THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 19, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to agriculture and forestry generally; and to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada and the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by the chair.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other difficulties or challenges, please contact the ISD Service Desk at the technical assistance number provided.
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged information.
Senators should participate in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings so that they do not inadvertently share any personal information that could be used to identify their location.
With that, good morning, everyone. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee as well as our witnesses and those who are watching on the worldwide web.
My name is Robert Black, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee. It is my pleasure to introduce the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee starting with our deputy chair, Senator Simons, from Alberta; Senator Cotter, from Saskatchewan; Senator Klyne, from Saskatchewan; Senator Deacon, from Nova Scotia; Senator Marwah, from Ontario; Senator Oh, from Ontario; Senator Petitclerc, from Quebec; and Senator Wetston, from Ontario.
Today, the committee continues its study on the British Columbia flood and recovery efforts. The committee will hear from affected businesses and industry.
Today we welcome as witnesses, from the BC Agriculture Council, Paul Pryce, Director of Policy; from the BC Chicken Growers’ Association, Dale Krahn, President; from the BC Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association, Angela Groothof, President; from BC Blueberry Council, Anju Gill, Executive Director; from BC Pork, Jack Dewit and Johnny Guliker on behalf of BC Pork; and Jeremy Dunn on behalf of BC Dairy.
You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will hold up my hand at one minute left, just so you’re aware of that.
The floor is yours, Mr. Pryce.
Paul Pryce, Director of Policy, BC Agriculture Council: Thank you to this committee for your interest in the flooding experience in British Columbia in November 2021 and the subsequent recovery efforts.
The BC Agriculture Council, or BCAC, is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization and the lead industry advocate for key sector-wide priorities in the province. The council proudly represents a membership of 28 farm associations who in turn represent about 96% of farm gate sales in B.C.
Due to extraordinary events of severe drought, wildfires and flooding, 2021 was one of the most challenging years for B.C. farmers and ranchers. The quick introduction in November of the Canada-British Columbia Flood Recovery for Food Security program was important, and it brought a sense of relief to many whose operations were devastated in the flooding. By combining AgriRecovery with the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program for producers, the provincial and federal governments reduced eligibility barriers and alleviated much of the administrative burden.
B.C. farmers and ranchers have also been supported in the recovery through the kindness of their neighbours and communities. In November, BCAC established the Fund for Farmers, which received nearly $800,000 in donations. We are also grateful to those who reached out to express concern and sent letters, drawings or messages of support. All of the donations to the Fund for Farmers are being channelled to recovery efforts via member farm associations that have been working with their producers to identify the funding gaps after insurance, government programs and other humanitarian efforts.
As you are aware, the November 2021 flooding was the most impactful agricultural disaster in B.C. to date. While the damage was unprecedented, there is a need for close collaboration among all levels of government and other stakeholders to facilitate adaptation and mitigation in the future. This will help to avoid such tremendous economic and social costs in case of future severe weather events in the Sumas Prairie region and elsewhere in the province.
Investments in large-scale water storage and other climate mitigation infrastructure would be particularly valuable. The B.C. government is currently pursuing the Watershed Security Strategy and Fund, which could present a unique opportunity for federal-provincial cooperation, if this fund is ultimately dedicated toward the kinds of infrastructure that can prevent flooding and address periods of water scarcity, which is also a growing concern for the B.C. agriculture sector. This could include dams, dikes and reservoirs that divert excess rainfall from lands used for agricultural production.
The Environmental Farm Plan and the Beneficial Management Practices programs can also play a role in helping farmers identify and adapt to environmental risks to their operations. I am pleased to share that BCAC is establishing a series of committees, mainly comprised of producers, to provide feedback to relevant levels of government in the design and implementation of such programs. This will help to ensure these programs are tailored to best fit the actual, on-the-ground needs of farmers and ranchers. While discussions are ongoing regarding the Next Agricultural Policy Framework, our hope is that the agreement will include robust commitments to continue funding such programs so that those who want an Environmental Farm Plan can obtain one quickly and conveniently.
