Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 4 - Evidence, December 3, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 3, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:30 p.m. to examine the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options focusing on primary production, practices, technologies, ecosystems and other related areas.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call to order the fourth meeting of this committee on the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options.
[Translation]
Honourable Senators, today we conclude our study on the effects of climate change.
Let me begin by welcoming all of you as well as any observers. I would also like to welcome all Canadians who are tuning in to these hearings via CPAC and the Internet.
[English]
Over the last two weeks, this committee listened to officials from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada who explained to us the science of climate change and the direction of our national government in this area.
Tonight, we conclude our initial round of departmental briefings. We will hear from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
On Thursday, we begin a new series of witnesses where we will focus on regional impacts and local adaptation. Over the next two weeks, this committee will meet with representatives from the Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Research Network. We will examine changes in Northern Canada, Ontario, British Columbia, the Prairies, Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
Honourable senators, we have before the committee three officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Mr. Gordon Dorrell is the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Research Branch. Wayne Lindwall is the National Program Leader for Environment. Michele Brenning is the Director, Environment Bureau. Mr. Phil Adkins is with Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration.
Mr. Gordon Dorrell, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Honourable senators, thank you very much.
It is a pleasure to be here tonight to discuss the impact of climate change on agriculture and discuss and debate some of the challenges and opportunities we face.
I would like to start with a reasonably complex slide, which gives us a bit of an indication that variation in climate has been extreme over the years and that science has been able to help us deal with some of the mitigation. The variation from the zero point is an indication of the swings in yield in Saskatchewan in wheat over the last few years. The good news is that while there are some downs and ups, the variation has declined. To a large extent, that is the result of farmers adopting new and innovative production systems as well as the increased stability that new scientific methodology has introduced. Another factor here, which is not shown on the slide, is that over that time period, yields due to genetic increases constantly went up. Therefore, while we do have variation, there are indications that technology and farm practices can mitigate some it.
Slide 3 indicates some of the pressures that the sector is facing. Clearly, we must deal with a number of potential problems. In crops, drought stress and heat stress will affect yield. It has the other problem of introducing new pests into Canada that we did not have before, pests that have moved from climates that are more temperate. In food processing, changes in temperature introduce the potential for new diseases and put pressure on quality water supply and so forth.
Under the area of resources, we begin to lose some valuable land. Clearly, we will not have enough moisture or water for production that we have had in the past. We potentially lose other resources like biodiversity. Under rural communities, clearly this will have an impact in terms of the stability of the communities and the income generated from those communities.
I will turn now to the slide on page 4. This is modelling work done using the Canadian Climate Circulation Model. It works on a scenario of doubling carbon dioxide by the year 2050. This is one of many models we could use, but it is one that has credibility in the scientific community as a valuable model in Canada.
A combination of factors contributes to effective growing degree days. It deals with the length of season, something called ``degree days,'' which is temperature above 5 degrees, day length and a variety of other things. It gives you a measure of change. We have chosen the Atlantic to provide one example of how things can change in Canada from the present to 50 to 70 years out. You will see for the Maritimes, especially New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, there is a considerable increase in the effective or useful growing days. This will mean that that area will have an opportunity to introduce crops that they do not have at the present time. For example, corn and soybeans simply do not mature well enough and consistently enough in that area at the present time to be grown extensively. This model indicates that there would be a potential for those crops to be established. You will notice that the situation is not quite as attractive for parts of Labrador.
The next slide gives you a snapshot of what the model shows for the Prairie region of Western Canada. The top graph gives you an idea of today. The dark green and the light green would be the typical production areas that we recognize in Western Canada at the present time. The lower graph indicates a significant increase in the growing potential of that region in the south. It probably would be the equivalent of moving about 1,000 miles south. That is not entirely good news.
The next slide shows an example of what could happen in terms of moisture. This material is in the form of moisture deficit, which is precipitation minus evaporation. When you have a negative number, it means you have far more evaporation than moisture, and that causes problems.
The area depicted in the 1961 to 1990 period in yellow and beige is the classical Palliser Triangle. I was just asking my colleague, Dr. Lindwall, who is originally from Swift Current, what the moisture deficit in Swift Current is. It is roughly 375 millimetres at the present time. That is an area that routinely produces a fairly significant crop each year. Even though there is a huge deficit — it looks like a terrible number to have that much water deficit — it comes at the right time of the season and it is good.
However, looking at the lower chart, one can see significant areas are now approaching 500 millimetres. That is a fairly good indication that even though we have growing degree days that could produce crops, we will likely be in a situation where there will be a significant lack of moisture.
Some people feel that this change in climate, which really pushes the potential growing area north, may not necessarily be bad for Canada. However, chart 7 shows the climate ratings. This is not actual reality in terms of soil and growing conditions. This shows a potential climate area. One can come to the conclusion that the lower chart is actually quite good news, because there is a lot of white area, which is rated as suitable for cropping with no climate limitations. Unfortunately, that zone has thin soil, poor fertility soil and bad structure. It is not an area for cropping. The trees tend to be less vigorous in that area. While we may have the right temperature and the right moisture, we lack the soil to produce good crops in that zone. The one exception would be the Peace River zone in north central Alberta. The model shows that that might be an increased area of production.
In chart 8, once again, we are using complex numbers. A drought severity index is just that, an index. It is combined with a number of things. This shows, over the last while, some very extreme swings. The middle line, which is minus one, is a trigger indication of a moderate drought. You see that over the years we have had considerable series of droughts. In reality, in the last 200 years things have been reasonably stable but it does indicate that extreme events are not uncommon and a lot of projections indicate that extreme events will be more common in the future.
Now, I will address some of the mitigating factors. For a good portion of Canada, adequate moisture, water reserves and management of water is absolutely critical. A good portion of the science that we are undertaking today deals with these factors. Droughts, as I just pointed out, are not uncommon in parts of Canada. To that effect, we are working on, for example, developing efficient irrigation practices. An example would be ``micromitters,'' small tubes that drop water one drop at a time at the base of a plant, are used in the Okanagan Valley. Grapes or fruit trees can be grown with small quantities of water. That is a technology that works but it would not work effectively for a grain field.
Over the years, especially in the dry areas of western Canada, minimum tillage practices have been adopted widely by producers. The concept of rotations, where you left the land fallow every second or third year, has almost disappeared. Farmers have taken to zero tillage for a variety of logical reasons, for example, water conservation, reduced erosion events and fewer passes over the field because you are not cultivating. A number of things have taken place and technology will produce, we hope, a few more to improve the situation.
Slide 10 indicates some of the risks that will be faced by producers and suggested responses that might alleviate or mitigate these risks. The risks include, increased temperature and increased variations in climate, reduced water availability, potential degraded soils, and one of the things that we have not paid enough attention to, namely, that with the potentially warmer climate we will have a range of pests pathogens, weeds and invasion species that we have not had to deal with in Canada.
We have seen this with things like the diamondback moth, which is occasionally blown into Canada from the southern U.S. and Mexico. It is a major pest of canola. Losses can be between $50 and $100 million in terms of yield and insecticides. It does not overwinter in Canada because it is too cold in the prairies, but with significant climate change some of these pests can take hold.
