bridge on the right-hand side. That bridge was built for the Stornoway mine in Chibougamau, in northern Quebec. Once the concrete base dried, the bridge was built in a week. We tried to convince Minister Lebel to adapt the method to the Champlain Bridge, but unsuccessfully. For the Stornoway mine, 17 bridges had to be built in a northern environment, and they were all built in three months. So this is very promising new product.
Incidentally, the Nordic Structures company is building the Buffalo Sabres’ second arena with cross-laminated timber. This is an export product. And since it is engineered wood, it is of course not subject to the softwood lumber agreement. So you can appreciate how various types of industries can be developed for the export market.
In energy efficiency, FPInnovations is working with several partners on new types of kilns, for example, which use radio frequencies to dry wood pieces continuously, but only in places where the wood needs to be dried, thus significantly reducing drying costs. There are also energy cost savings because drying time is reduced from four or five days to a single day. The energy cost reductions are therefore extraordinary.
If you look at what has happened over the past 10 years, the forest sector is undergoing a major change. It is a sector that has managed to understand that climate change is a source of new products and that the forest is a basic tool in the fight against climate change.
We have tried here to provide you very briefly with a few examples of how the forest sector is part of the solution in the fight against climate change. We are proud to be taking part in that fight.
Mr. Chair, we are now ready to answer the committee’s questions. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Lapointe.
Senator Dagenais, please.
Senator Dagenais: Thanks to our guests for this very interesting presentation. I have two questions. First, I would like you to give us a little more information, more examples of the bio-materials that have emerged from the development of wood over the medium term. You did address the topic. I would also like to know their prices relative to those of conventional materials and, of course, the potential for a foreign market.
Mr. Lapointe: That is an excellent question. For the rest of my answer, I am going to ask Patrick, who is a value chain expert, to discuss the economic aspect. I will give you two or three examples of types of new materials.
Before starting, let me explain that several municipalities in Canada have landfill problems. The City of Vancouver, for example, has regulations providing that, during construction projects, such as the demolition of a building in Vancouver, you may no longer dump waste at normal landfill sites. Consequently, all building materials must be recyclable.
As a result, we are conducting research on materials that, for example, would replace styrofoam materials with wood-fibre-based insulation. That is one of the projects. The insulation would simultaneously address heat, energy, and acoustic issues. One of the problems in condos these days is the acoustic aspect. This would give us products that are entirely recyclable but would also address certain construction and demolition problems.
A second product involves using cellulose fibre, what we informally call CF, in gypsum panels, thus significantly reducing the weight of those panels by about 20 per cent. Anyone who was tried to screw a sheet of gyproc to the ceiling knows what that means. This also makes the gypsum sheet itself recyclable.
As regards insulation, there is also the whole problem of transportation. Fiberglass, together with wood fibre, are now combined with polymers that reduce the weight of 53-foot truck platforms by 20 per cent. All these bio-materials thus have a purpose, which is to make these new products recyclable and substantially lighter.
Consequently, we are conducting research projects with Air Canada and WestJet on biodiesel and with Bombardier to reduce the weight of the main parts used in its various aircraft. Now I will hand the floor over to Patrick.
Patrick Lavoie, Senior Scientist, FPInnovations: I believe your question concerns carbon footprint and the impact it can have, for example, on the creation of an economy and the development of products that may be intended for markets.
More specifically, I think that the example Mr. Lapointe cited concerning insulation, the cellulose insulation we may use in buildings, is a very good one. We can see, for example, that these products are not currently available in Canada, or not very available, and only as imports. And yet we can produce them.
In fact, what we have been seeing for three or five years is that there is genuine demand for these kinds of products in the local market among construction companies trying to develop buildings with much smaller carbon footprints than conventional buildings constructed with, for example, rockwool, styrofoam, and mineral wool, as is frequently used.
Consequently, gains are clearly being made in this area. When you use this type of resource, it is currently available. We have trouble finding outlets for certain types of fibre. In some cases, construction waste can be used to make those products.
This is becoming extremely interesting right now. We take an issue that is considered a problem, such as end-of-life wastes, and we transform them into value-added products that have a second life, that have a smaller carbon footprint than would have been necessary to make an equivalent product. There are enormous benefits to that.
Senator Dagenais: I would like you to provide a little more detail on the La Tuque biodiesel production project. It obviously has a timetable and financing structure. I would like you to summarize in a few words how it will all move forward.
Mr. Lapointe: The biodiesel project in La Tuque is a partner with the Finnish company Neste. Neste has large production facilities in Amsterdam and Singapore, where it makes biodiesel from palm oil, residual oil from restaurant kitchens, and so on. One of the problems is that the two biofuel plants have maxed out, and they want to find an environment where they can produce biodiesel from a renewable resource for the next 25 years. That is Neste’s objective.
They turned to us, the La Tuque region and FPInnovations. Why the La Tuque region? Residual forest biomass is already available there, as we have proven. Second, it is already linked by train to a deep-water port in Trois-Rivières, which would enable Neste to export to both eastern and western North America. That is the objective.
The governance structure is a partnership involving Développement économique La Tuque, FPInnovations, and Neste. A representative of the First Nations, which are project stakeholders, sits on the board of directors. This has all been in place from the start.
The financing structure is divided into three phases. Phase I, which is financed, is the residual biomass quantity evaluation. To be viable and profitable, we must have 25 years of available biomass. Second, we need an energy policy that would permit or encourage a 10 per cent biodiesel level per province by the Government of Canada. That is a challenge that I leave with you. Those are the elements of the business plan.
Phase II, which is already under way, is an evaluation of 700 technologies from around the world that have previously been tested but never integrated into a single technology to make biodiesel from forest biomass. This second phase is already under way. We have gone from 700 technologies to 40. In the next phase, we will create a pilot plant before building a commercial plant. We think we will complete the first two phases by fall 2018. If the pilot plant is viable, it could then take two years.
The financial structure is a partnership involving several partners from the La Tuque region, FPInnovations, Quebec’s Ministry of Forests, Natural Resources Canada, and Canada Economic Development, with Neste’s involvement.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Thank you for being here.
About carbon pricing, a lot of stakeholders that we meet with across the country complain about the impact of carbon pricing on their own individual competitiveness, especially when you consider the fact that there’s been no harmonization at the international level. I would imagine that the provinces are probably looking at that. I think Quebec has introduced its own price on carbon. Do you think it’s important to have a pan-Canadian system of carbon pricing, or what led you to introducing your own carbon pricing policies? Could you tell us a little bit about that? I’m not saying there’s anything wrong. Maybe you can tell us what led to it and why you feel it’s a good idea to do that?
Mr. Lapointe: I will answer part of your question and if it’s okay ask Patrick to complete it.
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Mr. Lapointe: Would it be a good thing that we have a pan-Canadian?
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Mr. Lapointe: I will answer on the biodiesel aspect of things.
As we speak, if a truck comes from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, each of the provinces has a different biodiesel percentage requirement. It’s impossible for an economy to have such a thing. So, yes, in Canada, given some areas, transport is a good example, we need to have a pan-Canadian solution. This is very clear to me.
I’ll let Patrick explain the carbon tax situation in Quebec.
Mr. Lavoie: Thanks for the question. In terms of carbon pricing, the way it works is that emitters have to reach a certain reduction level of their emissions from year to year. And the tools to achieve those emission reductions, there are plenty of ways to get there. There can be process efficiencies, where, in the case of our industry, there are scientists that go into actual companies to tweak their process, to improve heat recovery in different ways. Another way to achieve those reductions is to go to renewable diesel in the case of transportation. That’s one way where companies can fairly easily reduce their emissions.
In the case of renewable diesel, the reduction is quite significant. What we’re seeing is that based on the feed stock that is used, the production process, emissions can be reduced as much as 80 per cent, 90 per cent sometimes. For industries that use quite a bit of fuel in their process or long transportation distances, it’s one easy way to get there. In some cases the fact that those fuels are a bit more expensive can be compensated somewhat by a price on carbon, because those fuels that are much more efficient have a lower footprint and the price reflects that.
So that’s, I think, how many are looking at this question of reducing their own emissions and finding ways to get where they need to be for the different periods.
The Deputy Chair: A short supplementary on this question. Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: This is not necessarily a supplementary question, but, when I asked the question about biodiesel, I would have liked to get more details on the financing structure, how it will all be financed, and on project costs.
Mr. Lapointe: Financing will consist of direct contributions by FPInnovations, Neste, and Développement économique La Tuque. Quebec’s Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada Economic Development, and the Department of Natural Resources Canada will provide grants.
This is therefore a consortium, and contributions will be made at various levels. The Neste company is making a direct contribution in the form of its researchers. It has several hundreds of researchers. It is also contributing capital, equipment, and so on. So this is a consortium.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Lapointe.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Now back to you, Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: Back to lumber and lumber exports, to what extent is the U.S. your main market, softwood lumber duties notwithstanding? The fact that you have added a carbon price to your product, does it make it less competitive in the U.S. marketplace, or does it have any effect at all? They’re a highly competitive market down there with the softwood lumber problems that they’ve been talking about and Canada’s place in it. Does it make it less competitive? Do you run into problems in that regard, as well?
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Martel.
Jean-Pierre Martel, Vice President, Strategic Partnerships, FPInnovations: I think you’re raising a very important point here. Actually, as a science-based organization, we don’t get involved that much in the policy side. Our colleagues at the Forest Products Association of Canada, FPAC, which I believe appeared in front of the committee last week, presented and answered part of that question. We’re very much aligned with the same type of, let’s say, positioning on carbon pricing. I think their position was around the notion of, “We don’t want to have different . . .” — one tax would be probably an approach, rather than having several taxes at municipal, provincial and federal levels — I think that was their position — and also looking at what will be the impact on competitiveness overall. We are competing with our U.S. producer south of the border, and if they don’t have a tax that’s going to have an impact.
Therefore, I think there are ways, if there’s a tax, to be kind of neutral in terms of impact, as long as it’s being reinvested in the sector. As an example, in Ontario, they have a carbon tax, but it goes to a fund where now they want to invest in multi-story buildings made of wood. So it’s a way of reinvesting in the sector, as well. So, I think the answer is being neutral in terms of competitiveness, reinvesting into the sector, at the same time, meeting the objective of carbon reduction, CO2 reduction as well.
The Deputy Chair: A practical question, to follow Senator Doyle’s question, is we’ve had cap-and-trade in Quebec since 2011. Is any of that money reinvested in the sector?
Mr. Martel: On the Quebec side, I think there’s a potential, as far I know, I’m not sure. Pierre has the answer on this.
Mr. Lapointe: Not as structured as what you see in Ontario. Ontario has a dedicated fund; it is not the case yet in Quebec. But I can tell you one thing: The Ministry of Economic Development in Quebec and the Ministry of Forest and Natural Resources is very supportive of FPInnovations. So they do reinvest heavily in the forest sector.
If you want to look at Canada, B.C. and Quebec are the most proactive provinces. Nova Scotia is coming in very strongly also. So where the money comes from, I wouldn’t say is irrelevant for us, but it’s much more structured in Ontario. I think Ontario and Quebec have done a deal; they have an agreement on the forest sector that they will develop it together.
Senator Oh: I have a follow up question on pricing. You have now started the pilot project at UBC, 18 storeys. Do we know anything about the cost of construction per square foot compared to conventional buildings? Overseas they are all using steel construction, or Masonite, or concrete. What is the cost of construction per square foot? You’re saving a lot of time. In three months, nine people can build an 18-storey building. So what is the cost to the international market on forest products?
Mr. Martel: It’s a very good question. Actually, I would say worldwide there’s more and more interest in building with wood, either mid-rise or tall wood buildings. In actual fact, we organized with the French and the Japanese a conference in Bordeaux called “Woodrise” about three weeks ago. We were supposed to have 400 people, and we ended up with 1,500 people from 20 different countries, a lot of very well-known architects that are promoting the use of wood as the preferred renewable material to build. So there’s a lot of interest internationally.
A lot of work has been done to improve the technology around it, to be more efficient, to be looking at soundproofing and fire issues as well to make sure it’s safe. When you look at costs — actually, the Government of Canada looked at how to promote more use of wood and create those iconic buildings. The 18-storey one at UBC is the tallest in the world. We could be proud as Canadians that we have the tallest wood building in the world. And I don’t think they’re going to stop there. So there’s a lot of interest in doing this.
Cost-wise, it depends. In some cases it goes with planning. As we learn more and more those systems, I think the price is going to be reduced as well, as we have more producers of engineered wood products as well. Currently, through the program on wood, there is competition for tall wood, and they believe it’s probably an additional 10 per cent to 15 per cent, depending of the project. But we believe other benefits — the carbon benefits, time of construction, for example — will really help to reduce the overall costs. If you look at it from an annalistic perspective, I think it will reduce the overall costs.
One of the projects is to gather information about those projects and share what is learned from those projects with other developers. So it is a bit more costly currently, but I think that’s going to be reduced.
Mr. Lapointe: In Bordeaux, two weeks ago, there was one example from England where they compared the purely economic side, and the steel construction was 31 million pounds, and the wood construction was 28 million pounds. So, this is the first time we have seen a cost comparison.
Laval University has built a three-story wood building and concluded from its evaluation on energy savings that it was up to 18 per cent. I would say, as Jean-Pierre was saying, we need to have a model to clearly evaluate the difference in cost. We don’t have that tool yet, but that’s something we’re working on, and that’s going to be very important for exportation. And it’s very clear that in the case of B.C. there’s a lot of discussion with China for export, and François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of International Trade, wants to see the same thing from Eastern Canada to Europe.
Senator Doyle: I would imagine you’ve had discussions on cap-and-trade versus carbon pricing. Which system is better, in your opinion, to minimize the economic impact on, say, the forestry sector, and the agricultural sector? Do you have an opinion on it? It’s all right if you don’t. I was just wondering?
Mr. Lavoie: Well, I don’t really have an answer for that specific question, but perhaps if I can just take one minute to add to previous answers on carbon pricing and the impact that it can have on price competitiveness. Right now, we’ve got a carbon price that’s around $15 to $20 dollars a tonne. Really the impact that that has on the production and market prices for concrete and steel is pretty minimal. In the long term, as the carbon price ramps up to $100 and $150 dollars per tonne, which is the expected range in the medium to long term, we’ll see that price gap between those materials really shrink, and that’s going to help the sector.
Right now, the construction industry is fairly risk adverse, so even though prices may be more competitive to build with wood, you still need that gap to be significant to overcome that resistance to risk aversion. So that’s going to come as things progress.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I would like to congratulate you on the resilience and innovation you have shown. I know the forest sector has gone through some hard times in recent years, and I would say you have managed to transform it and have found ways to be resilient and to address the challenge of climate change. So bravo for that.
Some witnesses have told us it is important to attract capital and new research and development talent given the high development costs, particularly with new technologies. Do you share the view that you must attract more talent and capital?
How does Canada’s ability to attract new talent compare internationally, particularly in the green economy?
Mr. Lapointe: That is an excellent question. Thank you. I get up every day with that question in mind. As regards talent, first, I would tell you that 28 nations are represented on FPInnovations’ research team.
I would dare say that attraction is an extreme form of competition. It took us 18 months to recruit a chemical engineer who knew about wood pulp because competition around the world is ferocious. That is one of the most important points.
What we did to overcome that difficulty was to build partnerships. We now have partnerships with 28 universities and colleges in Canada. We also have others with Scandinavia, Finland, Sweden, and France, and increasingly with China. We have employees in Shanghai, we are developing the building code in Shanghai, and several Chinese researchers are with us now. The problem is not attracting them, but rather retaining them as a result of with competition around the world. The entire forest industry around the globe must transform itself, and Canada is on the cutting edge of that transformation. Consequently, our researchers are increasingly appealing to other countries. This is a challenge, and a constant one.
The capital situation is very different. Canada is a very attractive destination for venture capital. For example, we are negotiating with Michelin for sugar production, synthetic rubbers, and Michelin tires.
We are also negotiating with Lego to use wood fibre to transform Lego blocks and remove hydrocarbon-based polymers. Consequently, in this area, venture capital is easier to attract than the people themselves.
A good venture capital example is the Schlumberger company, which operates in the drilling field, and you probably know it very well. It has purchased eight per cent of one of our joint companies and invested nearly $10 million over the past two years.
Consequently, Canada is highly attractive from a capital standpoint, but it is an everyday competition for personnel. Our main competitors are Sweden and Finland.
Senator Tardif: Then what is the federal government’s role in this regard, and what can we do to support you more and assist you in the forest sector?
Mr. Lapointe: The federal government, represented by Natural Resources Canada, has played a fantastic role over the past 10 years. The support we have received has been constant. Clearly, however, long-term funding should be provided for the future. In other words, we must have funding for more than one or two years and have three- to five-year budgets. That is one of the factors that would help us enormously.
The other aspect, from the federal government’s standpoint, is that we must increase our research capacity in Canadian colleges and universities. These institutions, such as Genome Canada and Génome Québec, are essential. This is a very important factor.
Senator Tardif: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you for your presentation. It’s very exciting to hear about all of the innovations that really will help to transform the industry. I have two short questions.
