Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 41 - Evidence - Meeting of February 8, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 8, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:07 a.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors; and in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee resumed in public.)
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome to you this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I’m Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island. I’m going to ask the rest of the senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Woo: Good morning, minister. Senator Woo from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today we have with us the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We’re very pleased to have him here. He’s also my member of Parliament. So I’ve known him for many years, as have many of you, of course. We also have his deputy minister, Chris Forbes. Welcome.
I think, at this stage, what we’ll do is ask the minister to make his statement, and then we’ll have questions afterward.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay, P.C., M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you in the chair.
It’s an honour for us to be here today, Chris Forbes, my deputy, and I. Honourable senators, I applaud the committee’s hard work, dedication and commitment to Canadian farmers and our agriculture and food sector.
I know you care deeply about our farmers and the issues that affect them, and I thank you for all your hard work. I want to especially thank the committee for its recent comprehensive report on market access issues for the Canadian agriculture and food sector.
More recently, I understand you’ve been hearing from scientists, farmers and agri-businesses, among many others. I want to emphasize your work is essential to Canada’s effort to feed a growing population worldwide sustainably.
Honourable senators, my message today is our government places a high priority on helping farmers to adjust to the effects of climate change.
I will touch on three points today: Farmers are responsible and knowledgeable stewards of the land. Our government is helping farmers to care for the environment, while strengthening their profitability, and the future is bright for Canadian agriculture.
Senators, conservation is as old as farming. Farmers have always needed to adapt their crops and livestock practices to ensure the soil stays healthy and productive.
As the old saying goes, “Take care of the land, and it will take care of you.” These are words I certainly live by on Prince Edward Island. If you didn’t take care of the land, it reported back that way too, so it was vitally important in many ways.
We also know farmers face many risks. Weather-related risks are always on the mind of a farmer. These events can certainly cost a great deal of stress for farmers and have a significant effect on the bottom line.
Over the decades, Canadian farmers have consistently improved their craft. They have introduced more efficient practices, such as crop rotation and reduced tillage and experimented with new crop varieties.
This pioneering spirit has helped to make agriculture one of the most innovative sectors of the Canadian economy, bringing it from an era of horse-drawn plows to GPS tractors that can drive themselves.
Senators, I remember picking potatoes on my hands and knees, and the last potatoes that my wife and I grew in Prince Edward Island, and the ones we sold, never touched a human hand. That’s over 25 years ago. So the fact is innovation always has been, and will continue to be and has to be, in the agricultural sector if you’re going to have a profit.
Today, farmers are able to use technology for the environment while, at the same time, increasing their productivity and reducing costs.
My own background is in dairy farming. Over the years, we have seen a tremendous increase in production. Today, an average cow produces about 32 litres of milk a day. At the same time, dairy farmers have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent.
Likewise, Canadian beef farmers have reduced their water footprint by 17 per cent over 30 years. Canadian farmers have done this through innovation in their feeding systems, innovation in genetics and innovation in management practices. Crop farmers have embraced new practices that reduce the amount of tillage done on the field.
Leaving plant material on the ground reduces soil erosion, retains moisture, builds organic matter and captures carbon in the soil.
Today, almost 50 million acres of Canadian farmland is no till, which means that soil isn’t disturbed through tillage. More water can get into the soil. More organic matter and nutrients are kept in the soil, and soil erosion can be reduced or eliminated.
Compared to 1981, net greenhouse gasses for the agriculture and agri-food sector have decreased by 10 per cent.
This is proof Canadian farmers are shrinking their environmental footprint, even as they increase their output to rise to the challenge of feeding a growing world population.
It’s about using technology to work smarter, and it makes sense for both the environment and for the farmer’s bottom line.
Innovations in equipment, such as GPS guidance, help farmers to use pinpoint applications for fertilizer, seed and pesticides. More timely and accurate application of these inputs preserves resources, boosts efficiency and, in the end, save farmers money.
Our government is committed to helping farmers build on these successes. Madam Chair, environmental sustainability is a key priority of our government, and it’s a key priority for my department and me.
Our scientists, working with universities and industry, are fully engaged in the fight against climate change.