What are we doing to deal with this? The agriculture policy framework that the federal, provincial and territorial governments are working on is proposing new risk management programs that would help to alleviate some of these extremes. We have been working in the department and in the provinces on irrigation efficiency to ensure that we are delivering what water we have effectively. The issue of water allocation, which is a complex issue, will be dealt with also.
In general terms, research has been focusing on stress in western Canada and in some of the more northerly areas since the Department of Agriculture was formed. There is also the issue of new crops. Crops are grown in western Canada that were not grown 20 years ago. For example, chickpeas, which thrive in dry areas, are now rotation crops in parts of Saskatchewan. Drought resistance has been a factor in wheat and cereal production for years. That is why we have our research centres in places such as Swift Current, which are dry. It forces the plant breeders to work under a situation of stress and they have done a fine job. We will have to produce new methods of pest control and new methods of surveillance to detect these invasive species when they come in and stop them quickly. Overall resource management must also change.
The following slide shows consists of photographs depicting the types of things that farmers are now doing and we will expand this work. You can see that air seeder there, but 15 years ago, that would have been a rare event in western Canada. This is now a standard way of seeding and there is almost no disturbance to the soil. The bottom picture that is nice and green indicates some of the variety of crops that are now grown. If I remember my biology, that looks like a horticultural crop, which is unusual on the prairie. Let us pretend it is a pulse crop.
Briefly, I mentioned the agriculture policy framework as a new platform that the federal, provincial and territorial governments are using to move forward. The critical thing about this is that there are a number of absolutely essential elements there but more importantly is the fact that they are linked. None of these activities can function alone. Perhaps they did in the past, but they cannot if we are to move forward.
I will go quickly through the key elements. In research, our favourite is science innovation. We will have to do more work in terms of modelling, more improved surveillance to detect changes in biology that are occurring and take action. We have been working on sustainable production systems for years; they will have to be extended. Crops will have to be more resilient. If the climate change introduces extreme events in addition to warming and drying events, you cannot just develop a crop that is totally drought tolerant; otherwise, when a good year comes along — a year of extra rain — you would not be able to take advantage of the extra yields. Therefore, resilience of crops to respond to swings is critical, as are new practices in water efficient use. Business risk models will have to change to accommodate various events. One of the new parts of the APF program will see enhanced production insurance schemes, which will assist producers in dealing with the extreme events that come along. Stabilization programs, tax deferrals and similar programs will continue.
Renewability is part of adapting to change. We will have to make more effort to develop and transfer technology to deal with unique issues. We hope to be able to develop, with other departments, improved decision support systems that allow forward planning and risk analysis. Under this scenario, skills and training are obviously critical.
We are here to talk about the environment. A number of programs are in place and other programs are being expanded. Mr. Adkins could perhaps talk about the security of the water supply a little bit later. We do have water programs in place at the present time, which are being expanded nationally.
The National Land and Water Information Service will bring together knowledge of hydrology, soils and climate to allow people to make long-term decisions in terms of land planning and use. Clearly, we have to improve our knowledge of both weather and weather events. We have to be able to predict these events further ahead than we can now.
With the process of developing beneficial management practices, rather than ``best,'' we are trying to adopt practices that have succeeded in a variety of locations and introduce them to the areas in Canada that require the change. APF also promotes environmental farm plans. This is to have an understanding of risks such as salinity on your farm, to understand your cropping practices so you have a record of what pesticides you are using. Following these methods, not only are you managing environment in a sustainable fashion, but you are also producing your crop in a safe fashion.
Green cover programs are being introduced to help take marginal lands out of production, to stabilize the land and to help sequester carbon.
We need to know what progress we are making — both internationally and domestically — with the programs we have. The agro-environmental indicators are test sites that are proxies for change, whether it is organic matter or certain biological organisms in the soil that are responsive to change. These are being put in place and expanded in some cases. In some places, they have been in place for some time. We can measure the changes Canada is making in terms of mitigation and adaptation.
This is a long-term effort. We will need to build and continue to build knowledge. We will have to work with partners in a variety of areas, both industry and other governments. New program and adjustments will have to take place to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, we think that, while there are potentially significant events that may happen, with science, technology and the cooperation and partnership of a number of people, we can adapt to the change and much of it can be mitigated.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that excellent presentation. One of the things that interested me in what you had to say dealt with the concept of adaptation and, on page 13 of your brief, there is a page titled ``How can Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada help the sector adapt to global warming and climate variability?'' During your presentation, you said that one of the things we have to do is develop crops that are more resilient. You said we need resilience to crop swings and it is critical. You seemed to be hinting at GMO seeds to produce the crops that had the resilience. We know in Japan and Europe, they are reluctant to accept genetically modified products. My question is when you say we have to develop more resilience, were you referring to genetically modified crops?
Mr. Dorrell: No, I was not. I have training in classical plant breeding and I have great faith in the ability of plant breeders to make changes using traditional methods. However, you do raise a point, in that some plants, for example, have interesting water-preserving structures and tissue on the surface. With a little imagination, one could imagine transferring this to a cereal crop, but this is years away and I take your comments about the marketplace.
The Chairman: Climate change has been with us for years and our Canadian farmers have been resilient. They have adjusted to this climate change over the decades with better genetics, better farm management, new technology and product innovation.
However, the negative side is where the real challenge comes, because we have longer growing seasons, more pests, extreme weather events and so on that will effect the economy for farmers. One of the ways this is being tested is by models. What do you think of the models that are being used to test the economic effects of this climate change on Canadian agriculture? Do you have confidence in these models? Where does Canada stand in relation to other countries in terms of these models?
Mr. Dorrell: I am not a modeller and models are just that; they are not absolute. Maybe I could ask one of my colleagues to respond.
Ms. Michele Brenning, Director, Environment Bureau, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: There has been some modelling, as you know, in the climate change plan that was released. The modelling looked at the agriculture sector very broadly. We did do a fair amount of modelling some years ago, in something called the ``climate change table process,'' where we talked to our stakeholders and tried to understand the kinds of decisions that needed to be made in developing policy change. We are in the process of continuing the modelling. We have not completed it yet, but we hope to have more specific modelling that will build on the work that had been released earlier this month.
Senator Wiebe: I would like to thank the four of you for what I think is an outstanding presentation. I found it to be exciting. I guess I should not say this, but I thought it was one of the best we have had since the start of our inquiry.
My first question is probably a supplementary to the chairman's first question, in regard to the development of new plants. I think it is key to agriculture in the future, especially with climate change. We have always had climate change, but I think that the behaviour of humans over the last number of years has made that climate change more rapid. That is why your job and ours' will be more important in the interim— to be able to provide the tools for agriculture and adjustment.
One of the best areas is going to be the area of new plants. You mentioned chickpeas. This is something we are able to borrow from someone else, but we are going to have to do a tremendous amount of research and work in the development of these new plants that will fit into these areas.
Perhaps this concern is more appropriately expressed to the minister. First, we as government will have to provide the research dollars to enable that development to take place. If we leave that up to the private sector, it will not happen as quickly as we would like it to because they wanted a quick return on their investment. Second, in the development of new plants, I would like to see the assurance that the patent on that development belongs to the farmers of this country and that they do not have to outlay huge dollars to purchase plants and seed to take advantage of that. The only way that can be assured, of course, is through the research and development of these new products by government itself.