First, I’m wondering if your organization has done an analysis of the impact of some of these innovations on the labour market, particularly in rural communities. I’m thinking particularly of jobs in the construction sector, where we have some of our most marginally employed people, and especially in economically disadvantaged communities, like some of the Maritimes. Have you done an analysis of that, I guess is my question?
Mr. Lapointe: The answer is yes. Believe me, I have met with the ministers of employment in a few provinces, and union reps.
I will give you two examples. One in the construction aspect. The Brooks building on the UBC campus was constructed in three months, but with nine people. The rest was done prefab at the sawmill site. So what you will see in the future is the need for carpenters or plumbers on site will diminish drastically, and this will be replaced with higher-priced jobs in the mill or in the industry assembling those prefab high-rise constructions. So there’s going to be a major impact. What will happen is that there will be a shift in expertise from the construction side to the industrial side, the prefab side. So, it will be a different type of job. Will it be reduced? The answer is probably yes, unfortunately.
The second example that we’ve looked at is drivers. One of the issues with drivers is that nobody wants to be a driver anymore; it’s a very difficult job. So what we’re looking at is unmanned platooning. The example I was giving you is the three vans with one driver. Again, what you will have is a switch from just a normal driver to a more specialized driver. You will have this switch again. So, in rural areas, the impact will be a shift from difficult jobs to higher skilled jobs.
The Deputy Chair: It’s interesting that the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications is in the middle of a study on connected and autonomous vehicles, and one of the issues that they are discussing — I happen to be a member of that committee, as well — is just this impact on labour and the future. If I recall the numbers, there is already a shortage of 45,000 truck drivers in this country. So, learn to drive a big rig, and you’ll have a job.
Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: You’re clearly very connected with the universities. Are you connected with the college sector as well for doing a lot of innovation?
Mr. Lapointe: We are connected more and more with colleges for the simple reason that colleges usually are much more in tune with the SMEs, and much more in tune with fast delivery of new technology and new products. We have quite a bit in Quebec and Ontario, Thunder Bay. We have a lot in Alberta and B.C. So the answer is yes. In fact, we have moved from totally university about seven years ago, toward a mix of college and university.
Senator Bernard: My last question has to do with Prince Edward Island. In your presentation you mentioned that P.E.I. was the only province that was not part of your partnership. I think my colleagues from P.E.I. might like to know more about why that is. I’d just like to know a bit more about why they’re not involved.
Mr. Lapointe: Well, there’s no forest industry in P.E.I., but I would think that there should be something that we should be looking into.
Richard is a specialist in genomics. With the change in climate, what will happen to P.E.I. is something I surely don’t know. Maybe Richard could comment. But the Maritimes’ situation is a difficult one. There’s only one plant left in Newfoundland, which is in Corner Brook. Every group in Nova Scotia has been badly hit. In Port Hawkesbury, New Brunswick, the saw mill is in bad shape. So maybe for P.E.I., the genomic aspect of climate change may bring change in the future.
I will ask Richard to comment.
Richard Hamelin, Researcher, FPInnovations: A quick comment and answer.
Pierre’s comment is true; all of these innovations will not happen if trees are not there. And trees may not be there if climate change kills them or they suffer from drought or insect outbreaks. So a lot of research is needed, and some of the research is driven by genomics.
Genome Canada supports us. We formed these big partnerships, consortia, of which FPInnovations is part of in some of the provinces.
So P.E.I. can be part of these solutions, even though the forest industry might not be important there. But understanding how we can mitigate the threats of climate change to trees and plants, because trees are big plants, P.E.I. and all of the other provinces can be part of that.
The Deputy Chair: The increase in higher tides, one would think, in P.E.I. would be interesting.
Mr. Hamelin: At breakfast this morning we talked about a study that shows the problem with the way we plant trees after logging. We plant trees in areas where they come from. So if we cut trees in Shawinigan, we plant seedlings of seeds that were collected in the area, the seed zone. That works for now, but it’s not going to work with climate change. So in 50 years, 75 years, these trees are going to be maladapted, they’re going to be in the wrong place.
Our research is trying to find out how we can put the right tree in the right place for the future, not for now, because it’s in 50, 75 years that they need to be in the right place. All the scientists that are working in climate change and adaptation are really looking hard into that.
Senator Oh: I have a short question. With regard to the project at UBC, the 18-storey building, was your organization directly involved with the project from the start?
Mr. Lapointe: The answer is yes, because all of this testing for the building code was done in our laboratory on the UBC campus, where our office is. You’re welcome the next time that you’re in Vancouver to visit. So we are involved in all of the physical testing, fire testing, and seismic testing. That’s our expertise.
Senator Oh: Great, I’ll take your offer. I’ll be in Vancouver next week.
The Deputy Chair: Well, hopefully, if the committee travels to the West, that’s one of the things we’ll see. There are a couple of other interesting buildings in British Columbia, including the Olympic Oval in Richmond, which is a very famous wood construction.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation. You obviously were pressed for time, and the fact that we are pressed for time is an indication of the quality of your presentation and the interest of my colleagues.
Mr. Lapointe: Thank you for inviting us. It was a very friendly discussion, which I appreciate.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, our next witnesses are from the Fédération des producteurs forestiers du Québec, Marc-André Côté, Director General, and Marc-André Rhéaume, who is responsible for forest management.
Gentlemen, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I invite you to make your presentation, followed by questions from the senators.
Marc-André Côté, Director General, Fédération des producteurs forestiers du Québec: I will explain in French our proposal to fight climate change, but before doing so, I would like to do a small introduction of the organization I represent. You asked us to come here as the Quebec Federation of Woodlot Owners, but there’s also a Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners and we are part of that network. We hear a lot about the Crown forests when we travel across the country. We hear less about private forests owned by more than 400,000 woodlot owners across the country. Depending on the province, you will find more woodlot owners if you are on the eastern side of the country. More than 50 per cent of the forests are owned by individuals, small companies and large corporations. If you go West, you have more and more Crown forests.
In Quebec, about 16 per cent of the forests are owned by private woodlot owners, and they are grouped into associations. Myself, I’m Director General of the Quebec Association of Woodlot Owners in Quebec, but you’ll find similar associations across the country in each province.
The Deputy Chair: We met with some already, including in my province of Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Mr. Côté: I would like to make a brief presentation. I imagine you have glanced at the brief we submitted to you. This is a presentation on our proposal for combating climate change in our field.
As you know, the fight against climate change will involve many players, in fact everyone across the country. Our proposal is as follows: as a result of their size, our forests act as a powerful carbon sink and carbon emitter that affects the country’s carbon balance. On the one hand, forests emit carbon when they die off and decompose as a result of a fire or insect epidemic. However, forests can also act as a carbon sink as they are growing.
Furthermore, and I believe many people have told you this, forest products can be substituted for products much more harmful to the environment, such as concrete and plastics. I hope you have discussed this, but, if not, you will be hearing about it in the next 10 years because it is an epidemic that will hit hard. We have had mountain pine beetle in the West, and a spruce budworm epidemic is now starting.
I am old enough to have witnessed the last epidemic in the 1980s, which destroyed large parts of the Canadian forest, both public and private. This one has spread and is hitting Eastern Canada. It is a threat and an opportunity in the context of the discussion we are having about climate change.
If nothing is done, all these forests will start emitting carbon because they will die and decompose, and that has already begun. However, we can also use this crisis to decide to harvest the trees before they die to transform them into forest products and replant with faster-growing species. I believe you have also heard about faster-growing plantations, and plantations generally grow faster than natural forest.
We are therefore faced with the following paradox: traditional forestry, which is an extremely conventional sector and has been around for hundreds of years, can help us combat the very modern problem of climate change.
At their own level, forest owners have begun to harvest stands affected by budworm. They have already started to harvest those stands, and that harvest will accelerate in the next few years.
The Quebec government is already investing $34.5 million a year for silvicultural work in private forests in Quebec alone. However, the needs created by this epidemic exceed the capacity of existing programs. This means we must visit and advise owners, harvest forests that are harder to harvest because the trees break and are damaged, and replant with the right species. Consequently, owners need help, and we are providing it to them. There is a network across the country to support forest owners, especially in Quebec.
For the past three years, we have been making submissions to the federal government, urging it to take action in this matter. In fact, the first step was to join the Canadian plan to address climate change. If you read it, it contains a brief section on forests that states that natural disasters must be opportunities for us to improve the country’s carbon balance.
The Quebec government is engaged in talks with the federal government, and we hope they produce positive outcomes. We need $16 million in order to continue our work. That is a small amount in the context of climate change. This is a simple request: we need $10 million to re-plant the forests we harvest before they die off and $6 million to pay the nurseries to produce saplings.
The Quebec government has also introduced a forest income averaging measure. We must recommend that owners harvest their trees before they die. This will result in additional income in a given year because they will suddenly have to liquidate their forests. These people have other incomes. They may be senators, forest owners, or school teachers, or they may be your car mechanic. Ordinary people can be forest owners. Consequently, the Quebec government has put in place a measure to average income over seven years to prevent the revenue generated by the harvest from being absorbed by marginal taxes on peak incomes.
A request has been submitted to the federal government, but no progress has been made on it. We will wait and see. We believe our demands on the government are quite simple and inexpensive but can yield a very positive result.
The second positive result for our carbon balance is that people will be involved. We can take measures to address climate change, but I think it is important to involve all Canadians. If we involve forest owners right now, there are 450,000 forest owners in Canada. These people have spouses and generally two children. Consequently, we suddenly find ourselves with 1.6 million Canadians who are associated with forest ownership. This is therefore one way to involve them in this fight against climate change.
And that is my presentation.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Côté, for your presentation. It was succinct and to the point, and we do appreciate that.
We’ll go to senators’ questions in a moment, but I have one question. You brought up the subject of the spruce budworm. I’m from Nova Scotia, and unfortunately we’ve had an intimate relationship with the spruce budworm for some time. We’d like to stop that, but it’s a natural occurring thing and the cycle has come back. It will be our turn soon.
When the committee visited British Columbia a number of years ago, we looked at the effect of the mountain pine beetle on trees in northern British Columbia, it was devastating. But what we saw when we visited people in a couple of small communities was an attempt to find a use for the dead trees. Recognizing that spruce budworm is coming, if it’s not already here in certain parts of the country, should we not be looking at if there are some economic opportunities, as opposed to the obvious disaster that it does cause in the forest and in communities that depend on the forest? Should we not be looking at opportunities to harvest that wood as it’s damaged? Is there a way we can use that wood in a different way that would help alleviate the economic impact that the devastation will cause?
Mr. Côté: Yes. Well, there are two steps. The first step is harvest forest that will be dying soon, and to supply the current forest industry. This is what we are doing. We’re sending a huge amount of wood to the mills, our clients, and we have increased their harvesting in the last two or three years. The thing is we don’t have enough mills to buy all the wood that we could harvest and chip. So there’s an opportunity to build new mills. This is what we did in the last cycle of the spruce budworm infestation; we built sawmills to use that wood and pulp mills too, mostly in the region of Bas St-Laurent. British Columbia also built mills and they increased the supply to the existing mills. So there’s an economic opportunity.
If we don’t do anything, it will be not only a nightmare on the environmental side, but also on the economic side. We’re just losing capital, but we can use that crisis to help us to fight climate change, and also to help communities, rural communities by strengthening their forest industry with new mills and existing mills.
The Deputy Chair: We’ve heard from others that we should be thinking about what we’re planting now, because it’s going to be harvested in 50 years. We have to try to think about what the need is going to be in 50 years. Should we be planting the same thing that the spruce budworm is now killing?
Mr. Côté: We shouldn’t and we are not. We are trying to plant the proper trees at the proper place. I’m not a specialist in tree nurseries, but what they are doing is trying to prepare the new generation of trees to resist in the new environment. We are not planting the same tree that we were planting 30 or 50 years ago.
The Deputy Chair: So what are you planting?
Mr. Côté: We’re planting white spruce mostly to replace fir and black spruce.
Marc-André Rhéaume, Responsible for forest management, Fédération des producteurs forestiers du Québec: A fir stand.
Mr. Côté: A fir stand, yes.
Marc-André would be better than me to answer that question.
Mr. Rhéaume: Well, the insect is attacking the fir more. The fir is more interesting, and it will die more than spruce. That’s paradoxical because of the name of the insect, but it’s the way it is.
What we are suggesting in our documentation is if we plant trees now, it’s going to be harvested maybe in 50 or 60 years, but if we don’t plant trees now we could harvest naturally whatever is going to be there in 100 years. So in the time lapse between 60 years and 100 years, we’re going to be able to adjust ourselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Côté: Yes, this is the other thing: natural forests grow more slowly. Consequently, if we let forests grow naturally, the trees that are growing now will be less resistant in future. That is a bit strange. On the other hand, if we plant trees, we will be back very soon to harvest them. Consequently, when we come back to harvest them, we will replant with trees that are even better adapted to the period, say, in 30 or 50 years.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for being with us this morning. I believe your group, the Fédération des producteurs forestiers du Québec, has created a program to increase forest producers’ awareness of forest protection.
Mr. Côté: Yes.
Senator Tardif: Would you describe that program for us and tell us how effective you think it is?
Mr. Côté: Yes. What I could say in answer to your question is that we have been developing a network of forest consultants in Quebec over the past 40 years. Consequently, for forest owners, we have forest engineers and technicians who can help them solve all kinds of problems that they may have on their woodlots. We assist them and provide them with financial support, with money that comes mainly from the provincial government, to manage their forests.
Today, we have to advise them specifically on this epidemic, and that is what we are doing. Consequently, the consultants may go and see the forest owners, but let us be clear: this involves going to meet with tens of thousands of people. We are not talking about going to see 200 or 300 owners, but rather the tens of thousands of forest owners who will be affected.
Currently, 15,000 owners are affected by the epidemic, and it is only just starting. We therefore have programs so that forest engineers and technicians can visit the owners. We also have programs to assist them in supporting forest management work on their properties. So we advise them on forest management work.
Since last year, there has been a new program to spray stands that we cannot harvest with biological insecticide. The spraying will begin next spring and will help protect certain forest stands. So we are taking action in various areas to address this crisis, but it is all relatively costly.
Does that answer your question, senator?
Senator Tardif: Thank you.
We met with some private producers during public hearings in Halifax, in the Atlantic region. Some private owners told us they had to do more to increase the awareness of private producers in general about reducing carbon emissions and how they could get their efforts to sequester carbon on their private lots recognized. They needed both training and awareness, as well as economic incentives for their efforts. What do you think of that?
Mr. Côté: Yes. A larger forest stock will in fact store more carbon. We all agree on that. Ultimately, trees are made of carbon. The way to increase the stock is through forest management work. Consequently, we have to do more than increase awareness. We have to tell them they are taking part in the fight against climate change by maintaining well-managed forests, but silviculture is expensive. It improves on natural forest, in which trees otherwise grow naturally, but we can make gains when we take action and promote faster forest growth. The stock grows bigger, and that gain is therefore attractive.
Now owners must do a certain amount of work to expand their forest management efforts. How can those gains be transferred to the market? A problem thus arises in aggregating everyone’s efforts to produce a volume that, for example, can be sold on the carbon market. This becomes overly complicated if we involve 25,000 people and tell them, “You produced a little bit, you produced a little bit, and you produced a little bit.” We experienced this with the environmental certification issue, when there was talk about giving forests FSC certification, for example. It was hard to determine how we could aggregate the work of tens of thousands of people who owned small forests, often 100 acres or 40 hectares.
Now we are focusing more on increasing the stock of wood in Canadian private forests. That is our job. How will that translate to the markets? Can we make money in the markets? Very little work is being done in this area right now. Very few resources are being allocated to anything involving aggregation. A lot of consultants are coming around because they say they may be able to sell in the market, but we have yet to see an economic model that suits us.
A large public forest is simple. It is very big, you do forest manage work there, and you increase the stock by 10 per cent. Then you can go and sell that 10 per cent in the market. In the case of individual forests, however, an owner cannot do that and increase the stock on his property. The cost to have it all validated would be too high for an individual. Owners will have to be aggregated, and there is currently no program to assist us in that regard.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Tardif: Yes, absolutely.
So what you are saying is that there is no way to verify or monitor this?
Mr. Côté: Monitoring is more complicated in small private forests. It incurs costs. Monitoring will have to be done for thousands of owners simultaneously. It cannot be done for every property because owners would see no benefit in it, given the associated costs.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentation. Having lived in the Laurentides region for nearly 24 years, I obviously witnessed the first budworm infestation — fir, not spruce budworm. The trees died in a very short period of time. You also mentioned that most of Quebec’s forests are private and family-owned. I hope the owners will not be too affected by the amendments to the Income Tax Act, but that is another matter.
What you are asking or suggesting private owners do is obviously to take certain measures. Are they the same measures that public forest owners take, or are they different since they are in the private sector?
Mr. Côté: The government is in fact taking action on public forests. The forests must be harvested before they are lost. This is going well. Only one party has to be convinced, and that is the government. The Minister of Forests decides and puts recovery plans in place when a natural disaster occurs, as provided in the act.
Consequently, the process has already started. The harvest is under way, and the same government then decides to reforest the areas out of government resources. The cycle works well for public forests, and that is well under way.
Private forests are more delicate matter. First, you have to go and see the owners and tell them they will be losing their forests. The epidemic has not yet hit the Laurentides region, but it could one day or another. Several other regions are affected, currently eastern Quebec and Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Ontario and New Brunswick will be hit soon.
