Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 45 - Evidence - Meeting of March 21, 2018 (morning meeting)
CALGARY, Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:31 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: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. We’ve got a big panel. We’ll give everybody the chance to make their presentation, and then senators will ask questions.
I’m Senator Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island, and I chair the committee. The deputy chair is here, and I’ll ask him to introduce himself, then the other senators.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator R. Black: Senator Rob Black from Ontario.
The Chair: I’d like to start out by saying how happy we are to be here in Alberta today. We were in Vancouver yesterday and the day before and had some great presentations. We are looking forward to a similar quality of presentations today.
On our first panel, we have Mr. Kevin Serfas, Director from Turin, Alberta, and Chair of the Government and Industry Affairs Committee for Alberta Canola; and Mr. Ward Toma, General Manager, Alberta Canola. From the Alberta Pulse Growers Commission, we have Mr. D’Arcy Hilgartner, Chair. From the Alberta Wheat Commission, Mr. Kevin Bender, Chair; and Mr. Tom Steve, General Manager.
I invite you folks to make your presentations, and then we’ll go to questions afterwards. Mr. Bender, we’ll start at your end of the table and work our way down.
Kevin Bender, Chair, Alberta Wheat Commission: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. We appreciate the invitation to address you today.
My name’s Kevin Bender. I’m Chair of the Alberta Wheat Commission. I farm about an hour and a half north of here in the Bentley-Sylvan Lake Region just west of Red Deer. I farm together with my father and my brother. I’m here today representing our 14,000 farmer members of the Alberta Wheat Commission.
The Alberta Wheat Commission is a not-for-profit, farmer-funded organization, which invests in innovative research, market development, policy development, communications, and extension in order to increase the profitability of Alberta wheat producers.
Over the decades, my family’s farming operation, like farmers across Canada and the world, has evolved and adapted based on the availability of resources. Our advantage in Canada is the abundance of our optimal resources, land, water, and soil, which has allowed us to achieve relatively high production.
With excess productive capacity, we have become the sixth-largest export of agriculture and agri-food products globally, valued at over $40 billion. Climate has a direct influence on the productivity and conditions of our soil and on farmers’ ability to adapt our production strategies to the present climate. Our temperature regime in the Prairies dictates much of our productive capability and sets the stage for our seasonal differences, pests and diseases, storage needs, and heating and cooling requirements of our buildings.
Farmers are at the mercy of the weather. The very essence of farming is high risk and hedging against the unpredictability of Mother Nature, and agriculture on the Prairies has to respond to variability and extreme weather conditions in any given year.
Conversely, agriculture plays an important role in weather, climate, and the environment. Farmers are stewards of the land they depend on. Through adaptation and voluntary practice improvement, agriculture has been and will continue to be a key player in addressing climate change goals.
Continuous improvement over the decades in land management practices such as conservation tillage, reduction in summer-fallow, increase in soil sampling, adoption of precision agriculture, enhanced crop rotation, increased nitrogen use efficiency and improvements in diesel engine combustion, coupled with a strong commitment by farmers to address soil degradation has vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide that is effectively removed from the atmosphere and stored or sequestered in the soil. This has resulted in crop productivity increasing at twice the rate of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and since the year 2000, Canada’s agricultural soils continually capture more carbon than they emit.
It is difficult to generalize what the short- or long-term risks and opportunities associated with climate change might be for agriculture. There are a number of factors that must be considered holistically and can vary geographically, not only globally, nationally, or provincially, but from farm to farm.
On my own farm, with technology and best management practices, we have seen yield increases year over year. When I think about some climate change predictions that point to the potential of having a longer growing season, I wonder how that might positively affect my productivity and crop options. However, I also consider what some of the indirect effects might be on the things that impact my farm on a regular basis such as pests, diseases, and weeds.
One of our advantages in Canada is our cool nights and our seasonal variation, which allows us to control the pest populations. A warmer climate could result in southern organisms moving north and northern organisms being less impacted by winter die-offs. Predictions of more extreme rainfall and drought could favour further formations of diseases that produce mycotoxins like fusarium pathogen, which already is a major issue for cereals in Western Canada. On the other hand, a longer and warmer growing season could allow me more options in growing a wider range of high value, warm weather crops. This opportunity would increase the further north you go in our province, but generally there may be an opportunity for agriculture to play a more prominent role in the Canadian economy and as an increasingly important resource in the global food system.
The magnitude of the opportunity may be determined by our continued ability as farmers to be agile in adapting to climatic change, which may occur more quickly than traditional weather cycles. Adaptive management is a part of standard operations for Prairie producers who respond quickly to changes in weather events each year. Although extremes present larger challenges, we are continually faced with cyclical drought-like conditions offset by excess moisture conditions from one year to the next.
Climate variability is a key challenge for producers. A farmer who knows the range of conditions that will be faced over a period of years can select crops, practices, and machinery or infrastructure investments that will allow them to be profitable in specific conditions.
Unpredictability is what causes farm losses, and climate change scenarios suggest that future climates will not only be warmer but more variable. Having said this, I have yet to see a material change in the climate affecting my farming operation.
Reactive measures and emergency responses can be costly and often provide only short-term solutions. Proactive risk strategies, such as integrated water management plans, will allow farmers to mitigate the impacts of excess moisture when they do occur.
Technology advancements and farmers’ willingness to voluntarily adopt technology on farms has led to Canadian farming being recognized as amongst the most advanced and sustainable in the world. Our ability to employ precision agricultural technology also contributes to our continued ability to adjust to climatic issues.
This past year in southern Alberta, farmers were faced with drought conditions and yet produced an average crop. Had those same conditions occurred in the 1980s prior to the advent of conservation tillage, they would have experienced a complete cropland failure in dry land areas.
Further, continued investment in breeding and genetic enhancements is imperative and has already been used as an adaptation response to abiotic and biotic environmental stresses while ensuring reliable, top-performing yields for producers. Proactive identification of traits that will best meet the change in climatic conditions is necessary with traditional breeding methods and investment. Acceptance of cutting-edge technologies like gene editing can speed introduction times of varieties that have resilience to variable climatic conditions.
Alberta producers through commissions like the Alberta Wheat Commission have made significant financial investments in research and development to improve crop genetics using biotechnology and traditional breeding methods. This has resulted in higher yields, as well as herbicide tolerance, drought and disease-resistant cultivars, water-use efficiency and nitrogen-use efficiency.
One such example is a project we are funding through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, exploring nitrogen fixation in triticale and wheat. The outcome of this project could be a reduced reliance on manufactured nitrogen fertilizer, which in turn would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production plants.
In June 2016, the Government of Alberta passed Bill 20, the Climate Leadership Implementation Act, a policy targeted at greenhouse gas emissions management in the province. One of the pivotal components of the act was the implementation of a carbon levy on consumers of fuel to be effected through a series of payment and remittance obligations that apply throughout the supply chain. While marked fuel used on our farms is exempt, our commissions undertook work to evaluate the further direct and indirect costs to farmers. Our analysis showed the biggest impact to farmers from the carbon levy will by far come from the levy on natural gas use. The second-largest impact will be the potential for increased costs of custom grain hauling.
With these and other incremental costs passed down, farmers worry about the carbon levy on their already thin margins. Ironically, when it comes to natural gas for drying, farmers may be in fact required to run their dryers more in the future based on future climatic change scenarios for parts of Alberta.
Policies that aim to achieve greenhouse gas reductions and the adoption of practice change must consider the economic impact on producers’ competitiveness and economic viability and current best management practices. It is essential that when considering a carbon pricing scheme, there is a level of equity across Canada so that one region does not have a competitive disadvantage over other regions, such as Alberta faces currently.
Our grains and oilseeds industries are export dependent. Trade exposed sectors and therefore, regulations or tax burden, intended or unintended, that can increase costs to farmers through inputs such as fuel and fertilizer or otherwise, cannot be passed on to the buyer and are therefore borne entirely by the producer, which will have an impact on our ability to compete in international markets.
Alberta farmers are committed to being part of this climate change solution. Federal and provincial governments can mitigate the impacts of carbon pricing on the ag sector while still exceeding their intended reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This potential hinges on the recognition of fact that agricultural production is an asset in the fight against climate change and offers several opportunities for meaningful reductions and sequestration under the right program framework.
Establishing strategic investment funds for agriculture with carbon tax revenue could be directed to enhancing education and overcoming the barriers to continuous uptake of existing best management practices and technology adoption by farmers for which cost is often the largest barrier.
Further improvements could be made to offset systems like Alberta’s regulatory carbon market, which has a number of protocols applicable to agricultural. The Conservation Cropping Protocol has generated over 13.5 million tonnes of offsets resulting in over $100 million being injected into farms and rural communities. However, the way the program is structured, Alberta farmers have seen a declining value, and participation has dropped off, resulting in a lost opportunity. Lastly, we were pleased with the federal government’s commitment to invest $6.6 billion in science and innovation funding in Budget 2018. Research and innovation funds directed at mitigation and/or sequestration activities and plant breeding innovations and genetics will be essential to achieving enhanced competitiveness for the agricultural sector.
That’s all I have. Thank you again for allowing us this time.
The Chair: Mr. Hilgartner.
D’Arcy Hilgartner, Chair, Alberta Pulse Growers Commission: Good morning, honourable senators. It is my pleasure to be here today to present our views on the impact of climate change on the agricultural and agri-foods sector and more specifically comments from the perspective of a pulse grower.
As was mentioned, I’m D’Arcy Hilgartner, Chair of the Alberta Pulse Growers Commission. Our commission represents 6,000 growers of field pea, dry bean, lentil, chickpea, faba bean, and soybean in the province of Alberta. Our vision is to have Alberta pulses recognized by consumers as environmentally friendly, healthy, nutritious, and recognized by all producers as being an essential element of a sustainable cropping system.
I would like to begin by giving you an overview of our farm, the changes we have made over the years, and how they relate to the three questions you asked in the areas of adaptability and resilience of the sector, repercussions of carbon pricing, and the role of government meeting targets.
Our farm is located 275 kilometres north of here in the city of Camrose, along with my brother, our wives, our children, and our parents. We run a typical family farm. Between my brother and I, we have six boys and numerous nieces and nephews. Our hope is to pass this operation down to the next generation, so sustainability is very important to us.
Annually, we plant about 8,500 acres of a variety of crops, including pulses, dried peas, and faba beans, canola, wheat, barley and flax. We believe that our diverse crop rotation is a key part of our adaptability and resilience. These crops all have different moisture and nutrient requirements; as well the various plants help to limit the weed, disease, and insect pressure within the fields, all aiding in decreased input requirements.