Along with the provinces and territories, we are working on a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Under Budget 2017, we are investing $70 million dollars to further support agricultural science and innovation. This includes a focus on emerging priorities, such as climate change, soil and water conservation. Through science, we’re helping farmers to store even more carbon in the soil.
We’re also helping farmers to reduce their environmental footprint by helping them to better manage water, conserve energy, reduce pesticide use and improve soil quality.
Honourable senators, I’d like to mention some of the other measures we are introducing to support agriculture and the environment. The $2 billion Low Carbon Economy Fund helps provinces and territories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon storage in agricultural soils.
Our government is investing $27 million in the Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program to help farmers to reduce their carbon footprint. This program is helping farmers to reduce greenhouse gases and to adjust to climate change in four key areas: management and feeding strategies; capturing carbon through land and tillage practices; agroforestry; irrigation and drainage for crop production.
There are 20 projects at leading universities across Canada, all focused on helping farmers to make these farms even greener than they are today.
Some recent projects include: measuring the environmental footprint of blueberry, potato and forage cropping systems; environmentally friendly grazing systems for cattle; and new cereal crops that don’t have to be planted every year, saving fertilizer and water.
We are also investing $25 million to support the adoption of clean technology by Canadian agriculture producers. We’re investing over $7 million in the Agricultural Youth Green Jobs Initiative, which helps place young Canadians in green jobs with the agricultural sector.
Madam Chair, we can already thank farmers for being the cornerstone of an industry that generates over $100 billion of our GDP, over $62 billion of our exports, while contributing over $10 billion to our overall balance of trade.
Global demand for food is growing. In November, I led a trade mission to China with over 100 industry stakeholders. I can tell you first-hand the appreciation Chinese customers have for the quality and value of Canadian products. They’re buying it in person and they’re buying it online. There is a huge opportunity for industry, and we’re keeping a strong focus on Asia. We have reached an agreement with the CPTPP which will generate tremendous opportunities for Canadian farmers.
Next month, I plan to lead an agriculture trade mission to Japan and South Korea. We ask ourselves this question: How can we boost production to take advantage of these opportunities while protecting the environment?
Last November at Agribition I delivered an important part of our government’s response to that question. I announced a federal investment of $1 billion in programs to help our industry stay ahead of the curve over the next five years.
These programs are part of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. It’s a $3 billion, five-year agreement with the provinces and territories that will drive our industry forward to a bright future. Sustainability is at the heart of the partnership. Our programs will help give farmers the tools they need to continue to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, protect the environment and adapt to climate change. Our investments in research will focus on climate change, water and soil. The priority will be to get research out of the lab and onto the farms.
My department scientists will continue to work with partners to develop improved crop varieties more resistant to extreme weather and new pests and diseases. This research ensures farmers get increased yields, look after their land and, of course, boost the bottom line for the farmer.
Honourable senators, Canada has an opportunity to a global leader when it comes to feeding the growing world population sustainably.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership will provide investments needed to maximize and accelerate the efforts of our farmers, our scientists and our industry. Our programs will help farmers care for their land and strengthen their businesses. These efforts will bring tremendous value to our Canadian brand, already renowned in global markets for quality and respect for the environment.
All of us here today know the red maple leaf is seen as a trusted presence around the world. I can certainly attest to that everywhere I go.
Our government is committed to supporting farmers as they continue to be responsible stewards of our land. We will continue to work with our farmers to help them capture sustainable growth while adapting to climate change.
Madam Chair, I thank you very much. I will attempt to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister MacAulay. That was an excellent leading opening statement.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Minister, as you stated at the beginning of your speech, the report that our committee tabled last year was very important for our Canadian farmers.
When the committee was in China, we met, quite by chance, at the exhibition in Shanghai, where you were leading a trade mission. While we were there, we saw that Canadian products were highly valued for their reliability and their safety. That makes Canada a country of choice, a reputation we must maintain. I believe that the efforts you mentioned during your speech answer a number of our questions.
Of course, some questions remain to be answered because everything cannot be settled in a day. However, I would like to ask you a question about carbon.