Consequently, owners must be convinced. The situation was to be explained to them, and we must do that one by one. We have all the supporting documentation, newspapers, and magazines. We tell them about it, but it is hard to convince people who live there by saying, “You are going to lose your forest. It has to be harvested.” They look at it and do not understand. We have to explain to them that, once it is lost, we can no longer harvest it; the trees will lose all economic value for processing purposes. We warn them that the fire is coming; we inform them, but they have to be convinced.
Senator Dagenais: Now, if you compare the state of the reforestation in Quebec with what is being done in the other regions of the country, is Quebec in better shape or lagging behind? Obviously, I believe we also tend to compare ourselves with British Columbia.
Mr. Côté: Yes, I am always reluctant to say we are in better shape in anything because it always shocks people, or ultimately shocks them. However, what I can tell you is that we have an excellent system for reforesting public and private lands in Quebec.
I can give you a figure: last year, we planted approximately 10 million trees in private forests in Quebec alone. However, that was our poorest year in 30 years. During the last epidemic, we planted 80 million trees a year. Can you imagine 80 million? Imagine your son or grandchildren wanting to plant trees. However, you need personnel to plant 80 million trees.
So we are well equipped to face this epidemic, but it is always about money. We have the resources on the ground, we are ready, and we have the expertise. We could do more with our knowledge and the resources we currently have. This also provides work for people in the rural areas. You also have to consider that aspect.
Will this epidemic be a disaster for the rural areas or an economic and environmental opportunity? Everything will depend on public authorities, the message they send us, and the resources they allocate to us. The Quebec government hears our concerns, but we spent three years explaining to it that the crisis was imminent. That is often the problem with public administrations; sometimes they are slow in starting.
Senator Dagenais: In conclusion, if I may tell a little joke, Quebec senators are required under the Constitution to purchase land worth $4,000 as a condition of their appointment, if that can help you. Unfortunately, my district is Verdun—Île-des-Sœurs. I looked for a piece of land there, but it was quite hard to find. However, for future Senate appointees from Quebec, buy land. It could help you, and we will reforest it.
Mr. Côté: But some senators have forested land.
Senator Dagenais: Yes, I have seen them, but there is work to be done.
Pardon me, Mr. Chair, that was a little joke to conclude with.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Oh, please.
[English]
Senator Oh: I have a question about forest fires. Are they good for insect control, and how do they affect the carbon released into the atmosphere?
Mr. Côté: Well, forest fires are the worst thing that can happen because we’re losing the trees for processing and they release a lot of carbon in the atmosphere. Insect infestations give us the chance to intervene before losing the tree, but fires destroy forests, release carbon and sometimes destroy the investment we made in the forest. You’ve planted, you haven’t harvested yet, and the fire destroys it. So the state can lose a lot of money.
There is a good system to fight fires in this country, because we have been living with forest fires forever, but sometimes we lose, as we’ve seen in Alberta in the last year. Forest fires are not a good thing when we look at climate change, because they release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Senator Oh: So for the forest to come back, it takes 20 years?
Mr. Côté: One hundred years.
Senator Oh: One hundred years?
Mr. Côté: Yes. It comes back a few years after and you have small trees starting to grow, but to obtain a mature stand here in Canada with our climate, it takes 100 years, except if we plant the trees. With planted trees, it could take 20 to 60 years to grow a mature stand, depending on the species.
The Deputy Chair: If I could, the committee has visited in years past the Irving plantations of trees that they’ve planted and forests that they’ve managed in northern New Brunswick. They seem to have shortened that time with better forest management.
Mr. Côté: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: But others have told us that forest management also affects the other growth that would naturally be there.
Mr. Côté: Exactly.
The Deputy Chair: So there’s a fundamental question that we have to ask: Do we want the natural growth or do we want a managed forest that will produce marketable trees faster?
Mr. Côté: That’s the main issue. If we let nature work, it will take 100 years, but if we intervene, we shorten that period of time. The shortest time I’ve seen for a mature stand is 20 years.
Senator Oh: So if you don’t intervene, that could cause erosion on the site?
Mr. Côté: No, not really, because you will have vegetation growing. Yes, you could have erosion, but mostly you have small shrubs and small trees and they’re growing. But because of our climate, it takes so much time to grow a tree.
The Deputy Chair: Of course, for some of our competitors, like Brazil, it’s a lot faster to grow a tree. What, 15 years?
Mr. Côté: Oh, they can do that in seven years.
The Deputy Chair: Seven years, because of the climate.
[Translation]
Mr. Côté: In Brazil now, thanks to the climate, you can grow a eucalyptus forest in seven years. They are also genetically improved.
[English]
They have a big advantage compared to us because they grow those forests close to the mills.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: When I earlier asked the question about spruce budworm and if there’s an economic opportunity as opposed to disaster, you said we need more mills, but there are mills closing all over, at least in Atlantic Canada. In suburban Halifax there’s a mill that’s been there 100 years now, I think, and it has been on the verge of closing, not because they’re not working hard, but because the market doesn’t seem to be there.
They’ve diversified in that they have a plant on their site, utilizing all the waste wood in generating electricity to operate their mill, but also to sell the electricity back into the grid, to the power company, which is helping them economically. But they continue to be on the edge of bankruptcy, and have been in and out of bankruptcy protection. What good is harvesting that wood that is going to be attacked by the spruce budworm, and milling it, if we don’t have the market?
Of course, Atlantic Canadians have an advantage over others because, in the past, we have not been subject to the software lumber dispute with the Americans because of the large number of privately held lands that we have in Atlantic Canada, as opposed to the Crown lands that are used in the rest of the country. We’ve been excluded from that, but still the market needs to be developed fast enough so that we capitalize on that.
Mr. Côté: Yes, but the people who appeared before us talked about new products that will be made with a new generation of mills. Yes, you’re right. A lot of mills closed in the last 10 years across the country. That’s a major problem when you go to rural Canada, since forestry and agriculture are main contributors to the economy. It should be like that in the future with the proper mills, and we have the fibre to supply those new mills without affecting the old ones that still exist. They are building those mills across the world. Every year there are new forest product mills built across the world, in the United States, and every time I see that, I’m frustrated that those mills are not built here in this country.
There is opportunity to build new mills, and I think we should be more aggressive in obtaining those investments. Here in Montreal, the government has been quite aggressive in attracting the new industry of artificial intelligence. In the last year they have travelled across the world to attract investment and people to work in this area. We should do the same with the forest product industry, and we’re not doing that enough, in my view.
The Deputy Chair: So, our previous witnesses, we should pay very close attention to FPInnovations.
Mr. Côté: Otherwise, it will be the Chinese, the Brazilians or Chileans who build the mills for the products they are developing in FPInnovations.
The Deputy Chair: Right.
Mr. Côté: They are not the only ones working on those new products.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: You said the Quebec government had implemented a forest income averaging measure.
Mr. Côté: Yes.
Senator Tardif: That might benefit owners when they have to liquidate their forests. Does the federal government offer that measure, and what can it do to provide you with more support? What recommendations could you make to help us prepare our report.
Mr. Côté: Implement the same measure. Currently, if forest owners report their forest income to the provincial government, they may average it over seven years, whereas the federal government does not permit averaging, and that income is thus allocated to a single year. It becomes overly complicated. I think this measure can help us convince people to harvest their forests before they are lost and subsequently to reforest their land.
We have submitted three proposals to you. We think they would be relatively simple and a small enough drain on the federal administration to be supported by the government. We also know that, when the Senate prepares a report, people can use it. It is read and that helps continue a discussion with other departments.
The government has chosen forests as a way to combat limit change but has not implemented many measures to date. We have learned that there is a green economy fund, but it has not resulted in programs or measures on the ground. There is only one direction to the Liberal government’s policy.
The recommendations we propose in our brief — which would cost $16 million to provide for income averaging similar to what is available in Quebec — are quite limited but could have an impact on the ground.
It should also be borne in mind that the federal government made an enormous investment in forests in Quebec 20 or 30 years ago. It withdrew some 15 years ago, stating that there would be no further investments in Quebec forests and that the provincial governments should take on the issue.
However, this would be a good opportunity for it to address the environmental and economic aspects of the matter.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Côté.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Côté, you obviously spoke at length about reforestation, but where would the seedlings come from? From greenhouses?
Mr. Côté: There are nurseries, perhaps 16 approximately, producing them all across Quebec. There are at least some 15 government and private nurseries producing seedlings across Quebec. They have been there for decades, and their mandate is to produce tree seedlings.
Senator Dagenais: I have a second question. We are obviously far from Vermont. How is reforestation going in Vermont? Do they have the same budworm problem?
Mr. Côté: The budworm is less of a problem in southern forests, which consist more of deciduous trees such as maple. The maple sugar properties are not really affected.
There is less impact in Vermont, but Maine is affected. I do not know whether the epidemic has started, but I believe they are quite actively preparing for it. The epidemic will hit Maine in the same way it hits us.
Mr. Rhéaume: They are very concerned.
Senator Dagenais: Are they reforesting in the United States too? I imagine they are.
Mr. Côté: They have programs. They have private consultants who visit the owners. In fact, forest work is a very old occupation and is found around the world. People are acting in very similar fashion virtually everywhere.
There are government programs everywhere to support this activity because it is not economic for an individual to plant a tree. There is no private profitability for that individual. There is for the country’s economy. If an individual plants a tree, he must pay the associated costs, and his grandchildren, not his children, will harvest it in 60 years. Something is wrong from the financial standpoint. That is why the government intervenes. It is the same everywhere, here, in Japan, in Australia, and in the United States as well.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: The Americans continue to accuse us of subsidizing the sector, and as I’ve said many times when we’re talking about agriculture in particular, the most important piece of equipment on any American farm is the mailbox, because that’s where the government subsidies come in the door. It’s a fact, and we’ve been the Boy Scouts in terms of how we treat our producers of agricultural and forestry products, but sometimes being a Boy Scout gets you a pat on the head, and just a“Well done, young man or young lady,” but it doesn’t create jobs, and it doesn’t help the economy grow.
Now I’m not suggesting that we do anything wrong, but I think we do need to be more aggressive and realistic about how we market out products. We’re sitting here talking about the problem, we’re talking about some of the solutions, but nobody’s doing anything quickly enough.
Next questioner, Senator Oh.
Senator Oh: I want to get back to the investment side. We talked about a lot about replanting and forest management. You guys are doing great. But the whole thing is that you mentioned earlier that new mills have been built in the U.S., Brazil, Chile, everywhere except Canada. So we are not attracting investment into this country for job creation, as our chair said earlier.
Innovation is a key thing that you mentioned earlier. With new mills being built innovation comes in. But we have planted so many trees. Why are new mills not opening up here? They’re all going south of Canada.
Have you published any articles about the future of our forestry with no new investment coming in? We just keep growing trees.
Mr. Côté: I haven’t written an article about this.
We’re doing some lobbying of the Quebec government, saying we need to attract more investment, and at the moment we are in the process of documenting available fibre for those new mills. Before Christmas, we should know how much fibre we still have to supply one, two or three new mills, and where these fibres are located in Quebec. This is something that we are doing, both on the private and the public side. So, on Crown forests and on private forests, where is the available fibre? That’s one point.
We have seen some investment in Quebec, so I shouldn’t say that there’s no investment. Basically they are in the process of modernizing existing mills, not building new mills from scratch. Yes, some biofuel mills, are being built now. What I see is just that foreign governments are more aggressive in attracting those investments.
The other thing I see is that family-owned companies are keen to invest in their own country. The multinationals don’t really care where they’re investing. They can close one mill and build a new one in some other part of the world. I mean, it’s only business decisions; they’re not thinking about the people or the future of the country where they’re investing. So I see that difference.
If you talk to the Canadian forest industry, they would say, “Well, there’s some investments at the moment, but we cannot invest if we’re not making money. If our money is taxed, it’s only going to the Americans.” So, the deal we will have with the Americans will have an impact on future investment. If we are still paying 20 per cent tax, it’s the Americans who will do the investment with this money.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Do you think the various carbon pricing mechanisms will have an impact on your sector?
Mr. Côté: The dream would be for us to grow the forests and be able to sell the increase we obtain through forest management in a market at a certain price. That is the dream. Yes, we encourage the development of those mechanisms. For the moment, however, we have received no support to aggregate the efforts we make or the gains we obtain. We should aggregate those efforts in order to sell on the market and to test the market.
In these mechanisms, there is a lot of talk about expanding forest area, about going to agricultural areas, for example, and planting new forests there. That could not happen in Quebec because there are no large agricultural areas, but there are many forested areas. Consequently, there will have to be a gain on the forest itself.
It is starting. There are examples in Quebec, where large forests have recently sold credits, in the past year, but the practice has not yet expanded. Selling a lot of forest carbon credits to finance forest management work may not be the way of the future. But the train has not yet left the station, and if it does, so much the better. We can tell owners they will be making carbon now instead of forest products. That is what we will tell them. They may be very happy to do that. They may think they are finding a new purpose in their work.
Senator Tardif: Does the fact that you sell your wood products to competitors that do not have a carbon tax put you in an economically difficult situation?
Mr. Côté: What do you mean?
Senator Tardif: For example, we wonder whether the United States gains an advantage by not having a carbon tax, whereas one is in effect in Canada.
Mr. Côté: I have not felt that effect. Our buyers, the plants, do not mention that to us in the discussions we have with them.
Senator Tardif: Thank you.
Mr. Côté: Perhaps they will in future.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have one final question. The cap-and-trade money in Quebec, is this money being reinvested in the industry?
Mr. Côté: We haven’t seen that money going to forest management activities so far.
The Deputy Chair: Is it just going into the general revenue of the province?
Mr. Côté: I can’t answer that. I’m not a specialist regarding the system.
The Deputy Chair: Well, if you’re not aware of what the money is spent on, maybe someone will tell us as we go along. If it goes into general revenue, that’s when it really gets hard to pry that out for anything else, if it’s not dedicated. If it’s generated by the industry, but it’s not reinvested in the industry, it becomes an issue.
Mr. Côté: Yes, but I don’t think that all the mechanisms are in place at the moment. They’re putting this new system in place, and I think we will see more development in the next two years.
The Deputy Chair: But you’ve had cap-and-trade since 2011.
Mr. Côté: Yes, but we haven’t seen that money going back to forest management activities so far.
The Deputy Chair: Okay.
Mr. Côté: But the government is giving us some money to do forest management, and I don’t know if it comes from that money that went to the general fund of the province.
The Deputy Chair: Well, we’re going to have to ask the Government of Quebec, I guess, when we speak to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Côté and Mr. Rhéaume, thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Côté: Thank you very much for having us. It was a pleasure to come and see you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, the committee will now hear our next panel of witnesses. From the Union des producteurs agricoles, we have with us Marcel Groleau, President General, and Daniel Bernier, Agronomist, Research and Agricultural Policy Department; and from the Producteurs de grains du Québec, Benoit Legault, Director General.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Please proceed with your presentations and we’ll then have questions from senators.
[Translation]
Marcel Groleau, President General, Union des producteurs agricoles: I want to thank the Senate committee for inviting us to address the issue of climate change and its impact.
As you said, I am accompanied by Daniel Bernier, who will summarize for you the brief we submitted on this question yesterday. It will of course be a summary. As planned, a period of questions will follow, during which you may go beyond the points we have discussed and address issues of interest to you concerning agriculture in Quebec or any other sector that is part of the province’s agricultural industry.
First of all, there are 28,000 farms in various different sectors in Quebec. The Union des producteurs agricoles has 43 regional and specialized affiliates. As a result, we are well acquainted with the issues in all sectors.
We also extend over a large area from Abitibi, our most northerly territory, to the U.S. border in southern Quebec. The climates are very different in those zones, and climate change will have impacts that vary from the north to the southern portions of the province.
Following that brief introduction, then, I will ask Daniel to summarize the brief we have filed.
Daniel Bernier, Agronomist, Research and agricultural policy department, Union des producteurs agricoles: Yes, thank you. Do you have the brief in front of you? As a result of the deadlines, we only have the French version. We also have the grain producers’ brief. In fact, however, since both groups are presenting here this morning, we have the UPA’s brief. Consequently, given the allotted time, I will summarize the brief we submitted yesterday.
In this brief, we wanted to answer all the questions the Senate committee raised in its invitation.
First is the question of the potential impact of climate change. In theory, and according to the experts, climate change will have some positive effects. In particular, we are already observing an extended period of plant growth. Here in Quebec, we are taking advantage of these changes by planting varieties that require more heat units. We can therefore expect better yields.
Climate change also has its disadvantages, in particular increasingly frequent extreme weather events. According to the experts, the frequency and intensity of these extreme phenomena should rise and thus will definitely be harmful for agriculture.
Water is a major concern. Under climate change, extreme events will produce excess water at certain times and water shortages at others. Water management will thus be a decisive factor. Our ability to manage water efficiently will be a decisive factor in the resilience of farms in Quebec.
It will be very important to put adaptation measures in place to manage water, particularly through irrigation systems. Farmers systematically use irrigation in vegetable operations now because observed water shortages were becoming increasingly frequent. This adaptation measure has thus been implemented in an attempt to offset the negative impact of climate change.