Direct seeding, something we’ve done continuously on our farm since the mid-1990s has been a game changer. It has allowed us to continuously crop, so no summer fallow, and put our seed and fertilizer down in the spring in one pass. This allows us to limit moisture loss, decrease the hours on our equipment, which saves on fuel consumption and maintenance, both parts and oil, and sequester more carbon. As well, the tractors, trucks, combines, and other motorized equipment that we have on our farm have the latest engines and technology. The newer designs use less fuel and have fewer emissions.
Precision agriculture has further increased the efficiencies on our farm. GPS guidance, auto-steering in equipment, and sectional control allow us to decrease our overlap such that, no matter the crop input, we do not over-apply — great for our soils, our environment and our bottom line.
Fertilizer is a substantial cost on our operation so we want to use it judiciously. We subscribe to the 4R approach: right source, right rate, right time, and right place. We find that the zero tillage methods we employ, along with soil testing, allow us to deliver the best results.
I feel the changes we as farmers have made in our cropping practices that have been done so far are underappreciated as to the contribution they have made in the area of climate change mitigation. We see ourselves as part of the solution and not the problem.
Unfortunately, the various carbon pricing mechanisms in use and under consideration have repercussions. With our relatively small population and ability to grow large, high-quality crops, we’ll continue to be an exporting nation. Seventy-five per cent of the pulses alone are exported around the world. Many of the countries that we are marketing to and competing with do not have or value a carbon levy. This leaves us at a competitive disadvantage, not only the primary producers but also the value-added sector.
As a representative of the Alberta Pulse Growers, I’d like to share with you a recent and positive output from research that our organization has worked with the Alberta agriculture and forestry ministry. Alberta Pulse Growers, or APG, has recently been awarded an environmental product declaration for Alberta field pea. This declaration took into consideration data from crop yield, inputs, field operation, and transportation distances for farm activities and deliveries, as well as emission factor data and international life cycle inventory data modelling.
This recent food environmental product declaration is the first of its kind in North America. The majority of all other food, “EPDs” as they’re called, has been held by European food product companies like Barilla, well known for their high quality pasta and commitment to sustainable supply chains.
I’m not an expert in this research, but what I understand is that this information gives field peas produced in our province a specific measure on their life-cycle analysis rating, which can be beneficial for use in value-added processes, looking to provide a product that has a lower carbon footprint. This is an environmental achievement for Alberta field pea growers, and we are proud to be part of making this happen.
Recognizing the contribution and changes in management practices the producers have made to date in the area of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions reductions is very important. The loss of retroactivity in various proposals and the setting of a baseline going forward without recognition for the various changes in practices that farmers have made to date have led to a reluctance by farmers to support some of these government efforts.
Programs related to carbon offsets need to be less onerous. Participation is only about one third of Alberta farmers. Larger farms, over 5,000 acres are closer to one half, but currently the compensation is often not worth the paperwork, the time, and approvals needed. As a result of the low compensation, there’s a sentiment out there that the aggregators are taking too large of a portion of these credits.
Any policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction should consider producer viability. So often the costs, whether direct or indirect, are off-loaded onto our sector without taking into account the positive contribution agriculture makes in meeting some of our goals.
Support and encourage value-added production to include environmental responsibilities — products that are part of our food system like Alberta field pea. Government should assist where possible in research funding to deliver on further advancements for primary producers, to seize and implement technologies on their farms that will keep this industry competitive and sustainable.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Our final presenter, the floor is yours.
Kevin Serfas, Director, Turin, and Chair of, Government and Industry Affairs Committee, Alberta Canola: Thank you, and good morning. My name is Kevin Serfas. I’m Chair of Government and Industry Affairs Committee of the Alberta Canola Producers Commission, as well as a director on the Canola Council of Canada. I’m a third-generation farmer from Turin, Alberta, which is two hours southeast of Calgary. I grow barley, corn, canola on 65,000 acres, as well as feed 6,000 head of cattle with my father, my brother, our wives, and our children.
With me today is Ward Toma, Alberta Canola’s general manager. The Alberta Canola Producers Commission is a producer-elected and -directed organization representing the interests of 14,000 canola growers in Alberta. We are funded by our members through a refundable checkoff to deliver extension and education initiatives and to advise governments with respect to what is most beneficial to our growers in areas such as research and policy. We are members of the Canadian Canola Growers Association and Canola Council of Canada.
Together we represent $26.7 billion in industry to Canada. Today I want to speak about the resilience of farmers in the face of climate change, the impact of carbon pricing, and the opportunities for the future.
Canola is a made-in-Canada crop. It was developed here in Canada by Canadian researchers to suit Canada’s cold weather growing conditions and has been proven to be a successful endeavour. Canola is now seeded on about one third of all cropland in Western Canada and is the Number 1 crop in terms of cash receipts.
Farmers, more so than any other business, are impacted by nature and dependent on the environment for their success. Weather, weeds, and insects; different conditions each year, and each one can greatly impact our farms.
On a personal level in the area where we farm, we have come off back-to-back years of drought, which was as severe as anything my father had seen since he immigrated in 1952. Crop production can be negatively impacted by severe weather events. Over the last decade, excess moisture has been the leading cause of crop losses in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
This uncertainty has led us to develop a proven track record of adapting modern technologies, rapid and voluntarily, that have both been economic and environmentally beneficial. These technologies include genetically modified seed varieties, zero-till seeding, and precision agriculture. Had those back-to-back years of drought happened 20 years ago, the results would have been catastrophic. The mitigating factor was the adaptation of new and beneficial farming practices.
Thirty years ago, the military was the only organization using GPS. To date, GPS is an essential part of my operation. Technology allows me to farm with precision, applying fertilizer in more precise ways, using pesticides prudently. This cuts costs and emissions associated would fuel use and fertilizer application. Over a 30-year period, these types of practices have reduced energy use by 43 per cent per tonne of canola production and decreased greenhouse emissions by 53 per cent.
When I can, I practise no-till or zero-till farming. This allows my fields to remove greenhouses gases from the atmosphere and reduces soil erosion that can lead to catastrophic events like the 1930s dust bowl. It also means less passes over the field with a tractor, less fuel consumption, and the ability to leave needed moisture in the ground. In 1991, 30 per cent of Western Canadian farmland was seeded with no-till practices. By 2011, this number had doubled to 61 per cent.
When soils are left untilled, they store or sequester greenhouse gases. In 2000 for the first time in Canada’s history, agriculture soil sequestered more carbon than it has ever emitted. The agriculture industry achieved this because of strong commitment to address soil degradation in the response to loss of soil fertility and devastating soil erosion. Due to practices like no-till farming, Canadian cropland now sequesters 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year. This is the equivalent of removing 2.5 million passenger cars off the road.
Notably, this was achieved in absence of any climate change regulations or carbon pricing.
Adapting to new practices like no-till farming has allowed farmers to weather climatic uncertainty and remain competitive in a global market. Looking ahead, we will need to continue to do this to remain competitive, and we will. With industry and government partnerships, new practices are being explored and implemented throughout initiatives such as farmsustainability.ca, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, the Canadian Field Print Initiative, the National Environmental Farm Plan, and the 4R fertilizer program, but each year there will be new pressure, and adaptation can take time. For that, we need a solid suite of business risk management programs that help to manage risks. Currently programs are under review as part of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, and we urge governments to work with producer groups to focus on what programs would be the best for the next 10 to 20 years, not simply rely on slight modifications of existing approaches.
Currently, the federal government has an ambitious plan to address climate change, and one aspect is carbon pricing. As each province determines how to implement a carbon price, farmers remain concerned about its impact. Canada’s grain and oilseeds sector is export dependent and trade exposed.
We are price takers in a global market. We cannot pass along any of these costs. This is of particular concern for canola, given that 90 per cent of our crop is exported as seed, oil, and meal annually. We must compete internationally with farmers who operate their businesses in an environment that will not have these additional costs. Therefore, we urge caution with any additional tax burden, intended or unintended, which could decrease the competitiveness of Alberta’s primary producers and value-added processors, maltsters, millers, fractioners, and oilseed crushers.
As identified in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the government can help meet emissions reduction targets by researching new best practices and investing in environmental technologies. As I have already mentioned, farmers have a history of rapidly adopting new technologies to reduce their environmental footprint while protecting their profitability, and they will continue to do so. But farmers have already gone to a great deal to reduce their impact, and this must be recognized.
Our request is that farmers are not negatively impacted by a carbon price, that competitiveness is not compromised, and that consideration is given to returning any added costs through effective carbon offset programs or other mechanisms.
Farmers should be recognized and rewarded for their voluntary adoption of beneficial management practices and new technologies that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Truth be told, we would rather be incentivized to help the government achieve its climate change goals, rather than taxed. Agriculture is a successful part of the Canadian economy and has a bright future but only if we are on a level playing field with our competitors.
The canola industry can play a role today in reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Bioenergy has been identified as a climate change solution. Canola is a low-carbon quality input for Canadian biofuel. Biofuel from canola produces 90 per cent less greenhouse gases than conventional diesel.
Increasing the current federal mandate for biodiesel from 2 per cent to 5 per cent would result in an immediate benefit. Using canola, such a change would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 5.1 million tonnes a year, the equivalent of taking 1 million passenger cars off the road every year. Increasing the mandate would provide an immediate and quantifiable reduction in greenhouse gases with very little cost to the government.
In conclusion, Alberta Canola remains optimistic about the future for Canada’s canola farmers and their ability to continue and contribute positively to Canada’s environment and climate change goals and the economy. Canadian agriculture should be viewed as a strategic partner in this dialogue.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and discuss a topic of great importance to canola farmers.
The Chair: Thank you, great presentations. That gets us nicely warmed up for questions, and we’ll lead off with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Maltais.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you, gentlemen. I’m very happy to see you here this morning. I have been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for seven years. I chaired it for a few years, and on we go. It’s an ongoing entity.
Climate change is causing a lot of problems in agriculture, in each of your sectors. I should begin by saying that I had the opportunity to go to China on two occasions; I directed a mission in China. Your products are very present there, canola in particular, and beef, and the Canada Beef group. My colleague Senator Gagné was with me. We saw that these exports are very much appreciated because of their quality.
Of course you are suffering from two major issues. One of them is climate change, about which you can do nothing. You are not responsible for tornadoes in the sky or heavy rains, drought or flooding. You can do nothing against that. There is something I’ve noticed for about fifteen years, because before being in the Senate, I was a member of a provincial legislature and I took an interest in agriculture. We see one thing. These two issues stand out easily, because you can do nothing against climate change and the press has taken up a position against you. I will tell you plainly. If you look at all the television programs that discuss polluters, you always see a little stream with a little trickle of water, and pesticides that are flowing toward it, and finally, they show us a dead frog. Or else they show smoke coming out of a chimney which emits greenhouse gases. And that is the picture that Canadians have of agriculture. It’s very sad, because they haven’t followed your evolution over the past 20 years.
