Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 44 - Evidence - Meeting of March 19, 2018 (morning meeting)
VANCOUVER, Monday, March 19, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 10:15 a.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island and I’m the chair of the committee. I would like to ask senators to introduce themselves, starting with Senator Maltais, our deputy chair.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator R. Black: Senator Rob Black from Centre Wellington in Ontario.
The Chair: Folks, I would like to remind you about the microphones. We actually need to physically push the button ourselves, that we don’t have someone behind us pushing the buttons such as we do at other meetings, and I will tell our guests the same thing, of course.
So today the committee is continuing its study on the agricultural impact, or potential impact, of climate change on both agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors. We’re very happy to be here in Vancouver, to hear about how climate change is being addressed in the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors of British Columbia.
For our first panel, we’re leading off with people from the Forest Practices Board. Ms. Hannah Horn is Manager of Special Investigations, and Mr. Andrew Campbell is with the Corporate Performance and Communications Co-op.
You are going to have to explain to me exactly what the Corporate Performance and Communications Co-op is. You might want to mention exactly how that works.
Thank you both for accepting our invitation to appear. We’re going to ask you to make your presentation and, of course, we’re all going to ask you questions afterwards.
First, I have a motion to bring forward. I move:
That for the purposes of the committee’s public meetings in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta, from March 19, 2018, to March 22, 2018, and notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee on December 11, 2015, pursuant to rule 12-17, that the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that two members of the committee be present.
All those in favour of the motion say “yea.”
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Motion carried. Now we can come back to our witnesses.
Thank you, folks, the floor is yours.
Hannah Horn, Manager of Special Investigations, Forest Practices Board: Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair and senators. Thank you very much for inviting us to present here today. I’m going to start by letting Andrew explain corporate performance and communications.
The Chair: Thank you.
Andrew Campbell, Corporate Performance and Communications Co-op, Forest Practices Board: I am a student from the University of Victoria and I’m studying geography there and doing a minor in the human dimensions of climate change. My position at the board is in the communications department. Because of my background at school, I basically helped Hannah prepare this presentation. Hopefully I will be able to contribute something in the question period.
Ms. Horn: Today I’m going to speak to you mainly in three areas. I’m going to introduce the Forest Practices Board and the regulatory framework that we operate within in B.C., and how that is linked to climate change. I am going to speak about what we have observed about climate change in our work, and then give you some thoughts about what can be done at the federal level, with the focus on forestry and forest practices.
Our board’s mission is to serve the public interest as the independent watchdog of sound forest and range practices in British Columbia. The key element of that is that we are an independent arm’s-length body with a mandate to oversee forest and range practices by both government and industry. This makes us something unique in Canada and we believe maybe even in the world.
Our fundamental purpose is to improve practices and promote sound management of forest and range values in the public interest, because, as you all know, a very large portion of British Columbia is public land, 95 percent, and two thirds of that is forested, so about 60 million hectares.
Our mandate is set out in the Forest and Range Practices Act, and that’s the legislation that oversees forests, or governs forest practices, forestry activities on Crown land in British Columbia, and we perform the oversight function, again, independent, arm’s-length of government.
We have no abilities or powers to regulate or enforce practices or change rules. We cannot stop work or penalize parties. Our powers are in our independence. We provide objective reporting, following rigorous investigation, and we report to the public and to government ministers.
We have a high level of trust with the public. In our recent 2015 stakeholders’ survey, almost 80 percent of the people who responded thought that our work was very or extremely important. The kind of things that we do is we do audits of industry practices, both private companies and government operations, and government enforcement. We respond to complaints from the public. We must investigate public complaints, and we can also initiate general investigations that are in the broader public interest, such as cumulative effects, old-growth management, fish habitats and such.
We participate in administrative appeals, challenging governments’ decisions on the public’s behalf around their enforcement decisions and penalties, and we make recommendations to government, industry and professional associations to improve practices and outcomes.
We operate under two pieces of legislation, the Wildfire Act, which is around preventing wildfires as a result of forest and range activities; and then the Forest and Range Practices Act, which we call FRPA, and this is results-based legislation. Government sets objectives for forest resources, and then forest companies design the results and strategies to actually achieve those objectives, and this is where our oversight role comes in. It’s mainly operational. We don’t deal with tenures or timber allocation. Our role is pretty much entirely what happens on the ground with forestry.
I’ll just mention that the Forest and Range Practices Act does not contain any specific direction around climate change at this time, and I’m not aware of any studies looking at how that might be incorporated.
So, how do we come to be able to speak about climate change then? We’re out on the ground all the time. We’re out looking. We’re one of the few organizations out there looking at forestry practices and the results and effects on timber and non-timber resources. Our staff and our board members come with decades of experience in forest management, and we observe climate change effects in realtime on the ground. Because climate change isn’t specifically in the legislation, our board doesn’t go out and audit it. However, we very frequently make observations on the link between climate change effects and forest management in our reports.
I’m going to talk a little bit about the observations that have been made in our reports. None of these will be a surprise to you, I’m sure, with all the work you have been doing.
Climate change is affecting timber and forest supply in a number of ways. With regard to forest health, we’re dealing with a number of insects and disease issues. The mountain pine beetle alone damaged over 18 million hectares of forest land in British Columbia, with over a billion dollars of provincial and federal funding to deal with beetle-related damage, reforestation, wildfire protection, and community stability and job creation. Invasive plant species are on the increase, and this is shifting the composition of forage supply and affecting forage quality in ways that we don’t fully know yet, positive and negative.
Of course, changes in weather patterns, precipitation and temperature are affecting site growing conditions, which means that after forests are logged, there may be times when there are issues with forestry generation. The provincial government has put some efforts into dealing with potential climate change effects and shifts in growing site conditions and, of course, increased frequency and intensity of wildfire.
I’ll just point out, in the package that we brought for the committee are some speaking notes, and we included links to our board reports in those notes.
The other way that climate change is affecting forest values is the effect on non-timber values. The Forest and Range Practice Act specifically identifies 11 resource values to be managed on the forest and rangeland base, and all of them are affected by climate change: water quality, wildlife, fish, biodiversity, cultural heritage, recreation, et cetera. The thing about climate change is that it adds a stressor to all of these resources so that they have a lower resilience to subsequent developments through forestry or range.
Some of the examples that we have seen out there on the land, changes to water quantity and flow; to watershed hydrology, with impacts on drinking water supply and fish habitats; increased landslides, which also impact water quality; and then changed forest structure, species composition and conditions, which changes wildlife habitats and fish habitats; and then wildfires, of course, which directly result in loss of forest habitats and property.
I’m going to speak to three different examples that have been reported on in our reports, and the first is fuel management near communities. As I mentioned, we do have a role in audits and investigations related to the Wildfire Act, and we have done two investigations looking at efforts to prevent wildfires at the wildland-urban interface, which is where communities and forests meet. We did reports in 2010 and 2015, and in both reports, our findings are that there is insufficient funding to protect communities from wildfire, and that wildfire prevention activities in these wildland-urban interfaces are insufficient, and communities are at risk. This was reiterated in a 2018 report by the British Columbia Auditor General. This is especially important because we are witnessing an increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires under the climate change, and this includes a lack of funding for fuel management in federal lands at the wildland-urban interface.
You will know, of course, that 2017 was the worst wildfire year on record in British Columbia with 1.2 million hectares burned and a 10-week state of emergency, tens of thousands of people displaced.
My second example is treatment for mountain pine beetle and the effect on water flows. As I mentioned, millions and millions of hectares damaged by mountain pine beetle, and then a real effort to go in and harvest, salvage the wood from those beetle-affected areas in a very quick period, a short period of time, which has resulted in rapid changes to the landscapes, with some very large cutblocks in areas, and this has had an impact on watershed hydrology. I spoke a little bit about that earlier, that, overall, when you change the forest cover and landscape quickly, you can get cumulative effects of salvaged logging on, for example, increased peak flows in streams, lower low flows, reduced water quality, sediment — for example, due to sediment inputs — changing natural drainage patterns and stream channel structures, with associated effects on drinking water supply and fish habitats.