Soon, a new product will be manufactured in Canada. When I was at the congress of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I heard a lot of questions about cannabis residue.
It will actually be used in agriculture and to make fertilizer for community gardens. My question is this: does your department have any interest in the cannabis residue that will be thrown into the garbage? Also, does the residue pose a danger when it is used to make normal compost?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Thank you, senator. Without a question, anything like that, as you know, is under Health Canada and the Department of Justice at the moment. Of course, any issue dealing with the quality of our soil will be taken very seriously by our department and by myself, for sure. Our scientists will certainly be looking into that.
I don’t want to avoid your question, and the deputy can add to what we will do there. However, I think it’s important to emphasize all the time, when we travel overseas, to produce the markets for our farmers. You alluded to the regulatory process in our country and you talk about the maple leaf and what respect we have. Whether you’re talking about residue from cannabis or anything else, it’s so important that we do it right. It’s so important that we do it with a science-based system.
That’s why, when we travel together in China and we heard the respect, it was not all that simple to get trade deals signed and get agreements. But the fact is when you have a system that is respected, it’s very important to emphasize that to make sure that we as a government and all governments understand how important it is the regulatory system remains so well respected.
I’ll let my deputy respond if he has any information.
Chris Forbes, Deputy Minister, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: I’m unaware of any research specifically going in our department.
That said, it’s the kind of issue, in terms of soil health, the effects of plant health and the effects of plants on our soil and our environment, that we would look at.
I can certainly go back and ask our scientists if there’s any research going on in this area. Presumably it would be, as the minister said, in conjunction with the Minister of Health and others. We’ll confirm whether anything is going on in that area and get back to the committee.
Mr. MacAulay: I think it’s so important that you bring that up because it’s an overall issue. That’s why we do these things.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: As for the carbon tax, we know that several provinces have their own legislation, but have all the provinces signed onto the program that your department has set up?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: The provinces have not all signed on, as you’re aware, senator. But, of course, the price on carbon will continue. The money that’s collected — I know you understand this but it’s important for the public to hear it — will be returned back to the provinces and if there’s any effect on certain industries, it gives the province the ability to fund these industries. That’s the repay principle of the price on carbon, but the price on carbon will continue. Some of the provinces are not very excited about it, but it will continue.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your reply, Mr. Minister. I want to let you know that the European Parliament collects the carbon tax and distributes it back to the countries in the community in proportion to their population. The problem is that they have no means of establishing accountability. Does the money that goes back in this country go to measures designed to eliminate the carbon tax? That is the problem in Europe? Will we have the same problem here? After one or two trial years, do you foresee the creation of a method that will lead to measures to reduce carbon with the amounts the provinces will receive?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: It will be remitted to the provinces. That’s one thing that will happen. It’s under the jurisdiction of the ministers of finance within the provinces, and I certainly couldn’t respond on behalf of the provinces. But as a Canadian, if Canadians request to know how these dollars should be spent, I expect it will be quite difficult for any government not to respond and indicate how the dollars are spent.
But I can’t give a definite answer, because I do not have the authority to do so. Thank you very much.
Senator Mercer: Minister, thank you for being here. You’re always welcome at our committee meetings.
In your opening statement, you said that under Budget 2017, the government is investing $70 million over six years for the support of science and innovation. Could you give us a couple of examples of what that investment might be, where and in which direction?
Mr. MacAulay: Senator Mercer, I appreciate that. I’m a very strong supporter of science, innovation and research around the table. If we’re to export $75 billion by 2025, we have to make sure the scientists have as much equipment as we can afford to give them. That is what we’re trying to do.
Part of this will go to universities, part of this will go into studies, and it will go into equipment that scientists need to use. We need to upgrade the labs in order to make sure they can do the research.
Without a question, I’m not a scientist and don’t know what they will do in other areas. Perhaps the deputy could give more in-depth information.
It is $100 million, in fact — 70 and 30 — that is allocated, which is very important.
Canola is a great example. Our scientists created the canola. Research has to do things like that. We have to make sure we can produce seeds that will use less water. We have to make sure, as of now — we’re precision agriculture — we don’t waste fertilizer. I was a farmer, and I thought I was a half-decent farmer, but I wasted fertilizer. Over the years, I always felt if you put on a bit more, perhaps you get a better return. The fact of the matter is it’s not only wasted, but it’s bad for the environment.