Irrigation obviously means drawing on surface water and groundwater, which puts additional pressure on the resource. There are also concerns about potential water use conflicts and considerable interest in establishing water-saving measures and financing more efficient irrigation systems.
All economic activity sectors will have to monitor water and prevent waste. In the agriculture sector, we note that large water volumes will be necessary for irrigation. Consequently, water-saving measures will be very appropriate and could help improve the resilience of farms and relieve pressure on the resource.
This brings us to adaptation measures. Water management and crop pest management are obviously important issues. As the climate changes, we expect to see new pests such as insects, diseases, and weeds. These kinds of changes occur quite quickly. Consulting services must be established to assist farmers in reacting quickly to the arrival of these pests and in developing crop pest management strategies.
This raises the issue of pesticide use. We are concerned by this matter, as are our fellow citizens. We have strategies designed to reduce pesticide use, but, at the same time, we are seeing increasing risks. Consequently, if we want to achieve our pesticide reduction objectives, we will have to develop strategies and alternatives to pesticides because, when risk levels rise, the natural tendency is to make greater use of pesticides.
As for livestock, adaptation measures must be developed to address the intense heat events that we will have to manage. In Quebec, periods of heat have occasionally occurred in the past and lasted a few days, and that was the story of the past. We now have increasing periods of heat persisting over longer periods of time. This also raises animal welfare concerns. Consequently, we will have to consider adapted air conditioning systems — misting or ventilation systems — to cool down the animals and help them through these periods of intense heat.
Next, I would refer you to section 4, entitled “Repercussions of the establishment of carbon pricing mechanisms.” This is a major concern. As we know, the Canadian government has announced the implementation of a framework for the reduction of greenhouse gases, which includes a carbon pricing mechanism. In Quebec, we have already established a pricing mechanism by means of a carbon market. This has an economic impact that cannot be denied. We have put a value on that impact, and you can see the figures here.
However, at the current carbon price, Quebec farmers will pay an additional $38 million for the energy they consume in 2017. Since carbon pricing was implemented, Quebec farmers have paid more than $100 million in extra costs directly attributable to the tax. These are direct costs to the farm and do not even include additional transportation costs.
Consequently, our concern is that, given the way the national situation is developing, Quebec farmers may be the only ones paying the carbon tax. Some provinces, such as Alberta and British Columbia, have measures to reimburse that tax. The Canadian framework announced this past May provides for exemptions for the agriculture sector.
In Quebec, however, with the measures the Quebec government has put in place, and given that those measures meet the minimum framework provided for by the federal government, we may be able to maintain our carbon market, or carbon pricing system and thus be the only ones who ultimately must bear those costs.
We will see how the situation develops in Ontario because there has been a movement in Ontario to join the Quebec-California carbon market. There is some uncertainty. We will see what direction that takes. For the moment, however, Quebec farmers are the only ones paying for carbon pricing.
Consequently, this is an issue of fairness. We are asking the federal government to take measures to ensure fairness at the national level. If Canadian farmers are generally exempted from carbon pricing, Quebec farmers should be exempted as well. We can imagine how that can be done through compensation measures, but there is clearly a problem of fairness.
There are ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the agriculture sector. We can reduce greenhouse gases in farming, but it is not a simple matter because we must deal with biological phenomena. Farming produces gases, such as methane, which is emitted by ruminants. Gases are emitted by cultivated fields following planting and by manure storage facilities.
Consequently, there are things we can do, but they are ultimately quite limited, and governments have shown little interest in the matter to date. However, we think measures could be introduced to promote greenhouse gas reduction.
For example, we could promote a conversion to electricity for certain uses. For that purpose, however, the three-phase power network would have to be extended to Quebec’s agriculture sector. Without the three-phase network, we do not have access to the motive power we need to operate irrigation pumps, for example, or for other agricultural uses. Consequently, we could avoid using power take-offs from tractors, but that would require the three-phase power network, and we would need access to it for that. Only a minority of farmers have access for the moment.
We mention the use of biomass. Some fossil fuels can favourably be replaced with biomass for heating and drying grain. This is done in maple syrup production, but, here again, the sector needs a hand to introduce it.
As for other greenhouse gas reduction measures in the agriculture sector, we are thinking of capturing biogases from manure storage facilities, reducing methane produced by ruminants by modifying their diet, and reducing nitrous oxide in cultivated fields through better nitrogen fertilization management. There is also the sequestering of carbon in agricultural soil in certain crop practices.
We mention the last point because it is only theoretical. In Quebec, the reforesting of agricultural land is not a solution that should be considered because we are already under pressure from urbanization. Reforesting it is not a good idea because we have less and less farm land.
I will close with what we think are the actions and the role of governments. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, governments must help the sector invest in energy-saving measures by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Assistance in this area is therefore necessary. It is not easy to do this cost effectively in the present circumstances, particularly since, in many cases, there are no alternatives to fossil fuels for the agriculture sector.
Among our demands, we ask that the government establish fair conditions among Canadian farmers with respect to carbon pricing, offer financial assistance to facilitate the energy transition, and improve the three-phase network’s coverage of rural Quebec, which I have discussed. It should also improve conditions of access to the carbon market for farmers, more specifically by permitting the aggregation of greenhouse gas reduction projects.
Briefly with respect to the carbon market, that market was supposed to serve as a lever to promote greenhouse gas reduction projects on the farm, except that, in actual fact, it does not work. Market entry costs are too high. It is very costly. As you can imagine, on the scale of a single farm, we do not have thousands and thousands of tons of carbon reductions to put on the market. Transaction costs are as high as the benefits. This is therefore not an attractive option. In any case, the carbon market recognizes only one quantification protocol. In short, there have been none in Quebec’s agriculture sector. Consequently, governments must consider improving carbon market access conditions and developing more protocols. It is governments that can play that role. Voilà.
Again, with respect to the government’s roles, I will conclude with the question of resilience, and thus adaptation. We feel the government must invest in research, whether it be in crop varieties better adapted to climate change or irrigation systems enabling farmers to manage dry periods more efficiently. There are also all the measures for field water management, hydro-agricultural development, water table management, and water level control.
We are going to need financial assistance to help farms adapt to climate change, that is to say income security programs adapted to these changing conditions. Since extreme weather events are more frequent, we are poorly equipped with insurance programs to provide adequate compensation for farmers who lose everything as a result of extreme weather events.
Consequently, to summarize the adaptation component, we think that crop insurance coverage and protection must be improved, and provision must be made for the adaptation of livestock buildings. As I noted earlier, we need ventilation to guarantee the welfare of animals during periods of intense heat.
More efficient drip irrigation systems must also be implemented. Systems are available that would help save water while providing adequate irrigation. It would also be a good idea to fund projects designed to develop rainwater and meltwater retention works and to develop farm land drainage systems equipped with water control devices, not to mention to provide compensation for green goods and services supplied by wetlands.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier.
Now, Mr. Legault has the floor.
Benoit Legault, Director General, Producteurs de grains du Québec: The president of our organization apologizes for not being here today. We are in the middle of the harvest right now. We want to thank the Senate committee for inviting us. Just to give you some figures, the Producteurs de grains du Québec represents more than 11,000 farmers, 4,000 of whom mainly specialize in grain production. Our farmers produce five million tonnes of grain on slightly more than one million hectares for total sales of between $1 billion and $1.5 billion a year.
The adaptability and resilience measures that these producers have put in place and will put in place over the next few years have, above all, an impact, an effect, on the amount of energy consumed in field operations, the quantity of inputs used, particularly fertilizer, and soil health.
Many of those measures are in effect and only implemented for others. Some will need a hand in order to go farther. We are talking here about drainage, land levelling, and practices such as reduced tillage, direct seeding, the use of cover cropping, and intercropping in the fall, which is considered a practice for the future, but one that, once again, will require considerable research before it can go ahead.
Modelling tools. Quebec producers have acquired modelling and decision-support tools to assist them in making more refined use of inputs and to manage pests and fertilization more effectively. We also have diagnostics to help us gain a clear understanding of sectoral issues. In overall terms, the Producteurs de grains du Québec has established an analysis of life cycles enabling it to understand more clearly farmers’ footprint on the resources and to target actions and priorities more effectively. It is now doing this with its fellow producers across Canada through the Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, which, in the next few months, should be producing indicators and action priorities for the grain sector.
Another tool among our adaptability measures that has considerable potential is precision agriculture, which is gradually finding its place in Quebec. This makes it possible to use inputs more efficiently. It uses soil mapping, self-guided driving, variable input application, and data and data sharing, what is commonly called “big data.”
I clearly cannot pass over in silence the entire aspect of access to and the adoption of new technologies, biotechnology, and the new genetics adapted to new weather conditions, which helps address these issues and contributes to resilience. There is sustainable production too, particularly with regard to carbon emissions.
Longer growing periods and increased heat accumulation over a season are creating new opportunities. We will have access to new crops. We are already seeing many more new crops in slightly more northern regions.
Soybeans, which were a crop for warmer areas, are increasingly becoming established in more northern regions. Corn is also appearing more to the North. So there are opportunities in this area.
Obviously, according to the forecasts, the overall improvement in yields as a result of this new production, this new grain volume, will likely create opportunities to add value to this grain for livestock and in other areas.
Re-cultivation might become more accessible for abandoned farm land since that land may now be more profitable. We are also told that there will be new farm land. We often hear that Abitibi-Témiscamingue has the potential for three million hectares. That is very much a more long-term objective if global warming continues in its forecast direction.
Our organization currently focuses mainly on challenges rather than opportunities. Daniel explained this earlier. We talk about the extreme weather we are already experiencing and temperatures and precipitation that will increase over time. We also talk about the issues associated with pests and diseases, their intensity, new insects, and new diseases.
We talk about a possible increase in average performance but also about unstable agronomic and economic performance. As a result, yields may rise, but variations in yield will be much greater. There may also be instability in local markets and in international markets, with varying prices and increased financial risks for businesses.
Of course, these climate change issues also call for greater investment so that we can be resilient, face these challenges, and address the issues associated with carbon emissions, whether we invest in biotechnology, technology, equipment, or machinery.
I should also emphasize that the intensive use of pesticides is a challenge, as Mr. Bernier mentioned a little earlier. If there are more insects, this may become a bigger issue and require treatments with plant health products. Consequently, access to those products will be an issue.
Social acceptability is also an issue, if we say today that we will need to use more plant health products in future. Given the general public’s perceptions of this issue, access to those products in future perhaps be a problem.
Considering what I have told you, it is important that we plan measures and actions. Some are already in place, but perhaps they should be enhanced and improved from a support standpoint. We were talking about public genetics research. With these new practices, we will have to acquire new knowledge before integrating them in farm operations. Earlier I mentioned cover crops. This is a challenge. It seems to be a technique of the future, but we will have to know all about it before we can promote it.
Improving knowledge transfer. We must make consulting services accessible and especially ensure that they are of high quality so that we can make further progress on adaptability and resilience measures. There are also adapted and evolving private and public risk-management mechanisms. Everything is changing quickly. Consequently, these public and private mechanisms must be able to evolve quickly over time. We would also like to see mechanisms that can perhaps promote better circulation of information and data among institutions and throughout the value chain. Today, everything reacts immediately. It is important for this information to exist and circulate. We observe that agricultural information is much less available in Canada than to our fellow farmers in the United States.
We would also like to see governments exercise leadership in promoting science and applying science within their institutions, more specifically in the management of health and plant health risks. The regulatory framework is also an issue, and it will have to adapt quickly to permit rapid access to new technologies, to biotechnologies. We believe that Canada has a major role to play in this regard as well. It is already doing so, but it must continue to do so intensively. In other words, it must continue playing its role as a leader in harmonizing standards for the management of plant health measures around the world.
Greenhouse gases. Grain production emits greenhouse gases. I will tell you that from the outset. The bigger the production, the more it emits. This is the dilemma we face. We want agriculture to be more productive. The world demands more grain. The more intensive and productive it is per unit area, the more likely it is to emit more greenhouse gas.
Grain production is a good example of this. Corn, based on product per tonne or kilogram, emits the same quantity of greenhouse gas as straw cereals, oats, barley, and wheat. For a unit area such as a hectare or an acre, since we produce three or four times more corn on that unit area, it generates three to four times as much carbon. This is the dilemma we face.
We also have to understand where that carbon comes from in grain production. For corn, for example, 62 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from fertilization and 20 per cent grain drying. Corn has to be dried in kilns. We use propane or natural gas. Only 15 per cent comes specific field operations. The use of tractors to produce these crops represents 15 per cent of the carbon footprint.
We also have to say that our past and most recent gains, which come from technological improvements and improved practices, were based on the prospect of economic gains. That was much easier. The economic gains were obvious. There was less risk. Consequently, they were more readily integrated into farm operations.
The next round of gains in energy consumption and GHG emissions suggests there will be lower economic impacts for producers because it will involve more social factors and issues. The business risks will be much higher relative to what we want to obtain in the next phase. In this case, the next phase will be largely based on better nitrogen fertilization. As I said earlier, a large part of our carbon footprint comes from nitrogen fertilization.
What also concerns us about greenhouse gases is the social acceptability of the new technologies. In addressing this issue and taking another step forward, securing access to those technologies will be even riskier for businesses. The issue will be acceptability, and the restrictions placed on access to those technologies will be much less predictable for farmers on the farm.
One of the emissions management solutions the government is currently proposing is carbon pricing. For the moment, grain producers do not really see any benefit in it. In our view, carbon pricing represents more challenges than opportunities at this time.
We have also discussed the current repercussions with Mr. Groleau and Mr. Bernier, and there is already quite a significant cost to farms. Since the pricing system was put in place in 2013, a farm specializing in grain production in Quebec has borne additional costs of $4,000 a year, or $2 per tonne of grain. If the Canadian policy goes forward as planned, and the carbon credit or value of a tonne of carbon is increased to $50 by 2022, the additional cost will be $11,000 per farm and approximately $5 per tonne of grain.
It must also be understood that we are at the start of the chain. Based on our perception and understanding, it will be very difficult for us to pass on the additional costs associated with carbon pricing to consumers since goods marketed here in Quebec compete with goods from the United States. It will be difficult to pass them on to consumers. As you know, the United States does not have a similar carbon pricing system.
We are afraid this system will result in a transfer of all costs to the lower end of the chain and thus mainly to farmers and grain producers. From our understanding, the greenhouse gas reduction policy could have a very negative impact on the grain sector, which could undermine its resilience and ability to reduce emissions.
Our findings are therefore as follows: the costs imposed are significant, difficult to account for, even today, and, especially, hard to plan. We are talking about a farm business that must think for the next 15 years because it takes out loans of equally long terms. It is difficult to evaluate and predict all inherent costs, including carbon pricing. It therefore limits our ability to invest in technology and equipment, which are precisely what enable us to improve economic and environmental performance.
I will conclude with a few recommendations on carbon pricing management. Our first recommendation is that mechanisms be introduced to completely eliminate the negative economic impact of carbon pricing. Some provinces have done this through exemptions, and some can do so because this is more a trading exchange used to create a green fund and reimburse affected producers. The idea is not to be nice with producers but rather to enable them to be efficient and profitable so they can invest in emissions reduction measures.
We are asking that there be a policy of reciprocity in the form of an import tax on products not subject to carbon pricing. There may be carbon pricing in California, but there is none in the Midwest. Grains currently produced in the Midwest are not subject to carbon pricing. Consequently, the entire chain is put at a competitive disadvantage by default.
We are also asking that financial incentives be provided for green investments in a context of riskier farming practices and technologies. As I said earlier, the next gains will be even more difficult to achieve because the economic gains are not there. These are social gains.
Consequently, the risks are even greater. These special funds could help producers manage emissions more effectively, all of which will require significant financial incentives.
Lastly, and Mr. Bernier previously addressed this, we are requesting protocols that enable us to trade carbon offset credits for farm businesses more efficiently and profitably. Senators, this is an overview of what we wanted to tell you this morning. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Groleau: In fact, as you can see, the briefs were quite technical. The committee will have the time to analyze them. I will focus on more general considerations in my conclusion.
The situation in Quebec is virtually the same as in the rest of Canada: agriculture represents approximately 10 per cent of emissions. In our sector, emissions reduction is still a difficult and complex matter. We are actively working on it. We cannot simply trade in an eight-cylinder car for a six-cylinder car. It is much more complicated than that.
If we managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector by 10 per cent, that would represent a 1 per cent reduction in Canada. In our view, this is not the sector we should rely on most to achieve the targets that Canada has set. However, we must make an effort to maintain or reduce our emissions. I think this would be a more suitable approach for the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector produces food. Few citizens are prepared to reduce their food consumption to limit greenhouse gas emissions. I think we also have to view the issue from this angle: we produce food.
Another factor is that global food demand is rising and must be met. If too much pressure is put on the agricultural sector and we are excluded from the global food market because we are less competitive or have no ambition, I do not think we are doing Canada a service.
In conclusion, greenhouse gases and climate change scare us. This must not prevent Canada from having ambition. Yes, we are facing a challenge, but, once again, that should not prevent us from having ambition and contemplating future markets. Canada will have to respond to those markets and position itself to be one of the major food suppliers of the 21st century and beyond. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Gentlemen, thank you. Your presentations are very provocative and will raise a lot of questions from my colleagues.