Even with increased preparation and investments in mitigation, there is a risk that B.C. farmers and ranchers will experience future severe weather events, like the November flooding. As such, it may be necessary to reassess the cap on payments to farmers participating in the AgriStability program. The maximum payment that a participant can receive, $3 million, was established almost 20 years ago, back when AgriStability was known as the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization, or CAIS, program. Some of our members have indicated that they have producers who experienced losses in 2021 that exceeded this cap.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to share with you these reflections on last year’s floods and the ongoing recovery. I look forward to any questions you might have and will be happy to follow up with any information or resources that might assist this committee in its study.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pryce.
Now from the BC Chicken Growers Association, Mr. Krahn.
Dale Krahn, President, BC Chicken Growers’ Association: Good morning, honourable senators and staff. Our association is located in Abbotsford, B.C. We also do table-egg-laying hens and turkeys in Abbotsford as well. Within the poultry industry, we are representative of over 650 poultry farmers and their families. Our families’ farms were not located in the Sumas flat area, but being five kilometres from Sumas, I know many farmers of poultry, as well as dairy and berries and various other crops, who were affected by the floods. Some have been displaced because their homes are not livable and their farms are not deemed fit for production.
The farming industry is grateful for the help that has been provided for the restoration efforts of the Fraser Valley agriculture industry. Our community experienced federal and provincial legwork to help secure grains. We’ve had guidance through AgriRecovery, and we have worked alongside the Canadian Armed Forces on farms and dikes. We saw our neighbours, our fellow farmers and other Canadians, including MLAs and MPs, come together to aid in the immediate needs of the residents and farmers in the Sumas area.
I understand that we will be discussing many aspects of this flood today. I do look forward to the questions that may come. I look forward to highlighting some of the improvements that may be possible in the flooding and transportation infrastructure. I also look forward to discussing anything regarding insurances or lack thereof and financial aid for the restoration of the agricultural industry over the next few years as well as the infrastructure improvements which may be recommended to help ensure food and transportation security.
Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to any questions and conversations you may have around these topics.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Krahn. Next is Ms. Angela Groothof.
Angela Groothof, President, BC Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to give witness to the devastating flood that occurred in November 2021 on the Sumas Prairie.
I have a unique perspective on the flood, as I live right in the flood zone. While my farm was spared the flooding and loss of birds because we live on slightly higher ground, I saw first-hand the damage and devastation to both crops and livestock here in the prairie. Friends and neighbours have lost their houses, crops, flocks, herds and infrastructure to this flood.
Since our birds are a long-life bird in hatching eggs, they are six months of age before they lay their first hatching egg. Getting back into full production would take between one and one and a half years per flock. The loss of income to the hatching-egg farmer due to this flood is large.
In the hatching-egg industry, we lost nine flocks of birds, or approximately 71,000 hens. That translates to 8,165,000 chicks lost. That loss of production will also affect broiler farms. They need our chicks to produce chicken to feed Canadian families. I think we can all agree that food security is of huge importance to all Canadians. As broilers and broiler breeders are linked industries, we are doing our utmost to meet those consumer needs in a difficult time.
Grain prices went to astronomical heights throughout this time, as all routes into the Fraser Valley were blocked from the east due to the floodwater over the Trans-Canada Highway and broken railroad lines. While government helped with some of the costs, it was not enough to cover the increased costs to farmers. People are suffering both physically and emotionally to this day, six months later. Money from government is awfully slow in coming when people need it quickly to get things fixed to produce food for the people of B.C. and the rest of Canada. In consultation with numerous farmers, I have learned the money from government programs is not even close to the amount needed to renovate barns, houses and infrastructure.
While it has been known for many years that the diking and water-pump station needed major upgrades, nothing had been done. Now, farmers and residents are left paying the price, and many struggle to afford it. This is an awful burden to farmers and residents, and affects mental health negatively.