Perhaps the deputy would like to expand.
Mr. Forbes: As the minister said, with the $70 million specifically announced in the last budget, we’re building on our existing work we do in the areas of soil and water conservation and research to either mitigate or adapt to climate change.
The minister talked about some of the things we work on already in terms of research on crops or livestock, and how to improve or reduce the environmental footprint.
In the coming months, our scientists will be going through a priority-setting exercise for their forward research. As the minister said, that is people, equipment and collaborative studies. They will be determining in the coming months exactly how to build on the existing program with the $70 million.
Senator Mercer: Since you’re here, minister, I want to ask you about the new food guide. We know Canada’s Food Guide is being revamped. I read in October that officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have been lobbying Health Canada to change its language on eliminating red meat and dairy, as the new guide may be moving toward a more plant-based sources of protein.
Also, the labelling regimes seem complicated and may hurt dairy even further. For example, if you look at potato chips — and I know potatoes are an important part of your background — they won’t be above the threshold for sodium, sugars and saturated fats, and so would not have to be labelled as such. That’s potato chips. If you look at mozzarella cheese, it would be above the threshold for sodium and saturated fats, and would be labelled as such.
So if you look at the label, cheese would be bad, and potato chips would be good. I know that Islanders would be happy about the potato chips, but if a consumer looks at that, they would naturally assume that potato chips were healthier than cheese.
Does this make any sense, minister?
Mr. MacAulay: Thank you, senator. As you’re fully aware and as I’ve indicated, it’s under the Minister of Health. I did have input into what took place, but as you know, this will be gazetted, and what will take place will be open to public opinion. Without a question, I want to see Canadians making sure they express their views on what’s presented. That’s why things are gazetted.
Canadians’ opinions are what will reflect what takes place in this and anything else that is gazetted to make sure that is what they want to happen.
Senator Mercer: As a former dairy farmer, you’ve got to shake your head. You have an appreciation for the quality of the product we produce in this country. For the novice looking at the labelling of potato chips and cheese, one says potato chips aren’t bad but cheese is bad. It’s not saying potato chips are good, just that they’re not bad.
From a marketing point of view, it doesn’t seem to make sense. I think it has a negative effect on our dairy industry across the country.
Mr. MacAulay: Senator, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and I am somewhat entitled to mine too, but the fact is — and it’s important to bring this out — that it’s to make sure Canadians indicate, when it’s gazetted, exactly how they feel about what’s presented to them.
It’s very difficult to indicate we would not want information to be provided. What you’re saying is how it’s provided, and that’s what Canadians need to respond to when it’s gazetted.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, minister.
Senator Woo: Thank you, minister, for being with us this morning.
Let me get to the heart of what we’ve heard from industry witnesses in our study on the impact of climate change on agricultural, and vice versa, the impact of agriculture on climate change as well. That question has to do with how the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change will accommodate the special circumstances of the agricultural sector.
To be more specific, how will trade-exposed agricultural industries subject to global competition be treated in the new carbon-pricing regime the government will soon put in place?
Mr. MacAulay: They would be treated like any other industry. But if you’re wondering about what would happen to the funds when the price on carbon is collected — is that what where you’re going?
Senator Woo: No, not really —
Mr. MacAulay: They would be returned to the province.
Senator Woo: I understand that part. What we heard from a particular set of agricultural industries, who describe themselves as trade-exposed and globally competitive, is they would be at a disadvantage because their costs will be higher than their global competitors on commodities that are traded at world prices, which would run the risk of their products being substituted in global markets as well as in the Canadian market.
So all of them have come to us with some kind of concern that they would be put at a disadvantage. We’re wondering if the regime that will be put in place on carbon pricing will have a special accommodation for these types of industries that are trade-exposed and subject to global competition.
Mr. MacAulay: It will have an accommodation as to the cost to the producer when they produce something and it puts them in an unfair advantage on the world stage. Is that what you’re asking me?