My third and final example is that we are seeing on the B.C. coast an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme rain events, which is resulting in an increase of landslides. In one of our studies, we looked at landslide events immediately after extreme rainstorm events on the British Columbia coast. There was an almost 10-fold increase in the number of landslides in the area affected, leading us to advise of the need to recognize the potential for re-occurrence when planning for future roads and cutblocks. These are just some of the examples, and from that, we have come up with some thoughts on how the federal government might help to address climate change and forestry.
The first, to support and work with provincial governments, to promote climate change adaptation, mitigation and resilience, because it is such a huge all-encompassing issue, and there is this need to work together across all levels of government. The second is that there’s an urgent need for funding to reduce fuels in at-risk areas of the wildland-urban interface, and this includes federal lands and continuing efforts of the federal and provincial governments working together to deal with fuel mitigation.
The third point is support for research and monitoring. Our forests are changing so rapidly under climate change, and we need to be able to track those changes and understand them so that we know what we’re losing, we know how things are changing and how we can best react, including being prepared for the unexpected.
Finally, we want to put forward that there may be a role for a public climate change watchdog, and this is from our experience, and then having objective reporting that’s arm’s-length of politics and industry can be a way to provide information that encourages government and industry to act proactively without the need for legislation or those other measures.
That’s everything I have to say right now. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present to you. You’ll see on the back of the handout that we gave you that there is the contact information on our website, if you wanted to go look at our reports, and also follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
The Chair: Thank you for your comprehensive presentation. I really enjoyed that. I am sure the senators will have lots of questions.
I’m going to start off with the deputy chair, Senator Maltais.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ms. Horn, Mr. Campbell, thank you very much for being here.
I am surprised — and very happy — to hear from the Forest Practices Board. I think that organization is unique to British Columbia, and I don’t think it exists in the Maritimes, Quebec or Ontario. I am not sure about the central provinces. So I congratulate you because, usually, when legislation is the only available mechanism, many lawyers specialize in circumventing it. So a group like yours is there to bring them back to the right path. That is monitoring of good practices and the only way to save our forests. I am absolutely surprised to have heard from you and I’m also very happy to see that you are accompanied by a young person who is very interested in forests, forestry practices, ecology and greenhouse gas emissions.
I would like to hear a bit more from you. Your organization operates at arm’s length from the government. You do not report to the government. Where does your funding come from? Do you have any funding? Does it come from the private sector? Where does it come from?
[English]
Ms. Horn: We are government funded, but it is not funded through any ministry. Back in the early 1990s, when there was the war in the woods in British Columbia, there was a high level of mistrust of forest practices. The British Columbia government developed the Forest Practices Code, our first piece of forest practices legislation.
It was quite prescriptive, and over time the legislation was changed. About 10 years ago, it changed to the Forest and Range Practices Act, which put more of the onus on the forest companies to achieve government’s objectives rather than being told what to do. In that shift from the one legislation to the other, government maintained the independent role of the Forest Practices Board in order to continue the oversight role, especially in the shift to having more results-based practice.
We are a tribunal that’s a separate item in the government budget, separate from any kind of ministerial oversight.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Okay. Another aspect that is specific to British Columbia is that 95 per cent of the land belongs to the crown. That is a pretty rare situation. I am looking at the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and even the West, and I don’t know much about it. I think my colleague could provide explanations on that. For example, how are grazing pastures and farmland divided? If I have understood correctly, 5 per cent is left, and British Columbia’s agriculture is very successful. There are garden produce, wine — everyone knows about British Columbia wine. Now that provincial barriers have been removed in Quebec, we can try that exceptional wine. We also produce wine and send it to you. I find that very interesting, but how is the land divided up? If I have 200 or 300 sheep, I need grazing pastures for them. Who would I contact, and how is the land distributed?
[English]
Ms. Horn: I’m speaking particularly within our role about range use on public lands. It’s a complex sharing of public lands between forestry use and range use. So you will have areas that are particularly suited for grazing cows, for forage; and then you will have areas that are also good for growing trees. So there is often an arrangement whereby there will be a timber licence, the trees will be logged; and then that area will be available for grazing again under public tenure; and then, when the trees grow up, then they go back into the cycle, so there is a shared use of those public lands.
Does that answer your question?
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Yes, it does. I will take the floor for the last time, Madam Chair, I swear.
I will turn to Mr. Campbell. We know that, last year, you were hit hard by forest fires. Ms. Horne talked about that at length in her brief and said that it will affect soils, creeks and even rivers. I have a tremendous wish, and it is to protect salmon rivers. I am an avid salmon fisherman, and I would not want British Columbia’s rivers to stop being good for salmon fishing.
How is reforestation done? We are talking about a half a million hectares of burned forest after all. Some of the wood is salvageable, and some is not. How will you rebuild that forest, which will basically maintain productive land for the future. Your trees are not this tall; they are huge. On average, they are four times larger than the trees in Quebec. So how will you restore order after this disaster? Mr. Campbell, go ahead.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Well, I would say that that’s a really big issue right now, and like you said, that would fall under the silviculture practices. So, that’s regrowing stands after they harvest. I think if a company holds a licence for an area and there is a forest fire, they’re allowed to harvest what timber they can. Also, it’s in their own interests to replant trees and to take measures like brushing, which is clearing out other plant species that may compete with the trees. It takes a lot of care and continued monitoring of your cutblocks.
That is especially important in the context of climate change, with the potential for carbon credits. As climate change and carbon becomes more a part of the economy, those silviculture practices, the regrowing of trees, will be more incentivized, because there will be a price for carbon. With the loss of the carbon storage in those trees that have been burned to the ground, there will be more of an incentive for forest companies to put more care into regrowing those areas. Depending on how that goes, I think we will see a lot more attention put into the regrowth of burnt areas.
Does that answer your question?
Ms. Horn: Can I just add something to that?
Senator Maltais: Yes.
Ms. Horn: There are many, many forest resources, even in these areas that get burned. What the British Columbia government is doing right now is, there’s a lot of discussion about how we treat these areas after they have been burned, because you don’t want to necessarily take all of the wood off. There’s some ecological value to leaving some areas. We want to plan for the future, to ensure that the risk of future wildfires lowers. So there’s a lot of discussion around planning and making sure that we are doing this consciously and going in actively to do the best thing for the forest for the future.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. It was very informative. I really enjoyed it. Your Forest Practices Board is unique to British Columbia.
You did mention in your recommendations that you could see a role for a public climate change watchdog. I was wondering if that role would be different from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Julie Gelfand. I was wondering if it would be similar or different. Would you like to discuss that idea a little further?
Ms. Horn: I’m happy to. Yes, we are very aware, of course, that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has done a lot of work on climate change.
When we put forward this idea, it’s this idea of perhaps a completely independent body that operates at arm’s-length of all levels of government. We haven’t put a lot of thought into how that might look, but we certainly want to acknowledge the work that the commissioner has done on this area.
Senator Gagné: Would you consider your organization a watchdog for British Columbia?
Ms. Horn: We are quite defined in what we do by the legislation. For example, there are a number of people in British Columbia who would like us to be the, not the Forest Practices Board, but the Natural Resources Board for the province, not just look at forestry but at mining and other areas. That’s not the case in our situation right now. We have the structure to be a climate change watchdog, but that hasn’t actually been discussed at all.
Senator Gagné: You did mention in your presentation that we can probably anticipate an increase in different types of insects and diseases affecting forest health and also forage quality. I am wondering if you’re aware of any research, because probably a lot of the disease will be coming from other areas, probably moving from south to the north, right?