Everyone mentioned research. The three of you highlighted its importance. We talk about the carbon tax and about less noxious fuels. No one talks about the carbon tax in connection with the tractor manufacturers. They are the ones who after all manufacture the tractor or the machinery you need for agriculture. It’s up to them to make machines that pollute less. And if they don’t make them, the carbon tax should apply to them and not to you. You are the users and they are the manufacturers. It’s imperative that these things be balanced.
As you pointed out, Mr. Bender — and I congratulate you — the carbon tax has to go to research. It must be allocated to research and to nothing else. The federal government is going to prepare national regulations and the provinces will manage this. We have to see to it that the revenue from that tax is not allocated to other things besides research on agriculture, in your field, and I am sure that agriculture in Alberta accounts for a very large part of export budgets.
I’d like to go back to what you said, Mr. Bender, and I think it is important: “the ability to adjust to climatic issues.” You gave us a good explanation of the work you have done. Do the new technologies you have today allow you to manage despite what we call “terrestrial incidents,” i.e. rainfall, drought, and that type of thing? Does this allow you to fight against those things to maintain a profitable level of production? Because any business has to be profitable.
[English]
Mr. Bender: Senator, thank you for your question. As we’d mentioned, my colleagues, as well too, farmers are and have been very good at adapting to various things that come our way. So as is mentioned too, technology has greatly improved our ability to mitigate some of the risks with drought, for example, with conservation tillage. When tillage was a part of every operation two generations ago, we saw the big erosion problems with wind and water. Now we leave our crop residue in the field. We leave it stand, and the root system holds the soil together. Leaving that residue on the surface keeps moisture in the ground, and that has really enabled us to grow crops with much less water than was required in the past. That’s one example.
We have a number of other technologies. GPS was also mentioned, which allows us to be very precise in the amount of products we’re putting on our land so that we’re not over-applying, and we’re not under-applying.
Those are just two examples of several improvements that we’ve made. Another is genetic varietal development in some of our crops, making them better equipped to handle certain stresses like drought or excess moisture or even pests such as insects. Farmers generally have adapted quite well, and we’ve been able to stay profitable for the most part through lots of different stresses that have come our way.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Hilgartner. In your testimony, you said that you produce canola products, barley and other such products. You said one thing that is particularly important, I believe. Pulse producer were accused for a long time of spreading deadly pesticides. We have seen skull and crossbones on posters saying that pulse producers were the biggest polluters. What is the situation today regarding the application of pesticides on pulse crops?
[English]
Mr. Hilgartner: As far as the usage of pesticides and other crop inputs on my pulse crops is concerned, it would definitely be less than in the past. Crop rotation is always helpful, and I wouldn’t say that I use any more on that crop than any other. My usage of products has actually decreased over the years due to better management, more spot applications, that precision we talked about of being able to apply the product only where it’s needed, as opposed to just broad acre usage, trying to be very judicious in our usage.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Fine, thank you.
I have one last question, Mr. Serfas. You are a cattle producer. We’ve just come back from British Columbia where we met scientists who are trying to create a new kind of animal that will be able to survive the climate we may have 15 or 20 years from now. What sort of animal do you have, and how is it dealing with climate change?
[English]
Mr. Serfas: Thank you for your question. We raise beef cattle strictly for meat. Cattle have been bred over the past few generations to adapt to the climate. It involves genetics, and it’s been ongoing for a long time. As the climate changes, breeding patterns change, including different crossbreeds of cattle that come from Europe or Brazil or wherever. The cattle that we raised 20 years ago are completely different from the cattle we’re raising now, just through breeding. For example, different cattle will gain more efficiently in different climate conditions, and it’s ongoing.
It’s the same with the genetics that we use in cropping. It’s an ever-evolving thing. We want to be growing, whether it’s cattle or corn or canola, as efficiently as we possibly can. What can we grow that uses the least amount of water? Same with the cattle: Which animals are able to convert feed the most efficiently?
As the years have passed, efficiencies that we’ve seen on the cropping side of our farm, we’re also seeing on the livestock side. We are producing more pounds of meat using fewer inputs along the way, as well. It’s an ever-evolving thing, and there are lots of people working on it, just as you were saying about the guy in B.C.
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your interesting presentations. We really appreciate all the points that have been put forward as recommendations to our committee.
I would like to come back to gene editing. You mentioned that gene editing is widely used in Alberta. You also mentioned that there are a lot of opportunities for crop improvement. I was wondering if you could discuss the challenges around gene editing.
Mr. Bender: I’ll maybe revert to some of my colleagues here at the table, as well. One of the challenges, which the previous senator commented on, is the perception of fear that’s put out there in the public media when something new comes out. From the start there’s resistance that we face from the public. A lot of that comes through social media, but media in general where it’s perceived bad or there’s something wrong with it. Then there’s that resistance to something that is potentially very beneficial to all of society.
I’ll revert to my colleagues here if they have more to add.
Tom Steve, General Manager, Alberta Wheat Commission: I will add a comment. With respect to wheat in particular, work is being done at the University of Saskatchewan in the National Research Council on gene editing in wheat. The objective is to speed up the breeding cycle. Can we identify traits, for example, that may prevent the development of certain diseases or improve yield.
In our view, it’s a method of speeding up the breeding process. In wheat, it typically takes about ten years to bring a new variety to market through conventional breeding and then another two or three to actually get it to market. The work that’s being pioneered in, again, mostly Saskatoon is designed to accelerate that process. It is different from transgenic crops in canola, which we don’t oppose, but the question is going to be how will the public judge that technology that is coming fast. It’s different than transgenic technology, but it is, I guess biotechnology, and it is using more precise tools than simply doing crosses, which is the way that we bring wheat to market today.
Senator Gagné: Do you think it will be a way to rewrite the debate around GMOs?
Mr. Steve: That’s a very good question. The scientific community has mapped the wheat genome now, and it’s an international effort. It’s an attempt to use technology to our advantage. I think what has happened in the past, certainly with genetically modified crops, is that, when it falls into the hands of corporate interests, there tends to be a public or at least a special interest backlash. That being said, I think everybody at this table who farms grows some genetically modified crops in their rotation.
Ward Toma, General Manager, Alberta Canola: I would like to add to Tom’s comments. He is absolutely right. A lot of the uproar around genetically modified crops started as anti-corporate fever and moved on from there due to science. The fundamental difference between gene editing and genetic modification is genetic modification is the insertion of genes from another species, whereas genetic editing is the turning off and on of switches, things that, as Kevin and Tom said, nature would do on its own through mutation. This just does it faster. The end result is exactly the same, genetic sequencing, it just takes a lot longer.
We’re involved with research at the University of Alberta looking for genetic resistance to some very serious diseases in canola, clubroot and blackleg. Blackleg has trade implications as well. There are no other mechanisms for treating or working against a disease like clubroot. However, there are fungicides and other applications that can be used to fight blackleg.
With genetic resistance, a crisper cast or gene editing program, the environmental benefits become very clear very quickly in that we do not have to use chemical solutions. That is the first step, and it’s very positive for the environment and for productivity on farms.
Senator Gagné: What I’m hearing is that the challenge is easing the public into accepting such proposals based on fact, that it would improve the crop. It would perhaps improve even the resiliency of crops, et cetera. How do farmers and scientists engage with the public to get people to listen to them and to reassure them that it’s acceptable?
Mr. Toma: All of our organizations do a lot of outreach to consumers and the general public around what it is that farmers do on their farm and what it is that scientists do in their laboratories and in their field trials to reassure them on the safety of the product and the food that is being produced. It is very important to our trading partners. Those relationships there are very important.
As was mentioned, there are competing interests that at the root of it don’t want these things to go ahead, and they have their own reasons for doing so.
We work as closely with regulators and with governors such as yourselves. It’s all science-based evidence, and science-based regulation is very important around the world for ensuring that all governments are on the same page, so to speak.
Senator Gagné: You mentioned that one third of all cropland is canola. Did you say in Alberta or Western Canada?
Mr. Toma: I don’t know if it’s as high as one third in Alberta, but it is the single largest cash crop in the Prairies. It’s a significant financial crop for Western Canadian farmers.
Senator Gagné: Climate change will certainly increase the types of diseases and pests. Given that there are only a certain number of types of crops being produced in Western Canada, aren’t we actually quite vulnerable to widespread destruction by a disease or pest? How do we manage that vulnerability?
Mr. Serfas: There is a lot of work being done by companies to make nontraditional crops basically available for us to grow in Western Canada.
Soybeans and corn, for example, have not been historically a Western Canadian crop. In Manitoba, they have really taken over, and there is a big push for companies to breed these crops properly so that we can move them into Saskatchewan and Alberta.
So in the past ten years, we’ve seen a shift or a movement of crops like soybeans and corn going west, and it’s the same with crops that are traditional to the Western provinces. As was said, gene editing is allowing us to sort of mitigate some of these problems that we are having such as blackleg. I can’t speak specifically for pulses but we are breeding crops to be resistant so that we do not have to rely on chemicals to take care of a lot of this stuff.
Mr. Hilgartner: We’ve all talked about it. Farmers in Alberta and Canada, are very innovative, and we will try a lot of new things in order to keep our operations viable and therefore sustainable. As I listed off, we have a variety of different classes of pulses, some that can be grown in different climates, and we will adapt and change to reflect that.
Most farmers are always looking for the newest thing that they can maybe try in order to make their operation better to cover all the different bases. Maybe this crop isn’t going to work well this year, aside from the market risks that we always have. And then there are always the investments that we make as an industry along with the different levels of government in research and other areas to try to mitigate some of those risks, whether it be disease, pest, drought, et cetera.
Mr. Bender: I support what D’Arcy and Kevin have said. As grower organizations one other thing we do as well is communications, we communicate with our growers. Part of that, as has been alluded to, is diversity. We have developed cropping plans through research. We found that diversifying our rotations has helped mitigate some of those risks. When my father farmed, he would grow wheat year after year and was content with a mediocre yield. Today we’re always striving to improve what we’re doing. Part of that is breaking the cycle of disease or pests, where if we grow wheat one year, we’ll grow a pulse or an oilseed the next year.
Part of that is communicating with our growers, suggesting best practices to mitigate those risks. We adapt well, we innovate well. We’re always striving to look for new ways to improve what we’re doing.
Senator R. Black: Kevin, just to clarify, did you say that biofuel production with canola produces 90 per cent less greenhouse gas? Did I hear you say that toward the end of your presentation?
Mr. Serfas: Yes.
Senator R. Black: That’s amazing; that’s tremendous.