Senator Woo: That’s what they’re saying to us, yes.
Mr. MacAulay: The fact of the matter is with the price on carbon, the money is returned to the province and it’s up to the provincial jurisdiction to decide how they want to deal with the effects it has on certain producers or industries. I will let my deputy speak to it if he has anything more to add.
Mr. Forbes: I will add a couple of points. It’s a good question. We’ve heard it a lot from industry.
On farms, what you’re seeing is that it’s largely the provinces setting the price and the federal government has a back stop, as you would know, in provinces where there isn’t a price. Most provinces are exempting on farm fuel, which is a big chunk of the impact they would see. That would be step one.
Again, by having the provinces design, I’ll use Alberta as an example where a lot of discussion around how you deal with trade-exposed and emissions-intensive sectors at the provincial level is taking into account some of those competitive factors in the design, and that is important. I think the fact that it’s in the provincial sphere allows provinces to focus on the different industries across the country where the effects may be different.
To build on the minister’s final point, for the provinces, having the carbon pricing and determining how to use the funds allows them to deal with some of the specific competitiveness challenges that arise. That’s another design or approach feature that helps in mitigating some of those competitiveness concerns.
Senator Woo: So the provinces will have the ability both to exempt, for example, on farm energy use, as well as provide rebates to users of these funds for innovation, investment and technology and so forth, but it’s up to the provinces to come up with the solutions?
Mr. Forbes: Yes. Although, again, I think the minister mentioned a number of federal programs that exist as well, such as the Low Carbon Economy Fund and we have our own agricultural program, some of which is available to people in the processing sector, and not just for farm use. There are other sources of funding that might be helpful to companies or individuals looking to change their environmental footprint.
Mr. MacAulay: It’s fair to say there are federal programs that will go in to make sure the climate change issue is addressed, and that federal dollars will go in this direction. That would also help the situation because we have targets to meet and we have one planet to live on.
The fact is these dollars will go to the sector in different forms, as you understand, but then when it comes back to the province, as the deputy and I have indicated, the province could decide to use the dollars that are collected to put towards a farmer’s innovation project or a research project. Who knows?
The reason we want to place a price on carbon is to make sure we can live on this planet.
Senator Woo: Thank you, minister.
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here. I’m sorry I’m late. We had an Arctic circle minister’s meeting. It’s always a pleasure to have two ministers in one morning.
I want to thank you for your leadership on the agriculture trade mission to Asia, including China. I had some stakeholders who called me after your recent visit to China and wanted me to thank you. It’s important you lead the way so the red maple leaf logo moves well in China. China is our second-biggest trading partner now. As you know, the private sector is the sector actually moving our agriculture products overseas, so you’re leading the way. That helps them a lot for the sector.
Anyway, I have a question for you regarding our trade dispute in pulses with India. The trade dispute has continued for some time now, but the situation deteriorated late last year for the first time since 2004. India did not grant Canada an exemption on its fumigation requirements in November. India also introduced a 50 per cent tariff on dried pea imports and just before Christmas it announced a 30 per cent import duty on chickpeas and lentils.
What has the current government done to solve this dispute?
Mr. MacAulay: Senator, thank you. I’m glad you’re here; I had questioned why you weren’t.
To make matters a little worse, they’ve added 10 per cent to the 50 per cent a couple of days ago. It’s not helpful. The fact of the matter is India indicated this tariff without any consultation, not only to Canada but to the world. The deputy minister can probably explain the fumigation issue better, but the fact of the matter is it does not do much good.
Do you want to elaborate on that?
It’s not efficient, but it’s a trade issue and you could call it a trade barrier, if you wish. I guess that’s what it is.
Mr. Forbes: We’ve explained it numerous times to the Indians, and I think the fact is well-known the fumigation they’re requiring is not effective given our climate. We’re pursuing a number of steps to work on trying to resolve these issues. I would say the minister can talk more about his announcements earlier this week in Saskatchewan on helping the pulse sector diversify markets.
Obviously, we also work through Global Affairs Canada and in India to advocate and explain our position on this issue. That’s been a long-standing challenge but one we continue to push, particularly on the fumigation aspect.