Ms. Horn: Yes, there is a lot going on.
Senator Gagné: What is being done to research the probability of having other diseases show up and how we could prevent that happening?
Ms. Horn: I can’t comment myself. Andrew might know.
I know that a lot of research is happening. I was a student at University of Alberta in 2010. I am aware of some very interesting work going on there, and of course it’s so important.
Andrew, are you aware of research happening?
Mr. Campbell: I would say that nothing comes to mind specifically, but I know the University of British Columbia has a really strong forestry department. I’m sure you will be hearing from many of their academics and they will be able to speak to that much better than me.
Senator Gagné: What do you foresee to be the biggest change in the Canadian forestry industry over the next 10 years?
Ms. Horn: That’s a big question. In the context of what we’re speaking about here, climate change is so pervasively affecting everything, in ways that we can anticipate and ways we can’t anticipate, that it likely will have a huge impact on how we do things. As to what that will look like, I can’t really comment. Much of our public in British Columbia is involved with forestry and, of course, it’s going to impact what we do as a province hugely. So I would say that we certainly, and a lot of other minds, are thinking about what that would look like, and trying to anticipate that.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much for your presentation.
Earlier on in your presentation you referenced yourselves as a tribunal but had no powers. Can you speak a little bit more about that and how your members react to that? You do have members?
Ms. Horn: No, we report to the public.
Senator R. Black: If you’re a tribunal but you have no powers, how do you get people to do things?
Ms. Horn: Our reputation is everything. We are known and trusted as an organization that really does rigorously investigate, but also fairly investigate. A key aspect is that we audit and investigate government and industry. We have no particular person or organization that we’re targeting. We are all about sound forest practices on public land, and that’s our focus. I think that gives us credibility, and because of that, and in our experience, people respond well to our recommendations. We don’t just make recommendations without thinking very carefully about the implications for whoever the recommendations are targeted to. Responses to our recommendations are usually positive and acted on. Again, it’s because people actually trust what we’re saying and it’s out there in the public realm.
Senator R. Black: How did you achieve that high level of trust?
Ms. Horn: How did we achieve it? Everything we do is transparent. We publish all of our findings, and as I mentioned earlier, we operate very strictly within the principles about fair and balanced investigating/reporting, and I think it may be our structure as well. Our board is made up of people with wide-ranging interests, who are also highly skilled, with a lot of skills and experience in forest management, but also in areas of environmental, conservation, First Nations, academic, recreation. We have a recreation person right now, and our staff has decades and decades of work. I think that adds to our credibility as well.
The Chair: I have some questions.
In its tool kit, the federal government basically has two types of tools. One is economic instruments.
Regarding your specific recommendations to us, I’d say they fall more into economic instruments if you were to put them into the two categories. The other tool or category is regulatory. I am assuming you haven’t mentioned anything of a regulatory nature because, of course, forests fall under the jurisdiction of the province, unless it’s a national park or some other federally owned land.
Ms. Horn: Yes.
The Chair: It’s not that you have overlooked them; it was on purpose.
Ms. Horn: We’re very immersed in provincial jurisdiction, yes.
The Chair: Then within provincial jurisdiction, I noticed that you’re responsibility relates primarily to public land.
Ms. Horn: Entirely public land, yes.
The Chair: In other parts of Canada, as was already noted by Senator Maltais, there are privately owned woodlots. Especially where I come from in the Maritimes, that’s a big one in terms of a major component of forestry industry. Is there any equivalent for private lands in British Columbia?
Ms. Horn: I believe that you have two groups presenting on the same panel this morning, the Private Managed Forest Land Council and the Federation of Woodlot Associations.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Horn: Those would be the people that would deal more with the private land component of forest practices.
The Chair: I’ll ask them the same question when they arrive. Basically, while they have their roles to play, there’s not something that’s the exact equivalent of what you are doing for public land?
Ms. Horn: The Private Managed Forest Land Act and regulation deals with very similar issues around managing resources as a result of forestry activities. So it’s similar. It’s just a different land base and so a different kind of context.
The Chair: I’m sure we will find out how they work when they arrive.
I was interested in the threats that you have indicated that will occur to timber and range values as a result of climate change and, of course, one of them, invasive species, and that it’s shifting the composition of rangelands and affecting forage quality in a variety of ways. I am assuming that, in many ways, this may be negative, but is there also something you see as being positive in that transition?
Ms. Horn: In my material I was careful to say that it could be in different ways, because there may be hardy plants, hardy forage plants that come back, that actually contribute to forage supply, but there are certainly many, many that are negatively impacting forage supply.
The Chair: Can you give me an example of an invasive species that may have done the most negative harm?
Ms. Horn: I’m not a range specialist. I have done a range investigation and witnessed the changes, but I’m not the best person to speak to that.
The Chair: We will get at somebody else for that one too. That’s the problem in being first, isn’t it?
We’re going to have a second round. Senator Maltais has a question.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I even have two of them.
When a forest fire occurs like it did in your area, there is natural regrowth, but not necessarily of the same varieties. We may be talking about foreign varieties or varieties that were suffocated by the large trees. How do you reforest without destroying those plants that have a role to play in the soil’s rebirth? For example, I am thinking about small fruit trees that will grow this year and so on, and will die over time as the trees grow. How is all that reforested without destroying what is required to create a new soil humus?
[English]
Ms. Horn: There’s a real science around silviculture and replanting trees in British Columbia, and it has to do with making decisions around what you want the future land base to look like, whether you want to dedicate it to grazing cattle or growing economically viable timber, or other uses, letting it go and grow up for habitat, for example. We have a very diverse land base here. You will no doubt hear from the academics that we have a huge biodiversity, and this is why the science of silviculture is so complicated. Every area has its own site conditions, own mix of tree species composition, forest understory. The key aspects of that are setting objectives, knowing what you want to have down the road in the future, and knowing what to do to get there in the short term.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Okay. Last question, Madam Chair. You talked about — and this is the first time I hear about it — an ombudsman for forestry. I think that is an excellent idea. We have all sorts of ombudsmen, but this is the first time I hear about an ombudsman for forestry. What kind of a role would you like them to have once they have been appointed? How will you define their role to ensure that the forest is well developed and well reforested? Will that individual have quasi-judicial powers? Will they only have powers of recommendation? How do you see their role?
[English]
Ms. Horn: I should be careful here. We’re not recommending that there be an ombudsperson for the forest, but more that we are something like an ombudsperson for the forest in our role and that the public can come to us with complaints. That’s our ombudsperson-like role. We also have a bit of an auditor general-like role, because we do audits and we report them publicly. So we’re kind of an odd mixture. It’s just a term we use to describe ourselves. We’re kind of like an ombudsperson and auditor general mix of the forests.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: And how are you received, for example, by a private company that develops forest land? Is it with a smile?
[English]
Ms. Horn: No, they don’t smile. There is always tension there, of course. We are the watchdog. For the most part, we find people very cooperative but, of course, as you know, if Revenue Canada comes knocking on your door and says, “I want to do an audit,” nobody likes that. So we have a good relationship with forest companies, and there is always a little bit of tension there.
The Chair: All the questions have been answered either in your presentation or in response to the questions that have been raised. I would like to thank the two of you for appearing here with us today. It is very much appreciated.
We now have with us four guests. From the BC Agriculture Council, we have Mr. Stan Vander Waal, Chair; and Mr. Reg Ens, Executive Director. From the British Columbia Fruit Growers’ Association, we have Mr. Pinder Dhaliwal, President; and Mr. Glen Lucas, General Manager.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. We will get you to make your presentations first and we will have questions for you afterwards. The floor is yours.
Stan Vander Waal, Chair, BC Agriculture Council: Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair and committee members, to appear before you and present the BC Agriculture Council’s, or BCAC, perspectives on the adaptability and resilience of agricultural producers to climate change.