It is not something new as far as agriculture goes because we do have the Swift Current Research Station, from which I live about one-half mile, which has developed many of those plants. Much of the research that has kept agriculture alive has been the result of that long-term research developed by Agriculture Canada at the research stations across this country. That is not a question but rather it is my little commercial for some of the concerns that farmers certainly have out there.
Climate change will not be detrimental to all areas of Canada, and you certainly explained that, especially in slides 3 to 7. There will be some areas where climate change will be an advantage. Slide 7 shows that the moisture will be in the central part of my province, rather than in the southern part. There will be adequate moisture. The problem is, of course, the soil, which holds the plants in place. Concerning that, it would, perhaps, be a matter of applying nutrients to the soil, to be able to take advantage of it. The advantage that soil has in the southern part is that it is able to retain the moisture. Once there is excess heat, even that falls short. Is the problem that we will face really more a matter of quantity or of quality of the food that we will produce as a result of climate change?
Mr. Dorrell: That is a provocative question. I will answer in two parts, after which I will ask my colleagues to comment.
I agree completely with your initial statement that we must have a long-term commitment. Being close to that research centre, you are well aware that it takes eight to 10 years to develop a variety. It takes a much longer lead-time if you are introducing something radically new: agronomic practices must be developed; and there is work on pest control. You cannot just go out to a dry climate somewhere in the world, lift out a species and put it in. You are absolutely right: that does not always work.
In terms of quantity versus quality, my reaction would be that farmers are entrepreneurial, inventive and innovative. They are interested in doing things well; they are interested in producing value-added, and my guess is that we may see a shift from commodity-based things to very specialized things wherein you could probably husband your water for use on a smaller acreage and make as much money. That will take a fundamental change in agriculture in the West.
Mr. Lindwall, would you care to respond?
Mr. Wayne Lindwall, National Program Leader for Environment, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you. You are quite right that the situation for soils, not just in central and northern Saskatchewan but in other Prairies as well, is not well suited for agriculture. If the precipitation and temperatures are right and the soil is not right, it puts much more pressure on adequate inputs to grow a crop. I have had the opportunity to work and visit in many developing countries around the world, as well as in countries that have had the misfortunate to experience badly degraded soils. Much of their agriculture production becomes hydroponics because it is possible to grow a wider range of crops, provided there is access to water for irrigation and lots of nutrients.
I guess we, in Canada, pride ourselves in having the lowest inputs of fertilizer and chemicals for the production of food of any country in the world, perhaps with the exception of Australia. When looking at growing crops outside the best agricultural areas, you will be faced with the challenges of developing sustainable production and recognizing that it might take more nutrients because the soil quality is lower. You mentioned that soil is the means to hold the plant up. In fact, we take much pride in the quality of the soils — we view our soils as being alive with micro-organisms. We are fortunate in that Canada is probably the only country — or one of the few in the world — in which soil carbon is on the increase. That is a huge indicator of sustainability when you can have the levels of production that we have in Canada and yet soil carbon levels are going up. That is quite different than most countries of the world where agricultural soil carbon is on the decrease.
There is always that balance. You can mine the agricultural soils if you are prepared to spend the dollars and subsidize the fertilizer and chemicals, as many countries are doing to feed their population. It is amazing what you can grow but is it sustainable? In the long run, the risk to water quality and food safety is paramount for us because we are an exporting nation. We export at least 70 per cent of our agricultural production. We have a tremendous international reputation for the quality and safety of our food products. That is, in part, because we use the lowest fertilizer and chemical inputs of any country in the world.
We must weigh the pros and cons of what is sustainable. The environmental indicators, as Dr. Dorrell referred to earlier, can help brand Canada in terms of the protein that we produce in relation to our inputs of fertilizer and chemicals and outputs of greenhouse gases. This is a real opportunity for Canada, in many respects, just because of our climate, the innovation of our farmers and the good soil that we have on the Prairies.
Senator Wiebe: I have about one dozen questions for each slide. However, if you will permit me one more question later, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Hubley: I will take all my questions from the slides and try to put them together into one, so I may touch on some of these.
I will select the security of the water system, so that anyone who has done work on that might come forth with his or her ideas. The other is slide number 3 under ``food processing.'' As a background, in Prince Edward Island we grow a major crop of potatoes. We have two very large processing plants on P.E.I. that require a great deal of water, not only to grow the crop but also to sustain the processing methods that they use.
Do you have any specific models or research work that that focuses on those large processing plants and better methods of using the water? Irrigation was mentioned but are you looking at any specific methods for long-term sustainability in the area of processing. We were looking favourably at the longer growing season on the East Coast but, if we do not have the necessary water supply, it may not be the advantage that we had hoped.
Mr. Dorrell: I have a couple of quick comments questions and perhaps my colleagues could expand on that.
Most of the large processing companies do exhaustive studies to determine the security of their water supply. Whether they are meat processors or french fry processors, they use inordinate quantities of water.
We are starting to do more work on recycling water, making sure the water quality is up, because much of what is involved in the APF relates to the marriage of environment and food safety. There is no point in having water unless it is pure and clean, and there is no point in simply putting dirty water out into the system for someone to use. Therefore, we will be spending more resources on recycling and ways to reduce the water consumption in these large plants, because it is very costly for them.
I agree with you regarding the concern with this one. It is something we have to work on now.
Mr. Adkins, did you want to add anything?
Mr. Phil Adkins, Acting Manager, Prairie Agroclimate Unit, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: I do not think I have too much to add to that, other than — and Senator Wiebe will be familiar with this example — the chicken processing operation in the town of Winyard, Central Saskatchewan is very conscious of the water supply requirement for processing the chickens. There is so much that can be done in terms of water conservation and recycling. However, at some point a threshold is reached where a certain amount of water has to be used for processing food just from a cleanliness and food safety perspective. Therefore, it certainly is a challenge. In that case, it has meant looking at alternative water supplies, looking at deeper ground water supplies that are more secure but more costly to develop and treat. The cost certainly will creep into this equation in a very real way.
Senator Fairbairn: Like Senator Wiebe, I am blessed by having a wonderful research station in my backyard in Lethbridge, Alberta. I know the work they do. I know the whole area, along with the university, is working together now on the question of water supply, because of what we have encountered, not just very badly in recent years, but in the mid-1980s as well. Then suddenly, this year, the rain fell and the snow came down, and we had the floods. It really was an example of a tremendous swing.
Last weekend, I spent a lot of time with people from the smaller towns out in the Southwestern corner of Alberta. I heard a rather alarming report — I am not sure where it came from — that in Alberta that this year, oddly enough, the only place in the province that received moisture of any degree was the southwestern corner. There was a suggestion that alluded to research that indicated that next year something like 90 per cent of the growing land in Alberta may not be to accept growth crops next spring because of what happened this summer. Around this table, we know that climate change is something that is governed not by decades but by millennia. However, very peculiar things are consistently happening right now, and that is a tremendous strain on our farm community. This is not normal. Southern Alberta has been suffering severe droughts, the worst droughts ever in our lifetime.
Do you have any comment on the notion that the rest of the province may have been hit so badly this year that people may not be able to grow crops.
Mr. Dorrell: I know where that information came from. I will ask Mr. Adkins to respond.