Mr. Serfas: Which is one of the reasons we would love to see the inclusion level go from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. I think it’s a win-win for industry, the environment, the Canadian government, for a lot of people involved in the whole cycle.
Senator R. Black: D’Arcy, you mentioned that primary producers are underappreciated for the significant work that you have done and continue to do. How can government appreciate you more? I know you talked about administration costs and those types of things, but fill us in a little more.
Mr. Hilgartner: I think all three of us have talked about the various changes we’ve made on our farms in the absence of regulations and rules. Incentives always work. The carrot always works better than the stick. I feel that as Canadian producers, we’ve used the carrot a lot.
What I find with a lot of these pricing mechanisms or levies is that it’s more of a stick approach, with a little dabble of a carrot. “Well, we’re not going to charge you on your diesel fuel use,” but as we’ve talked, there’s other parts that do get put onto us.
Senator, you talked about charging manufacturers, taxing them for the manufacturing of our equipment. Unfortunately, I know where that cost is going to go, and it isn’t going to go to the manufacturer. That’s an area of concern for us. That all gets off-loaded on us. You see the direct costs, but it’s the indirect ones that hit us harder. In the province of Alberta, natural gas was mentioned. We have an exemption on diesel fuel and gasoline. We still get hit hard on natural gas, and we use a lot of that in our production. That’s an area of concern for us.
We look at what we’ve done. On my farm, since the 1990s we’ve moved from zero-till. That was not a decision that we made because government told us to. We did it because it made sense economically, and it was an improvement of my farm.
When we look at these various pricing proposals or other mechanisms and they say, “Well, we’re not going to recognize any of that previous work, we’re only looking ahead,” there is a tendency to just get a bigger stick out.
Mr. Steve: I’ve had some experience with trying to get the Government of Canada to provide some information to our sector on their economic assumptions on the impact of the price of carbon in their policies. We had a similar experience here in Alberta where policies were rolled out and imposed on us, and then when we went to meet with government, it was like, “Oh, we forgot about agriculture and the impact that —”
For example, let’s look at the handling and processing industries. Energy costs for the grain elevators, the canola crushing plants and the malt houses are going up. What is the impact on the price at the farm? There’s obviously a price implication there. None of that was considered when the Alberta government developed their climate change plan, and none of that to my knowledge was considered when the Government of Canada developed their climate change plan. We’ve been trying to get that information from both governments since those programs were rolled out. The onus has actually been on us to find the numbers, and we’ve been trying to do that.
Senator R. Black: Mr. Bender, you talked in your presentation about the conservation cropping protocols generating over 13.5 million tonnes of offsets resulting in $100 million being injected into farms and rural communities, but that’s dropping off. Why is it dropping off?
Mr. Bender: I think D’Arcy mentioned that in his presentation. The reward versus the work involved, it’s just an onerous process, and growers don’t really see the benefit from doing that.
Mr. Serfas: Another problem that goes along with that is a lot of that stuff is tied to the landowner, not to the producers. We rent a lot of land, and that’s the way that farming in Western Canada is going. A lot more people are farming via rented land. Right now the way it works is that the carbon incentive is tied to the landowner. If you’re a landowner and you’ve got a couple thousand acres, that’s worth a lot of money, and they’re not wanting to give that up. The producer is the one getting hit with some of this carbon pricing stuff, and we have no way of getting anything back.
There’s a fundamental flaw with the whole process in that the carbon incentive is tied to the landowner, not to the primary producer.
Mr. Hilgartner: But it’s hinged to the practice done by the producer. The direct seeding allows them to claim the carbon offset or credit, but you must get the approval of the landowner in order to get that. That approval process is quite onerous.
The Chair: Which is disappointing, to say the least.
I’d like to thank our panel. This has been great. I know we could go on for quite some time, but we have another panel in waiting.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: It’s a great pleasure for us to receive our next panel this morning. From the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, we have Mr. Lynn Jacobson, President and Mr. Graham Gilchrist, Director. Welcome.
From the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, we have Mr. Todd Lewis, President. Welcome.
From Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba, we have Mr. Dan Mazier. And from the Saskatoon Association of Rural Municipalities, we have Ms. Carmen Sterling, Vice-President. Welcome.
Mr. Jacobson, please begin.
Lynn Jacobson, President, Alberta Federation of Agriculture: I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you and present the Alberta Federation of Agriculture perspective on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on agriculture and agri-food sectors and the actions undertaken to increase adaptation and emission-reduction strategies.
My name is Lynn Jacobson, and I’m President of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. I farm in Enchant, Alberta, which is 120 miles south of here. We have an irrigation farm. In some ways, I’m a bit immune to climate change, but carbon tax is a concern for us.
AFA is a provincial general farm organization representing producers on non-commodity and specific commodity issues. We have been in existence in various forms since 1905, and we were incorporated by private statute in Alberta in 1959.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, AFA takes a pragmatic view. While there are various or varying options or opinions on climate change, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees it is occurring.
Producers in Alberta generally recognize that climate change exists, regardless of why. Our industry’s vulnerability to extreme weather events and the effects of changing climates only reinforces the fact that we must be part of the mitigating efforts to counter these effects.
Agriculture is in a unique position because of its ability to capture atmospheric carbon in growing crops and storing a portion of that carbon in soil organic matter.
Agriculture soils can be a source by emitting CO2 or a sink by storing CO2 or CO2 dependent on soil management practices. Alberta with roughly 24 million acres of cropland and nearly 22 million acres of pastureland is in the unique position to make significant contributions to Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. The good news is that our farmers and ranchers have already taken many steps to reduce, remove, or replace greenhouse gas emissions, subsequently improving efficiencies, productivity, and sustainability. Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture represent only 8 per cent, some people say 10, of Alberta’s total emissions.
Conservation farming practices such as direct seeding, zero-tillage, and good fertilizer placement have increased soil organic carbon levels helping to offset greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the industry’s net contribution by decreasing inputs like fuel and pesticides. The adoption of these management practices also benefits water, soil, and air quality, increasing resiliency to a changing climate.
As farmers, we know that our most important sustainable natural resources on the Canadian Prairies are soil and water. Both are essential to produce food to sustain human life, and yet we are now working on a shrinking land base as we go forward. Ten per cent of the land in Canada is private, and two thirds of that private land is urban and industrial.
From 2000 to 2012, the University of Alberta estimates in a study they did, we’ve lost 13 hectares per day to urban growth. While this loss means that we lose valuable production land, it also means that when it comes to carbon reductions, we lose the ability to generate 3.5 tonnes per day of carbon reductions.
Agriculture, along with forestry, is a primary industry that is based on removing carbon from the air, combining it with water and soil nutrients to produce food, energy, and sequestered carbon. Based on this concept, agriculture is naturally one of the first tools that should be utilized in reducing our carbon footprint. Protecting our farmland from urban encroachment remains a critical issue both from an environmental and food production standpoint.
We’ll go to adaptation and resilience. Agriculture production is highly dependent on weather and climate and will be affected by changing trends. There are indications that changes in rainfall and temperature patterns have occurred in Alberta, and the impacts vary within each of Alberta’s nine different eco regions with individual farm management decisions and with influences of new technologies, markets, trades, and policies. Most climate change models predict warmer but more extreme weather with increases in participation through areas of the Prairies.
We see three main areas of impact where farmers will need to adapt: The expansion of the growing season with possible shortening and warming of the winter season; shifts in the amounts and timing of precipitation; and the need to look for new crops and ways to combat new weeds, insects, and diseases as we go forward. For example, regardless of whether we’re talking about wheat, canola, or barley, we will be looking at more winter annual crops, rather than spring crops as a measure to control some of the impacts of climate change. As well, pulse crops and other crops in crop rotation will be critical to our adaptation to the changing climate. Forage crops also factor in greatly to the resiliency of our farms. With all the unknown variables that climate change will bring, we can’t stress enough the importance of continued research and development in these areas to ensure that our farmers can successfully navigate what comes our way.
Carbon pricing and levy — Alberta’s carbon market, the first of its kind in North America, gives farmers the opportunity to sell carbon offsets with the voluntary improvements they make within their operations to reduce greenhouse gas. While the offset system is a good start at rewarding producers for their good practices, it unfortunately does not take into account the entire picture. Presently offsets are based on protocols that look at single concepts, for example, zero tillage or single commodity. An example of that is cattle in a feedlot. Yet, we collect and store carbon with our grasslands, the uplands around our sloughs, and wetlands and in our crop root zones.
Carbon inputs continue to reduce as improvements in equipment allow us to travel more efficiently across, around, and between our fields. We burn less fuel and in turn emit less carbon thanks to new emission technologies. Presently there is not enough research and data to more accurately qualify the net carbon footprints on our farms. AFA would like to see more research done in this area, focusing on the net farm sequestering of an operation.
When it comes to a carbon levy, we understand that it is considered an efficient way to spur change by encouraging people to reduce their carbon footprint. However, the difficulty producers have is in passing on a carbon levy to a processor or consumer. Farmers do not have the ability to set their own prices; rather, it is dictated by the markets. Again, this is one more reason Canadian farmers, and in particular Alberta farmers, have looked at the possibilities of a carbon offset because we cannot pass that levy cost on to processors or consumers the way that other industries do.
We believe the carbon levy should be neutral to our agriculture business. The energy we use should be exempt from the tariff. While we applaud existing efforts to exempt the gas and diesel we use, we need to address a gap that excludes exemptions for the propane, natural gas we use to dry our products, heat our calving barns, and power our pumps and generators when irrigating our crops and our team pastures as we go forward.
Lastly, we would want a most favourable depreciation rate on those capital purchases we make in technology that support carbon reduction efforts, whether it’s solar panels on a barn roof or an upgrade in a tractor we use, an accelerated depreciation rate would help encourage those types of investments for farmers.
Our aim as farmers is always to become more efficient and competitive in what we do. If the results mean a lower carbon footprint, that’s a win-win situation, but in order for people to buy into the methodology of the carbon levy, our government must take the case that it’s being invested back into the research and programs that can further evolve our operations, while continuing emission reductions.
On behalf of AFA, we’d like to thank the Senate for giving us the opportunity to speak today, and we welcome any questions.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Mazier.
Dan Mazier, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for giving me this opportunity to speak today on climate change and how it’s impacting agriculture.
My name is Dan Mazier, and I’m President of Keystone Agricultural Producers which is Manitoba’s general farm organization, representing over 7,000 farm families in the province of Manitoba. I’m also a grains and oilseeds farmer from northeast of Brandon, Manitoba, which is two hours west of Winnipeg.