BCAC is British Columbia’s umbrella farm organization. We are a council of commodity groups, and through our growing membership, we represent the majority of British Columbia farm families who, in turn, generate 96 percent of British Columbia’s farm gate receipts. Our board of directors is regionally represented and is comprised of British Columbia farmers and ranchers who work together to ensure the economic, social and environmental sustainability of British Columbia agriculture.
Beside me here is Reg Ens, Executive Director of the BC Ag Council; and my name is Stan Vander Waal, Chairman of the BC Agriculture Council. With pleasure, we present to you.
I, as one of many British Columbia farmers, own and operate the farm we call home. Together, with my wife and children, we produce flowers — as I refer to it, food for personal wellness — in Chilliwack, British Columbia, and in southern Alberta and Lethbridge. As active farmers, we believe we are innovators investing with constant improvement, providing long-term sustainability for climate and environment, the very environment we hope to operate in with future generations.
I would like to tell you some of the things we are doing personally as a business adapting to today’s climate and environmental needs. We are an example of so many other farmers and ranchers in British Columbia. Some of the highlights are the water circulation or recirculation in our greenhouses, reducing water use by as much as 50 percent. Instead of leaching the water into the environment, we reuse it. This reduces fertilizer consumption by 35 percent. We have also used a wood boiler or biofuel heating system to burn wood waste, turn it into heat for the greenhouses. This is wood waste that they call “peelings” from making fence posts on farms. The waste wood is what we use for creating the heat in the greenhouse. This has reduced our carbon footprint substantially.
Another project we engage in is LED lighting in the greenhouse. As you know, many greenhouses use lighting to increase the light levels, especially at the lower, darker times of the year which we’re just exiting, and this reduces energy consumption by one third.
We also have engaged in a complete recycle program. And, of course, recycling is about three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycling. By reducing, we basically reuse the same pots that have been used in the past. If you have got products that don’t make market, you take the pots and you reuse them. The recycling component is taking and separating the different plastics so that they can actually be used and eventually returned to manufacturers of plastics to become recycled materials in their programs.
You may ask, what’s the cost versus the benefit for all these wonderful initiatives? So let’s review the previous four initiatives that I was just talking about.
Some of the challenges that come along with water recirculation, that is, when you actually recycle water, you find that the water you bring back from your system — in other words, the same water that you watered the plants with — comes back with some side effects. Those could be pathogens from the soils. Those could be a different fertilizer level than what you first used to feed the plants. You have to adapt to that. Those are some of the challenges. You have more disease challenges and you have a moving target on fertilizer level. That’s one of the challenges in regard to water recirculation.
When we moved to the biofuels for the wood boiler system, we found that in the heating and using the wood waste, you now have a variable source of fuel. What I mean by “variable” is natural gas comes in consistently at one pressure, one heat value all the time, whereas with wood fuels, it’s variable all the time. And the particulate size that you are using could be larger or smaller. It could have less or more heat, and that affects how you run the operations. Second, you also have to deal with the emissions that come from the boiler systems which require particulate scrubbing. That can be very expensive.
LEDs are new in the growing business. They have been around for probably five, six years. They’re being looked at by many growers and a big part of it is the cost, but some of the big changes are in how the lighting works. You use three different colours for lighting in a greenhouse — white, red and blue — and you can change the spectrums. You can get very interesting results. With something as simple as red lettuce, if you use blue and red, it deepens the red colour of the lettuce, some interesting results and findings in LEDs.
There’s always a challenge when you use recycling, when you are going to automation and are trying to keep your production levels up. You find the challenge around actually keeping the speeds up when you go to something used because it will have dirt mixed in with it and that doesn’t always work in the automation process so well. Those are some of the challenges.
The other thing is that capital requirements can be huge. When we look at some of the things like recycling water and preventing leachate from getting into the aquifers it is very expensive to contain the water. That is where a lot of growers will struggle, because it requires substantial system changes and a lot of capital to make these changes.
Let’s look at what climate and environmental change mean to farmers and ranchers in British Columbia. First let’s talk about farming and the climate.
Dealing with an ever-changing climate is at the core of what farmers do, and we have been doing it since the beginning of farming. What has changed is the complexity of farming and the speed at which change is happening. Farmers are naturally adaptive. We have a long history of embracing innovation through technology, education and the best management practices to improve environmental, economic and social sustainability.
Canadian farmers have a long record of continuous improvement as one of the most sustainable producers of agricultural products in the world. However, we operate in a global market where still too often it is the lowest price that drives the sale. The best, most critical way for government to encourage change and help farmers adapt to changing climate is to ensure that policies and regulations are in place that support a healthy, vibrant and profitable farm sector.
Second, what have we in British Columbia done to help the farmers? British Columbia has led the country in some of our climate change activities. The British Columbia farm sector is also leading the country. In 2008, the BC Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative was developed, BCAC, with funding provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the BC Ministry of Agriculture, to support a proactive and a pan-agriculture approach to climate change issues facing farmers.
Between 2008 and 2012, the initiative developed and delivered a number of projects related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The BC Agriculture Climate Change Action Plan was released in 2010, followed by a series of six reports summarizing climate impacts for key commodities across five British Columbia regions.
Since 2013, the initiative has been providing strategic guidance and program management for BC Agriculture’s climate change adaptation programming. Inside of the last page of the brochure we have handed out, is a list of recent projects. We believe that there are several reasons our work is showing results. It was initiated and has been championed by actual farmers, individuals who are passionate about the environment and who are part of the community. It’s focused on practical issues that could be addressed today. There are still many details around climate change that we do not know. Our work has focused on making changes based on what we do know, and living with the fact that things will change. It is a collaborative team approach. The regional assessments and projects include participation by farmers, regional governments, as well as technical specialists.
The other reason the work in British Columbia is successful is the leadership and the support of a small provincial project management team. Organizing local groups, getting people to participate in meetings, providing technical guidance, minimizing the duplication of efforts, all takes time that volunteers don’t have. This coordination team also serves as a central communication hub. Without this central coordination, which is currently funded by both senior governments, this work would not be happening.
Third, what are the current critical issues? Three things come to mind: water, extreme events and invasive pests. With regard to water, at a recent conference in Ottawa, a researcher from the U.S.A. stated that water is the visible impact of variable weather or climate change. For farmers and ranchers, next to access to land, the most critical resource is access to a clean, affordable and reliable water supply. With changing weather patterns, both removing excess water and ensuring a supply of water are critical. In British Columbia, we are seeing faster melting of winter snow. This results in low-stream flows in later summer, and when water is needed for fish and for irrigation. Building upland water storage capacity is a practical way to support both these needs.
Some of the extreme events; all of you have seen the catastrophic pictures of last year’s wildfires in the British Columbia ranching communities. However, just weeks prior to that, farmers in some of the same regions were dealing with flooding. Unfortunately, these extreme events, which occurred in maybe one to 200 years, are now one to 100, or even one to 50. They continue to be more common.
An example of what can be done for extreme events is illustrated by a project led by the BC Cattlemen’s Association and the Climate Action Initiative to develop a wildfire preparedness planning tool. The tool is currently being used in workshops around the province as a tool to reduce future losses.
Invasive pests: Like the weather, farmers have always fought pests, but the rapidly changing climate conditions are bringing new threats, new pests, diseases and invasive plants to British Columbia. These invaders not only impact farming and ranching but, in many situations, are a threat to native populations. Preventing their introduction and spread, where possible, is critical. Farmers and ranchers need the research done by organizations like Agri-Food Canada and the universities learning to manage the impact of these new pests.
In all three situations — water, extreme events and pests — there are actions that can be taken at the farm or ranch level, but many of the opportunities and solutions require a wider regional approach, for example, water, infrastructure and pest research.