It is a strange situation because, as you know, I worked in Lethbridge for a while. The south had some unusual rain this year. The central area, the black soil zone, which is one of the most productive areas of Alberta, suffered droughts they have never suffered before, and the same with the Peace River region.
Senator Fairbairn: As well, the rain and the flooding in Southern Alberta happened at a time when people were trying to seed. Then it happened at a time when the heat was needed for the potatoes, the sugar beets and the corn. Just this weekend I was told that there are tonnes of those crops rotting in the ground right now.
Mr. Dorrell: The last thing you need when there is a swath on the ground is a five- or six-inch rainstorm. This is right.
Mr. Adkins: Senator Fairbairn, certainly the information you cited was correct. There was an article in the Saturday edition of the Calgary Herald, bearing the headline, ``Report says 90 per cent of land too dry to plant'' in Alberta. That was referring to a report that was released by Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development. They have a drought management strategy in place, which we hope will be at some point expanded across the country, particularly into Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As part of their provincial drought management strategy, they undertake soil moisture surveys. The map that was produced by this fall's soil moisture surveys led them to that number.
A very high proportion of the agricultural area in Alberta has low soil moisture. That is a carry-over from the droughts that we experienced in 2000 and 2001 in that part of the country. It is interesting that that area, particularly the area in Southern Alberta and in Southern Saskatchewan, the Palliser Triangle area that typically experiences the recurring droughts, this summer actually experienced significantly above-normal moisture. Certainly, one way to explain that is climate variability, climate change. It is almost an unprecedented recovery from drought in that particular area.
In contrast, when you look in the northern part of Alberta, up in the Edmonton area, north of Calgary and into Saskatchewan in the Kindersly-Rosetown-North Battleford area, areas where traditionally drought has not been a major factor, the draught is persisting there; they did not get those rains. The situation is not particularly promising in those areas for next year without substantial snowfall and above-average precipitation in the spring. There is very significant area of the Prairies that will be moisture-deficit.
Senator Fairbairn: Just because of the nature of it all, these are not things that can be readjusted quickly within a growing season, certainly not one and probably not many, if they persist.
Mr. Adkins: That is particularly correct for pastures. For annual crops, if you do get substantial and timely rains, you can ease your way through a difficult moisture-deficit situation. However, there certainly is a long-term carry-over in terms of soil moisture, and that impacts pasture growth.
Senator Fairbairn: You talk about what to do under the heading ``Science and Innovation'' on page 13. I was at Olds College last week speaking about a government project related to science and innovation.
It was not a good weekend for headlines. There was a disturbing story about the massive reduction in the number of young people that are prepared to stay on the land, undoubtedly because of the perpetuation of this stress on their families and also because they wonder where their future in agriculture lies. That is extremely disturbing because it is not just an agricultural issue. As you pointed out in another slide, it is a question of rural communities and their survival.
There I was at Olds, where the Government of Canada has been investing in an innovation centre. I was there to talk about a focus of that centre, which is natural fibre development. I was thinking of all of the news that we have been talking about here. They had already started this program — very high-tech stuff — where you take the wool or from llamas, alpacas, goats or sheep. Suddenly, I looked around at the students there and thought about what a hopeful thing this was. First, you are taking a look at the land and what it can sustain, and these animals are different from major, conventional herds of cattle. Second, this is also a world commodity. Natural fibre has a big global market attraction. I gather from what I heard there, that they are getting into the production of fibre and using facilities in small communities and this kind of thing. It was perhaps one of the more hopeful things I have seen for a long time.
I am wondering about the degree to which our research centres, colleges and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food are focusing on this. The one thing that struck me was that it was so different that it may take a lot of persuasion and encouragement for traditional farmers, who have been just whacked by climate, to go high-tech in the kind of a market that may have much to offer.
Mr. Dorrell: When you started I thought this was going to be a depressing story, but you ended up on a very positive note.
Senator Fairbairn: Yes, I went into it quite depressed and came out stepping lightly by the time I left — especially after seeing all of the incredible scientific work going on and the students who were there thinking this was the greatest place they had ever been. I wonder, though, is that too isolated a thing, or is there a real push to do this?
Mr. Dorrell: I do not think so. I share your optimism, because people are looking for alternatives. More and more people are talking about finding a place in the value chain, to get return for their intellectual input rather than pure labour. We have a much better educated group of people who understand risks and understand technology better. Much of what is going on in the agriculture policy framework is trying to build on this. It is trying to help manage risk from an insurance model — a more predictable way to try to help them be innovative.
That is why it shows things knitting together on that slide. At the end of the day, we are hoping to be able to create a brand for Canada. These products coming out — whether they be organic or specialty wheats or the natural fibres you are talking about — are produced in a way that, as Mr. Lindwall indicated, does not use many chemicals. We are not a country that uses huge quantities of chemicals, so we have a good starting point to create the impression and the reality that we are producing in a sustainable and responsible fashion. With enhanced work on food safety, the consumer should feel comfortable that what is coming out at the other end is not only a quality product, but also a safe one.
I think we are seeing segmentation occurring in the marketplace, which I think is very good. One worry I have, and this is where you caught my attention when you talked about the age of students, is that fewer students are going into agricultural faculties at universities in Western Canada. Many of the things we have been talking about tonight require innovation and more education. I think the adaptation and adjustment part of APF could help people develop skills. However, I am a little worried about the combination of the fact that the agriculture population is aging faster than other segments and that we are not getting enough people into universities to pick up the technology.
Ms. Brenning: I will just point something out that may be of interest to you. Under the renewal component of our agriculture policy framework, one of the things we have done is get community colleges together. There is a meeting today and tomorrow that is ongoing, where they are struggling with this problem in particular. They met about six months ago; this is their second meeting. It is certainly on their radar screen and I know that we are entering into discussions, through the renewal part of the agriculture policy framework, to see what kinds of options there are.
Senator Fairbairn: I know that the community college in Lethbridge has been very involved in partnering with agricultural research stations and things like that. I felt uncomfortable when I was asked about all the farmers that are on the land. That is a very uncomfortable question now. It is difficult for people who have their whole life there — to see the herds and horses being sold off. It is very hard to lift the spirit, or even a sense of hope that there are alternatives. They may be hard to grasp but they are nonetheless there. I think that particular college had a bit of a dip a couple of years ago, but I asked about that and their enrolment is growing. Students are coming not just from Canada; I met students from Mexico. They were just totally fired up by all this and that might be a hopeful sign.
Otherwise, I think Senator Wiebe would agree, and in Saskatchewan it is happened to a much larger degree than elsewhere, but our towns are under tremendous pressure to be able to maintain their own infrastructures and their own water supplies, where it had been perfectly okay before.
The Chairman: I would like to, before going to Senator Wiebe for the second round, I would like to ask two questions just of clarification of things that have been said. When Senator Hubley was here she was asking a number of questions about water and wanted to know about adaptations farmers ought to be considering for some water problems in Prince Edward Island. Mr. Adkins, you, in response, began to talk about a chicken processing plant in Saskatchewan and their innovative use of water, but did not tell us in what they did to adapt. I would like to get that clear on the record. Then, Mr. Lindwall, when you were giving a response to Senator Wiebe, you stressed that the unique thing about Canada is that our soil carbons are going up, but you did not tell us why. Would you both provide us with those answers?