KAP, which is Keystone Agricultural Producers, has undertaken an 18-month research project into climate change called Manitoba Agriculture Climate Initiative. It was done by Sean Goertzen, and a copy of this report “Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change” was sent to you last week, I believe. It can also be found on our website. Many of the points I’m going to highlight here today are as a result of this project.
I want to start by outlining how climate change will affect agriculture in major ways. Within the next 10 to 30 years, if greenhouse gases emissions continue to rise globally, the Prairie Climate Centre projects the Brandon area of Manitoba will see 19 more frost-free days. Sounds good so far. In 30 to 60 years, if global emissions continue to rise and Brandon is projected to see 33 frost-free days. That’s a full month longer. A change in the growing season of this magnitude would present greater opportunities for livestock wintering, and a range of new crops would become possible to grow in Manitoba.
However, these opportunities will be limited by risks. New pests would come into the province in the form of weeds, disease, and insects. Additionally, it is predicted that the longer growing seasons will be accompanied by more droughts and extreme heat. Brandon, for example, is projected to go from a recent average of 14 days per year of 30 degrees-plus to 49 days per year by the second half of the century. At the same time, it is predicted that there will be more precipitation for Manitoba in the winter, spring, and fall. That only leaves one season not to rain in reading this.
In the 2051 to 2080 period, spring is expected to show the greatest change with a 26 per cent increase in precipitation compared to the period of 1981 to 2010. In addition to specific projections, the Prairie Climate Centre says that in general we can expect to face less stable climate on the Prairies. While a long-term average temperatures and precipitation may follow predictable trends, the conditions at any given point will likely become more variable. Extreme precipitation and weather is likely to become more frequent. Already we are seeing this with substantial losses from extreme precipitation. According to Manitoba Agriculture Services Corporation, excess moisture claims average 38 per cent of all agri-insurance losses for the period from 1996 to 2015. In 2016 to 2017, excess moisture accounted for 71 per cent of the losses. If climate projections hold true, losses will only continue to mount.
Farmers must do two things to address climate change: Adapt to the changes and do everything possible to mitigate the long-term scenarios.
With regard to adaptation, many farmers are trying to build soil health through cover crops and practices such as limited tillage. This helps build up the soil’s ability to hold water for times of drought. Other farmers are using tile drainage to remove water from their chronically wet farmland and land that, I might add, was actually quite farmable not too many years ago.
However, we cannot adapt to climate change alone, and we are calling on governments to help us. This includes supportive, innovative water management by streamlining regulations to ensure that they are fair, effective, and clearly communicated. This also includes providing current and useful information on tile drainage so the farmers and municipalities can protect the ecosystem. Other ways governments can assist farmers to adapt is by working with stakeholders to find creative ways to design and finance water management infrastructure. As well, providing funding for data models under the natural infrastructure can help farmers manage water with greater precision.
To help farmers prepare for drought in extreme heat, governments need to examine and update irrigation capacity and change building codes to allow farmers to adapt their barns for climate change.
Improve weather forecasting is another way the governments can help. The Government of Canada needs to invest in modernizing the Canadian weather radar network, things like supercomputers and cutting edge climate models so they can be more proactive. Right now I can’t get over we’re still operating like it was 20 years ago.
Finally, governments need to fund improved early warning systems for pests that will come with hotter weather and make agri-insurance more flexible for new crops we’ll be able to grow.
Now I’d like to talk about mitigation and what needs to be done. Farmers already contribute very substantially to mitigating climate change. For example, over half of Manitoba’s 11 million acres of cropland is grown in minimal or zero-tillage systems. This means little disturbance of the soil and the practice that sequesters large amounts of carbon dioxide. It is estimated that Manitoba’s farmers sequester up to 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year through these cropping systems.
Manitoba farmers have adopted soybeans, a crop that requires no carbon-sourced nitrogen fertilizer. Soybean production has increased dramatically from 18,000 acres in 2000 to the current 2.3 million acres. In 2016 alone, this resulted in savings of 245,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, the equivalent of taking 52,000 cars off the road.
In dairy and beef production, animal breeding advances in increased feed efficiencies have a reduced methane emissions from dairy and beef cattle by 15 per cent per litre and kilogram of beef over the last 30 years. In the hog industry, Manitoba farms emit 35 per cent fewer greenhouse gases than they did 50 years ago. Precision agriculture is a new frontier that uses field data to adjust the amount of fertilizer applied to individual field conditions, thus reducing the amount of fertilizer used, as our previous speaker said.
There are a number of measures that governments can take to augment farmers’ mitigation efforts. These include raising the biodiesel mandate, as well as acquiring an access to offset markets so farmers can get credits for emissions reduction and then sell them to large industrial emitters. Supporting healthy soil innovation is also one of our requests.
Another mitigation measure is to support the 4R nutrient stewardship program. This is the framework that helps farmers apply the right nutrients source at the right rate, at the right time, and the right place. These 4Rs offer an excellent way for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer application, while reducing nutrient runoff, reducing input costs, and maximizing yields at the same time.
There’s so much more I can say, but I’m running out of time. I would like to address the issue of carbon tax before I’m done. Interestingly, they refer to it in Alberta as a “levy,” and that’s not in our language at all in Manitoba. It’s a tax, and that’s what I’ve been told it is. In Manitoba, farmers will be exempt from marked fuels, just like Alberta, that we use in our combines and tractors. They will not be taxed on the emissions from livestock or crop production. So far, so good. However, it’s a myth that farmers are entirety exempt from the carbon tax. We know from the experience of other farmers in the other provinces that costs are passed on by inputs and service suppliers that farmers rely on. Farmers don’t have the option to pass on these costs to customers for their productions are set globally, based on world market demand. So Manitoba prices cannot be altered to pass on additional production costs and taxes to customers.
We’re hopeful that the governments recognize these costs and make investments back into the sector and help farmers adapt to climate change.
Also in Manitoba, heating fuels for greenhouses, grain dryers, and barns have not been specifically identified as exempt. The last budget indicated that they’re not exempt, so they will be included. We’re still pushing on that. There’s going to be an extra cost for that, and again, this cost cannot be passed on.
I thank you very much for this opportunity. I would encourage you, if you haven’t already done so, to read our report. It’s on our website.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Lewis.
Todd Lewis, President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan: Thank you, senators. In my presentation, I think you’ll see some underlying themes. It probably won’t be different in a lot of ways, but there will be some differences.
My name is Todd Lewis. I’m a farmer from Gray, Saskatchewan, which is right beside Regina in the southern half of the province. I’m President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan. APAS is the general farm organization of the province and represents farmers, ranchers, and farm families from across Saskatchewan.
Carbon climate change policy and carbon change policy have been very hot topics in the countryside since the federal government announced its policy on carbon taxation in October of 2016. Agriculture producers have a lot at stake in this discussion, both from the stance of carbon pricing policies and from the impacts of climate change on our business.
The demand for increased food production is an essential consideration. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations estimates that world food production must increase by 70 per cent by 2050 to support a growing world population.
Western Canada is a major export supplier of grains, oilseeds, pulse crops, and meat products, particularly the regions that face production shortages due to climate change. One example would be Saskatchewan producers who are the backstop in India for lentils, a staple food source when their production can’t meet the demand.
Climate change also creates production challenges for Prairie producers. In the last 10 years, we have seen both record precipitation and flooding, as well as record drought. We are not new to dealing with very extreme and variable weather patterns, but recent experience has been outside our crazy normal.
We typically must deal with a very short window for our production season. Flooding has caused loss of production, delayed seeding, delayed haying, and delayed harvest. Higher soil moisture levels have led to the spread of fungal diseases such as clubroot in canola and fusarium in wheat. Storage of hay has been difficult because of high moisture. Higher moisture has also led to the spread of invasive weed species.
Higher temperatures also put crops at risk while they mature. Ironically in at least two recent crop years, our canola crops were helped to withstand a heat wave just due to the heavy smoke from forest fires in Western Canada. Last summer we experienced record drought in the southern Prairies, and crops in many areas only survived because of residual soil moisture from previous years. Livestock producers in southern Saskatchewan especially suffered from feed shortages and a lack of potable water for their animals.
Producers have adapted to these increasingly variable and extreme conditions and have produced some of the largest crops in history. We have changed our production methods and changed our crop rotations. This is a major Western Canadian success story. More crop and more livestock are now being produced than ever before and with a lower energy footprint, but we still need major investment and resilience and adaptation in order to remain viable and produce the food the world needs.
We need an increased emphasis on water management, infrastructure to deal with flood, and to store water. We need to look at adaptive strategies like irrigation development. We need to continue research on crop varieties and livestock production methods to manage these extremes. We need strategies to manage the spread of plant and livestock disease and invasive weed species.
Agriculture is one of the key sectors in addressing carbon emissions through the management of our landscape. At the signing of the Paris climate agreement in 2015, it was clearly recognized that if we increased sequestration of carbon in agriculture soils by four parts per thousand, the world’s farmers can halt the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. Nobody knows more about how to sequester carbon through agriculture than Prairie farmers and ranchers.
As stewards of 40 per cent of Canada’s cultivated land and 35 per cent of Canada’s pastureland, Saskatchewan producers are key players in Canada’s land use and carbon cycle management. Saskatchewan crop producers currently sequester an additional 8.5 megatonnes of carbon through improved management practices every year, and Prairie pastures sequester over 2 billion tonnes.
Farmers and ranchers also provide sequestration on their land through forages, trees, and wetlands. Current sequestration can be dramatically increased through research and applied science. For example, most carbon sequestration by plants happens in the root systems. Canola has the largest root system of common crops, and increased production has led to higher sequestration. Research on plant breeding is under way at the University of Saskatchewan to double the root mass of crops. Interestingly, canola’s also one of our most reflective crops. It’s a very dense foliage and deflects infrared energy back into space helping to reduce heat gain.
Other inventive research is under way in improving plant photosynthesis to increase plant growth using the same amount of water and solar energy which also will help to increase carbon capture.
We have a great potential to solve the carbon problem, but we can’t do our share if we’re impacted by carbon pricing policies. Carbon taxes do not work for agriculture. We simply cannot pass along added costs through the value chain to our customers. Agricultural producers do not set their prices for our products. We’re on a world market. We operate on very thin profit margins and endure high levels of risk from market pricing and growing conditions and even transportation issues of which some of you may be aware.
Because energy and input costs are such a large factor in farm profitability, producers have a lot of incentive to reduce operating costs by operating as efficiently as possible. That’s what agriculture does. When more efficient technologies, crops, and management practices are available, they are rapidly adopted. Simply exempting farm fuel is not enough to shelter agriculture from negative impacts. When you add in the impact of all inputs, costs could go up between $15 to $20 an acre on a $50-per-tonne carbon pricing model.