Fourth, I would like to talk about carbon pricing. I want to make a brief comment on carbon pricing based on my experiences as a farmer and greenhouse operator. Adding a cost to carbon may be a tool to manage climate change, but we must be mindful of the unintended consequences. When British Columbia implemented the carbon tax, many greenhouse operators had already converted to using biofuels where possible. They were using what was the leading-edge technology and best management practices at the time, yet they receive no credit for this work.
I am charged the carbon tax for growing crops that I grow in my greenhouses 60 miles east of Vancouver. A grower 60 miles south of Vancouver, so, in other words, in the U.S., growing in the same conditions that I grow, but with a significantly lower tax regime, doesn’t pay carbon tax. How is that helping the environment or the Canadian economy? We can be leaders, but we have to ensure level playing fields.
When carbon tax came to British Columbia, a number of farmers looked into selling offsets or carbon credits, but because of the scale required and the cost of verification, it was not economically feasible for most family-owned farms to participate. Programs to encourage climate mitigation have to fit the scale of the operators.
I would like to close with a few comments. Thank you for allowing us to present to you today. As I said at the start, working in changing climate conditions is something that farmers have always done, but conditions are changing faster than we have seen in the past. Efforts to help mitigate and adapt to climate change must be integrated with other policies of priorities. We cannot look at this issue in isolation.
I would like to leave you with one quote. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, they stated:
A strong agriculture sector providing a secure food source is essential to support the residents of British Columbia.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
We will now hear from the second presenters.
Pinder Dhaliwal, President, BC Fruit Growers’ Association: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present here today.
Climate change is very important for the tree fruit sector. My name is Pinder Dhaliwal, President of the BC Fruit Growers’ Association; and with me here today is Glen Lucas, General Manager of the BC Fruit Growers’ Association.
The BC Fruit Growers’ Association represents 520 tree fruit growers, family-owned tree fruit farms in British Columbia, generating income of $118 million per year, with a packed value of $218 million, and $776 million of economic activity annually.
Climate change: What does it mean for the tree fruit sector? Climate change has been defined as increasing average temperatures. Global warming was and is a topic of hot debate. Though science points to long-term increases in average global temperature, as air warms, it holds more moisture and more energy. Now climate change is being defined as increased variability and increased chance of extreme weather events.
In tree fruit, these extreme events can harm our industry seasonally: flooding as the snowpack at higher elevations melts, drown our trees; disease spread due to high humidity from spring flooding; frequent periods of rain, especially during June and August when the cherries ripen does lots of damage; wind damage to fruit; sunburn on fruit; smaller fruit due to heat stress and drought, because fruit growth stops when the temperature hits 80, 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Fortunately, tree fruit does not suffer from forest fires or the smoke from the forest fires. Climate change is leading to weather events that are: a) getting more extreme; b) getting more frequent.
Glen Lucas, General Manager, BC Fruit Growers’ Association: I would like to speak about where Okanagan tree fruit production is located and its bio-geoclimate zone.
The Okanagan Valley is in the Interior of British Columbia, about 220 kilometres east of here. The valley runs north/south and is relatively narrow and 150 kilometres long. Associated with the Okanagan tree fruit growing areas are the Similkameen Valley, Shuswap and the Creston Valley.
In the Okanagan, the valley bottom is about 1,100 feet elevation, and it’s surrounded by a plateau that is 4,000 feet in elevation. The mountains located on this plateau have the finest skiing in the world, and the plateau naturally stores water in the form of snowpack until it melts late in the spring and early June. As the melt occurs, creeks become raging torrents that can flood. The most serious floods in memory occurred in the spring of 2017.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Another feature of the Okanagan Valley is its slow summer rainfall. Average annual precipitation is 387 millimetres, or 15.2 inches. The Okanagan is semi-arid and home to the only desert, in Osoyoos, British Columbia.
The Okanagan climate is ideal for tree fruit production. Its winters are cold, but not cold enough. Cold winters encourage fruit set and kills some of the overwintering pests and also assist by thinning fruit as a small percentage of buds suffer winter damage. Rarely, winters will have extreme cold and cause extensive damage to the fruit buds, or blossoms may be frozen in the spring due to a sudden frost event. Tree damage and tree mortality can occur in very extreme cases, but this appears to be every 50 to 100 years. Cold snaps can be especially damaging if severe colds occur before trees go into the dormant stage. The last cold snap was in 1968, and my neighbour said it was minus 33 and there was no fruit from the Osoyoos border all the way towards Vernon, and there was one apricot tree, he said, in Penticton that had a few apricots on it.
Summers in the Okanagan are hot and dry. Fruit trees become stressed at temperatures over 30 degrees Celsius, and above 35 degrees Celsius plant growth is stopped. Growers observe that there are more extreme hot summers than in the past, and this is impacting the need for irrigation due to evapotranspiration and cooling needs.
Mr. Lucas: As was mentioned by Stan, local solutions are good for our sector. The regional governments in the Okanagan have been very active in adapting to climate change through water use planning. The province has improved monitoring the snow packs and drought. An important element of these new activities is reporting to all the other agencies in the area, including agriculture associations, and I have an example for you of one that was issued on September 1, 2017.
The report issued then said, between June and August, Kelowna broke its record for least summer rainfall, with only 7.3 millimetres accumulated. Penticton and Vernon are poised to break their own records for summer dryness. Kelowna also broke records for the hottest July and August. This follows on a record-breaking spring for most precipitation from March to May for Vernon, the second highest on record; Kelowna, the fourth highest; and Penticton, which ranked number one for precipitation in 100 years of records.
Of note, there are several initiatives in the tree fruit sector to adapt to these extreme climate events. The tree fruit sector has moved from hand-moved sprinklers to more efficient microjet and drip irrigation to conserve water. As was mentioned by the BCAC, a Climate Action Initiative has helped our region develop an irrigation planning tool, adopt a decision aid system that uses two-week weather projections to help growers understand pest development and plan treatments ahead of time. Also, we have mapped future climate to determine the expansion of tree fruit growing areas in British Columbia. So, as summer temperatures increase, we can grow tree fruit further north.
The Agriculture and Agri-Food Summerland Research Station has been a leader in modelling and mapping climate change. The government and industry has been innovative, but some risks are increasing, for which we have not prepared.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Improving how the tree fruit industry and agriculture as a whole adapts to climate change. There are several notable program lapses that need to be addressed and we’re going to go over four points.
In preparing for multiple-year drought through water storage and water conservation, we recommend that priority be given to increasing water storage for agriculture and for cities. In particular, we strongly recommend that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency be reestablished as it was unfortunately cut by the previous government at a very critical time of increasing risks in climate change. The PFRA was respected, effective, professional and efficient. It was the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and it should be reinstituted.
Two, increasing water supply for agriculture: We recommend that increased water storage be eligible for infrastructure funding on a priority basis. Due to the expensive upgrades for water quality in the Okanagan and Creston area, agriculture systems are at risk of being orphaned. We recommend that federal funding provide for the twinning of water supplies. Separating agricultural lines from residential water supplies should require a parallel investment in the agriculture water system to ensure they remain available.
Mr. Lucas: Third, dealing with extremes on a proactive basis in the production insurance program. As an example, extreme wind damage was new to tree fruit in 2015 and was not a peril covered by the quality portion of the provincial production insurance program. It was subsequently added once we learned that it was a peril, but that is little comfort to those who suffered damage in 2015 and were not covered. We recommend that climate change funding be utilized to study future impacts of climate change and adapt production insurance to look at perils and the provision of coverage before the risks impact growers.
Fourth, related to this, the suggestion is to consider using AgriFlex to enhance other programs, reinforcing the protection from climate change risks. AgriFlex is not working for localized weather disasters, such as extreme hailstorms that cause damage beyond what is conceived in the production insurance. We recommend that AgriFlex be used to enhance production insurance for unspecified perils and for risks not adequately covered in existing crop insurance.