Mr. Adkins: With respect to chicken processing, two options were exercised to minimize their water use within the plant: to look at water conservation to the extent they could; and then, in concert with the community, to look at the development of a water supply that would be more secure. In this case, a deeper bedrock — a groundwater aquifer, which is not quite as susceptible to climate and weather as, is shallow groundwater. The problem with that water is that it sits in the ground for a longer time and so it has time to dissolve the minerals from the soils that confine it. Thus, that water supply is more costly to develop because it is deeper and it is more difficult to treat because of the minerals that are present in the water. However, it is the only other choice for adaptation. We will see that across the country in areas where groundwater is not fully utilized. As climate change develops more, we will see previously untapped water developed at additional cost.
The Chairman: It sounds to me that it is not an adaptation answer but rather an additional cost so to get their product to market will be more costly.
How deep would some of those wells be that you are discussing?
Mr. Adkins: In the 200-metre range as opposed to many groundwater wells in that area that are shallower with good quality water and are less reliable in terms of being drought-proof. Those would be in the range of 20 metres.
The Chairman: Your example of that particular processing plant is not a success story because, ultimately, their costs of production have to increase because of the cost of water.
Mr. Adkins: That is correct, and we have to face the fact that the cost of our water is likely to go up. It is fair to generalize and it is also fair to say that, for the most part in Canada, we do not value our water in accordance to its real economic value.
The Chairman: Water is a commodity, like gold is.
Mr. Adkins: It will be addressed as we are forced into developing more and more expensive water supplies. We will have to come to grips with attaching a realistic cost to our water.
The Chairman: I was hoping to hear that Saskatchewan's chicken processing plants are adapting by doing specific things to conserve the water and control their costs. Unfortunately, your answers indicate just the opposite.
Could you tell us about soil carbons because I am sure your answer will be positive?
Mr. Lindwall: I apologize for not following through. The main reason that carbon levels are going up in Canadian soils, particularly in the Prairies, is that over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a revolution in our farm management practices in terms of adopting conservation tillage, minimum tillage and no-till, which is practiced by more than 30 per cent of farmers in Saskatchewan.
When you cultivate the soil, it is like opening the furnace door on organic matter. The more you do it, the more you oxidize the carbon and organic matter in the soil. With less cultivation, the soil stays cooler; there is less mineralization and oxidation of organic matter. That helps to buffer in terms of moisture stress, water-holding capacity and mitigation of the effects of pesticide.
If you can increase the soil carbon, it will buffer much of man's activities. With the adoption of crop rotation and less tillage, our soil carbon levels have been going up over the last several years. We are probably the only country that I know of where soil carbon levels are going up. That is a good indicator of sustainability. Scientists have not found any better indicator of sustainability than the levels of soil carbon.
When you travel the world, you can see badly degraded soils that have little or no soil carbon. The soils are basically sand and they add water and nutrients to it. If there is humus organic matter in the soil, we know how much better that is for holding the water and limiting the effects of drought and stress. The farmers have done a tremendous job in adapting to that.
I know that Senator Wiebe has seen a tremendous change in Southwest Saskatchewan with the adoption of direct seeding, conservation tillage, growing oil seed such as canola, and all the pulses in that area. It has been a revolution to the credit of the adoption of conservation tillage practices. We are proud of the record internationally.
We had an opportunity to promote our record during the Kyoto negotiations. Over the years, we have been able to document through the foresight of our scientists, who have been setting up long-term crop rotations at Lethbridge, Edmonton, Indianhead and Brandon. That has allowed us to demonstrate over 80 years with real numbers the fact that our soil carbon is on the increase. It is a credit to our soil scientists who established these long-term crop rotations across the prairies. They not only maintain the crop rotations but they also save the soils every five years from those rotations so that we can repeat the analysis over and over again to lay proof to the job that our producers have done.
The Chairman: That is an incredibly exciting answer. Is Canada actually selling some of this expertise that they developed with respect to zero tillage? Are they teaching farmers in other countries the advantage of low-tillage?
Mr. Lindwall: In terms of selling the technology, obviously, the technology transfer process works pretty well. Much of the conservation tillage equipment was developed on the Prairies for that purpose. Dr. Dorrell showed a slide earlier on air seeders. We have many manufacturers and the equipment is being marketed in Australia and in other parts of the world. I have seen Canadian machines in Africa, South America and in China. This technology is on-going. We have a project ongoing in Inner Mongolia where they are attempting to adopt conservation tillage, using these technologies as well but on a smaller scale, of course.
Senator Wiebe: I would like to go back to some of the effects of global warming. In order to have rain, there has to be evaporation so that heat is not necessarily all that bad. This may sound like a silly question but I have to ask it because I do not know the answer. As far as our globe is concerned, we will never run out of water unless we pump it into the ground. Is that a fair assumption?
Mr. Dorrell: When you consider the absolutely gigantic mass of ocean water that is cycling, as you suggest, it so overwhelms the land requirement that I would tend to agree with you. However, my colleagues know more of this than I know.
Senator Wiebe: That is why I have to ask the question because I do not know. Our earth is a cycle and the water that we consume to keep our bodies functioning is eventually brought back into the system. Global warming may change where that moisture will fall. That, I guess, should be our greater concern rather than the thought that some day we may live on a dry planet. Is that a fair assumption?
Mr. Adkins: Yes, that is a fair assumption. Certainly, the hydrologic cycle tells us that the water will be in the system but the concern is where, when and how. Where will it come back down to earth as precipitation? How will it come back down to earth as precipitation — Will it be over a period of five days in the form of a million-dollar rain, as we say on the prairies or will it come in a space of 15 minutes? Climate change is alerting us to the fact that we may get many more extreme events. As per the modelling, some areas will get more moisture. However, the problem will be that it will come at an inopportune time of the year for agriculture, or they expect that it will come as rather catastrophic events as opposed to a steady rain.
Senator Wiebe: Will it be more difficult to predict the weather? I ask this because when I started farming, when we got a southeast wind, we would know that within two days we would have a nice rain. Over the last 12 years, we could have southeast winds all the time, and we never got the rain. Therefore, it is difficult to predict El Niño and the jet patterns. Some of the rain that we get comes over the mountains. Therefore, that moisture is picked up from the oceans, partially through the mountains and, of course, local evaporation, and that causes thunderstorms and that kind of thing.
Will we be able to predict the kind of weather that our farmers can expect as an asset in managing their operations?
Mr. Dorrell: I will make a global comment, and we can move from there. Honourable senators, we would all agree that a considerable amount of progress has been made in the last while. I would suggest that 20 years ago most of us around this table had never heard of El Niño. Now they have temperature buoys scattered across the Pacific monitoring this on a continuous basis to predict the cycle. We have not gone through that many cycles, so we are learning.
We have an unprecedented array of weather satellites around the world. We all know the local nature of weather. The strange blocks in Western Canada at the present time — I am not sure whether they are called ``mega-blocks — but there is a high pressure area over Alberta allowing a huge, massive low to sink down over Ontario, and it has been like this now for several weeks. That block should disappear. Scientists are not sure why it is there.