I was interested at the beginning of the presentation when Mr. Legault talked about water management, which is an issue that we haven’t spent a lot of time talking about. I’m especially surprised that we’re talking about it in a province like Quebec, which is so rich in water resources, including the great St. Lawrence, which flows by not far from here. But also, you talked about managing water resources, but you didn’t talk about managing erosion because of higher water levels that are predicted to come along. If the St. Lawrence were to rise, erosion of some of the best farm land in Quebec would follow. The more water, the more erosion, and the more impact that would have on the sector. So, I’d appreciate if someone could reflect on that topic.
The grain producers talked about eliminating the effect of carbon pricing on grain farmers. How do you propose we do that? Do you propose that grain farmers be excluded from carbon pricing because of the uniqueness of the industry? I go back to always my opening argument on carbon pricing, as we’re talking about it on the Agriculture Committee. Farmers aren’t the major problem, but the bad news is farmers are one of the major parts of the solution, and so you get caught by being just that.
Those are my two questions to start, and I have a list of my colleagues who would like to ask questions as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Groleau: With regard to erosion on farm land, water does not withdraw as quickly. We have floods in the spring when heavy rains fall. Our land borders the river, not the sea, where waves create erosion. The river does not cause erosion. When levels are high, the land remains flooded for a longer period of time. We must simultaneously manage farming practices on land that is occasionally flooded. That is more the issue in Quebec: managing water that floods the land.
Mr. Legault: That is a good comment. My answer may be short. How do you exclude grain farmers from carbon pricing? Some systems are simpler. When pricing is applied as a tax it may be much simpler, as is the case in Western Canada. I do not know exactly which provinces apply a tax exemption.
It is obviously a bit more difficult in an emissions rights management system. You know how that works. Companies must purchase rights. Then the value of those rights is rolled into the prices of inputs or energy that those companies make available to users. Consequently, it becomes more difficult to exclude a group in that respect.
I could not tell you technically today how that could be managed from an administrative standpoint. I would find it very hard to explain to you how it could be done, either through a taxation approach or by managing a green fund that would be accessible to producers to compensate them for their costs. Grain producers could be quite imaginative in finding solutions if the government accepted that principle. And some provincial governments have accepted the idea.
The situation is quite unusual in Quebec and Ontario. In Ontario, I do not know where they stand in their thinking on the subject. They should also be introducing an emissions rights management system, if it has not already been done. In Quebec, I would say we do not really have a specific answer to give you on how, technically, from an administrative standpoint, this method might be applied.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen. Going back to the carbon tax, I have thought from the outset that the carbon tax is a kind of major improvisation that helps Canada look like an eco-friendly country around the world. However, the country is not focusing on its economic impact on agriculture.
I can see — and you have said so — that there is a great deal of unfairness in the way this tax is being applied in the provinces. Tell us the recommendations you would like us to pass on to the government in our report because, for the moment, a tax is a tax. I do not think that this tax will help farming or that the money will be returned to farmers. We are in Quebec, and I would like to draw a comparison with the SAAQ. As you know, at the SAAQ, we pay more for our driver’s licences and licence plates, and we are told that the money will be reinvested in our roads. Yesterday, I took Highway 40. It is too little, too late. We are not investing the money in the right place. I understand your concerns.
I would like to hear your views on the subject. This tax will clearly put pressure on farmers. I am a farmer. I have a family farm. Have you heard that some farmers are reluctant to build a family succession plan as a result of the costs it will incur?
You mentioned this as well. This tax will have an impact on many things, on grains, transportation, and so on. This is a tax on a tax on a tax. You are under pressure from the United States. I would like to know what recommendations you would like us to include in our report to tell the government in power to listen and stop.
We are aware of what is going on in Ontario and Quebec. The Prime Minister might be better off in the Green Party because he is very much an environmentalist. We also have to think of producers, and I think this tax will hurt farmers. It is good to think about climate change, but we have to find a way to work together.
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and not everyone agrees on climate change. The changes are greater, but they may not be as frequent as that. Consequently, I would like to hear what you have to say on that subject. My question is obviously for all three witnesses.
Mr. Legault: Perhaps I could start by making a general point. The problem we are experiencing in various areas in agriculture is that, when there is an international dynamic that we try to resolve in one place, that causes a problem. People are not doing this elsewhere, and we are losing our competitive advantage. We must manage carbon emissions. We must do it, but everybody should be doing it at the same time.
I find it unfortunate, and I will not pass judgment on what is being done in other fields, but what we see in agriculture is that we want to set an example, but it is as though we were sacrificing an economic activity, the producers, and their families who live from it. This, in a way, is what farmers feel.
We want this to be done. Canada is still a small country relative to giants like the European Union and the United States. Consequently, it is always difficult to establish restrictions here when they are not being established elsewhere. We are experiencing this, and we may experience it even more in other fields. So, carbon is a major factor, and we are experiencing it even in Canada, as you say.
This is no longer merely a matter between the Americans and us. It concerns us in Canada. Today, grain from Western Canada regularly enters my region, and I am proud of it too; that is the way grain naturally moves. That grain competes with grain from Quebec. That is natural, but it arrives produced and delivered in circumstances that are not equal.
People say that some provinces are not bearing the cost associated with carbon pricing. This grain comes here and competes with grain from Quebec. There is something unfair about this, even at the national level.
We often target issues with the United States, and it would be a challenge if we applied this at the provincial level. First, there should be a form of taxation of imported products, particularly products imported from the United States. It would be more complicated to do that at the interprovincial level.
Second, are producers starting to feel the impact of these kinds of policies? This is in fact a slightly more insidious aspect of carbon pricing. I do not think it was the intention of the people who put it in place. It often happens that this is put in place and certain sectors and impacts are forgotten. We find it difficult to evaluate the cost of this carbon pricing policy for the grain sector.
Producers see and notice this: their production costs are rising. As an organization, we find it difficult to make a specific calculation. It is even harder for producers to do so. But they know it. They have talked about it in the West, and there have been good discussions at general meetings of farmers in Ontario.
Being less competitive is a new constraint and cost factor that makes farming less appealing. Telling us we will be less competitive than our competitors is discouraging for the next generation of farmers. The problem with these new constraints — which I call “social” constraints and which become quite a different issue when they are applied here but not elsewhere — is that they are difficult to account and plan for.
It is hard for farmers today to estimate their profitability in five, six, seven, eight, or 15 years, when they take out loans, extend loans, or have a child who is taking on a new farm. They commit themselves for 15, 20, or 25 years. As you said, these constraints and costs are not very encouraging.
The Senate committee and the President of the UPA may have comments to add, but, for the moment, we are engaged more in a dynamic that is harmful for the sector. I cannot come up with measures today. I have measures to propose, but I cannot tell you how they would be applied in Canada’s legal situation, from a constitutional standpoint, or how to impose this kind of carbon tax in a reciprocal manner on products imported from the United States.
That would be a good approach to consider. I think it is a good way to show that we are an open country. We introduce measures, but we also want them to be fair. In the context of this carbon management policy, it would also be good to impose measures on countries with which we trade, and which do not do this, to ensure that our economy and our local farm production are not affected or that we downplay this aspect as far as possible.
At the same time, the best way to help farmers is to support them with specific actions. The solution obviously lies in public research. Daniel Bernier and the President of the UPA have said this and will say it again. When we compare ourselves to certain countries, we still have a long way to go to gain public support. There is a serious decline in public support for research.
We are often told that it has increased in recent years. When you stop and look at how support for public research has evolved since 1994, you see it has melted like snow in springtime. There has been a spectacular decline in support for public research. Our research capacity in dollar terms has significantly dropped since 1994. I can tell you it has fallen by nearly half.
We note that there has been a recovery in investment. That is good, but we are definitely far from where we should be. If we want to go further and ensure that our farmers are more competitive than others because they have to bear greater restrictions, we really must invest far more money than we are at the moment.
Either we invest heavily in research and support for farmers, far more than what we are doing now, or, at the very least, we enable them to operate in a fair environment. That is really not the case at this time.
Senator Tardif: I have a supplementary question to that of my colleague Senator Dagenais, concerning public research. I believe that you at the Union des producteurs also invest in research. Can you tell me how much of your research focuses on adaptation and mitigation strategies?
Mr. Groleau: Every group cooperates. The Producteurs de grains supports a research centre, the Centre de recherche sur les grains, or CEROM. Cattle and milk producers work with research centres and universities. We at the UPA also commission studies. As Mr. Legault just said, these are amounts paid by producers to support government research centres. The Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement, or IRDA, is another research centre.
So, yes, several research centres are working on climate change, although most of our investment in research does not focus on that sector in particular. We conduct research on many other issues, such as the reduction of pesticides, herbicides, and so on. Alternatives to those solutions are the focus of much of the research we fund, as is animal welfare.
Consequently, this now adds to the issues that farmers face, but available funding to support research in those sectors is a problem. For example, we in Quebec are not eligible for the Green Fund. Very little of our agriculture research is funded by the Green Fund. So that is an issue.
Another impact is that taxes are not applied equally across the country. This triggers other investment behaviours. If I am a greenhouse producer, and I set up in Quebec and know that my costs will increase by 15 per cent to 18 per cent by 2022, but that I will not be subject to those costs if I settle in the West — even though I have to pay transportation costs to get to markets — I will settle in the West. Investment shifts as a result of decisions and taxes that governments are not uniformly applied.
This may even prompt farmers to settle in other countries because they will not have to bear this tax in future. Consequently, the fairness of the carbon tax is very important to farmers.
Climate change is a real issue. There is no doubt about that in our minds. It is a reality. We have gained the equivalent of 20 days of extra growth in Quebec since 1971. We expect to gain another 20 days of growth by 2050. So, yes, the temperature is rising. We can dispute the causes, but the temperature is rising.
Consequently, that raises issues. With regard to the carbon tax, I think the federal government should simply exclude farmers because we are food producers. We can reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation by modifying engines and transporting by rail rather than by truck. There are alternatives.
I live in a region where there is no natural gas and I do not have access to three-phase power. I have no alternative to diesel. So you can tax me all you want, but what can I do? That is the issue. Consequently, I think the agriculture sector should be excluded from the carbon tax.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your presentations this morning.
I have one question that I’d like to follow up on, and that is the point you were making, Mr. Legault, about feeding people. I think you said that if we reduce food consumption, it would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So, I wonder, is the problem one of consumption or waste? And, secondly, if we were to really try to engage the general public in more education and awareness about this, how would we do that? How would we engage the public?
[Translation]
Mr. Groleau: When I made the connection between diet and food and asked whether people would be prepared to cut their food consumption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that was an ironic way of saying that it is consumers who ultimately have the last word. We meet a demand. Could we eat foods that produce less greenhouse gas at source? Yes. If we cut meat consumption, we would produce less greenhouse gas. That is a known fact because animals generate greenhouse gases. Livestock production generates greenhouse gases.
As regards food waste, everything we produce on the farm is sold. Everything, with very few exceptions. There is no cereal that is not harvested. Food waste does not occur at the farm; it happens later. People throw away food rather than recycle it, in the restaurant industry, for example, as a result of conservation methods. Everything we produce on the farm is sold. Consequently, waste definitely does not occur at the farm.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Actually, I didn’t get a response to the part of the question around educating the public. If the problem is on that end of things, how do we educate the public, and what responsibility do your organizations have in terms of helping? How do you partner with other people to do that?
[Translation]
Mr. Groleau: Education starts at a very early age and at school. We have seen this with the recycling of reusable materials. This concern is instilled in children’s minds at school. They have become better recyclers. They have even encouraged their families to adopt better habits.
We have often suggested this in many briefs we have submitted. With regard to food, we should train children to become better consumers. Public awareness campaigns produce limited results on these kinds of issues because food habits change over the long term. This is not something people do unless they are on a diet. We know that, in spite of everything, people very often revert to their old habits. Consequently, food habits change over the long term, and the process starts with children’s education.
Mr. Legault: I would like to add that the situation differs from province to province. Acting on the local situation and on the local population and society is one thing. At the same time, agriculture very much interacts with society outside Canada and Quebec. We export. There is that dilemma as well. I can tell you that we are improving in Canada. Meat consumption is declining.
We have good rates. We have improved considerably throughout the entire value chain, and the consumer is central to that. Except that there is the “elsewhere” factor. The trend is different elsewhere. Asians want to consume more meat. Consequently, Quebec agriculture is a central part of that as well. It has to respond. That is the major challenge we face, and it is not easy to manage: dealing with the reality of exporting and the local reality, which are often not entirely the same. Producers face the challenge of dealing with both at the same time. It is quite a challenge for Quebec and Canadian agriculture.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to go back to the actions you suggested for reducing GHG emissions from biological processes. You said that each of those actions afforded potential reductions but that there was no protocol for quantifying specific reductions in the agriculture sector, except that recognized by the Western Climate Initiative, the WCI. Can you give us more information on the action we should take to ensure more protocols are put in place?
Mr. Bernier: Yes, as regards quantification protocols, we need scientists who examine an issue and determine the actual greenhouse gas reduction associated with a best practice. It is easy to say that a particular practice helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but, in farming, we have to be able to measure it. When we talk about greenhouse gas reduction targets, that implies that we can measure what we do.
That is the challenge in the carbon market. If you want to “sell a reduction” that someone who needs to reduce can buy, you must be able to quantify it rigorously and to have it certified that the reduction indeed occurred, that it is real, and that it is recurring.
What is currently provided for in the carbon market is that, for agricultural operations that contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases, you can sell carbon offsets in the market when you adopt the practice as described in a quantification protocol. As we mentioned in the brief, only one is recognized for the market, for the WCI, and thus the carbon market between Quebec and California, and eventually Ontario.
Consequently, research must be conducted to establish more protocols. Ideally, the government would fund the research and create incentives for such protocols to be developed because it is very costly to develop a quantification protocol. It represents years of research. There must also be a consensus among scientists on how the practice must be carried out and how the resulting greenhouse gas reduction must be measured.
We know that a few protocols are currently being prepared. They have been discussed for years and are constantly delayed. One should theoretically be available to manage ruminants’ food differently, and there is another one for field crops and for nitrogen management.
It is a very long process to make these protocols available. We hoped the government could provide more resources to develop them through research.
Senator Tardif: That is obviously a recommendation you are making. You also said that knowledge transfer had to be improved and that, in many instances, the data were unavailable. I believe that is crucial. How then is it done?
Mr. Bernier: There too, when we talk about greenhouse gas reduction, it is theoretically something abstract. In a farming activity, what actually emits greenhouse gases? How can we interact and change our practices to reduce greenhouse gases? These are very complex questions.
In addition to research, we need knowledge transfer and consulting services that are specialized in the field and can assist farm businesses in implementing those new practices. Knowledge transfer is fundamental because we are theoretically dealing with something abstract.
Senator Tardif: Are any mechanisms in place through which farmers can exchange best practices for reducing CO2, for example?
Mr. Bernier: Very few. Some initiatives have been introduced here and there but always on an ad hoc basis. There is no continuity over time. Awareness activities in this field are marginal.
Mr. Legault: If I may repeat a point I made earlier, these new gains that we want to make in agriculture are much riskier and much less economically appealing to farmers. GHGs gas emissions are a pressing social issue. However, these gains will be much riskier for producers. We will see whether they cost more, but they are much riskier.
Daniel and I referred to this. One issue is central to fertilization as it affects yield and profitability. At what point can producers refine their fertilization, increase it, or at least do a better job of capturing those fertilizers so they are not lost in the atmosphere? How much yield will they lose by making a more refined fertilization effort? Because it is already highly refined. We must go further.
At our current stage, we think producers will need much more knowledge and support to help them deal with these new risks, which are much greater. There is a knowledge issue because we are more involved in refining fertilization. There is also a support issue because we are increasingly in unknown territory.?
We think that farmers are not the only ones who should bear the consequences of these unknown factors. Much more knowledge is needed to pursue this refinement with less risk.
[English]
Senator Oh: My question is about transportation. When you have a good crop, you need to move it to market fast. The carbon tax money collected by the government, do you know if they are reinvesting in transportation to help the farmers move the crops out?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: The answer is no. We previously disputed whether they were reinvesting in transportation in general, certainly not to improve transportation and logistics or performance in the transportation of agricultural products.
At the same time, what is unusual is that the transportation of grain products from farm to user, or perhaps to port terminals for export, represents a fraction of the carbon footprint. We are talking about approximately 3 per cent in the case of corn. That is not a very large part of the footprint.
There is nevertheless a significant cost. The figures do not come to mind because the $4,000 I mentioned earlier, or $2 a tonne, includes transportation costs.
The biggest cost is mainly the diesel used on the farm. It represents an indirect cost as a result of the increase in the prices of diesel and propane in the case of corn. I would venture to say that the cost of transportation from farm to user represents approximately 25 per cent of the invoice.
To answer your question more specifically, I definitely do not have any documents to prove it to you, apart from my clear impression. And that is that, no, the government is not investing at all in measures to address the issues associated with the transportation of grain or agricultural products in general.
[English]
Senator Oh: Is your organization asking the government to invest?
[Translation]
Mr. Groleau: In transportation, as I said earlier, some types of equipment are more efficient than others in reducing transportation costs. There are more efficient engines.