Mr. Dhaliwal: In summary, the weather; everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it, to paraphrase Mark Twain. We encourage the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to take the lead in adjusting agricultural programs, reintroducing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency, and seeking new programs and funds for climate change.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. They were all very interesting.
The deputy chair, Senator Maltais, will start the questioning.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you so much for your presentations in your own areas of expertise. We are noting that the noose is tightening at the same pace across all production sectors. It is a privilege for a Quebecer to meet Okanagan Valley producers because we often hear about you, but we don’t meet you every day.
We know that the water issue is a major problem. It’s a problem that is not easy to resolve. I remind you of the issue we have had in Ontario and Quebec, with acid rain in the Great Lakes that we finally managed to resolve. Since the air was contaminated at that time, rain was contaminated, and Niagara Valley and southwest Quebec crops were being lost. Today, with measures from the U.S., as well as Ontario and Quebec, the problem has been remedied.
Mr. Vander Waal, I am interested in water recycling, which you discussed at length. It is clear that, when water is recycled without being filtered, there is a risk of pathogens, of dormant pests. I have visited farms in Europe and even in Quebec and Ontario where water is recycled, but with a sandy and rocky filtering system to remove those pathogens.
Has that been attempted here? Have you experimented with it?
[English]
Mr. Vander Waal: Thank you for the question. Yes, we do use different filtering. There are actually several different processes we use. In a contained environment, so in a greenhouse in this case, basically we recover a hundred percent of the water. The first pass is actually through a cloth filter to take the larger contaminants. Then we go through either a sand filter — there are many different treatments. You can use infrared. You can use basic chlorine, if you will. There are many different treatments for bringing down the pathogen level. The key thing is to not kill the water. Water is a living organism and you want to keep it alive. Probably the biggest challenge is maintaining balance, which can be done but it could take some years to figure it out.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
I will come back to the people from the Okanagan Valley. Basically, it’s a fruit-producing region, for the most part anyway.
Is climate change bringing new pests you did not know about maybe 10 or 15 years ago? Is climate change bringing those pests that trees were not used to fighting, that you were not used to fighting? Have you noticed things like that?
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Due to the weather changes in the last 15, 20 years, we had a little bit harsher winters that did harm the insects that do damage to our cherry and apple and other soft fruits. We have the spotted wing drosophila, and when winters are milder, they survive and lay eggs in springtime, and at harvest time, do economic damage to our fruits. They target the crops that are very important to our area; apples, cherries and peaches.
Mr. Vander Waal: To piggyback on the comments by Pinder, one of the biggest challenges with the change in environment involving new pests and that is getting the right, whether it be biochemicals or something different, treatments into Canada. That’s one of the important takeaways in this discussion, moving forward as quickly as possible with the registration. Canada is a much smaller market than the U.S., and the U.S. has extensive testing. There are some fast-track methods available here in Canada, but it is an ongoing challenge to actually get new chemicals, new biochemicals actually registered, especially today when the focus is on biochemical, not the harsh chemicals of the past. So it’s really important to see these new products come to market as quickly as possible, and everything should be done to expedite that process.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: If I have understood you correctly, you are asking us to put emphasis on — a bit more, so that registered products would be adopted quickly and you could use them.
What about research? You do have two famous universities — UBC and Fraser. How are farmers working with research centres? We have visited them in the past, and we will be going back this week. How do you work with them? Is there close collaboration? Does it yield results? Do they have enough funding to fulfill your requests?
[English]
Mr. Lucas: The Summerland Research Centre is very important in dealing with pests as a result of climate change. Certainly that’s a core thing. The universities are also very important. There’s the Canada Plant Quarantine Centre at Saanich which is in the process of applying for a very large-scale project that will look at plant viruses. Normally they’re screening imported material for plant viruses, but because they have the expertise, they are expanding that to find out more about plant viruses, and involving universities and the provincial genomics side of research. We hope that project will go forward. It’s in the late planning stages and they’re hoping to get a good result out of their very large-scale application to the federal government.
One thing beyond the research at the university level and at the Agriculture Canada level with regard to invasive pests that’s very useful is taking an area-wide approach. I think that was mentioned in Stan’s presentation as well. For example, a researcher from Ag Canada might find a predator pest. Then we need to rear that, and it’s not just one farm that needs to release it. Many farms or an area needs to release that. We have a real model program in the sterile insect release program in the Okanagan that we would like to show you, if you visit. That program is renowned the world over, and it’s helped us reduce pesticide use and control the pest. So, those are the types of initiatives that we would like to see.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Congratulations. Last question, Madam Chair.
Do you have contracts with other fruit-producing regions? Among others, I am thinking of the Niagara Valley and southern Ontario, regions that are rich in fruit trees after all. Have you been able to compare the examples you gave us? Are you experiencing the same problems as those people? Are there any improvements you could make together? Is that possible?
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you for that question. We just came back from the Canadian Horticultural Council last week and we do share ideas with Québec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, all the tree fruit growing regions and other, other fruits and vegetables throughout Canada, talking about trade, labour, the chemicals that we need. So there’s a lot of research interaction and sharing that occurs. I know that also happens with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. So there’s a lot of intertwining and understanding through the provinces and the growing regions.
Senator Gagné: I lived on a farm until I was 17 years old, and it was quite simple at that time — well, that’s what I thought anyway. I’m not sure if my parents would say that. If I remember right, my parents would invest all their monies in the land. They would take up a loan. They would throw everything in the ground, make sure they spread it really well. They would pray for rain and pray that it wouldn’t rain, and they would pray to be paid, and they would start over again year after year. That was my recollection of living on a farm.
Obviously things have changed, and if I lived on a farm today, I’m sure that we’d probably be discussing investments again; that would certainly be important. We’d also, now that we face climate change, probably be looking at new technologies. We would probably look at all the information and data that is available, the information technology, sensor technology, green technology, soil technology; and then the drones, the robots; the nitrogen fixation; the biologics, gene editing. We’re looking at all of this research and innovation. I would like you to comment on how the new technologies are helping farmers adapt to climate change, and I would like to hear both of you on that.
Mr. Vander Waal: I’ll start then, and I’m sure everybody can add something to this point.
To the comment of the additional technology, all the new innovations we have learned, whether it be the genetics of plants, the ways we irrigate, the drone technology, they are endless.
You started with, “They pray for rain, they pray for no rain.” I think we still need to do that today. Nothing has changed, because we have no control of the weather. However, there have been many achievements with regard to genetics. I think of some of the different techniques we use today. One of the big things we use is termed “integrated pest management,” and that’s not that sophisticated of a term. Years ago, managing pests was pretty simple. Every so many days you’d fire up the sprayer and carpet bombed, if I could put it that way, everything. That was the way it was done in the greenhouse. Probably it was done that way with every other crop out there.
Today we use a process called “integrated pest management,” and it’s about scouting and looking for pests. Believe it or not, the pests usually don’t just come in and take over everything. They will actually start in the corner over there, and then they kind of work their way in. So, with proper scouting, you can actually define what the pests are.
Not only that, but with some of the neat chemicals — and “chemicals” is not a bad word anymore. There are a lot of good chemicals today that are actually plant derivatives and that kind of thing, that actually take away the harshness. We can actually kill the bugs by sterilizing them today; or, better yet, we have good guys and bad guys, and we have a balance for that kind of thing.
I’ll stop there, but you can see that, today, we use products that have a much smaller impact on the environment and have very effective controls. That’s why we speak to getting those things on the market quick.
Reg Ens, Executive Director, BC Agriculture Council: The other question that we receive feedback from farmers about, that you have highlighted, is the complexity of farming. The innovation is wonderful, and Stan has a wonderful team. He has a large team that allows them to divide and conquer and provide access to this information.