Regarding the tariff issue, the Indian government, they’re within their WTO rights to introduce the tariffs. What is of concern to us is the manner in which it was done, with no notice to exporting countries. We’re certainly raising that and we’re also continuing discussions on the fumigation and explaining to the Indians the food safety system in Canada and why it’s a good one.
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, and I certainly neglected to mention that, a couple of days ago, I was out in the pulse area in Saskatchewan and we announced just over half a million dollars. That was to help involve pulses more in this country in making different products, value added areas and marketing.
There are other areas of the world to which we can export pulses and we want to make sure we have every advantage possible.
I want to thank you and emphasize how important the trade missions are. You have been on a number of them and we have travelled some together. If you’re not there, somebody else is. That’s simply how it is. It’s a big issue. Everybody is investing: A lot of countries are investing in research and innovation, but so are we.
Staying on the cutting edge is a big job. People are more concerned with traceability, how the product is produced, animal welfare and all that goes into it. You have to be on top of these things and we’re working hard to make sure we are. Thank you.
Senator Oh: Minister, one more question.
The ASEAN countries are equivalent to 660 million — the same size as India. Have you developed the market enough for ASEAN countries? It’s an important market.
Mr. MacAulay: I couldn’t agree more. We’re working on it. We know there is more market potential in these areas.
We’re working very hard. I’m going to Japan and Korea in two or three weeks’ time. You have to be there to tell the importers in the country what you have. People talk about how great the maple leaf is — and it is — but they have to understand our regulatory system. They need to understand if you eat a product certified by CFIA, it’s safe to eat. That’s recognized worldwide. It’s important our government and every other government ensures that it’s always recognized worldwide. That’s the biggest deal to selling food products around the world. People feel if you eat a Canadian product certified by CFIA it’s safe to eat.
Senator Doyle: Thank you, minister, for being here. All my truly wonderful questions have been taken and hijacked. Maybe I’ll follow up on a point that Senator Maltais made.
The Agriculture Committee has talked informally about doing mini studies and probably doing a mini study on the effects of cannabis growth on the agricultural sector. Is that an area the Department of Agriculture could benefit from, namely a study coming from us to increase the knowledge base? Or is it a duplicate of what your people are probably already doing? The scientists within your department are probably ahead of us on that.
Do you think we could assist, especially in the area of craft licensing, small growers and security, and safety regulations that don’t seem yet to be in place? Is that an area we could make a contribution to your department on?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes. The committees, of course, are a body within themselves. You govern your own destiny and that’s important. Also, it depends on what committee study is available to your committee and the chair. You can find out what the house committee has studied, but it’s obvious. The senator brought up an issue on the cannabis issue.
Many times when you have a study and bring in experts, you find out things that probably should be addressed. However, it’s difficult to do everything. In fact, nobody ever does everything. If you have studies on certain areas, it can be nothing but a benefit to the legislation and to Canadians in general. I would certainly encourage that.
Senator Doyle: When the government says it aims to reduce GHG emissions by 80 per cent of 2005 levels by 2050, is that a tall order, especially since we’ve done so poorly in the past? All governments, regardless of political affiliation, have all done very poorly. Can we really attempt that, namely to reduce GHGs to 80 per cent of 2005 levels by 2050? We know that 2050, of course, is 30 years down the road.
Mr. MacAulay: You know, senator, the years come quickly. They seem to come quickly as we move down the path. First, we only have one place to live and the decision’s been made worldwide that we’re going to address these issues. I’ll let the deputy continue with this, but we have to make sure we have a place to live and we also have to continue to deal with other countries around the world. If you’re not abiding by the principles of other countries in general, I think it would put you in great difficulty.
Mr. Forbes: These are challenges. If I can speak for the agriculture sector, that’s where a lot of our research is focused. When you think about livestock emissions and crop emissions, it goes to technology. That is, the plants we breed, the genetics of our livestock and the feed they have. We are working in this area. Do I think it’s possible? Yes. Our objective with our research is to keep focusing on it. We’ve had a lot of success in the agriculture sector in Canada over the last two or three decades in bringing emissions down and finding greater emissions withdrawal through sinks in the land.