Our message to government decision makers is clear: Don’t impose taxes and make it harder for us to do our work. Policy that recognizes agriculture’s role in addressing the carbon problem is essential to a real solution. Policy options that need urgent attention from policymakers include: recognition of existing carbon sequestration benefits provided by landscape features like pastures, trees, and wetlands, and enhancing these benefits through positive incentives.
Producers cannot assume all of the cost of providing environmental goods and services to our society. Design carbon offset policies that provide real financial benefit to producers and avoid unnecessary administration. Dramatically increasing research on plant genetics, cropping rotations, and management practices support even greater sequestration in agriculture.
For these reasons, APAS was pleased to host a Prairie Agricultural Carbon Summit last July in Saskatoon to further the discussion on these important issues. We are happy to provide a copy of the final report from this event to committee members.
Thank you very much to the committee for this opportunity to address this issue, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: The next presenter is Carmen Sterling.
Carmen Sterling, Vice-President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Carmen Sterling, I’m Vice-President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the reeve of Yarmouth-Weyburn in southeast Saskatchewan, and my husband and I farm in the Weyburn area producing corn, soybeans, lentils, canola, durum wheat, flax, and barley in the various crop years.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, SARM, is the independent association that represents all 296 municipalities in Saskatchewan. SARM is the principal advocate in representing them before senior levels of government. The association takes direction from its members and forms its policy accordingly. SARM was incorporated in 1905 and continues to be the voice of rural Saskatchewan today.
The agricultural sector in Saskatchewan is the backbone of the economy. This has been true throughout the history of the province, and data indicates the sector continues to play a central role in the provincial economy and will continue to do so in the future. According to information from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, Saskatchewan exported $14.3 billion of agricultural products in 2016-17. As the global population increases, as more countries develop and as Canada gains more market access, Canadian agricultural producers will be asked to produce more.
The agriculture sector is on track to meet the Government of Saskatchewan’s goal to increase exports of agricultural and food products to $15 billion by 2020. To achieve this goal and to feed the world, efficiencies in production and technology and a favourable regulatory and policy environment are necessary.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership and the previous versions are good examples of government policy and programs that support the sector and set it up to succeed. These supports are important to a sector that is so dependent on market prices, good weather, favourable trade conditions, and stable domestic policies. Conversely, the major threats to the agriculture sector include a rising cost of inputs, a carbon tax, and other potential environmental taxes in the future, such as methane or nitrous, unfavourable trading conditions, and the impacts of climate change.
SARM has been vocal in its opposition to a carbon tax as it will increase the cost of inputs and the costs of transportation, which will all be passed down to the customer, which is the agriculture producer. A carbon tax will impact the transportation sector, which the agriculture sector must rely on to get products to market.
SARM has learned from its counterpart in Alberta, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, that the Alberta carbon levy has increased costs associated with fuels used in transportation of agriculture products. As you may know, agriculture producers are price-takers, and they are unable to increase the price of their products as the cost of inputs rise, due to both market conditions and the impacts of a price on carbon. Inputs may include equipment, machinery, fuel, fertilizers among others. The threat here is to a farmer’s bottom line and their competitiveness with agricultural products from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. All fuels used for food production should be exempt from any additional taxation. Natural gas and propane, for example, should not be overlooked when creating exemptions to the agriculture sector. Ideally for SARM and its members, there would be no carbon tax at all. We feel there are better ways to tackle climate change.
Climate change itself is a major existing threat to the agriculture sector, and Saskatchewan remains the breadbasket of Canada. According to Stats Canada 2016, Saskatchewan accounted for more than two fifths of Canada’s total field crop acreage with 36.7 million acres. That is more than Alberta and Manitoba combined. Total farm area in Saskatchewan is 61.6 million acres.
Saskatchewan is the second-largest beef cattle-producing province in the country. Also important to note is that in Saskatchewan, 3.1 per cent of farms reported having renewable-energy-producing systems in 2015. More incentives for green energy products like that would support the agriculture sector, as would support for retrofitting existing equipment and machinery to be more fuel efficient.
In Saskatchewan extreme drought and wildfires affected southwest Saskatchewan in 2017. In other parts of the province, such as the Quill Lakes area, farmland has been flooded for several years. The focus of government and the agriculture sector should be on mitigating the impacts of climate change and ensuring that the sector is adequately prepared to deal with disaster events as they increase in frequency and severity.
SARM believes that mitigation measures are an important tool to reduce the damage done and that relief funds must be adequately funded to assist with recovery efforts. The wildfires in Saskatchewan saw producers lose just about everything. This is their livelihood, and starting over is a traumatic experience.
An opportunity that exists for the agriculture sector is carbon credits for agriculture producers as they sequester carbon in the soil. This actively reduces emissions and captures it in the soil. Saskatchewan farmers have adopted farming techniques and equipment that utilizes zero-till or minimum tilling. These practices have been sequestering a sizeable amount of carbon emissions in the soil. Based on science, if we used the total amount of carbon sequestration contribution from Saskatchewan’s zero-till farmland, pasture and forage, and forests, Saskatchewan would be a net emitter of GHGs. The Government of Saskatchewan estimates approximately 9 million metric tonnes of carbon is sequestered annually in the soil due to farming practices.
Recognition of this is crucial. This is further substantiated by the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association. Our agriculture producers who are using minimum on zero-till farming practices are sequestering 9.64 million new tonnes of CO2 every year on nearly 28 million acres of farmland.
SARM believes ranchers are also contributing to the carbon sequestration process on native grassland. Saskatchewan’s vast areas of forest in our province are of added importance as they will continue to contribute as carbon sinks now and into the future with improving reforestation practices and other new technology.
On cropland alone, Saskatchewan farmers each and every year meet the carbon equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road, which incidentally is well over double the amount of registered vehicles in the province. If a system were to punish polluters, then that same system ought to reward those that actively take carbon out of the environment.
Farmers are excellent stewards of the land through best management practices. They exemplify the notion of economy and the environment going hand in hand. The innovation in agricultural management needs to be recognized in climate change policies, and this type of innovation is important to finding ways to deal with climate change.
Overall, climate change and the tools used to address it present both opportunity and threats to the agriculture sector. It is paramount that the appropriate tools are used and that a blanket approach is avoided. Each jurisdiction will have innovative ideas that work best for itself.
We continue to consult with the Province of Saskatchewan regarding Prairie resilience, a made-in-Saskatchewan climate change strategy. SARM believes we have a role in consulting with both senior levels of government and First Nations in development the of a climate change resiliency plan when replacing aging infrastructure or building new infrastructure that will mitigate the impacts of climate change that we are all experiencing.
We all have a role in working to meet the province’s mandate to acquire 50 per cent of renewable power by 2030, whether it be solar or wind power, farms and ranches and municipalities need to do their part in consort with industry to help the province fulfill that mandate. Opportunities such as this one today are important for putting together the best suite of options to mitigate climate change and protect the agriculture sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to answering questions.
The Chair: We’ll go to our final presenter, Mr. Gilchrist.
Graham Gilchrist, Director, Alberta Federation of Agriculture: Lynn already gave our presentation.
The Chair: Sorry, I had to step out. I apologize for that, and I’ll catch up later on what the presentations were. Fortunately, some of you I have met previously, like Mr. Mazier.
I’m going to open the floor to questions. We’ll start with Senator Maltais.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I thank all of you for your statements.
Of course, climate change affects farmers particularly, all of them. You are at a disadvantage because the market sets the price of your products, not you. So you can’t intervene personally to change the markets. You are caught in a yoke and it’s very hard for you to get out of it. Then we have the carbon tax, and I am sure that this greatly perturbs the financial forecasts of every producer in your respective provinces; but it is inevitable.
Canada has committed to reaching certain objectives. We have to try to make the best of a bad situation. The government is preaching a lot about the transformation of public transit in the hope that it will consume less energy. A lot of provinces are subsidizing changes in the automobile area through the carbon tax, whether we are talking about electricity or biofuels. Why would the same thing not apply to you who consume agricultural machinery? You would not have to pass on the tax to your sales outlets, to your markets, because you don’t set the prices. In that way, the manufacturer would be forced to make much less fuel-intensive vehicles, and that increase in costs would not be transferred to you but to the carbon tax. In that way, you could, over the years, acquire equipment that would consume much less fuel. You would not have to shoulder the cost, because — whether you want it or not — the carbon tax will be imposed. It’s like a pest, you have to deal with it. So we have to try to make the best of it. If this is happening in the private sector, in the automobile sector and in public transit, why could it not be done in agriculture? Why could you not be exempted, as I am? As a citizen, when I purchase a biofuel vehicle, I obtain a subsidy of $8,000 to $10,000 from the government. Why would you not benefit in the same way for your agricultural equipment? That is the first question.
Over the past 10 or 15 years, Canadian producers have probably been the group that has been the most sensitive to climate change, and which made the greatest efforts to try to adapt to it. It’s easy to point the finger at agriculture, while in our other eye we have fumes, biodiesel and diesel from our streets. So I would say this: if all businesses had made the same efforts as farmers have, we could probably have reduced greenhouse gases in Canada. Could any one of you tell me whether the efforts you made generated additional costs? To what extent did farmers — small, medium or large-scale ones — have to invest to adapt to climate change and produce fewer greenhouse gases? Mr. Lewis?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: I guess probably a little bit above-average farmer. We farmed up to 11,000 acres at one point. Our investment in new technology is being driven by the drive to efficiency. Certainly on the equipment side, to your first question, and it ties into this as well, a lot of that technology has been invented in Western Canada, is invented in Western Canada. It’s the most carbon-friendly equipment in the world is coming out of our manufacturers, a majority of them in Saskatchewan. So it’s important to recognize that really Western Canadian farmers are the leading edge of all technology, as far as carbon-friendly agriculture. We can’t get better. We own the best equipment that is produced in the world. We’re running tractors that meet California emission standards, for instance. A John Deere tractor in Saskatchewan is the same as the ones they’re using in California. We’re at that leading edge.
If we want to talk about taxation policy and an accelerated capital cost allowance that would allow farmers to write that equipment cost off quicker, that would be a real simple way to increase the purchase of new equipment in improving technology in Western Canada.
On my farm, I own two air drills, cutting edge Bourgault air drills that are worth over a million dollars put together. That’s on one farm. Given the drive to efficiency, we grow better crops, we can grow more varied crops with those drills, and it’s efficient. That’s what we want. It has sectional controls. They have all the newest technology, and it saves us money in the end.
It’s not that one of the by-products of all this efficiency is good carbon management. That’s what modern agriculture is — the drive to efficiency, the new crops, the existing crops that we grow and the new crops that we’re going to grow.