Consequently, the people who work in the transportation sector have alternatives. The market ensures that the most competitive players develop or force the others to become more competitive. No American truckers will come and transport goods to Canada because they do not pay the carbon tax. They buy their diesel here.
Consequently, we are operating in a competitive environment. In this environment, this tax will probably lead to behavioural changes and improved logistics, and trucks will operate less inefficiently as a result. This tax on transportation will therefore promote a more efficient use of fossil fuels, or a reduction in fossil fuel use.
We cannot do this in the agriculture sector. If I am a farmer, I have no alternative to fossil fuels. This is where we are facing two different issues.
For example, in the airline industry, carriers are moving toward lighter, more economical aircraft that can save on fuel. Consequently, the tax is an environmental winner. It is very difficult for us to achieve those kinds of gains because we cannot transfer them to the market. We have no option or alternative at this time.
It is essential that we invest in research to find alternatives. We must invest in order to have access to natural gas to replace oil in greenhouses, or to biomass, or three-phase power. We therefore need an approach specific to the agriculture sector.
Senator Dagenais: Do you think the government could compensate farmers who pay a carbon tax with a credit to help them acquire less energy-consuming equipment?
Last year, I visited two dairy farms, one of which was completely automated. It was fascinating to see. I think the government should grant credits to encourage farmers to modernize their equipment or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I understand that is not being done at the present time, but we could make that recommendation in our report by saying that the carbon tax must be returned to farmers in the form of credits to assist them in modernizing their equipment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We should invest in research or at least grant credits that could help farmers reduce GHG emissions.
As I understand it so far, you will be paying a carbon tax, and it will go into a carbon exchange and you will not see it again.
Senator Tardif: We have talked a lot about carbon pricing today. How is that going in the European Union? Farmers are part of a credit exchange system. How are they being affected? Are you discussing the issue with your European colleagues?
Mr. Groleau: The common agricultural policy provides considerable support for all investments in animal welfare and energy improvement. Oil has always cost more in Europe than in America. They have long been ahead of us in energy saving.
They are also transitioning to energy “decarbonization.” There are many programs that support “biodigesters” to recover methane from manure in Germany. The government also buys back electricity at high prices.
Wind and solar energy are other examples in Europe, particularly the use of solar panels on farm buildings for energy recovery. The European approach focuses very much on investment rather than taxation. Investment is supported to produce clean energy, and the agriculture sector is used to make those investments.
Consequently, that could be an attractive option for Canadian agriculture as well.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations. You’ve generated a fair amount of discussion around the table and also a fair amount of thought that we’ll have to consider as we contemplate what our report will say at the end of the day. You’ve made a very major contribution to our study. Thank you for that.
As our final witnesses of the day, we have with us a collection of people: from Équiterre, Sidney Ribaux, Co-founder and General Manager, and Claire Bolduc, Member of the Board of Directors; from Ouranos, Caroline Larrivée, Team Leader, Vulnerabilities, impacts and adaptation; from the Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Andrew Gonzalez, Director; and from COOP Carbone, Jean Nolet, President and Chief Executive Officer.
I thank you for accepting our invitation. I’m going to invite you to make your presentations, and following which we will have a question and answer session.
Mr. Gonzalez.
Andrew Gonzalez, Director, Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and senators, for your time. I’m very happy to be here to speak to you and offer some ideas and recommendations from the Quebec Centre of Biodiversity Science. My name is Andrew Gonzalez, and I’m the Director of the QCBS. You should have a copy of a report we brought. It’s in French and English, and I will read the details in English today.
One of the most important scientific and societal challenges of this century is to understand how Canada’s biological diversity and ecosystems are responding to climate change. Quebec and Canada’s economy is founded on healthy and resilient ecosystems and natural resources. Analyses of the value of our provincial and national ecological wealth or natural capital repeatedly show it to be of the order of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Biodiversity is the source of adaptation and resilience, yet it is threatened. How can we mitigate the risks due to accelerating biodiversity change and ongoing climate change? The Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science is a unique source of knowledge, expertise and training in biodiversity science, focused on evaluating the causes and consequences of biodiversity change. Founded in 2009, and hosted at McGill, the QCBS is an FQRNT strategic cluster of more than 120 professors and 750 graduate students from 11 Quebec universities, and several other organizations across Quebec and Canada.
Data and projections made by the research of the QCBS consistently indicate that humans are causing very high rates of biodiversity change that are having major impacts on our economy and environment. We are working on solutions oriented research, and recommendations for environmental sustainability.
Canada’s urban, agricultural, marine and freshwater biodiversity is responding fast to human impacts, but science is needed to assess how this is affecting the adaptability of our biodiversity, and the ecosystem services that it is providing our economy. We must put into place measures to observe and quantify the trends in biodiversity to ensure we can adaptively manage for their resilience in the long term. Research at the QCBS recommends implementing a biodiversity observation system for our agro-ecosystems and forests. New technologies can generate data in near real time that can be used to feed models that forecast the future. This infrastructure could provide early warning indicators for the critical loss of adaptation and resilience in our agro-ecosystems.
Many proposals to accomplish the dual goal of increasing agricultural production while reducing its environmental impact are based on increasing the efficiency of production, while avoiding unintended outcomes such as the loss of biodiversity. One can think of the extinction of pollinator species that are affecting our crops, or water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Although increasing production efficiency is almost certainly necessary, it will not be sufficient, and will in many instances reduce long-term agricultural resilience. For example, by degrading soils and increasing the fragility of agricultural systems to pest and disease outbreaks and climate shocks.
The key message for our agro-ecosystems is that we must manage for their capacity to adapt. We must use landscape scale approaches based on measures for persistence, adaptation, and transformation. We are good at managing for persistence through subsidies and other techniques to keep agriculture in place, but we are much less good at adaptation. We need to avoid negative outcomes, those negative environmental externalities arising from practices based on short-term optimization of production, because they erode the resilience in the long term. Rarely do we have practices in place to allow transformation without system collapse.
For example, research at the QCBS jointly funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation is looking for novel, social and economic solutions to manage the irreversible loss of water quality, fresh water quality — for example, due to eutrophication that happens when we add fertilizers to our water, or the sign of bacterial blooms that are so toxic.
This loss of water quality arises because of fertilizer and pesticide run-off from fields into the water courses of our landscapes. But we need innovative schemes that acknowledge the cost of these environmental externalities, and that value the full set of ecosystem services on our farmland. Farmers should be rewarded for practices that enhance biodiversity, so crucial to system resilience.
In one study, jointly funded by Ouranos, we focused on adaptation to climate change in the southwest region of the St. Lawrence lowlands, surrounding Montreal. We proposed a protection of a network of forests. This plan is founded on managing the configuration of our landscapes, so that the forest and agricultural biodiversity embedded within them can co-adapt to climate change. I presented this research at the world economic forum in Davos earlier this year, with the aim of sharing this knowledge more broadly. We are now working with many stakeholders, including towns, municipalities, and NGOs like Nature Conservancy Canada, in this region to implement this strategy for resilience.
Wildfires are the main cause of forest disturbance in the boreal forest of Canada, with on average 2.3 million hectares burned annually. That’s an annual cost of somewhere between 500 million and one billion dollars.
Climate change studies forecast important changes in fire cycles, such as increases in fire intensity, severity and occurrence, and we’ve seen these in the news recently. QCBS member, Dr. Liliana Perez and her collaborators modelled wildfires under various climate change scenarios. Their results suggest that under all scenarios, the mean area burned will likely increase on a provincial scale. And under a business as usual scenario, the mean area of burned forest will likely increase by 30 per cent by the end of this century. And the fire limits will shift north and east, and in most places the risk of fire will increase substantially
In addition to fires, we have the spruce budworm. Spruce budworm outbreaks are ongoing right now, and are changing the composition of our forests, killing millions of trees and costing the industry billions of dollars. QCBS member Dr. Patrick James has shown that defoliation — that means the loss of leaves from our trees — by spruce budworm increases the risk of natural fires igniting eight to ten years after the outbreak. So, these two things, climate change and budworms are acting together.
Given that climate change is expected to increase fire and insect activity in northern forests, he recommends that we include insect defoliation in fire risk models that are so crucial for effective fire and forest management in the long term.
I leave you with a few key messages. Canada needs a biodiversity observation and monitoring system. We have it for our weather systems, we have it for pollution, and it’s an aberration that we don’t have it for our biological diversity. We need it. We need the data, we need the forecasts that such a system would provide to implement adaptive practices that I believe this committee is interested in finding.
Climate studies of our ecosystems forecast major changes in fire cycles that we know will increase the fire intensity, severity and occurrence, and that this will affect millions of lives and have a huge impact on our economy.
We need integrated landscape approaches that manage for persistence, adaptation, and transformation to ensure the resilience of our agro-ecosystems. This often means social innovation, just as much as it means economic and scientific innovation. We need to work with stakeholders on the ground to co-design the solutions for the future.
Innovative social and economic schemes are needed to help farmers and landowners adapt their practices to avoid these negative outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystems in the long term. I remind you of those precious freshwater resources that we’re trying to protect.
These are just a few recommendations QCBS researchers would like to make to the Senate committee. We’re available to help the committee with any future needs for knowledge, expertise, and recommendations you may have.
Thank you for your attention.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Gonzalez, thank you very much.
Mr. Nolet, please.
[Translation]
Jean Nolet, President and Chief Executive Officer, COOP Carbone: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and senators. I am very pleased to be here today to present COOP Carbone and to tell you about what we are doing to combat climate change in agriculture.
Just to provide you with a little background, COOP Carbone’s mission is to generate greenhouse gas reduction projects in Quebec. Today I have chosen to focus on this aspect because, first of all, we do not have a lot of time, and several individuals will be discussing adaptation.
Our mission is to generate greenhouse gas reduction projects in Quebec. As we are a co-operative, we want to generate those projects through co-operative action and collaborative projects. This is thus a feature of COOP Carbone.
At COOP Carbone, we have two action areas in addressing climate change. We are carbon market experts and therefore conduct transactions in that market. We also develop greenhouse gas reduction projects in Quebec. The transactions component, on which we aim to make profits, generates revenue that is then used to launch greenhouse gas reduction projects in Quebec. We thus recycle carbon market revenue within our organization so that we can carry out projects in three activity sectors: transportation, energy, and agri-food.
I would like to describe to you in greater detail what we do in the agri-food sector. We have an initiative called “Agro Carbone,” a project that focuses mainly on the dairy sector.
We have targeted the dairy sector in this initiative because it is the biggest economic activity in Quebec’s agri-food sector and has the largest number of farms. Consequently, it is the sector with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions in the agri-food industry in Quebec.
You have a chart that illustrates the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. The dairy industry as a whole accounts for 3.4 per cent of all emissions in Quebec. We include agri-food in the total, and when I say “in the total,” that means we are including food transportation. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to the agri-food sector in Quebec represent 16 per cent of the province’s total emissions, a very large amount.
Now if we focus on the dairy sector, especially at the farm where most of the greenhouse gas emissions originate, we can see that a large portion of those emissions are associated with enteric fermentation. More specifically, they are linked to the digestion of food by cattle, the resulting emission of methane, and manure and soil management.
When we then ask what we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in farming, and if we consider the question specifically for the dairy sector, we at COOP Carbone have developed an approach that we consider promising. It is an approach based on the value chain, ultimately the entire “supply chain,” from farm to food distribution, whereby we view the sector, not in isolation, but rather as a whole.
This enables us to address, in a much more comprehensive manner, projects that will have a simultaneous impact on farmers, processors, and, in some instances, transporters, in particular.
To develop this project, we recruited various partners, including Quebec’s Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of the Environment, and Ministry of the Economy. The MRC des Maskoutains is also taking part in this project because it is the ultimate agri-food region in Quebec.
We also recruited the Producteurs laitiers du Québec, Coop Fédérée, Agropur, Gaz Métro, and financial partners including Fondaction Desjardins. Briefly, what we tried to do in this project was first to diagnose the situation in the dairy sector. That diagnosis is probably valid for several types of agricultural production in Quebec.
Broadly speaking and quite simply, what inhibits the adoption of new practices that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the dairy sector are first the economic factors that are important to farmers because they often run small businesses that do not necessarily possess large financial resources and have a certain natural resistance to change.
To put it plainly, farmers are very busy people who work very hard. When they are asked to change their behaviour, that must not require extra work on their part because they are already overworked. Thus, there are natural barriers to change, not because farmers are less open to change than others, but because they are dealing with a situation that they must consider as they try to work in this sector.
Another observation is that the barriers farmers face may be hard to remove at the business level. Collective projects and collective organizations are needed to encourage farmers to work together to find economies of scale in order to carry out projects.
Lastly, there are, by definition, a very large number of businesses in the agriculture industry: 32,000 in Quebec and approximately 8,000 in the dairy sector. Thus, a large quantity of greenhouse gas emissions is reduced by many small players scattered across the province.
This factor therefore makes it more difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot simply address a few major players on the assumption that, by targeting the largest, we can get most of the job done. No, that does not work in agriculture or agri-food.
What does this mean? This suggests to us that our initial intuition at COOP Carbone was correct: collective, structured projects must be implemented if we want to achieve results that make a difference on the ground.
We do not claim to have identified all the types of projects that should be pursued in future, but I will be presenting three for our purposes today. We are working on something we call “The Enteric Fermentation Project.” In real terms, this project could lead to a change in the diet of cattle so they emit less methane during digestion. In this case, changing what cattle eat means adding flax to their feed intake. This is not high technology, but it is something that is not being done or is not widespread. Some scientific studies have shown that we can vastly reduce methane emissions if we changed the diet of cattle. Some studies cite a 30 per cent reduction, but we generally put the figure at 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
Consequently, our objective in this project is to bring together major players in the sector. We are talking to processors such as Danone, Nutrinor, and Agropur, which might be interested in acquiring a different milk supply that is richer in omega-3 fats.
Farmers could see lower health costs among their dairy herds, and, generally speaking, we could implement a project that makes economic sense and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
I want to emphasize one point here. In the description of this project, what I am telling you is that, to implement greenhouse gas reduction projects on farms, it is not enough to tell farmers, “You will be taking part in the collective effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the planet and thus to lower the impact of climate change.”
Unfortunately, that is not sufficient motivation. In real terms, we have to find projects that will make a positive difference in farmers’ lives. And, in any case, this is true for the population as a whole. The key is to develop projects that make a positive difference in people’s lives, in this case those of farmers, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.
Consequently, an appreciable part of our work is to identify the kinds of projects that make sense to people, that deserve to be heard, and that would simultaneously reduce greenhouse emissions.
Biomethanization is another example of the projects we are considering for implementation. In fact, we are making reasonable advances in this kind of project. Here, more specifically, we are talking about using farm waste, solid and liquid manures, and pooling them in regional bioreactors to produce bio-methane, which could then be used for all kinds of purposes and, perhaps in some cases, redistributed through the Gaz Métro network or in other ways, possibly compressed and subsequently used for other purposes.
Once again, however, for the project to make sense, farmers and probably small municipalities must be encouraged to work together on small regional bioreactors. This is what could potentially make the difference. So we are currently working on this kind of project.
I could name several projects, but, to reserve some time for questions from the committee, I would like to tell you about another project we are working on, which is energy management through the aggregation of businesses.
One observation that we make, which is valid for agriculture and for other small businesses, is that major energy efficiency gains can be made in small businesses. However, small businesses must face the fact that they are focused on their main activities, have few resources, and lack internal expertise. In addition, they consider that expertise, when provided from the outside, costly for the potential energy efficiency gains they may achieve.
The idea is to group them together and provide them with common expertise tailored to their situation. Taking, for example, farmers and dairy producers with common circumstances, we can group them together, determine the common areas where they are experiencing energy consumption issues, and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions using various techniques that will be identified and that will be their own.
Once again, these are collective projects designed to achieve reductions at many sources. We believe the cooperative approach here can make a major difference. A general comment that I can make is that we have a lot of support for technological innovation from the climate change programs that are being put in place in Canada and the provinces.
One issue that we face in the actions we are trying to implement is that we do not necessarily need new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In many instances, the technologies exist or are about to appear. Sometimes it is technology combinations that are lacking.
We could simply use and more effectively combine communications technologies with the clean technologies and environmental technologies that are already developed. However, then we have to work to implement them all so those technologies are adopted. At COOP Carbone, we focus on the collective projects that can make a difference. That is what I wanted to tell you today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ribaux.
Sidney Ribaux, Co-founder and General Manager, Équiterre: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your invitation and the opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Sidney Ribaux, and I am Co-founder and General Manager of Équiterre, an organization that has been in existence for 25 years. I would note that Claire Bolduc, who is here with me and who sits on our board of directors, is an agronomist, a past president of the Ordre des agronomes, president of Solidarité rurale du Québec, and also Regional Director of the Ministry of the Environment. She is thus one of our agriculture experts at Équiterre.
Équiterre is a citizens’ organization. We have worked on two issues since our inception: climate change and agriculture. Consequently, your theme for today is entirely relevant to us.
Briefly, for those who do not know us, I want to tell you that we are, as I said, an organization of 20,000 members, who are our main source of funding. We have 140,000 supporters, people who read us, follow us, and take part in our projects, people who follow us in all kinds of ways.