In my opinion, we need government to help the people more significantly in the Sumas Prairie flood zone, both economically and with infrastructure so that this won’t happen again.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Next will be Ms. Anju Gill from the BC Blueberry Council.
Anju Gill, Executive Director, BC Blueberry Council: Good morning. I am pleased to be here to provide some insights into blueberry producers’ experience of the November 2021 flood event and recovery thereafter.
The BC Blueberry Council represents about 600 blueberry producers, and our activities mainly focus on research, promotions and grower education. Our average production is around 170 million pounds, and approximately 70% of the volume is exported, with a majority going to the United States.
Growers in the Sumas Prairie area say that November 14 started out as a normal day. They left their homes to run errands and tend to their farms, but by noon, they realized the severity of the situation and couldn’t return home. Approximately 60 blueberry producers were impacted, representing around 2,500 acres, with the majority concentrated in the Sumas Prairie and Matsqui Prairie areas. A number of those producers also lost their homes and many irreplaceable family keepsakes.
For those more severely impacted, it is going to be a long road to recovery. We hired a third party to assess on-farm damages. According to their report, the damage is estimated to be over $34,000 per acre in plant and input losses, and $120,000 per acre over 10 years when income losses are included. Those costs do not include homes. The housing assessments were privately completed by an engineering firm and shared with me. The damages range from approximately $400,000 to $800,000. Those assessments are available if you would like a copy.
So far, the impact of the flood-recovery programs remains to be seen. The general application for assistance closes on June 1. When the dust settles, we’ll be able to better assess the extent of the government’s assistance and recovery, in general.
I’ll stop there. I’d be happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Our next presenter is Jack Dewit of the BC Pork Producers Association and Johnny Guliker of Trilean Pork.
Jack Dewit, President, BC Pork Producers Association, BC Pork: Good morning, senators. In addition to being the President of the BC Pork Producers Association, I also serve on the Canadian Pork Council in Ottawa.
As you have heard from many of the other speakers, the devastation of the flooding was tremendous. It was something nobody expected, and we had never experienced the extent of that amount of flooding. The financial impact to producers has been tremendous.
I represent a very small industry in the province. We were much larger 30 years ago, but our industry has shrunk and is not so big anymore, but the losses to our industry were substantial. We have with us a producer, Mr. Johnny Guliker, who will share some of his thoughts and the impact on his operation, so we hear it first-hand from somebody who actually lived it.
The emotional impact has been huge on a lot of producers. We can’t even start to imagine the impact, because it came so fast that nobody had time to prepare for it. Everybody was in panic mode, and everybody did their best, including government. The military and all the producers in that area all stepped up to the plate to help each other.
The impact on the producers has been huge — the interruption to their business and the damage to their buildings, and then all the extra work as far as recovery efforts. Labour has been extremely tight. Trades have been hard to get to repair the damage so that producers can get back up and running again.
The infrastructure needs to be seriously looked at. There are upgrades that need to be done as we experience more radical weather events. There is a lot of work to be done. I know some of it has been started. It’s ongoing, it’s going to be very expensive and we will need all levels of government to step up to the plate and try to get to a position where this will not happen again.
Mr. Guliker is going to share with us some of his thoughts. He was right in the middle of it when it all happened.
Johnny Guliker, Owner, Trilean Pork, BC Pork: Good morning. I’m a pig farmer from the Sumas flats. I got pretty well wiped out in this flood.
Like most people who have experienced some type of natural disaster, it’s like Mr. Dewit and others said, it’s the unexpected. You always have a line where you feel the water is going to come to, and it always goes higher than you expect. When you have a lot of things, animals and people you are trying to rescue, you always seem to do the wrong things. If we could do this over again, I think things would look a lot different. We try to focus on saving certain things when people should have just walked away from some of the stuff and saved our energy for different days of the floods.