A lot of smaller farms, new farms, complain about being overwhelmed by the amount of information. How do you evaluate the latest and greatest, and does it make sense on your farm. We’re seeing in British Columbia, and I know from colleagues across the country, a loss of extension to people on farms, knowledge transfer. There is a lack of resources in the industry to help those farmers evaluate this great technology. I know that Stan visits trade shows in Europe regularly. So, how do you adapt that technology to British Columbia and Canada? I think that’s something we can do a better job at collaboratively.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Praying still happens.
Just on water, when I was growing up, we used to change the water every 12 hours, and the sprinklers threw out 50 gallons per hour. That’s changed with water sensors, automation of irrigation systems throughout the valley. They’re on six-to-eight-hour rotations. It’s the timely application of water and it’s targeted water for maximizing tree growth and fruit growth.
And we talked about the decision aid system. It involves integrating all the weather systems in the Okanagan Valley, and it’s also hooked up with Washington, so that we have the proper data to control the pest at the right time. Now we’re going in every seven days or ten days for chemicals that are unnecessary. It also helps with the growth of the trees. Overall, a lot of things are coming together to make everything efficient and work with the climate.
Senator R. Black: I’m from Ontario. Is BCAC equivalent to OFA?
Mr. Ens: Yes and no. It’s similar as far as our function. Our organizational structure is different.
Senator R. Black: Okay.
A minute ago you spoke about the extension disappearing, the extension support, and the knowledge transfer. Are you getting that elsewhere, and if so, are you having to pay for it? We all know that there was a time when those offices were around the provinces around the country. Are you getting that elsewhere now?
Mr. Ens: It depends, and yes. I’d say growers like Stan and organizations like the BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association, where you have a smaller number of large growers, just do it themselves and pay for it. Some of the smaller groups are working together on it, and we’re getting to that point but it’s not there.
I think the other thing that’s misunderstood oftentimes is the level of support that our competitors have. South of the border, if you look at the land-grant universities and the work that they do versus what we have in Canada, it’s not a level playing field.
Mr. Vander Waal: I will just say to that, well said.
Senator R. Black: Are there cogeneration opportunities, for example opportunities to use gas from waste sites and things like that; and ethanol plants, sharing CO2, et cetera? Are you doing that here in British Columbia?
Mr. Vander Waal: Ethanol not so much in British Columbia. That’s on the grain growers’ side. I don’t know if the market is big enough for them to do that. On the Prairies, I think there’s one in Saskatchewan, an ethanol plant.
Anyway, back to the “cogen.” There are some people using cogen in the greenhouse business here. One of the good challenges in British Columbia is that we have a fair abundance of hydroelectric power, and it really is the lowest-cost way of producing power. When you go to cogen, believe me, we have looked at this. There’s been a lot of work with the sectors, the flowers and the vegetable growers on the greenhouse side. They have been meeting with government, trying to get a, call it a green electric structure in place. That would mean basically that the cogen would be supplied to the grid and people could buy that as green energy and that kind of thing. It’s a fairly low uptake, and it’s really because it almost costs double to operate a cogen, say, kilowatts per hour versus straight hydroelectric power.
Mr. Ens: In addition to that, we have done considerable work on “cow power” as we call it. We had an initiative looking at biogas, following what Germany and Ontario has done. As Stan said, we have a green energy source, so it wasn’t economical. We’re starting to see renewable energy going into the gas grid. That is becoming successful. What’s really driving that in the dairy sector here is the desire to extract some of the nutrients from the waste products and byproducts of manure. By putting it through a cogen facility, you are homogenizing blending and allowing it to adapt to other technology whereby you can extract phosphorous, for example, and put it in a more marketable form.
Senator R. Black: We heard about tree growth, fruit trees, moving north. Is there other agriculture moving north with respect to climate change?
Mr. Ens: You’re seeing some of that, and I think that’s almost more as a result of land prices than climate conditions. The other limiting factor is labour force. The infrastructure and labour force is very centralized. But I think there are efforts to move north and innovators are looking for opportunities.
Mr. Vander Waal: It’s nothing to do with climate, but the other challenge that comes of moving north, if we call it that, is the processing facilities. There’s a huge lack of processing, particularly in Western Canada, and that’s a big challenge.
Senator R. Black: Thank for your presentations.
The Chair: There are a couple of big tools the federal government has in its tool chest. One is a regulatory type of tool, and the other is an economic instrument. I noticed that in your presentation you mentioned that, in 2008, the BC Agriculture & Food Climate Change Initiative was assisted by funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Then later you noted that the Climate Change Action Plan that was released in 2010 was very effective because of the collaborative team approach that was undertaken, and that there has been funding by both senior governments. Otherwise, this work would not be happening.
Have there been other examples where federal funding has been helpful to you regarding climate change in your industry?
Mr. Ens: I believe the only funding has been through Growing Forward 1 and Growing Forward 2. It’s all been through that pool of funding, is my understanding.
Mr. Lucas: I agree generally with Reg’s answer. One source of program funding that I forgot to mention and that we cooperate nationally on is the research clusters, which again is associated with Growing Forward or the new Canadian Agricultural Partnership. Those clusters are a source of funding. I am familiar only with our own cluster of apples, and we’re doing some research, for example, on sustainable apple production. That would involve pest management, but also managing water and so on. That’s an important source of funding for us. But it is federal and it is associated with Growing Forward funding.
Mr. Ens: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has highlighted that a lot of these climate change initiatives are broader than just agriculture. They’re world development type projects. Managing flooding in the Prairies is as much an urban problem as in the Lower Mainland where we have plenty of water but are seeing a shortage of potable water. In greenhouses in Delta, access to potable water is connected with Metro Vancouver, so it’s chlorinated to a human drinking standard. They don’t need that level of quality in a greenhouse, but they can’t take water from a ditch because of disease issues and bacteria. So, putting an infrastructure system in to bring a near-potable water to a greenhouse actually helps Metro Vancouver as much as it helps agriculture. There are some opportunities to think beyond agriculture for some of the infrastructure programming or managing flood control type things.
The Chair: That’s very interesting.
Mr. Lucas: Madam Chair, if I could just add, one source that we don’t have, that we would really be interested in, is the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency. It did great work since the 1930s, and here we are facing droughts and similar issues. We would really like to see that tool in our toolbox, and it hasn’t been there for a few years. It did a great job before that. It was very encouraging to see the adaptation projects and even just studies. We talked about extension that they were able to deliver, not just on the Prairies, but also in British Columbia and other provinces.
The Chair: I’m going to come back to that. I noted that in the presentation.
Getting back to federal funding, recently there was an announcement of CAP funding that would also assist with agriculture. It’s called Canadian Agricultural Partnership, and funding that would be available from that for research. Do you see ways in which that may be useful to both your organizations?
Mr. Ens: Definitely. Most of our access to CAP is through the federal-provincial bilateral agreement, and unfortunately, British Columbia hasn’t signed that yet. So, we’re still waiting with bated breath on that. I’m told that they’re dotting i’s and crossing t’s, and that climate work is still a priority for the provincial government.
The Chair: You were going to respond too?
Mr. Lucas: Just that research clusters, again, are associated with CAP, and we in the tree fruit sector access that, as do I think other sectors in British Columbia.
Mr. Ens: The industry research clusters have worked very well for commodities that have strong federal or national organizations. The coordination of the research cluster with apples has worked really well, because you have a strong apple sector that is able to pick up some of the administration and provide leadership to some of the downloading of the administration that happens.
What we’re finding with some of the smaller commodity groups, even something like blueberries — which, you know, Eastern and Western Canada argue back and forth about — which is better, high bush or low bush — but we will all leave that one for now — are working together to access that research cluster at a national level. That is an area that we have identified that could probably use some help.
The Chair: Back to the PFRA. I was aware of it for years and years and then, all of a sudden, it disappeared. Why did it disappear? What was the main reason you were given?