We have offices in Montreal, Quebec City, and Ottawa, and thus work directly and simultaneously with citizens through all kinds of projects and with the federal and provincial governments. To a certain degree, we also intervene in international negotiations, particularly on climate.
Here is one example of what Équiterre does, to help you understand something of who we are. More than 20 years ago, we established a network of certified organic farms that sold their products directly to consumers. We started in 1996 with seven farms that fed 250 families. This year, more than 112 farms everywhere, across all regions of Quebec, deliver their baskets of vegetables to 600 points of sale and thus feed 60,000 people.
That is one example, at a very local level, of what we can do to promote alternative methods of marketing organic products. And you will see why I am telling you about this project in particular. We will come back to this issue of promoting organic food later on.
On the issue of climate change, and on another level, Équiterre has been following the international climate negotiations since they started in Germany in 1995. We have attended all the major conferences: Kyoto and Copenhagen. We were in Paris as part of the Canadian delegation, as we had previously done on several occasions.
We took part in the effort to convince the governments of Quebec and Canada to implement climate policies and the carbon exchange that Jean spoke about a little earlier. That issue is important to us.
I have provided you with the pie chart on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. I am sure you have already seen it, but I attached it for two reasons. First, to tell you that we are making great progress, even though we are still in the early stages of reducing greenhouse gases from fossil fuel sources.
As for coal, the federal government and several provincial governments have adopted a very clear direction to reduce the use of coal and oil as well. Several initiatives have been brought forward, more specifically the energy efficiency standards for motor vehicles and the promotion of electric vehicles. China has recently announced ambitious electric vehicle penetration targets.
All that will have a considerable impact in reducing fossil fuel consumption. Why am I telling you about this? Because the only issue that will remain in 10 or 15 years will be agriculture and forests. They will be the remaining sources.
Consequently, it is a good idea to start thinking about them now because we think it will be more difficult to achieve reductions in those areas. However, they are reductions that will have to be made, when you look at the targets that were set in Paris and those that Quebec and Ontario have adopted, of 80 per cent to 95 per cent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Those reductions will require cuts in all sectors, including agriculture, obviously. The other reason why I am showing you this pie chart — and then I will hand the floor over to Claire — is that the 8 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture excludes certain important factors — Jean briefly discussed them — that are nevertheless related to agriculture, specifically fertilizer production, which is not included in that 8 per cent. In some cases, these fertilizers are produced outside Canada, but we think they should nevertheless be included in our thinking about measures that should be put in place to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.
Claire Bolduc, Member of the board of directors, Équiterre: Thank you, Sidney. As Mr. Ribaux noted, the family farmers network is based on the idea of supplying families with organic farm products. And it is no accident that we selected this type of agriculture to launch the network.
This type of agriculture does much to meet many needs of Canadian citizens. For example, the aims of organic farming are economic and social. It helps reduce the environmentally harmful effects of industrial agriculture and contributes to the production of a healthy form of agriculture of high nutritional quality. Organic farming increases the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture. And the support for and development of rural areas should not be overlooked either. For these reasons, organic farming was the agricultural approach adopted for the family farmers network.
If we look at the sectors that contribute most to agricultural emissions, two types of activities are specifically targeted. Mr. Nolet mentioned enteric fermentation, or polygastric animals. You have discussed dairy cattle, but beef cattle, goats, and sheep are also polygastric animals that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. These gases significantly increase emission quantities.
Agricultural soils are also a contributing factor. It must be understood that the agricultural soil we till can capture or emit CO2, and the way we choose to cultivate our soils determines whether we capture more or emit more CO2. This is why we say it is necessary to promote organic farming practices. Organic farming permits greater CO2 capture and helps retain captured CO2 in the soil.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has analyzed this phenomenon since the early 2000s, in its 2001 and 2008 reports and, more recently, its 2016 report. The reported CO2 life cycle assessments reveal that greenhouse gas emissions in conventional production systems are always greater than those of organic systems.
All over the world — especially countries similar to our own, like Germany, Switzerland or France — many experiments have proved that organic fertilization, compared to mineral fertilization, produces an increase of organic carbon in the soil and allows a better collection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a higher level of retention in the soil.
Even though we have touted the major benefits of organic farming since the 2000s, it seems some signals have not necessarily been received, but people should start receiving them now.
Based on analyses and studies conducted by Équiterre, organic farming has the potential to use 45 per cent less fossil fuel energy than is consumed by a conventional farm. The benefit of organic production is apparent from that figure alone.
And once again, according to the brief submitted by Équiterre, nitrogen fertilizers are one of the main indirect energy sources used in agriculture and are even responsible for one-third of all energy consumed by farms in general. In the circumstances, we can only note that organic farming is both a very important greenhouse gas reduction option and a solution in making agriculture more resilient to climate change.
This is the other aspect of the comment we wanted to make to you because climate change is currently accelerating, unpredictable, and surprising in many respects, in the intensity with which it occurs and the impact it has on agricultural operations.
Choosing organic farming methods that rely first on agronomic knowledge instead of technological products such as synthetic inputs helps develop a type of agriculture that is more resilient to this change and enables farmers to focus on agricultural operations rather than merely react to climate change.
Furthermore, apart from relying on organic production, measures to help lower greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture would include reducing animal production and the consumption of meat, particularly red meat.
This is a point that scientists increasingly make about the risks of overconsumption of red meat and about the issues associated with animal production, as we have seen with enteric fermentation. We need to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers by relying on organic fertilizers, such as compost, green fertilizers, buried crops, and reduced soil tillage.
We must, of course, promote organic farming and improve the energy efficiency of farm buildings. We are still a northern farming country. We must reflect on that and on the performance of farm machinery used in agriculture, how to improve it and maintain it.
Following are some actions that could be taken to reduce meat consumption, for example. Canada’s Food Guide is currently under review. In the past year and a half, there has been a lot of talk about Brazil’s food guide, which focuses on behaviour and food choices, instead of portions and nutrients, to encourage healthy eating habits.
On pages 18 and 19, the Brazilian food guide clearly states that the production and consumption of organic foods is likely to improve human health and ecosystems.
It also suggests a review of school curricula, programs to provide a real education on nutrition and, obviously, on the environment, but also to offer a real education on nutrition, the need for locally grown and seasonal foods, and the necessity of changing certain eating habits.
Going back to the Brazilian food guide, it talks at length about behaviour, preparing foods, and limiting the search for and use of processed and ultra-processed foods. These are educational ideas that we need to re-adopt.
It is obviously essential that we promote healthy dietary patterns and lifestyles in which we can reduce our consumption of red meat. Conducting research and increasing awareness are other actions that are within the Canadian government’s power.
Going back to organic farming, this is a production system that relies on knowledge of agronomic science. It is a production system that benefits from all the contributions of chemistry, botany, soil science, mechanics, mathematics, animal nutrition, and genetics, and that is based on an understanding of the processes involved rather than an application of formulae.
Effective support for the conversion from conventional to organic agriculture is likely to have two very positive effects: a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from soils, and a more resilient agriculture.
In addition, a federal fund should be established to promote organic products and support their marketing, particularly in local markets. Little has been said about the transportation of food and its purportedly negligible impact on greenhouse gases. However, making local food accessible to people is also a way to contribute to greenhouse gas reduction and a good way to support our local agriculture and rural communities.
I will let Mr. Ribaux state our remaining recommendations for a more sustainable agriculture in Canada and conclude the presentation.
Mr. Ribaux: Briefly, our final recommendations are as follows. To improve agriculture’s environmental performance relative to that of the OECD countries, Canada must make support for agriculture conditional on the adoption of best agri-environmental practices. In other words, some farmers could be encouraged to take-up organic farming, while others could be persuaded to adopt better practices. The type of condition placed on funding is important at this stage, and this is a principle that is recognized around the world.
And, lastly, we recommend that the necessary resources be allocated to farmers to ensure a legislative and normative framework that guarantees continued competitiveness for Canada’s organic industry as a whole. What we mean with this recommendation is essentially that there is currently in Canada a legislative system that provides a legislative framework for organic agriculture.
However, based on our assessment, we lack the resources to ensure that this system evolves, that standards evolve, and that the types of products that we use in organic farming, for example, can develop efficiently. That is it. Thank you very much for the time you have allotted to us.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Larrivée, please.
Caroline Larrivée, Team leader, Vulnerabilities, impacts and adaptation, Ouranos: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, senators. I am pleased and grateful for the opportunity to make a presentation this afternoon and to provide you with some food for thought.
The main purpose of my presentation is to give you a brief overview of climate change and its effects on the agriculture and forestry sectors and the kind of measures we might imagine putting in place to help us deal with those effects and impacts.
I would just like to start by saying a brief word about the organization I am representing today. Ouranos is a consortium for research on climatology and adaptation to climate change. Our organization stands on the boundary between research and decision-making.
We were established mainly by governments at various levels to help produce research that aids in decision-making, in making more informed decisions. We therefore provide information on the climate system, how it evolves under climate change, vulnerabilities, and associated impacts for many sectors, including agriculture and forestry. We also conduct highly collaborative research in partnership with practitioners and decision-makers to ensure that our research remains relevant and that we help develop and analyze adaptation measures that are realistic and can be implemented.
We are a not-for-profit organization with many members, including government members at all levels. The main focus of our activity is adaptation to climate change. However, I felt it was necessary to note, as my colleagues before me have mentioned, that the two sectors have a role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a very important role, and it is in fact the first step in adapting to climate change.
We cannot adapt to any change, or to any degree of change, without first reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Both sectors are concerned by this issue. At the same time, both are very sensitive to weather conditions and much affected by them.
Apart from environmental issues, there are very important social and economic issues. These affect the health and way of life of entire populations. There are economic issues. In particular, we can think of the regions that depend to a very high degree on these activities.
We must also consider the social and economic factors involved in adapting to climate change. For a clearer understanding of their impact on agriculture and forestry, we must recall the kinds of climate change we expect.
Briefly, then, we expect a warmer climate and an extended growing season. We also anticipate milder winters, perhaps with thaws and less substantial snowfalls. This is important for plants because it can affect them both negatively and positively.
We also expect warmer and drier periods in summer and extreme events such as excessive rainfalls, rains that are not always conducive, for example, to agricultural production and forest growth.
However, we can imagine, especially in a northern country like Canada, that some of these changes will be beneficial, for plant growth in particular. We can expect higher yields in agricultural production.
We can also imagine, for example, that we will be able to grow and harvest wood farther north. We could also imagine possibly introducing new varieties and species that might further diversify our agriculture. And for greenhouse crops, we could also expect to need less heating during shorter winters.
However, although there will be positive and beneficial effects for forests and agriculture, we also expect greater risks. While a longer summer benefits certain plants, it will also benefit less desirable plants. It will benefit insects that we would prefer not to have and that negatively affect our crops. The same will be true of certain diseases.
We can also imagine that the moment when we need more water for farming will correspond exactly with the moment we have less water at our disposal. The air will be warmer and drier and there may be a potential increase in conflicting uses of water resources.
We also do not know what effect these changes will have, for example, on the nutritional value of food or the quality of wood produced. We know that recent extreme events, which may continue with greater frequency and intensity, cause considerable damage to crops and to all the equipment we depend on to carry out those activities, on our roads, for example.
Consequently, the transportation sector, which is essential to the country’s agricultural and forest operations, will also be negatively affected by extreme events. We also know, as was mentioned earlier, that the risk of forest fires is on the rise.
We also know that, in addition to being our resource for wood, the forest is used for other activities that will also be affected. Tourism in the more forested regions is one example, in addition to other forest activities. As a result of all these impacts, it is unclear whether, on balance, the benefits and opportunities will be greater than the negative effects.
What seems quite clear, however, is that there appear to be opportunities in the short and perhaps medium terms but that the impacts, as a whole, will be more negative than positive over the longer term.
I also mentioned that every related activity, all infrastructure, and all sectors closely related to agriculture and forestry — transportation, in particular, and the entire biofood sector — will also be affected by climate change.
We do not have a very clear overall idea of the impact on these sectors or of the scope of the costs or extent of the effects that it may generate. However, we do know that the impact of climate change will also be felt on a global scale.
Other farming regions and regions where forest operations are conducted will also be affected, and that may also change Canada’s competitive position. Consequently, it is also essential to understand what is going on elsewhere around the world to determine what might happen here at home, not only for our sectors, but also to understand the food security issues, for example, that may be very significant and affect us profoundly. These observations therefore concern impacts.
With respect to vulnerabilities, our present methods and the current state of our infrastructure will clearly play a role or will alter the scope of the impacts we experience. Consequently, if our roads are in poor condition, if our sustainable farming practices have already reached a limit, climate change will merely exacerbate the issues we are currently experiencing.
The good news is that there are many factors, actions and types of solutions that we can put in place to adapt. I would say that the first is awareness. In fact, the first step is to acknowledge that there is an issue, to ensure that stakeholders clearly understand the risks they face, but also realize they have a role to play in their practices and in what they do, and thus in this value chain or system as a whole, be it agriculture or forestry.
Policies and programs are another way we can insert, encourage, and support players in both these sectors: support research, for example, support good practices, and provide incentives. This issue was raised earlier by my colleagues. Climate change policies, programs, and action plans are necessary to frame the action and really support the players who must change their methods and practices.
Standards and regulations are also an effective way to provide a framework for these best practices. If we want to move toward more sustainable and more resilient practices, we can establish standards that really help the players understand what they must do, the kind of actions they must take, and the practices they must put in place.
We also do a great deal of work to develop tools to assist in decision-making. Developing technical guides to design more resilient buildings that are more capable of withstanding extreme events or changes in precipitation patterns, for example, can be very important.
We are also developing atlases, for example, that provide information on future climate change scenarios, which can also help people better prepare, plan, and make better decisions. These are obviously technological, but not always high-tech, solutions.
They may also involve more traditional technologies. Lastly, we can change our practices and revert to processes that were much more sustainable. We can also establish more efficient irrigation systems. Generally managing water and soils more effectively will also help us deal with climate change. We must change the type of equipment we use.
Lastly, as regards expertise and monitoring, we must have a better understanding of what is coming. For example, we must have monitoring systems to detect future problems and consult regions that, for example, have the climate we expect to have in future and determine what their practices and challenges are so we can try to plan for what awaits us. In fact, these are all solutions that can help us cope more effectively with climate change.
We are not starting from scratch in either case, and some very good elements are in place. We are generally very adaptable in the agriculture sector, and I think we really need to take advantage of those competencies. However, perhaps we are more used to thinking for the short term, and the scope of the changes we expect may require us to prepare more, to identify more accurately future risks and the changes we expect, and perhaps to put in place somewhat longer-term actions.
In forestry, very long-term management is required in any case. We are talking about hundreds of years when we plan forest development and management. However, the Canadian Forest Service is doing, and has already done, an enormous amount of work.
I think it is really essential to continue that work. To give you an example on the issue of forest fires, we know that the risk is there. It is not a question of whether it is going to burn but rather when. We have many practices for reducing risks, particularly risks to the communities that really interface with forest areas.
The idea is just to put those practices in place. They are well documented and we know them. They are supported by research. Now we really have to promote them and allocate the necessary investments to reduce those risks.
Lastly — and this was mentioned by all my colleagues before me — all these actions will really require the mobilization of all players and stakeholders in both sectors. Consequently, it is not enough to say that this is a regulatory matter or only a matter of changing farmers’ behaviour. It is really the entire system that must intervene and ensure coordinated action so that we can properly adapt to climate change.
That is what I wanted to present this afternoon. There are risks. There are solutions. We just have to work together to identify the most appropriate solutions. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to all of you. You have given us a lot to think about and hopefully you’ve also generated a few questions.
Mr. Gonzalez, I’m not going to ask a question, but I did want to draw attention to one thing you said in your statement. You talked about the extinction of pollinator species needed for crops. I refer you to the Senate of Canada’s website, where you will find a report from this committee entitled The Importance of Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada, which is a report after having done an extensive study on bee health and on pollinators in general. I just wanted to draw your attention to that report. It’s drawn a lot of attention and the government has had to respond to it, and we’ll continue to do that.
Now, we’re going to have questions, beginning with Senator Dagenais, please.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thanks to our guests. Since we have little time, I will obviously try to be brief. Just for your information, in 2012, on behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure, Mr. Lebel, I took a check for $11 million to Saint-Hyacinthe with Ms. Brochu, a Quebec government representative, and Mr. Arcand, obviously, to complete the biomethanization plant, which is a good example. I hope many cities do the same. Incidentally, I think the plant is operating perfectly today.
Mr. Ribaux, I have a question. You talked about electric vehicles because vehicles pollute. As you know, most farmers unfortunately have big pick-up trucks. Consequently, I hope we will try to find a way to increase their awareness, but I understand they need them to work. One day, we will have to increase their awareness, but these trucks are polluters, and I obviously think farmers are aware of that.
I am speaking to Mr. Nolet here. We should not always make more work for farmers. I was in the Saint-Hyacinthe region. I know many of them, and they have very busy schedules.
Methane reduction is obviously very important. They say adding flax to feed could help reduce methane emissions. What do we need in order to make an immediate change to feed?
Mr. Nolet: Well, I do not claim to have all the answers.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I’m not sure Senator Dagenais heard my opening remarks about short questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: That is because you are waving the gavel at me. It worries me.