When I went to university in Saskatoon in the early 1980s, they talked about rapeseed. Canola didn’t exist. They talked about maybe a pea or a flat pea that might add nitrogen to the soil. Well, that crop turned out to be lentils. All those lentil varieties were adapted and made at the University of Saskatchewan. It’s the leading genetic source of lentils in the world. Our competition buys my crop, takes it over to their country and seeds it in a lot of situations. The best genetics in the world are coming out of the University of Saskatchewan. That crop didn’t even exist 25 years ago.
It’s important to remember how adaptive Western Canadian farmers are, and we actually have invented crops to be more efficient, and the by-product of it is good carbon management.
Mr. Mazier: As far as the investment, how we get paid for that, how to adapt or mitigate their emissions. Back in Growing Forward 1, under the environmental farm plan process, there was a component on greenhouse gas reduction. That’s when the GPS, the first version of our guided system in our tractors, was introduced. It was part of the environmental farm plan process back in I think 2006, somewhere in there, 2004.
The government threw money at that. It enabled us to get familiar with the equipment, so we put in steering systems. They were just lights, they weren’t none of this not touching the steering wheel. It was kind of interesting; you followed the lights, but you still steered it and things like that. They would finance a portion of bin storage, fertilizer storage in bins, and straw management. That was all in the name of greenhouse gases.
Other practices, like zero-till, have been beneficial. We need to look at another zero-till initiative, one that focuses on carbon reduction. Zero-till was a co-benefit. I don’t think it was introduced in the name of carbon emissions reduction. We were doing it for soil conservation and water conservation, so a different lens. However, I think the program is available to us. That’s how we’ve invested, and that’s how the government cooperated. We need more programs like that. We need those programs brought back.
The second round of Growing Forward 2 basically eliminated all that, and it left the provinces hung out to dry. We’re seeing in the CAP, in the partnership program, that’s coming back. We do have an environmental component to that, and money’s being spent.
Mr. Gilchrist: I would say out loud, “Don’t take it in the first place.” However, to address your subsidy question, we have to stay away from an equity transfer. If you are going to take the funds, then they need to be segregated so it doesn’t get lost in the general revenue and you start having scope creep on what those funds can be used for. If the plan is to collect the funds, you need to put it in a separate pool to which we can access, whether it be for research and development into what we need to do or tax credits on the levy. However, beware the moral hazard so you’re not picking winners and losers through a targeted subsidy. You’ve got a pot of funds much like heavy industry and the final emitters here in Alberta have whereby, through emission management, their levy goes into a pot. Those funds are then used to come up with the next sulphur scrubber, for example.
In other words, if you want us to benefit in the broad scope across agriculture, those funds would be available to respond to the questions we need to answer, whether it’s to do with kilns or the next machinery to try to do that, rather than saying, “Here’s a cheque, just because you exist.”
Ms. Sterling: My comment goes to your comment on the transit services and expectation for them to retrofit. I think that really highlights why it’s so important that they be made for the jurisdictions that are going to be using them. These decisions and plans have to be put in place by those who are going to use them.
As probably the entire country is well aware, Saskatchewan’s geography and population don’t lend to there being many transit systems that would even be eligible for those types of programs. We have that unique challenge in how we deliver that kind of infrastructure service to our ratepayers.
You also have to understand that producers have already been paying for that technology through improved emissions in the equipment that they purchase. It would be difficult for us to pinpoint exactly the cost of those adaptations or purchases that we’ve made to lessen our impact on climate change, partly because some of those decisions are made simply to better our operation or the bottom line. Some examples are the zero-till use and minimum till guidance for our application, that sort of thing. There’s a benefit to our bottom line. Producers likely haven’t gone out with the intention of, “I’m only doing this to reduce my carbon footprint or my impact on climate change.” It would be very difficult for a producer to attribute a cost in dollars and cents to some of the good practices that they’ve undertaken because there’s been double benefit. I think that’s why it’s important that we recognize agriculture and that contribution and that mechanism.
Mr. Jacobson: Alberta’s situation is a bit different than Manitoba’s and Saskatchewan’s in that we have large emitters, and we also have a cap and trade system. We have somewhat of an ability to offset some of those carbon costs for producers in Alberta. That’s why we would like to see at the worst case a net neutral type of carbon tax so it doesn’t cost anything. There is also the opportunity, if we can get our emissions and sequestering right, to design a system that actually recognizes what is happening. There could even be a plus for Alberta producers on that end of it.
Each province is different. Like I said, we have large emitters here, so we have more opportunity to offset those costs than other provinces.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your very informative presentations, I really appreciate them.
Senator Maltais has asked a couple of questions I had in mind.
One of the ways we can probably influence decisions is being part of the process of decision making. I was wondering if any of your organizations would be involved or prepared to work with policymakers on the details of carbon pricing and other incentives that could be considered or even investments in research and where to invest? I was wondering if you’re involved in influencing policy decisions.
Mr. Gilchrist: From my own place, and I’ll be here again tomorrow, but under that hat, we have commented already to the Minister of Environment on their pricing mechanisms and I believe that process closed at the end of February, talking about the impact of what the levy was, what the outputs that would be taxed. However, the offset side is not yet up for discussion, and we are waiting with bated breath to see exactly what that will look like. Our members are certainly down in Ottawa talking already on what that offset system might look like, sound like, and taste like, and we can certainly offer sage advice here today if you have more of those questions.
Senator Gagné: That’s why I’m asking the question.
Mr. Jacobson: We definitely are very interested. Through the CFA, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we are as provinces developing and bringing all of our concerns forward, and that’s probably the best way for us to comment on a federal part. We do that through the CFA and organizations like it because they do get our input as we go forward.
Mr. Mazier: As far as Manitoba is concerned, we’re a small province, seeding only 10 million acres. Our agriculture committee represents mostly southern Manitoba, although we have The Pas and Swan River. We communicate quite well with each other. KAP went out and said, “You know what, we’re going to be at the table, versus saying no.” It’s a divisive subject without a doubt. We all have political realities. I think Todd Lewis, God bless his heart, said that right at the very first. We realize that we were putting our neck out there when we said as a farm organization, “No, we need to establish that.”
Our provincial government actually helped us out immensely when it said, “Look, I want agriculture to be part of the solution. I don’t want to set you up so you can’t anything, so what do we need to do and how do we set up that framework up?” We’ve been very involved. We had countless meetings. This is all about the green plan in Manitoba. Dave McLaughlin set up our green framework.
The pricing component of carbon is just a small part of the actual green plan. We’re in talks now about regulations and developing Bill 7, the Surface Water Management Act. We work very closely with ISD, which happens to be stationed in Winnipeg. We’ve got a very good relationship.
The Prairie Climate Centre is in Winnipeg. One of the more shocking things for them is, having looked at this file for two years, the changes are happening faster than the models can catch up. That’s the most startling thing, and I was on them a year ago saying, “So what’s that look like in 10 years’ time?” The models have stepped up.
That’s something to watch. We have to set up a system so that we can be proactive and aware of how it’s impacting our whole society. In general, I think we’re probably more aggressive in Manitoba as an agriculture community.
Mr. Lewis: Saskatchewan has a CFA. I sit on the board of the Western Grains Research Foundation on behalf of APAS. They’ve been heavily involved in research opportunities on this file. We met as recently as yesterday with the provincial ministry to talk about the made-in-Saskatchewan carbon plan and how we can play a part in it.
Our carbon summit last summer was very well attended, and there’s some good information there. A lot of the people that will present and have presented to your group, for example, the Global Institute for Food Security in Saskatoon at the university, have cutting-edge, world-leading research on the subject. There’s a lot of opportunity to tell our story in agriculture.
Federally, we’ve met with officials from the ministry of environment as well as the parliamentary secretary. We’ve had round table discussions with him. Certainly we have had numerous meetings with our MP and cabinet minister, Ralph Goodale, about this very subject. We’ve been heavily engaged with this right from the start. I think agriculture has a great story to tell. We have to get some recognition and we’ve been pushing hard right from day one.
The Chair: Any comments on the last question?
Ms. Sterling: I was going to comment that the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities has a regular and quite robust lobby effort which includes offering our services in situations where legislation is going to be drafted or changes are being proposed. We’re more than happy to use the tools we have at our disposal to contact our membership for direct feedback in order to inform those recommendations that we make.
We’ve done so on this file, as well as many others, lobbying both federally and provincially. We work very closely with the Province of Saskatchewan on the made-in-Saskatchewan plan and will do so as well on the federal side of things if necessary.
Mr. Lewis: I’ll just add on lobbying that we even had the Prime Minister at my farm last April. He wanted to know how canola was grown. In that time period we talked about how air drills work and how important carbon pricing is.
Senator R. Black: I have three short questions, and I think I probably know the answers.
Is there enough research taking place and is it being funded? Lynn talked about research on net farm sequestration.
Mr. Mazier: Our study does focus on that as one of the areas where government could help out. We’ve done these other research projects, and we’ve done plant breeding and all of that, but with the lens of carbon reduction it would certainly go a long way. How do we count these emissions? If we’re going to go down the path of looking at on-farm emissions and having to register that, what does the framework for data gathering look like? You’re going to need standards. It’s a whole new commodity, basically, for Canada. We need to look at it that way, and that’s why more research has to be done under that carbon lens.
Mr. Lewis: Research is being done and there can always be more. However, even when the research is done sometimes there are lost opportunities. A good example currently is a crop called carinata, which is an oilseed crop similar to canola. It produces biofuel for jet engines. Qantas — you can find it on Google — recently ran a plane from I think Los Angeles to Sydney with zero emissions. That carinata was produced in Western Canada. All that genetics and everything currently is headed down to the States. The U.S. military is probably going to use that new technology.
I mean, we have an opportunity in Canada here. Our farmers could produce within probably a two-year span 2 to 3 million acres of that product. We have the infrastructure. It can go into a canola crush facility, and biodiesel jet fuel comes out the other side. We have all this stuff in place. It’s a missed opportunity for our country. It wouldn’t be hard for the Canadian military to take that on and run with it. All the research has been done. Lots of it has been done in Western Canada, and we’re missing the opportunity. So research is great, but if we don’t take advantage of the opportunities, it doesn’t put dollars into farmers’ pockets and into our economy.
Mr. Gilchrist: Senator, we also have a few challenges. As recently as two weeks ago, Canada put out their new research priorities, and they had within it climate adaption. When asked whether they would fund research for what the next offset might look like, they told us that those funds can’t be used for compliance reasons. That means that if we’re going to fund the next research or do the net farm as we talked about, we can’t use Canada’s dollars, research facilities and research expertise. We’re going to have to go back to Ms. McKenna and get research funds from them. Unfortunately, Environment Canada doesn’t have an agriculture research package. So we’re running around trying to figure out who’s going to do the research and whether or not it fits the mandates of those programs.