It is a challenge and that’s why the research keeps coming. We keep at it and I think it’s feasible.
Mr. MacAulay: I must tell you, senator, I don’t believe this was the issue when you and I arrived here that it is today.
Senator Doyle: No; not 20 years ago.
Mr. MacAulay: Society has come to the view that we must address this issue. That’s where we are and we are dealing with the worldwide community. I won’t take further time.
Senator Doyle: If we’re going to meet these emissions, namely 80 per cent, would we not be better off concentrating on industrial or vehicular emissions, GHGs? The agricultural sector is one thing, but I guess it doesn’t really do half the damage as the industrial or vehicular sector. If we’re really planning on reducing these emissions, industrial and vehicular targets would be better, I think — but what do I know?
Mr. MacAulay: You know as much as anybody else, senator, and that’s the way it is. That’s why we have meetings like this.
The fact is in agriculture, surely we’ve been innovators. I was a farmer all my life until I came here. We’ve changed our practices in many ways, for example with precision fertilizer, no tillage and many more investments. Methane release from animals alone is a big issue that has been addressed. We have less of a footprint — I think it’s 10 per cent less — in a glass of milk now than just a few years ago. A lot of things have happened. I’m not the minister responsible on this file but I’m certainly playing a role.
The agricultural sector has certainly paid our dues to this point, mainly because if you’re a farmer you have to be a businessman to survive. You have to know you must take care of your soil. If not it won’t take care of you. That’s simply it. I used more fertilizer than I should have 40 years ago. Research has indicated that’s wrong.
I’d like to give you one example. Willows planted along a creek down in Prince Edward Island by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada collect the nutrients that have not been used in a potato field. That will be turned into mulch and then put back in the soil. That’s wonderful because it saves money for the farmer. That’s just one of many projects that you can undertake. It also does a lot for the environment. We can do many things. It’s important, however, to indicate farmers have done their share and will continue to do their share. But I thank you, senator.
The Chair: We have three people still on first round but only 10 or 11 minutes left so keep the questions concise, please.
Senator Gagné: Last November you released the details of the Canadian agricultural partnership, a $3 billion, five-year agreement with the provinces and territories.
How different is this policy framework from the previous one, Growing Forward 2? Can you highlight those differences, especially with respect to how you will be helping farmers adapt to the new realities of climate change?
Mr. MacAulay: The details of how it’s going to be allocated will be announced quite shortly. Of course, as you know, we’ve indicated environment is a big issue.
Women in agriculture is a big issue. First Nations people in agriculture is a big issue. These are issues that will be addressed.
There’s no extra money, but there’s a reallocation of money. The 13 provinces and territories, and me, came to the agreement, and it has been agreed upon that we do this.
All provinces understand we have to address these issues, so that’s what you will see in the new CAP program. But there will be quite an emphasis on making sure women are involved, First Nations people are involved and the environment is addressed.
But you can’t dictate. It’s the provinces, territories and the government involved here. There are $1 million of federal funding directly; we direct that. But with the rest of the funding, it’s 60/40 with the provinces, so it’s a provincial, federal and territorial venture.
Without a question, it will deal as much as it can on the environmental issue.
Senator Pratte: To follow up on this, as has been mentioned in reply to Senator Woo’s questions, most, if not all, provinces that have a carbon tax or system that exempts farmers for the fuel they use on the farm. The same is true for the backstop federal system, which also exempts farmers for the fuel they use. In my mind, it’s therefore particularly important to have strong incentives, because farmers are exempted from the carbon tax system.
I’m not sure I understand the total programs, but I know the agricultural greenhouse gas program is $27 million over five years. I understand there’s another program I didn’t know about, which is the $25 million you talked about for clean technology. I don’t know how many years this is over.
Mr. Forbes: Five years.
Senator Pratte: That’s also over five years.
Let’s say that’s $50 million over five years. That’s good, but that’s not a lot of money, considering the number of agricultural producers we have.
Would that be part of the new partnership? Will there be more money for that?
As I said, you need a strong incentive system if you want to help farmers adopt better practices to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. MacAulay: That will be part of the CAP program.