Mr. Nolet: In fact, we are starting a project in which we will find answers to that. First, I would tell you off the top of my head that flax is not widely cultivated in Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: I see.
Mr. Nolet: And, second, even if it were grown, flax must be slightly processed before it is given to cows or cattle as feed. I think they say it has to be extruded.
Ms. Bolduc: Yes.
Mr. Nolet: I think that is a good way of putting it. So there is that, on the one hand. On the other hand, it would have to be produced, extruded, and then distributed to farmers. Lastly, as was mentioned, it is a big change for farmers to switch their herd’s feed because their pay directly depends on it.
Consequently, you have to prove to them that there will be more benefits than disadvantages before you can make them change their behaviour. I would sum it up that way for the moment, but perhaps Claire has something else to add. She is an agronomist, whereas I am not.
Ms. Bolduc: In fact, I am not an animal industry expert, but what I know is that flax will have to be mixed with a larger quantity of forage, of forage plants, whereas the proportion of forage plants in beef and dairy cattle feed has now been generally reduced and replaced with supplements such as corn and other cereals.
Consequently, this change cannot be made over a brief period of time. On the other hand, we can say it will take a few years, two or three years, to make the change, but it seems to me the flax supply here in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada may be one of the elements in this change that are very promising.
Particularly since we are returning to a crop such as the forage crop, we are going back to forage plants, which are perennial plants, and these are crops that help reduce greenhouse gas production through soils.
Senator Dagenais: A brief question, Mr. Chair, with your permission. In organic production — I think that is what it is called — you have to realize that the products are more expensive for consumers, and, as you know, there is always competition.
Have you assessed consumer receptiveness to paying more? Because we know that, for many people, their budget is a major factor, and prices are a consideration when they go grocery shopping. However, have you assessed consumer receptiveness to organic products and consumers’ ability to buy them?
Ms. Bolduc: I can give you a two-part answer. First, this is a market that has ranged between 10 per cent and 30 per cent per year for several years. Consequently, it is a market in which consumers are increasingly looking for organic products.
When we talk about organic farming and supporting organic farming, the transition, and organic production, we are referring to direct support for production, for agricultural production. This is already being done in Canada. We live in northern agricultural country where there are production constraints that other countries do not experience. We have made choices, particularly in Quebec, but that is true in all Canadian provinces and in Canada: we support our agricultural operations.
If one of Canada’s policy directions is to provide better support for organic farming, we can rely on the fact that the price differential will not be that great for consumers. And you raised a major issue about the ability of consumers to obtain the foods they are looking for, quality foods, and healthy foods. This should be a concern for all of us.
This goes beyond climate change. As Canadian citizens, we should all have access to the best food possible.
However, I understand your concern, and, when we know that this is a developing, rising market, there is interest in this type of production. There is curiosity, but there is also a desire to change diets. That much is clear.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ribaux.
Mr. Ribaux: I would simply like to tell you that — to consider Quebec as an example, and I think the situation would be similar in the rest of Canada — half of the organic foods currently consumed here are imported. Consequently, without making any change to what consumers pay, we can sharply increase production here and take over the existing market, which moreover is growing by 15 per cent a year. So there are very big economic opportunities here.
How can the government help? Organic farming currently represents 4 per cent of production and 0.25 per cent of research budgets. Consequently, there is an enormous research and development need in the organic sector.
Senator Dagenais: I see. Thank you.
Senator Tardif: We just talked about consumers’ receptiveness to organic agriculture. Are producers open to the idea of transforming the way they produce and changing their farming practices? If not, what are the limiting factors?
Ms. Bolduc: Yes, there is an interest in changing. I have been an agronomist for 37 years and have seen farmers adopt new methods many times. When they are appropriately assisted, the changes are made.
Mr. Nolet mentioned other ways of working, by pooling actions. From the way he worded it, it involved pooling certain actions, conducting cooperative actions. Yes, farmers are prepared to do that provided they are properly supported.
You have to show farmers the benefits of certain practices and how they relate to climate change, the resilience of a production system, and how to address those issues, while providing them with adequate support.
They must be provided with technical support, and that generally means professional support. The idea is to support them with appropriate production methods and the necessary financial assistance. When they are supported, the changes are made and they are made over years.
I mentioned my 37 years as an agronomist, but, if you look at how agriculture has evolved in Canada from the early 20th century to the present, all the innovation that has occurred is phenomenal. So, yes, farmers are ready and able to do it, provided they are adequately supported.
With respect to organic farming, the transfer is first a transfer of knowledge and support for that transfer, for that conversion, much more than a technological transfer. We must provide appropriate support in the way of knowledge and ideas, skills for the producer, and appropriate support in coping with potential revenue losses during the transition period. If farmers are suitably compensated for losses by a government that wants this transition to take place, farmers will clearly adopt this method.
Senator Tardif: You talked about the need to transfer knowledge, about a mechanism for transferring knowledge. Are any such mechanisms currently in place? Are farmers required to submit an environmental plan that proves they are facing environmental risks? I know some provinces require environmental plans. Is that the case in Quebec, and do you think that is a good practice?
Ms. Bolduc: I can answer for Quebec and Ontario. As regards Quebec, yes, fertilization plans are required and associated. This is the environmental condition that must be met. The financial support granted by La Financière agricole du Québec is conditional on the filing of and compliance with a fertilization plan, which is prepared by an agronomist.
In Ontario, the situation is not quite the same, but they also have assistance mechanisms that are conditional on compliance with environmental rules. We can go much further into this issue, and when we talk about support, knowledge, and skills, they do exist. They have those competencies in all the provinces; this is agronomic knowledge.
The transfer from current farming to more organic farming involves the application of agronomic knowledge. All provinces have agronomists and schools of agronomy that help provide support for these kinds of changes.
And, as Mr. Ribaux noted, we would do well as a country to provide better support for basic and fundamental research in organic agriculture, in the environmental field, and to provide proper support for consultants’ work.
[English]
Senator Oh: We talked about greenhouses just now. Recently I visited some greenhouses in Ontario, and they were complaining to me that with the CO2 tax coming in they are going to be priced out of business and will have to move south, to the United States, because they have no such taxes there. Can you comment on how we take care of this problem? Because if there’s no CO2, they have no business either.
[Translation]
Mr. Nolet: That is a fear that has surfaced in all sectors where either a tax or a cap and trade system has been imposed.
I think that a mistake that is regularly made is to assume that no regulations, additional environmental costs, taxes, or cap and trade systems will be introduced elsewhere, whereas what we are increasingly seeing around the world — and, generally speaking, this is also true in the United States — is that new taxes are being implemented to combat climate change.
We have seen this in Canada. Yes, Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta have their cap and trade systems, but the federal government is putting forward a tax system. It has even provided for the tax to rise over the years to $50 in 2022.
Several states in the northeastern U.S. have also introduced cap and trade systems. That is also the case in California, Oregon, and Washington.
Yes, some states do not yet have cap and trade systems or taxes, but I think that a Canadian business that decided to relocate and settle in a state where there is no carbon tax would really be taking a very short-term view. It would be running the risk of incurring considerable relocation costs and perhaps ultimately winding up in a few years with a carbon tax implemented in the state where it has moved.
Does that answer your question?
[English]
Senator Oh: Yes, but do you think that the government should also look into some kind of progress in helping them to get over this issue, instead of just implementing this tax right away?
[Translation]
Mr. Nolet: You are right. Let us take a look at how the Quebec and federal governments go about implementing regulations. This is only one example that I can give you, but, very specifically, for all the sectors in Quebec competing in foreign markets, emissions rights are granted to businesses to assist them in coping with foreign competition. That is valid for all industries in Quebec, and the same logic operates in Ontario and California, where they are putting their cap and trade system in place.
Furthermore, the rules that will define the free emissions rights allocated to businesses in Quebec, for example, will be based on a comparative study of regulations, taxes, and cap and trade systems implemented elsewhere in the world.
Consequently, that is obviously a justified concern. To my knowledge, when they implement regulations, governments absolutely bear that concern in mind and try to implement the regulations in a manner consistent with an international regulatory trend.
There may be exceptions, and some sectors may be temporarily penalized and suffer more than others, but, yes, government authorities genuinely care about being progressive and innovative, but also about not penalizing their industrial sectors locally.
In Ontario — I am not an expert on the greenhouse situation in Ontario — they have a sector where energy costs are already nearly three times higher than in Quebec, for example. And in spite of everything, they have greenhouses there that are competitive with Quebec greenhouses. In fact, Ontario’s greenhouse sector is much more dynamic than Quebec’s despite its higher energy costs.
The cost of implementing carbon regulations in Ontario as a percentage of the price of energy currently paid in that province will not be high because, in actual fact, what you might imagine is the current cost of a tonne of carbon is quite marginal.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I think it’s important to recognize that this committee over the years has visited a number of greenhouses. In particular, I draw your attention to the very large one north of Trois-Rivières that the committee visited a number of years ago, and we were very impressed by that operation. But we were also impressed not just with the operation of growing cherry tomatoes, we were impressed by the integration of the use of energy, because they draw methane from the municipal waste site to supplement the heat that’s required for the greenhouse. I think consumers have a role to play, which is not often discussed.
As my colleagues know, in my household, when I’m home, I’m the cook. I’m also the person who buys the groceries. I make it a habit, particularly in the wintertime, of chastising the grocery stores who continue to import cherry tomatoes from Mexico, when we have places like the greenhouse that I mentioned north of Trois-Rivières, and it grows wonderful cherry tomatoes. I think that what we consumers have an obligation to continue to ask for theses locally grown products, even in the wintertime. If we continue to do that, the demand will go up and greenhouses will expand, and we’ll start to get some of our own products.
That’s my first rant for this afternoon. It may not be the only one.
Senator Bernard, please.
Senator Bernard: I think I’ll pick up a bit on your rant, but I’ll take it in a slightly different direction.
Thank you all for your presentation. Picking up on some of the threads of the conversations, one of the invisible pieces I think is food insecurity. So, the people who want to eat healthy, who want to purchase local, who want to engage in the organic — what some people are calling a movement — but economically are so disadvantaged that that’s not possible for them. What sort of policy directives do we need and what recommendations would you make around how we ensure that we’re addressing the issue of food insecurity, as we’re also looking at all of these realities that are facing us?
Mr. Nolet: Tax the rich.
Ms. Bolduc: When I was 15, I was perfectly bilingual. Now I’m over 50, near 60, and I don’t speak English that well anymore.
[Translation]
So I will speak French.
We support agricultural operations in Quebec and Canada. The support we provide for our agricultural operations is one way of ensuring that Canadians can buy a basket of groceries at an affordable price.
Yes, some citizens and consumers still do not have access to that basket, but it must be understood that they still receive the support we provide to farmers. It is support that is provided to society as a whole. Agriculture is an activity that is not an economic activity; it is socioeconomic: we feed the world.
A nation’s concern for its agriculture serves that purpose, of ensuring that everyone can eat.
So I hear loud and clear what you are saying when you talk about food insecurity and how, for example, we can ensure that everyone has access to organic foods, which naturally are slightly more expensive.
And here it seems to me that some sociology must come into play. This is no longer simply a matter of agriculture, although agricultural support continues to ensure that people can eat, or that a large percentage of citizens can eat. I do understand your concern.
It seems to me these are now more sociological activities. Consider these three examples. The first is community gardens, the way of promoting urban community gardening spaces, where agronomic knowledge is supported so that people can engage in this kind of gardening.
The second is group food processing. I am going to tell you about an experiment that was conducted in Val-d’Espoir, a village in Gaspésie that amalgamated with Percé, where a project entitled “Produire la santé ensemble,” or “producing health together,” was developed involving local agriculture and community gardens throughout the village.
Some were mixed gardens, but, at a few locations, they focused, for example, on potatoes at the homes of two people. They also grew other vegetables requiring more space, such as tomatoes and raspberries at the homes of other people, but, generally speaking, the entire harvest was pooled and processed in common.
The culinary knowledge that accompanies food production was a great complement so that people could have access to food and know how to process it without waste.
These are more social than strictly agricultural or agronomic actions. The third example is precisely one of the actions that we have promoted at Équiterre, involving education and school curricula, which can have a considerable impact in making people more knowledgeable about healthy food and food principles, and how to find that kind of food.
I still think that eating vegetables during the season when they are produced is one way to buy food as cheaply as possible. Making preserves and freezing vegetables when they are inexpensive is another.
Consequently, if school curricula focused more on food and environmental education, they would provide knowledge to a larger percentage of citizens. I totally share your concern about food insecurity. The fact remains that, as a country, we must support people who are more disadvantaged than we are.
Ms. Larrivée: I completely agree with what Ms. Bolduc just said. I would just add, with regard to education, other policies including school gardens in school programs and encouraging students to contribute to the gardening themselves. This is extremely effective; it has a transformative impact on students, and it is very impressive to see how enthusiastic primary school students can be about planting, eating, and sharing vegetables. It has an enormous impact.
Consequently, to achieve a longer-term effect, a support policy should be introduced in the schools to downplay projects that are conducted by a single teacher who strongly believes in them and perhaps to focus more on including the idea in the school system. In that respect, I entirely agree with Ms. Bolduc.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: An excellent point.
Senator Bernard and I could both tell you about a program in Halifax, in an inner-city community, where the education of the young people has been terrific. They’ve started their own community garden. Out of the community garden, they’ve also started to produce some salad dressings. They made a presentation to “Dragons’ Den,” and every one of the people in the “Dragons’ Den” wanted to invest in their small company. Indeed, one of the people in “Dragons’ Den” owns a large chain of restaurants in Canada, and he’s their biggest customer now. A whole group of young people in that school are learning about the production of food, and they’re also learning about business, and it’s really a good thing for that community. So your point is extremely well taken.
Ms. Larrivée: I would just add that, yes, absolutely, in inner-city schools in poorer neighbourhoods, but I would say it has a tremendous effect, as well, in richer neighbourhoods, where kids who are not even used to that are getting their hands dirty, and it’s got transformative powers. I would just encourage that.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: I was just about to give that example of Hope Blooms. One of the things about Hope Blooms is that it really addresses that whole food insecurity piece, not just for the people directly involved, but other people who are witnessing what’s happening there. They’re now selling their dressings in two of the major supermarkets, as well. So it’s a wonderful model.
There’s another model in a similar neighbourhood in the Toronto area, I’m trying to remember the name of it. It’ll come back to me. It is a similar model where there’s community gardens, organic farming, engaging people who are living with food insecurity every single day. It’s an example of how we can make a difference. But of those are programs don’t get much funding, and it’s really hard for them to get started, and then also sustainability. So, I think the ideas are really good, and I think putting resources behind those ideas will help.
The Deputy Chair: Many of those young people have told the people who’ve interviewed them that it’s one of the few times that they’ve had fresh vegetables in their homes, because they’re expensive if you’re on a fixed income and low income. This is a tremendous story, and this is something that we should be doing everywhere You’re right, it shouldn’t just be in the poorer neighbourhoods, but that’s a pretty darn good place to start, if you ask me, because the nutrition value that goes with that for young people who may not be getting the proper nutrition is a benefit.
Senator Bernard: I have the name of that farm.
The Deputy Chair: Ah, she found it. I knew if I talked long enough, she’d remember it.
Senator Bernard: Black Creek Farm. It’s in the Jane and Finch area in Toronto.
Ms. Larrivée: I would just add one thing very quickly. Schools are one thing, but there have also been efforts in Montreal around social housing. The idea is that we’re also targeting reduction of heat islands, and improving management of rain water, which are two problems we expect to increase with climate change. The people who worked on it involved the people living in the social housing and helped them to use all space available to develop these kinds of gardens, and so target also food insecurity, while contributing to adapting to climate change.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I wanted to involve Mr. Gonzalez in our conversation. He said that, with climate change, there was a risk of more forest fires and more intense fires. I believe that a solution you proposed was defoliation caused by insects.
Can you explain that to us a little more? I saw something of the forest fires in British Columbia when I was there this summer. I saw the damage that forest fires can cause and was therefore interested in knowing what adaptation measures could be developed to try to prevent them.
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, defoliation is a negative consequence of pest attacks. It is unfortunately not a solution, although researchers have shown that, in fact, pests subsequently increase fire risk. They obviously kill trees, which makes them more fire-sensitive.
It is a negative interaction. Consequently, both factors must be managed simultaneously and this is what researchers were proposing to adjust. Because mathematical models are in fact used in forest management to predict the future and anticipate change. For the moment, they do not draw on knowledge about pests or their impact on tree mortality.
It is therefore a very simple solution to take this knowledge and include it in the models so we can more accurately predict what areas are most fire-sensitive. It is not that we lack the knowledge, but rather that it is not integrated, and we must bring several sectors simultaneously into play.
Senator Tardif: I see. So, once the trees have been defoliated by insects, the risk of forest fires increases?
Mr. Gonzalez: That is correct.
Senator Tardif: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Well, colleagues, we’ve been challenged here this afternoon by hearing some great presentations, and I want to sincerely thank our witnesses. You’ve given us a good deal of food for thought. You’ve prompted a good deal of discussion. Also, you’ve managed to keep us awake after lunch, which is always a challenge. We’d like to thank you for that. We appreciate your time, and we wish you well.
(The committee adjourned.)