Mr. Lindwall: Obviously, the technology has changed dramatically in recent years in our ability to collect data and analyze the date with the supercomputers, instrumentation and developments that have taken place with satellites. We have seen many extremes — be they the result of climate change, sunspots or just the anomalies of the patterns and whether it is the ocean currents or not. With the vast data we are collecting, and because of the associated impact on all sectors of the economy, there is a renewed emphasis on getting a better understanding of being able to predict the potential effects of not just climate change, but weather. Because of the insurance concerns and the costs of this variability and our ability to collect this data, there is a renewed emphasis on not just the modelling but being able to validate the models with real numbers. We have the ability now to collect so much information to help validate the models. A lot of the models in the past had been widely criticized because they were validated with real numbers.
However, we now have the ability to test these models with real numbers because of the variability that we have seen in the weather and the climate in recent years. We expect to develop a better understanding so we can predict things on a shorter basis and respond in a more effective way to mitigate the impact of these unbelievable weather variations that I have experienced in my lifetime.
It is hard to believe that these changes have been just accidents or freaks of nature because they have been so dramatic. There are not just the droughts on the Prairies, but there are droughts across the country in Canada and around the world. There is extreme weather, including floods. There are droughts in the Maritimes and different parts of Ontario and Quebec. The variability is just incredible.
I am not sure if I have answered the question. However, we have an ability to do a better job. The incentive is there because of the economic impacts of these variabilities and our ability to collect and analyze the information.
Senator Wiebe: This is a question on the side. In other words, we should not rely so much on The Old Farmer's Almanac.
I would like to talk about pest control. You mentioned that more research and development is required in regards to that because of the area warming up. However, has there not been enough research done on how to address the problems created by pests from other countries where these pests have been in and will now be moving into our area? Are you anticipating that there might be some new strains of pests or new resistance developed by some of the pests as a result of global warming?
Mr. Dorrell: Honourable senators, it is a little of both.
Canada, on a somewhat regular basis, receives new pests. Examples of this are the pine beetle in British Columbia and the emerald ash borer in Southern Ontario. In Alberta, we had an infestation for the first time of cabbage pod weevil that goes after canola. These are things we never had before. You can apply chemical controls to them if you know enough about their life cycle. It takes some time to get a chemical registered in this country, because we have not had the problem.
Entomologists like to see whether there are natural ways to control the problem — whether there are natural pests available. Normally, when an insect comes in like that, there are no natural enemies. Then you have to go to the area where the pest is endemic and see if you can find pests to bring in and help to control it biologically. This takes some time.
Normally, we do not have expertise relating to the pest that comes. That is a challenge for science. We try to maintain a broad capacity, whether in pathogens, entomology or whatever, so that when something like that comes in we can pull a group of scientists off the work they are on now and hit that particular pest fairly quickly. Consequently, we have been reasonably successful. However, the worry I have is that as temperature permits the pests to be more common, we will have an interesting challenge.
Mr. Lindwall was mentioning that we have the computing power. We have the capacity now, of knowing where particular pests are around the world, to model where they could enter in Canada. I had the opportunity six or eight months ago to see a demonstration. They were working backwards after the event occurred. It was the Japanese longhorn beetle that entered Southern Ontario. It came off cargo ships in wood pallets. It came out of China. They modelled this backwards. They knew that it had come in, and they tried to figure out its range, and they knew where the range was. They took that climate and the range and let the model determine where in North America it should occur if it ever came in. The beauty was that they were within a few hundred miles of where the outbreak was. The worrisome thing is they found many other areas where it could be.
We will have to start to anticipate things that will potentially affect our economic crops, whether they are trees or corn or whatever.
The Chairman: However, with climate change, there will be different areas all across the country where it could occur. Therefore, climate change will change all those models. You will have to do it almost randomly.
Mr. Dorrell: The models are fairly robust. One of the biggest problems was that we were not always sure where all the other insects were. Now, we have the exchange of these huge databases on collections of where the insects are, overlaid with our trade patterns, because unless you have some vehicle to bring that thing in, you do not worry about it. Much time is spent looking at pests around ports. If we do that, it will be helpful.
The same idea applies to pathogens. For years we have worked diligently to try to keep ahead of rust in wheat. The rust cycle starts in northern Mexico and the southern U.S. and moves the north. If the winds are right, it moves up quite quickly; if not, it gets blocked. These strains start mutating in the U.S. two or three years before we spot them.
The pathologists work with their colleagues in the U.S. to watch the changes occurring there and anticipate what will happen in Canada. They then insert genes — not using GMO technology but classical technology — resistant to that. With probably one exception in the last 50 years, we have never had a significant outbreak of rust. There is a massive effort to keep ahead of the organism. There was a small breakdown, but we knew it was occurring so the plant breeders were able to change the resistance pattern in the crop so we did not have an epidemic.
Senator Wiebe: I would like to return to water. I do not know whether this comes under your department or under PFRA. Your projections to 2040 show that the central part of Western Canada will receive adequate amounts of moisture. If my memory serves me well, the slide indicates that it will be better further north.
Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern Manitoba are well noted for an overabundance of lakes. Some of the best fishing in the world is in those lakes in Saskatchewan, although not so much in Manitoba and Alberta.
Is any work being done or thought being given to ways of getting that water down from the north to the dryer areas in the south to make it available in the event that we do have prolonged periods of drought in the south? The results of work done in that regard with the Diefenbaker Dam in the Palliser Triangle are overwhelming. The water will still be there; it will only be falling in a different place.
Has the Department of Agriculture looked at the possibility of bringing that water south? I know the Americans have been after us for water, but that is water from British Columbia.
Mr. Dorrell: Inter-basin transfer of water and trans-provincial transfer of water is a very interesting issue and I will ask Mr. Adkins to deal with it.
Mr. Adkins: That is an excellent question, Senator Wiebe. There was a fair amount of work done with regard to studying moving water from the water-rich north to the water-poor south in the 1960s and the 1970s. Much of the work was initiated by the Americans, but there was also work done in Canada. That work has not yet been rejuvenated, certainly not within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada but, as Dr. Dorrell mentioned, one of the reasons a number of the schemes that were proposed in the 1960s and 1970s were never developed is that society became much more concerned about the environmental impact of things like inter-basin, interprovincial and international transfer of water. It may be that the need for water was not sufficient to drive further work.
I do not think this is speculation or opinion. I think society will have to re-evaluate some of those past decisions and look at all the options in terms of getting water to where it is needed. We will have to take a second look at doing cost- benefit analysis for moving water, including the full environmental impacts and taking into account the value of the water. I believe that is something that will be addressed, but it certainly is not being addressed at this time.
The Chairman: Dr. Dorrell, I am interested in the concept of adaptation. I would be grateful if you would elaborate on something you said as an aside. You were talking about the concept the micromitters and saying that in British Columbia and other grape-growing areas they have a novel way of watering their plants so that they will grow without using a lot of water. Could you elaborate on that? Is this something that could be adapted to many other types of farming? How far has your research gone in the area?
Mr. Dorrell: Some of the work is taking place at our centre in Summerland, which deals with fruit crops — primarily grapes, apples and cherries. The technology is widely used in countries where water is in very short supply. The concept is simple. It is controlled release application of small quantities of water right into the root ball rather than in a large area. In Phoenix, people feed a few trees around their homes in this way.