Mr. Lucas: I think it was purely fiscal budgeting rationale. I’m not aware that there was any cost benefit done nor were we given any operational rationale for it closing.
The Chair: So you weren’t told that the work was being done by somebody else or another organization?
Mr. Lucas: No.
The Chair: So the work still needs to be done is your point?
Mr. Lucas: Yes. It was primarily in the area of increasing water supply. For example, if a farm wanted to go from extensive agriculture to more intensive agriculture, they could help set up a well and bring the power to the farm to be able to install the irrigation. On the Prairies I think dugouts are very popular.
Also, I believe there was a water-quality section of that that they would look at. And they would do studies similar to our Climate Action Initiative, but with more of an engineering approach. They seemed to be a group of engineers that were really motivated to take that type of approach.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We’re going to have a second round. Senator Maltais.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to come back to two small issues.
The first, as you pointed out, Mr. Ens, is the dwindling number of processing plants. What factors are to blame for that?
[English]
Mr. Ens: I’m speculating when I say this, but I think it is a combination of consolidation in the food retail marketing system. Retailers want an assurance of supply year-round. If you have a regional industry that provides corn for six weeks of the year, that’s not what the retailer is looking for. They’re looking for a year-round supply. So they’re looking for integration.
The cost of plants is tremendous. So investing in new technology in the last 20 or 30 years, bigger has always meant more efficient, lower cost. In regions where you’re able to put in a dedicated facility that can produce a commodity for a longer period of time, you get more throughput from that factory, from that processing plant, and it allows for a lower cost of production. Those are sort of the drivers.
Having said that, I’m hearing rumours of new technology that is now allowing smaller-scale operations to compete with some of the larger processing facilities. For example, in the beef sector, consumers want more brand preservation, identity preservation. So, unique traits in the beef product that differentiates might be important to them.
I recently heard that some of the large facilities in Alberta can’t accommodate the scale of run that the marketplace is looking for in an economic fashion. The length of time to shut down the processing line to change from conventional beef to organic beef, or whatever it is cost prohibitive. So, with newer plants now that scale is dropping somewhat, but that’s purely speculating on my part.
I don’t know, Glen, on the apple side.
Mr. Vander Waal: Maybe I could add one thing. The other thing that I see is also the regulation around food security. Because that increasingly becomes higher and higher, the expectation from the consumer, from the retailers in terms of what criteria we have to live up to for, say, a smaller abattoir can be challenging. Some of the new technology might provide some opportunity there. There’s the economical part, but there’s also the regulatory process.
Mr. Lucas: If I could just add as well, in addition to the cost of plants, we have really aging infrastructure, and replacing that is sometimes difficult. One program that’s been very helpful is AgriInnovation, and that helps bring innovative processing. Unfortunately, it’s usually just the first producer that latches onto that who is able to benefit. An improvement would be maybe to extend that to other producers that come a year or two later. That is a good program though, because if the innovation is brought into Quebec, for example, then we can apply to bring it into British Columbia. So it is a regional approach. But within the region, only one innovation gets funded.
Our apple sector, nationally, has come together and made a proposal to have a no- or low-interest loan for five years as an incentive to renewing our plants and getting more processing in place. We feel that the money can probably go further in that way, to giving an incentive for the industry to adapt new technology and new processing.
We’re very concerned that with this aging infrastructure we have here. It seems there’s a higher cost than for a country that is new to production building a brand-new, state-of-the-art plant. I guess it’s somewhat like 24 Sussex Drive where the renovation is going to cost more than tearing it down and building it new. We have that hurdle here in Canada, right across all the commodities. It would be helpful to have some programming in place to help with that, and that low-interest loan would really help our sector and all other sectors as well.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: One last minor point, Mr. Lucas. You talked earlier about crop insurance. Is that a joint program between British Columbia and Ottawa? How does it work? Why are there exclusions for climate change? In my province, that is a strictly provincial program, and there are no exclusions. Climate change is here; we are experiencing it. I think that Ontario has the same program style as us. How come you have exclusions?
[English]
Mr. Lucas: Thank you for the question. Our production insurance is a shared federal-provincial coverage, similar to Ontario. Although, it is managed locally, so I think that would be similar to Quebec and the other provinces. So the cost is shared but the delivery is local, regional.
Because it’s an insurance product, the perils are listed. For example, we might know about rain damage, and that would be a listed peril. However, there might be different things that are happening with rain, like, heavier rains that are causing different kinds of damage, different new risks that aren’t listed as a peril. Our example was wind. We have had some wind damage in the past to our orchards, but really we haven’t had something as extreme as has happened in 2015 in Oliver where it actually blew trees over. That’s a type of peril. Another example would be in Ontario where they had an early season frost that resulted in a total crop loss, and those things aren’t really anticipated in production insurance.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Just to add to that, not all factors are captured in the insurance program, such as this year. We had a drought. We had 100 days without any rain in the Okanagan, and that drought caused small size and led to quality issues. We do have AgriStability, but that does not necessarily capture the extent of the damage.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: If I may, I suggest that you add a very small clause to your contracts. As someone who was an insurance broker for 20 years, I suggest that you add “all hazards.” That will put you at ease. It’s like a limit with excess liability insurance, but you should add “all hazards” to your insurance contracts. That includes them. Take the time to read index dividers. It’s in very small print, but it is very important. So add “all hazards” and you will be fine. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Lucas: We need you on our committee, I think.
Senator Gagné: I was just wondering if you could identify the areas in British Columbia that you would consider to be the most environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Vander Waal: Pick your horses?
Mr. Ens: Yes. I would say it depends what you’re looking at. So, from water quality, there are specific aquifers, rivers, where water flow is a critical issue. So, in the Southern Cariboo, around the Merritt area, on Vancouver Island, there are a couple of rivers that are oversubscribed and it’s a combination of agriculture and human development. From an urbanization side, you could say the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan, because they’re just populations, and where our largest cities are, is where agriculture is. Those would be probably the most significant ones.
My colleagues from the ranching sector would say the Cariboo is affected because of the pine beetle and the devastation of the forest industry, and what that does from a water flow perspective. That’s a difficult question.
Mr. Lucas: It’s a very broad question, yes, and I’d agree with Reg. Certainly forest fire impacts, as he mentioned, in the Cariboo are coming in. I was evacuated from my house last summer because of a forest fire, as was my son from his place in the Cariboo. So those are important ones.
In terms of regulatory issues at the provincial level, certainly as Reg mentioned, there is the aquifers. So nitrogen is a concern there. Certainly research and information developed by the federal government is important, through the funding there.
We have had some phosphate-loading issues in our rivers and streams, and again, research is very important in that regard, freshwater research. I think developing new management tools to assist with that is very critical, and that’s a federal government responsibility.
Senator R. Black: I have another question. I’m from Ontario, so we have the Environmental Farm Planning Program. Do you have that in British Columbia?
Mr. Ens: Yes, we do, and one of our subsidiary companies actually runs it. One of the things that we have done is, once we have gone through the pilot phase with our Climate Action Initiative, we integrate it with our Environmental Farm Plan Program. For example, the on-farm delivery of energy utilization was a new program we put in place about three, four years ago. That’s now part of the EFP program.
Mr. Vander Waal: I would like to speak to that. One thing that’s important to know is, that program is oversubscribed all the time. I think it’s a race to get your application in under the Environmental Farm Plan. We run out of funding in absolutely no time on the program.
Senator R. Black: Am I correct in that there is talk of a national program at some point? Right now it’s provincial.
Mr. Ens: There is a group working on that, trying to differentiate provincial legislation and authority versus national is one aspect. The critical part of that is ensuring that there’s a base level of understanding by the consumer, by the society across the country, and then allowing each province to build on that. We’re actively involved with that.
The Chair: I would like to thank the panel. As you can see by the number of questions, there has been great interest by everybody at the table. Thank you for being here today.
(The committee adjourned.)