Mr. Forbes: On top.
Mr. MacAulay: This will go on top of that.
It’s very difficult to have enough money. I would be surprised if anybody would say it’s enough money. I’ve sat at both sides of the table, and I know the issues. It’s always hard to say you have enough money.
But the programs you’ve indicated here — the $27 million for the agricultural greenhouse gases program has actually been working. For example, out in Lacombe, Alberta, the research people have no till on feeding animals. They’re not housed in the winter. They don’t bail the hay or anything. What that has done to reduce greenhouse gases is amazing.
There are so many programs to put in place to make sure we meet our requirements.
Yes, these go on top of the CAP, and the research is also vitally important; $100 million in research helps an awful lot in creating seeds, let’s say, that use less fertilizer, water and this type of thing.
That’s the path we’re on at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the government.
Senator Pratte: I don’t want to create a controversy here, but what is the logic in exempting the fuel used on farms for these carbon tax regimes?
Mr. MacAulay: They have to use fuel to produce the product.
Senator Pratte: But there are many other industries that have to use fuel, and there are many millions of Canadians who use fuel for daily occupations and businesses, so why are farmers exempted?
Mr. MacAulay: My concern is for farmers, and I want to make sure they’re at least on a level playing field, if not a better playing field if we can arrange it. It’s sometimes difficult to do.
On the other issues affected by the price on carbon, the government has the opportunity to refund that, create a program or whatever.
What must happen is we need a cleaner environment and a more robust agricultural sector. We have continued to do that, let’s say with milk and beef production. Whatever section you talk about, we’ve done that. You have to continue to do that in an even faster manner.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am the last to ask questions, but the Bible says that the last shall be first. Mr. Minister, you spoke about international trade with Asia, and that is important. However, we know that, with perishables, proximity is always just as important. So the United States must remain our premier partner. Of course, I cannot hold back from asking you about the NAFTA negotiations because a number of questions remain unanswered. We have to keep our prices competitive despite our regulations and our protection of supply management.
Your government has said that it is going to protect supply management. Canadian producers are still looking for more specifics and they want reassurance. I understand that you are not the minister of foreign affairs, but can you tell us specifically where you stand on supply management?
[English]
Mr. MacAulay: Thank you, senator. From day one, I have defended the supply management system. I have indicated it’s a model for the world, and it is. I have travelled throughout North America and spoken at large conferences with farmers and our state representatives on the agricultural sector. There’s a very strong support for NAFTA in these areas.
I’ve also been asked the question publicly in the U.S. what they could do to rectify their dairy industry. You have to be somewhat careful when you’re travelling abroad, but I indicated what I’ve said here, and I’ve said it anywhere in the world. But at the end, I’ve also said that it’s hard to have a cure for overproduction. It was well received among the company I was in.
The agricultural sector has, without a doubt, very strong support for NAFTA. I know Sonny Perdue quite well. He’s a trader. I call him a friend, and he is. He understands very well the importance. NAFTA itself has quadrupled the agricultural exports in all of the country, so it’s been a massive asset to people in agriculture. When you hear the possibility it’s going to be torn up, it creates some concern.
Senator, I cannot tell you what’s going to happen with NAFTA. The only thing I can tell you is we will not sign a deal that will not be beneficial to Canada. We will not sign a deal that will hurt us. You have to stick on that, and we will stick on that, for sure. I think it’s only sensible.
But it remains to be seen what the direction will be. There are a lot of issues coming up in trade — mid-terms and other things. You have to see how it will play out.
I have to say — and they deserve so much credit — Canada is so fortunate to have the public service we have. We have a public service that is not political. We have negotiators who sit at the table who are second to none, worldwide. You have to be a special person to be a trade negotiator at these levels.
It is not an easy task, and they deserve so much credit to hold the line.
That’s where we are on NAFTA. I guess I’ve told you, basically, nothing except that we’re not going to cave in on it. That will not happen.
The Chair: We’ve reached ten o’clock, and the minister has another commitment.
I’d like to thank the minister and his deputy minister for being here today. It has been a great discussion.
Mr. MacAulay: Senator Griffin, it’s a pleasure to be before your committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)