Ms. Sterling: I echo the comments that have already been made. Certainly there needs to be more dollars in research on climate change and mitigation and technologies that are going to help us with that. We also have to recognize that there needs to be some research into the markets that we’re selling into, a better focus on our trade. We’re in a situation now where we’re staring down the barrel of a carbon tax and selling and competing in jurisdictions that don’t have that. They don’t have those requirements. We have to understand the trade that we’re expecting our agricultural products to enter into.
Mr. Jacobson: There’s a lot of research that isn’t being done too, especially on the on-farm sequestering and bringing that right down. The formulas they’ve gone through are not very accurate. So we need research and improvements on that end of it.
We were talking about this last night and jokingly said that maybe we need a carbon commission, similar to the grain commission. Maybe we need a carbon commission to go forward and do some of this stuff. We said it jokingly, but it might be an idea.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much.
CAP, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, was recently announced. Is there anything in there that you’ll be able to use? I think you’ve answered that question.
Mr. Gilchrist: I have. When we had the two senior directors talk about the programs, they were certainly touting the fact that funds are available for anybody, including our research institutions, to do work on climate. However, as I said, when asked specifically, “Can we make application to figure out another forage offset or get a handle on looking at rangeland?” we were told that those are compliance issues and thus beyond the scope. It involves more than one ministry and they have to talk to each other if we’re going to take on this issue with research dollars.
Mr. Lewis: I think it’s important to realize that a lot of the research is just on data gathering and recognition. Certainly on forage and pastureland, there’s not near as much background information as there is on the croplands, and that’s carbon that is there; it just has to get recognized. I think producers will put up their fair share, and if governments come forward and accelerate some of that research, we’ll get the recognition piece put forward a lot quicker.
Mr. Mazier: I think with the CAP funding and even Growing Forward 2, we saw a fundamental shift from the farm gate into more industry projects, and I don’t know if the CAP programs are actually coming back to the farm gate. It will be very interesting to see what that balance looks like. They are spending more money on environmental research, but whether at the end of the day mitigating the carbon comes back to the farmer or goes to industry is the question, and it will be interesting to see how that turns out.
Mr. Lewis: It always gets to who’s going to pay for this. It might just be farmer logic, but there is a carbon tax. There are lots of funds available; they just have to be directed toward this issue. It will solve a lot of the offset and the pressures. Canada needs offsets and agriculture can provide them. We just have to get recognition for what we’re doing.
Senator R. Black: One final question: Are there environmental farm plans in each of your provinces?
Mr. Mazier: We actually are the verifier for the Province of Manitoba, so we’re the third party that administers the program on behalf of the province.
Mr. Jacobson: Alberta has an environmental farm plan. In fact, I sit on the National Environmental Farm Plan, too. We’re trying to resurrect it; it’s gone a bit quiet.
Senator R. Black: Here?
Mr. Jacobson: Yes, in Alberta. People have environmental farm plans that are over ten years old, and they’ve never had to renew it. I’m thinking there are things that need to be done around this. I can see industries saying, “What are your practices on producing food,” things like that. There’s going to be more and more demand on us as producers to start documenting what we do, and the environmental farm plan is a way to document that. It can fit into a carbon scenario, too, quite easily as we go forward.
Mr. Gilchrist: The challenge you have is that they’re not all equal. As we’ve seen with the environmental farm plans, the Canadian Roundtable of Sustainable Beef and the Canadian Roundtable of Sustainable Crops, they’re not accurate enough to actually measure what the tonne is that you’re reducing. They’re very good at putting a green sticker on your farm that says, “I have an environmental farm plan” or an “I have sustainable beef” sign on the front of my ranch, but when you get down to the brass tacks of whether or not a tonne of carbon, CO2, has been removed, they’re not accurate enough.
In the case of Alberta’s context, we’re talking about a 5 per cent error rate, 2.5 per cent either side of zero. That’s quite a high tolerance in order for you to actually transact in the carbon market. A lot of our programs, environmental farm plans, do a good job to handle let’s say the consumer confidence aspect — I’ve got a nice green sticker. However, I don’t have enough confidence in the data from those programs to measure what that actual tonne of reduction is.
Mr. Lewis: The environmental farm plan in Saskatchewan has been long-standing. A lot of it has been on mitigation practices — new fencing, cross-fencing, well development for livestock producers, things like that. It does exist, and I think it’s going to dovetail nicely into the carbon conversation.
Senator R. Black: Thank you.
The Chair: The environmental farm plans are very important, and I think what’s been done might be considered first generation. I know in Prince Edward Island when it came in, 15 years ago approximately, it was quite a big step. To make that first step was a big step. I can see it getting more sophisticated in the future as we go through various iterations of it, but a great program. In the case of Prince Edward Island, we drew heavily on Manitoba, by the way. Copying is the sincerest form of flattery.
Anyway, my first question is for Ms. Sterling. You’re Vice-President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Is all of the rural area in your province under municipal incorporation?
Ms. Sterling: Yes, we are. When we say we represent 296 rural municipalities, the north would be considered separate, and some of that jurisdiction is covered off from a provincial level. The areas that we represent are incorporations of all different natures. So within the boundaries of our rural municipalities, there are organized hamlets and then as well, towns, villages, and cities.
The Chair: So the area that you’re the reeve for, how big would that be?
Ms. Sterling: We completely surround the city of Weyburn.
If it puts it into context, and we probably branch out about 10 miles in every direction from the city of Weyburn. Off the top of my head, I just can’t think of the actual number of acres.
The Chair: How many people?
Ms. Sterling: Approximately 1,100.
In addition to our agriculture industry, we also have oil and gas.
The Chair: So your larger municipalities probably have a separate association, do they?
Ms. Sterling: Yes, they do. There’s an urban association that represents basically towns, villages and cities.
The Chair: I’m taking from your presentation that pretty well all of the municipalities through your coordination are well aware of climate change and that they need to react or adapt for it, for instance.
Ms. Sterling: Certainly that topic dominates conversations amongst our members, so I think there’s a universal awareness.
The Chair: Mr. Mazier, I was sorry to miss your verbal presentation. I’m assuming you gave it verbatim, and I have read that. I noticed you had some specific comments for the three levels of government in this country. I’m looking at things from the point of view of the federal government because that’s who ultimately we advise. We have two types of toolboxes. One, of course, is the regulatory toolbox, and that’s not as big a one in what you’re recommending both in your brief and in the report, which was an excellent report. I guess they are basically regulations related to municipal and provincial issue for the most part.
I see, with some exceptions, the place that you’re heavily putting your emphasis is into the economic instrument toolbox of the federal government, and that is providing incentives and doing things not only in the agriculture field but in other fields that impact the land base positively.
I thank you for including the report that was produced for your organization. There is got a lot of good stuff in it that applies to all levels of government, certainly things we can take out of it. What would be the top two things that you see the federal government can do to assist the agricultural community as it relates to climate change, either of a regulatory nature or of an economic instrument nature?
Mr. Mazier: Just understand agriculture. I know that’s a very wishy-washy answer, but how many times has the whole Department of Environment and Minister McKenna reached out to agriculture to understand the impacts of their policies? What does introducing a carbon price into Canada mean to agriculture? How does that impact industries? We’ve got businesses going, and it’s going to make them less competitive. What does it do to one of your major exporting partners or industries in Canada, economic engines when you start imposing a carbon price? That’s what I can’t get over.
We have the Barton report that the agriculture department’s touting saying that we want to have I don’t know how many billions of dollars in agriculture products growth in Canada by 2030, and yet they implement a carbon tax and say, “Well, you guys adapt.” We have so much potential if we’re part of the solution. The federal government is going to need multi-departmental types of approaches.
Provinces have taken that approach, especially Manitoba. It’s interdepartmental. When it comes down to that green plan, there are four departments sitting around the table, Finance included. They need to look at it that way. They need to break down the silos. I think if the federal government took a serious look at that and listened to the provinces on how they’re addressing agriculture, that would go a huge step forward, and we’re seeing that. We’re talking about fundamentally switching what we do in agriculture, changing how we produce agriculture goods in Canada. The standard agriculture policy has been clear the land off, drain it off, maximum production, maximum returns. It’s a pioneering model.
Mr. Mazier: The federal government is sending a very clear signal to think about carbon emissions. This was first introduced in the province. That’s what I told our agriculture minister and Dave McLaughlin. You’re asking us now to consider not only crop rotations, weather environments, pests and all that; but also, “Geez, I wonder how much carbon I’m going to emit out of that crop.” That’s a totally different concept. We can do it in a way that will benefit the rest of society, and I don’t think the federal government has caught onto that yet.
That’s my one biggest request, the way we approach it and do it with agriculture, not “Here, drop down” kind of thing. Work with us. I think the system is starting to move that way, but it’s going to take some time.
The Chair: I think a very good point in that regard is that many of us around this table may have grown up on farms. However, our offspring and their offspring are two and three generations away from it, and quite a thinking shift has to occur. That’s an excellent point.
Mr. Gilchrist: Madam Chair, I’d offer that — and I’ll be facetious here — cows don’t come with meters. You’ve got a new commodity called carbon, and standardization across Canada would be very beneficial, what that tonne looks like, sounds like, tastes like, and how it’s delivered across the province. You don’t have a tonne of carbon generated in one particular set of math in B.C., you have a different formula and a different tonne in Saskatchewan and a different one in Halifax.
At the end of the day, there has to be a standardization piece, much like we have a guarantee now through the federal government of what No. 1 durum looks like. If you want to take that analogy and say we have No. 1 carbon, there is a defined definition of what that is. And so you have fungibility across Canada of a tonne is a tonne is a tonne, regardless of where it’s generated in the provinces.
The Chair: Excellent point.
Are there any other comments on that?
Mr. Lewis: It’s very easy to measure what’s going up a smokestack or a tailpipe, or what’s coming out of the back end of the cow. A lot of that research has been done, it’s accepted.
Everything in agriculture is currently being looked at, being researched. The frustration that farmers are feeling relates to how many years is it going to take to get recognition for the stuff we are doing? It’s not common practice. We’ve made improvements; we need to get recognition for what we’ve done.
The Chair: I don’t see any hands up for a second round of questions, so thank you, folks. It has been great to have you here. I know you are busy people, and we really appreciate the input we’ve received today.
Mr. Mazier: I want to thank you. This has been a really good experience, coming out to the committee. It is nice for you to travel around Canada. I think a lot of people in Ottawa get chastised for not coming out to the rest of Canada. It’s being recognized, and I really appreciate that. You people are very busy, just like us, but it does take extra effort to travel and see Canada. Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: You’re welcome.
(The committee adjourned.)