What really came for me was the thing where so many people came together to help. That was really the most amazing thing about the whole flood impact, being impacted so greatly that there were so many people who came out and volunteered their time. Just how the community came together was actually really amazing. Sometimes you don’t think those kinds of things are going to happen anymore or you think you are above that and you are never going to need anybody else’s help anymore because you got somewhere in life. Then you realize how vulnerable you are. When people and friends come out and support and the phone calls you get — even people that can’t help, that was the most amazing thing about the flood for myself.
If you talk to a lot of producers, even now, it’s like, yes, we are not getting the funding we are supposed to be getting. There are a lot of things a guy could complain about. But what made me feel good is that humanity is stronger than I actually realized. That’s basically the only point that I really need to bring home today for everyone. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dewit and Mr. Guliker, for sharing.
Moving on to Mr. Dunn on behalf of BC Dairy.
Jeremy Dunn, General Manager, BC Dairy: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to be here today along with my colleagues in the agricultural sector in British Columbia.
BC Dairy is a non-partisan association that represents the interests of dairy farmers locally, provincially and nationally. There are 469 dairy farms in B.C., most of which are family farms, that’s about 82,000 dairy cows, and 77% of the province’s dairy comes from the Fraser Valley region, which was the area most impacted by the flooding.
The flooding in B.C. was part of an extremely challenging year. This is on the heels of our heat dome event, drought and wildfires in the interior. Extreme weather events, like the flood and heat waves, illustrate changes related to issues such as water availability and quality, soil health and biodiversity, which are projected to become more severe and costly for our sector in the coming decades.
A third-party analysis of damage estimates as a result of this flooding cost dairy farm families between $22 to $100 million. That includes homes, most of which are still under some level of repair today. We are happy to provide that analysis to the committee if requested.
In relation to the flooding specifically, we appreciate the support received from the federal government, in partnership with the Province of British Columbia, through the AgriRecovery and the DFAA program. Combining those two programs, as Mr. Pryce acknowledged, was critically important for our farmers.
I won’t go into all the issues with some of the accessibility challenges, but there were many reasons why many of our producers were not eligible, from time to time, for certain parts of the funding. This certainly created challenges in funding and also emotional and mental health challenges for our producers. B.C. has improved some of the accessibility along the way. It would have been obviously better for some of those issues to be cleared up right out of the gate. Some have been cleared up as we move forward.
It is important to ensure that such programs that are offered by government continue to be well funded and the administrative burden for farmers to access support is minimal in times of emergency. Programs that develop resiliency and preparedness among producers that also enhance animal welfare during emergencies are also important.
As others have noted today, the November 2021 flooding was the most impactful agricultural disaster in B.C. to date. BC Dairy and the agricultural community engaged closely with the province in both the immediate response component to the event, and continue to engage with our provincial stakeholders in the recovery today.
It is important for me to acknowledge our provincial Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Lana Popham, who has been a tremendous supporter and voice for our farmers throughout this disaster, as well as the staff in both municipalities in Abbotsford and Chilliwack and those in the provincial government who worked around the clock during the crisis. We want to acknowledge that.
Moving forward, BC Dairy believes the federal government has an important role in protecting our critical regions, our food security, from an increasing frequency in climate change-related natural disasters.
In relation to the November 2021 flooding, this includes greater federal funding and strengthened partnerships with provincial and local governments to enhance and upgrade our diking systems, dams, reservoirs and other water management infrastructure surrounding agricultural areas. This includes support for upgrades to existing pump stations, as well as funding for any potential new pump stations in the at-risk Sumas Prairie; and federal funding that facilitates upgrades to critical agricultural commodity supply chain infrastructure such as our highways, bridges and roads. Where such infrastructure fails, federal funding should be made available for rapid repairs.
One very important critical aspect is the international of this with respect to the Nooksack River, and the role the federal government has with the United States to ensure mitigation in this area. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I look forward to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn, and thank you to our witnesses for your presentations. They were succinct and on point.
As has been our previous practice, we will now go to questions. I would like to remind each senator that you will have five minutes for your question or questions and that includes the answer or answers.