However, there is more to it than simply the physical restriction of water. With good planning, you know the water demands of the plants, be they grapevines or apple trees. You can install sensors that detect changes in the plant, either in the osmotic pressure of the plant or the speed at which the stem is widening or contracting. In that way, you know when the plant needs water. You also control fertilizer application, and you do it in such a way that the fertilizer never gets below the bottom of the root zone. The worst thing to do is to apply lots of fertilizer that is washed into the groundwater. That is of no value and can be harmful.
This whole system is exciting, and the plant drives it. When the plant shows signs of stress, it tells the computer that it requires a shot of water. The technology is not that expensive. Granted, it must be a fairly valuable crop, but I think we will see many things like that as we switch, in the dryer areas, to higher value crops.
The Chairman: Would this be practical on Prairie farms of 5,000 acres?
Mr. Dorrell: No. It might be practical in a nursery in a dry area of Saskatchewan where, for example, there is limited disease, no snow mould, and you are producing hardy cedar trees. You could run such an operation with a very small amount of moisture, but it is restricted to high-value crops. It is an answer for some areas, although not for many.
The Chairman: It is something you are continuing to do research on?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes.
The Chairman: Government programs and policies such as tax credits and insurance regulations significantly influence agricultural practices and can be a powerful tool to help farmers adapt to climate change. What are the various tools or measures that government can instrument to foster adaptation in the agricultural sector?
Ms. Brenning: I am not an expert in the various business risk management tools so, if you wish, we can get more information for you. I can, however, give you some examples. As part of the drought package that was announced there were some tax measures to allow farmers to sell off parts of their herds without taking a large hit in a particular tax year.
The Chairman: That would be a deferred tax on the disposition of the sale?
Ms. Brenning: That is right.
The other side of your question was with regard to insurance schemes. In the agriculture policy framework we are currently in the process of redesigning our whole business risk management programs. We are looking at moving toward more whole-farm insurance. Traditionally we have had crop insurance, which was fairly limited in its scope of coverage. We are trying to make sure that we can cover all aspects of the business. That is not just for climate change adaptation, but it is to try to ensure that the business is more robust, and that they are able to adapt to wider swings that they would face on a normal business recycle.
The Chairman: Dr. Dorrell, how much money does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spend on adaptation strategies? What are you spending per year on strategies to help farmers adapt to these changes that we are experiencing in climate change?
Mr. Dorrell: I should have that answer at my fingertips, but unfortunately, I do not because we would probably spend a significant amount of time debating the definition of adaptation.
We are farming generally in a fairly hostile area in Canada compared to some other countries. Therefore, trying to move varieties into new areas, trying to get more out of varieties has been a real challenge over the years. If frost does not get you, grasshoppers do.
I would say that the work we are doing on insect control is adapting those crops to a reasonably hostile environment. I am not sure whether you buy my very broad definition, but the department spends a considerable sum of money.
Can anyone be more precise than that?
Mr. Lindwall: As Dr. Dorrell indicated we are always debating the question, ``what is adaptation?'' Our breeding programs are adapting because of the time frame it takes to select a variety. You are selecting over a long period of time so there is always some adaptation element there. Our research branch budget is in the neighbourhood of $250 million a year. Ms. Brenning has interdepartmental funds associated with climate change 2000 in which tens of millions of dollars are targeted for adaptation that is part of the climate change action fund program. What percentage of that, we could debate for a while.
I would agree with Dr. Dorrell that a significant percentage of our budget is targeted towards adaptation. Do the titles of the studies specifically make reference to adaptation? Probably not. If we could define what adaptation is, and that we are always trying to adapt with our agronomy and our breeding programs, I would think it is a very significant part of the budget. However, I would not want to be pinned down to say it is 25 per cent or 30 per cent, but it is a big number. There are budgets that have been specifically targeted to both mitigation and adaptation that we work with in Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada that we target specific activities for adaptation, and we can provide you with those numbers later. I do not have the numbers at hand. We could easily provide those within a week or so if you wish.
The Chairman: That would be very useful.
Senator Fairbairn: On page 14 in your presentation under the headline ``Business Risk Management,'' you go on to talk about production insurance, new net income stabilization account, NISA programs, stabilization disaster investment and tax deferral. When you talk about new NISA programs, are you speaking about the most recent programs in the efforts of the last couple of years, or are you speaking of new designs, new ideas?
Mr. Dorrell: I think we are looking at truly a redesigned NISA.
Senator Fairbairn: A total redesign of NISA as it now exists?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes. Not total, but it would have several different elements.
Senator Fairbairn: For the interest of a viewing audience, could you describe NISA for us?
Ms. Brenning: Currently we have a consultation document out on the new Business Risk Management programs that are available on our Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada web site. We can give that to you if you wish. It will go into more details on what we are thinking.
The NISA program is basically a savings program for farmers, which allows them to take money out when their income drops below a certain level. In that way, they are able to control somewhat fluctuations in the income they are going to be subject to receiving in a particular year.
Under that program in the past, the government would match and we would provide a premium on insurance when the farmer would be putting the money in. Now, when the farmer is taking the money out, they would get the insurance premium on that amount of money. We are hoping that it will, in part, allow some flexibility to the farmers. If they to use that money for investment on their property, for example, to try to put in a particular structure or something that might help them further their business along, that money would be available to do that.
Of course, these are issues that are being debated now, and the document is out for consultation. I expect that we will see a fair amount of discussion around this document in the next couple of weeks.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you. Dr. Dorrell?
Mr. Dorrell: I was just going to mention, too, it is available on the web. It has just come out.
Senator Wiebe: My question relates to adaptation. Agriculture and farmers over the years have always been adapting. They have been adapting to the economical changes, to market changes and so on. One of the difficult things for the committee is how do we recommend further adaptation?
Look at slide 11, the top right-hand corner the photo captioned ``continuing adaptation.'' That particular piece of equipment will cost about $200,000. You are looking at a tremendous expense that is involved in adapting.
When our committee went to Europe this spring to look at what was happening within the European Union, and when we went to Washington last summer, they were telling us that they were losing 3 per cent of their farmers every year even though they were highly subsidizing their farming community. That is exactly the same figure that we have here in Canada. We are losing 3 per cent of our farmers each year, and we are not replacing them with younger farmers at the same rate as the loss.
Is part of the problem the high cost of adapting? If that is the problem, how do we address it?
Mr. Dorrell: Clearly, that picture shows a solution available to some farmers: to get bigger and reduce labour and so forth. Under some circumstances, that works very well. It is not the answer for everyone.
For some farmers, it is to be specialized. If you live close to a major urban centre, you can do different things. For years, we have had ``U-pick'' strawberry farms that cater to urban areas. I think Senator Fairbairn indicated some entrepreneurial opportunities. Maybe we are seeing a segmentation of those entrepreneurs who will put a tremendous amount of entrepreneurial skill into developing some sophisticated smaller high value markets.
I have no idea how many farmers that will accommodate. As well, they may not be the traditional farmers but people moving into specialty farming as a way of life or as an alternative income. Perhaps my colleagues could add to that.
Mr. Lindwall: I would add that economies of scale enter into this equation, and I am amazed at how many acres or hectares a farmer can manage now, with their tractors and other equipment on the Prairies. I grew up on a wheat farm in southeastern Alberta and a 1,500-acre farm was a pretty good size for my father and my brother and sister — although it was not big enough if we all wanted to stay on the farm. Today, I see farms in southwester Saskatchewan that are 7,000 to 8,000 acres being run, in some cases, by a father and one son. It is a huge scale of operation with equipment but, more important, it is a complex business.