If you wish to ask a question, please signal the clerk, or if you’re on Zoom use the “raise hand” function and we will move forward. I will again raise my hand at one minute left. That allows for folks to wrap things up as possible.
With that, we will move to Senator Simons as our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all the witnesses. That was extraordinary testimony that really gave us a sense of the scope of what was suffered. I want to thank you all because as a Westerner, I know it is six o’clock in the morning where you are so thank you very much for getting up early to testify for us.
Listening to all of your stories makes me very mindful of the fact that although this was a very specific and devastating event, climate change is going to mean that we have more extraordinary events all across the country as our weather becomes more and more unstable. I’m wondering based on what you have observed about some of the access problems to the AgriRecovery and AgriStability funds, what lessons would you like the federal government to take for future events all across the country to make it simper for farmers in crisis to be able to get the support they need in a timely fashion?
The Chair: Who would like to take that? We can take a variety of answers as well.
Senator Simons: Maybe Mr. Pryce and Mr. Dunn want to tackle that one.
Mr. Pryce: Certainly. Thank you very much, senator, for the question. Thank you, chair, for the time to respond. As I highlighted in the opening statement, possibility raising the cap on AgriStability could provide a bit of certainty for the farmer or the rancher that the damages will be covered. I know there have been efforts in the past to raise the cap, but maybe it’s a victim of federal-provincial negotiations that we as a non-profit wouldn’t necessarily be privy to. For example, in 2008 there was an effort to double the cap to $6 million.
I understand from our discussions with the B.C. government they would address things on a case-by-case basis if there were to be a claim that exceeds the $3 million cap, they would consider that on exceptional grounds. It is always good to have that codified, especially during a time of extreme stress and trauma, to know government is going to be there to help you and that there is not going to be a pushback.
I will turn the floor over to Mr. Dunn who maybe has more specific responses to your particular question, senator. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn: Thank you Mr. Pryce. Just building on that, the regulations and rules in the programs today really aren’t recognizing the impacts of programs from the federal government and the province to grow agriculture. Our businesses are much larger today than they were in the past. The values and costs to be in farming are so much higher. A $3 million operation is not a large agricultural operation. It is, in fact, a very modest agricultural operation. Some of the impacts of this devastation, as we have seen and was expressed here today, are extremely catastrophic and those numbers don’t come close to being able to ensure — and as we see further consolidation in some of our agricultural sectors, those numbers and the size of the businesses will continue to climb. That needs to be looked at because those businesses become very vulnerable. In these instances, they are also employing many people. As those businesses have challenges, the job of the employees at those farms are now gone, creating further societal hardships. We urge you to look at that cap.
Senator Simons: Perhaps it’s time for Ms. Groothof to address that question, please.
Ms. Groothof: I absolutely agree with these two gentlemen. The caps are way too low. Farming has increased greatly over the last many years. All our things go up and the same with inflation. These caps have to be raised because they’re not even getting close to what people need to rebuild and get their operations back.
The Chair: Thank you. There’s about 50 seconds left. Does anyone else wish to respond to that question?
Mr. Dunn: I would like to add about the immediate cost we experienced during the flood and right after it. The point of feed was raised. Because of our infrastructure, many of the costs increase because we’re bringing our supplies into our farms. Those costs are very challenging to pass on to consumers on an immediate basis. The last thing our consumers and our neighbours need is a massive spike in the price of food, but those input costs do increase rapidly and that increase lasts for a period of time.
Efforts were made to provide funding assistance. These programs were invented on the fly. We would encourage those to be there for future issues across Canada.
Senator Petitclerc: First, I want to thank you all for being with us early this morning. It’s extremely valuable.
Both today and previously, we heard about different programs. I understand there’s a level of complexity in that the programs are federal, provincial with municipalities involved, as well. I’m trying to understand. In your experience, was it done in a way that every organization and business that needed help got it properly? Were there some occasions where there was a loophole or a failure with smaller businesses? Was something missed, either in the process of the funding or in the level of the funding?
If anybody could let us know about that, that would be helpful.
The Chair: Who would like to take a stab at that? Mr. Dewit, you can start and others are certainly able to chime in.
Mr. Dewit: In a weather event like what we experienced in November, nobody was prepared for it. It was instant. Almost within days, everything was under water. The losses were huge. People were scrambling to save animals, equipment — anything that they could do to mitigate the losses.
Going forward, there’s been substantial frustration with the rate of money flowing to the people that actually need it. I get it. It’s government. It needs to be done equitably and in a way that it doesn’t become fraudulent. A lot of things need to be done. However, now that we’re five or six months beyond the event, a lot of people still haven’t seen some of the financial resources that they were promised by both the feds and the province.
If there’s one thing we can learn from this, it’s that money needs to flow out quicker. People have had to bring in trades to repair damage, but they don’t have the finances to pay the bills and that slows things down.
I don’t have the answer. I understand that everything needs to be done in good order, but it would sure be nice if some of those dollars could get to the places they need to be a bit quicker.
The Chair: Thank you. Would anyone else like to respond?
Ms. Gill: I could add a couple of things our producers have expressed. There’s been a lot of uncertainty right from the beginning. The floods happened in November. I believe the programs were announced much later, so there was a lot of uncertainty around exactly what they were going to be able to recover. With private insurance programs, some people had insurance; others didn’t have insurance. Some had things they could insure; some had things they couldn’t insure. There were a lot of questions around that.
Even after the programs were announced — and I’m sure the others could agree — two areas in the program were not necessarily covered. One is income losses, which will apparently be looked at under AgriStability. Again, there’s uncertainty. What are they going to get back? In the case of blueberries, where it takes 10 years for a volume to reach the same level, they just don’t have income. I think those are the main issues.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Moving on to our next senator, Senator Klyne.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our panels and thank you for your presentations. My question is for Mr. Pryce, from the BC Agriculture Council. And thank you, Mr. Guliker, for your perspective. You had my attention with that. It brings it to a heightened awareness.
This event was a significant and substantial natural disaster that had the concern and attention of this country and I am sure heartfelt best wishes are still heightened across this country for a full and speedy recovery.
We hear of the devastating impact of livestock and poultry losses, a number of farms under evacuation orders, the considerable damage to critical infrastructure and the high recovery costs of the restoration, rebuild and renewal. Mr. Pryce, can you give this committee a broader take on the overall impact, directly and indirectly, to the area in B.C. and effectively the rest of the country, as a result of lost production and disrupted supply chains? And while it might be too early to assess, how far away are we from committed financial supports to have a brighter future for a full recovery?
Mr. Pryce: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I regret that I don’t have a hard-and-fast figure I can provide when it comes to the economic impact on British Columbia of these floods. However, 1,100 farms were affected by the flooding, which is basically about 6% of the total farms within the province.
At the same time, this affected about 15,000 hectares of farm land. That might not sound like a lot, especially from some members of the committee who are from the Prairies, where farms are a very large size. However, in British Columbia, because of the scarcity of adequate farmland, because we are so heavily forested and mountainous, and so on, this is quite a significant land area. It affects many small farms which rely on direct sales. While it may not have necessarily affected British Columbia’s export position, it did certainly affect food security within some communities and the livelihood of quite a large number of farmers, just because of the nature of being very small, decentralized and very diversified in our agriculture base as compared to some other provinces.
I hope that speaks to your question, senator, but I’m always happy to follow up with specific figures. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: If anyone else had a perspective on this, I would appreciate it, and particularly the question of how short are we in terms of having committed financial support to the various levels of government and other sources. If there is a shortfall, how much is it, and where is it coming from?
The Chair: Anyone else? All right. Moving on, then, to Senator Marwah.
Senator Marwah: Thank you to the witnesses, especially given the time zones. I had forgotten it’s six o’clock there.