There are demands for information and technology. They are plugged into the Web to access international markets. Those who are doing well are always looking for that advantage to stay a step ahead, perhaps by having the newest information or by a willingness to gamble on a new crop to be first on the market. We have seen in past many times that by the time the majority of producers decide to try a new crop, the market has been saturated and the price drops off. It is the innovative farmer who is staying in. We must recognize the natural competitiveness, the innovation and the challenges associated with that.
Not everyone will be in a position to take those business risks. It is a major challenge and I do not think subsidies are the answer. It is really difficult Canadian farmers because we are competing with countries that continue to open the purse-strings, such as our neighbours to the south and in Europe as well. I am not sure that it will change. It will take a great deal of interest in having the information to help with those best business decisions. It is a continuing trend that the numbers of farmers will go down and the farm sizes will go up. I do not see that changing.
Senator Wiebe: The ability to say that Canadians can feel secure in the fact that they will always have a consistent supply of food is not necessarily the problem. The concern is how many farmers will be out there producing that food. I guess we must ask some key questions. Do we look at agriculture from a business point of view or from a social point of view? Either way, it will be expensive. Committee members will have to come to grips with that over the next while.
The Chairman: Someone referred to green cover in trees and converting farms that had doubtful use into a green cover. There are certain things that Canadians can do to help fight the climate change and global warming. Scientifically, do you have a program that you would like to implement to create more green cover on some of the acreages that used to be farms? If so, what effect will it have on future farmers and on the whole concept of adaptation if there is much more green cover?
Mr. Dorrell: The green cover is not specific to the prairies. There are opportunities in several parts of the country for this. Green cover can take several different routes. One is to re-grass stream banks — the riparian areas — where you want to stabilize the soil. That is one form of green cover to reduce the damage to the streams, the water and the fish habitat.
In some parts of country, there are areas of extreme salinity that will virtually grow no valuable crops. There are some species that can tolerate high salt but they are not crop plants. Green cover could bring some land out of marginal production. There are other such areas where this could be done. We did not talk about plantation trees but this is another form of green cover. Green cover is simply using the land in a different fashion.
How much land could we involve? I do not have the numbers. I will ask my colleagues to speculate on what amount of the country would benefit from a program of this nature.
Ms. Brenning: Minister Ralph Goodale announced the green cover program last summer. It is aimed specifically at agricultural producers and those producers who may want to convert some of their lands or to have riparian areas. We also have a component to plant shelterbelts.
We have some estimates of how much we could reach but we are still in the program design phase to come to grips with exactly what kind of seeding payment there might be.
At least one million hectares of land will be targeted. I am hesitant to give you an exact number because it will be dependent on the final program design. The program will not roll out until April 1, 2003. We will have a better idea in the next couple of months.
The Chairman: Is that in Saskatchewan and Alberta only?
Ms. Brenning: The program will be designed to be national in scope. Producers across Canada would be eligible to apply to this particular program. There is much interest in other partners coming forward. Some of the conservation districts are keen to look at what Agriculture Canada is doing and how they could partner with us — not just on a green cover program but on an environmental farm planning program where we could look at doing some management around watersheds. Often, that includes planting trees along the riparian areas.
We recently met with the Ontario Forest Association, OFA, just last week and they are interested in the kinds of things we are doing around shelterbelts. They are certainly looking at a much more ambitious program than we have in place. There are many different programs that are slightly different in their objectives with slightly different target audiences. Certainly, in the agriculture policy framework, we are looking at bringing in as many partners as possible to have the maximum benefit. We will look at using tools such as environmental farm planning whereby the farmers will be able to identify not only the actions that they may take on their properties but also the kinds of additional programs that may be available to help them to mitigate some of the problems they have on their land.
The Chairman: Aspects of what you said are reminiscent of the doctrine of multi-functionality that we saw in place in Europe — particularly in Ireland. If you have additional information on that, could you send that to our researchers or to our clerk? Thank you.
Senator Wiebe: That program will be handled by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, PFRA; is that correct or has that decision been taken?
Ms. Brenning: We are still in the design phase of the program. There are four different components to the program and it depends on which component you are talking about. That is one option but we are not looking at a one-size-fits- all for Canada for delivery. Rather, we are looking at other options because the PFRA does not exist across Canada. We have had numerous discussions with various different partners who could deliver the program for us in Central Canada and Eastern Canada.
Senator Wiebe: During our tour of the Maritimes last spring, many of the farm organizations were hoping that the PFRA would become a part of the Maritimes as well as Western Canada. I thought I should pass that on to you.
The PFRA has a very good reputation, not only in Western Canada but in all of Canada as well. It is done an excellent job.
Ms. Brenning: We are implementing the agriculture policy framework in the department by moving towards a concept called ``horizontal teams.'' For the environment, we have a team of 1,300 that includes science and PFRA policy. One of our objectives is to use the team resources to deliver national programs. Our vision is to develop national programs and then to be able to see how we can best work with partners and best use our resources to make the national programs a reality.
Senator Fairbairn: I was a few minutes late getting here and you may have dealt with this before I came. I came while you were going over the maps early on and talking about national programs. There was mention of the West, Ontario and the East.
There is another part of Canada that we have not really talked about, and that is the North. If you look at those early maps there is the indication of greening further north. From your department's perspective, are there points of view that farming may be a viable option in areas in the North that today we would not even consider?
Mr. Dorrell: Senator, one of the wise things Canada did a number of years ago was to put experimental farms in the North, in places like Mile 1019 on the Alaska Highway, Fort Simpson in the western territories, Fort Vermillion on the Peace River, which in the my view is in the middle of nowhere.
Yes, we found good soil. We did not find very much. We found it in the growing areas in isolated valleys, along riverbanks and whatnot. Dams have flooded some of those riverbanks.
The conclusion was that while you could grow fantastic flowers and big cabbages, there was no market. You were a long way from nowhere. Unfortunately, the people, the good soil and the climate were not hooked together. The other sad thing was that the amounts of good soil were fairly modest.
I was being a little sarcastic about Fort Vermillion. Amazingly enough that is one of the sites that we still use. It is at the tip of the Peace River area. That area is tremendously productive. My guess is that as climate change occurs, or if temperature change goes as the models predict, then that will be a productive area. There is reasonably good soil and tremendous light, which creates the same environment as a long growing season. As a matter of fact, flax that we produce at our Morden Centre, which is almost on the border in Southern Manitoba, does extremely well at Fort Vermillion. There are some opportunities but those opportunities are pretty isolated.
There may be some windfalls. I suspect if we re-survey some of those areas, we might find pockets of land for small- scale production — perhaps greenhouse production — that would supply fresh food for some of the northern communities. Residents in places like Yukon and the territories have always hoped this was possible and eventually it might be possible.
The Chairman: Dr. Dorrell, on behalf of the senators present I want to thank you for a most interesting presentation. Your answers were forthcoming and of great assistance. As I said at the beginning, on Thursday we will start a new departure. We will be looking at regional impacts and local adaptation issues. Should we need your advice, I would hope that members of the research staff would be able to phone your various departments to follow up on new issues on which we might need your constant advice and guidance.
The committee adjourned.