I’d like to hear all your views in terms of transportation and supply chain issues that you faced following the floods, both for national and international markets. I know there were problems, but looking forward, have they been remedied? Is there a lot yet to do? To what extent is this still affecting you? I want to look to the future and ask what action needs to be taken to try to fix this for the next time.
Mr. Dewit: That’s a difficult question, senator. As you may recall, all our highways were cut off, our railways were cut off and the Port of Vancouver was cut off. I don’t know how we could ever prepare for a weather event the size of what happened last November and come through it without any major infrastructure damage.
This was huge. I don’t think many people understand how big this event was, and the impact of the damage from the Coquihalla Highway right to the Port of Vancouver. Farmers are awfully resilient; they’re tough and they get things done. It was amazing how quickly things were up and running again, even in the Fraser Valley.
Definitely we need to do work on the infrastructure so that it doesn’t happen again. I don’t think there’s a cookie-cutter plan that we need to follow so that it never happens again. This was the biggest flood event I’ve ever seen in my life, and I’ve been around for a little while. The Port of Vancouver was cut off, the railways were washed out and the highways were closed. People were flying from Chilliwack to Abbotsford, which is not very far, in little airplanes to try to get to an airport so they could fly out of the area. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn: Following up on Mr. Dewit’s comments, we’ve learned how critical Highway 1 and the Fraser Valley are to our entire infrastructure, livelihoods and life in the Lower Mainland. As flood mitigation measures are raised on the agenda and looked at by experts, we would certainly encourage making Highway 1 more resilient to floods, given its location on a flood plain.
This is critically important because the communities were absolutely cut off, which delayed the recovery and certainly hurt us in dairy in terms of getting our goods to market. A two-hour trip from dairy farms that were still producing milk to the processing plant turned into a 12- to 16-hour trip. It was incredible. Our hats certainly go off to our drivers and transporters who braved incredible hardships to get our milk to market to ensure consumers still had it. This brought home to us how critical Highway 1 and our railways are to our entire economy in British Columbia.
Mr. Pryce: I might add that British Columbia has unique geography, which presents supply chain challenges. The Transportation Modernization Act does allow for interswitching if there were to be issues, for example, with moving agricultural commodities along one particular rail line.
The moment of truth comes once you reach the Rockies. You then have to commit as to whether this is being moved by Canadian Pacific or Canadian National; whether the end port is Vancouver or Prince Rupert. We have a unique situation where grain producers in northern British Columbia are locked into one rail line to get to one port. There isn’t the capacity to pivot that you might have in other provinces because there’s such a huge distance between these two ports and these sorts of transport infrastructure. Greater north-south connections within British Columbia might resolve some of these issues or at least mitigate the severe impact when we do have a supply chain disruption. Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. I want to thank everyone who got up early in the morning in British Columbia to meet us.
My question to the panel is this: Agriculture lands are part of the broader ecosystem for which building resilience can be a climate change adaptation measure. As stewards of the land, farmers are well placed to build this resilience, for example, by fostering natural buffers like wetlands in flood-prone areas.
What measures are farmers taking to build resilience at the ecosystem level in the province’s Fraser Valley region? What are the lessons learned from disaster recovery efforts in the aftermath of the British Columbia floods with respect to land management?
Mr. Pryce: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
Perhaps to answer the first point, farmers and ranchers care deeply about the land. Their livelihoods are tied to the land and to the health of the ecosystems. Through that leadership role, they’re supported by some programs in British Columbia, such as the Beneficial Management Practices Program or the Environmental Farm Plan Program that I talked about in my opening statement. These would be things like setting aside areas for pollinator forage or natural buffers for land, things of this sort.
It’s a bit of a challenge, and may be more a provincial issue, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, through its service plan in B.C., has delivered 225 of these beneficial management plan programs in fiscal year 2019-20. They’re forecasting 270 in the next fiscal year, 2023-24, and another 270 the year after that, but with only maybe a 4 or 5% spending increase, so really just keeping pace with inflation. If we’re going to have an increase by almost one third the number of these plans on the farms, it would require a corresponding spending increase.
Our hope is that there will be greater resources so that farmers who want to take on this leading role and just need a bit of advice from an agrologist or environmental conservation expert on how to do that, they can receive that support rather than being stuck in an unending queue.
I hope that speaks to your first question. There is a desire to take on a leading role. There are some supports, but hopefully at the provincial level those can be topped up a bit. Thank you so much.
Senator Oh: So far, are the farmers happy with what’s going on? Because this disaster can come back at any time. This could happen again. Did we actually learn a lesson from this disaster that just happened last year?
Mr. Dunn: Thank you for the question. Farmers would certainly like to see greater urgency placed on mitigation measures, such as diking, pump stations and the infrastructure that has been identified for many years as being substandard and not up to what is needed today. Farmers would certainly like to see more concrete action and more plans as to how those are going to be improved.
Ms. Gill: To add to what Mr. Dun said, right now, there is uncertainty about the future, so I think a lot of the producers in the area would like to see more investment, certainty in the area in terms measures taken so that, if there is another flood event, the impact is not going to be as bad as they have experienced.
Mr. Krahn: One of the other items mentioned in some of the lessons learned is that the Nooksack south of the border, just past Sumas, was a primary concern. A difficult solution rises where we either need to dike something very much across the border or have the United States help in mitigating any flooding from the Nooksack, which is in the United States.
I’ve spoken with a geologist and a civil engineer about that river. Apparently, it can certainly reroute straight into the Fraser if enough pressure comes from the Nooksack — or one of its tributaries could divert straight through the Fraser Valley and the Sumas Flats here. So that is a concern, and there is something to be learned there and dug into.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Mr. Krahn. I want to keep building on that with you and others.
From what we have learned, it seems that the $30-million dike enhancement related to the Nooksack cost turned into a billion-dollar-plus cost. Thousands of lives have been disrupted, as we’re hearing from Ms. Gill, for as long as 10 years, as a result of this event. We’re going to get more and more major climate events, so mitigation and adaptation will prove to be increasingly important. Clearly, we’re not good at that yet, certainly from what we have heard from municipal leaders as it relates to this issue.
What advice do you have in how we can help to bring greater priority to those sorts of investments? The ROI on those investments is going to be huge, but it’s to a cost that we haven’t yet incurred, and that’s the trouble. I lived through a hurricane for the first time when I moved to Nova Scotia, and people were telling us to prepare. It was like telling somebody in Miami to get ready for a blizzard: Nobody had really had the event we had, and until you experience it, you don’t know how to deal with it.
So we need some advice from you about how Canadians and federal government leaders can do a much better job of prioritizing mitigation and adaptation efforts. I look forward to your advice. Thank you.
Mr. Krahn: Thank you. Yes, there’s a lot of red tape, of course, with municipal, provincial and federal communications and understanding this problem. It’s been in the papers that it’s been discussed over the last 20 or more years on what mitigation ideas we could have and some of the maintenance issues of the diking system.
But beyond that, we fail to understand the impacts of the Nooksack, as mentioned earlier. The red tape, I can imagine, would be massive with regard to having to deal with the United States, figuring out how to have relations there and if they would be interested in helping the valley. I know they have a lot of farmland just south of the border, south of the Sumas. I imagine they would want some mitigation measures taken there as well.
Communication is a very big factor here.
Mr. Dewit: Mr. Krahn alluded to the Nooksack River, but this event was really unique, because the Sumas River in the Sumas Prairie is what broke. We had water coming in from the U.S. side and also from the dike that breached in Canada.
To help you understand, this was not the first time we had some flooding in Sumas Prairie, but the extent of the flooding was much larger than ever before. We’ve had water come in from the Nooksack several times over the last 50 years, but the dike on the Sumas River that breached was where the bulk of the water came from. The extent of the flooding was much greater because of that. It was two rivers coming together to just fill up this whole area within hours. That’s how fast it was.
Mr. Dunn: The answer to the question that was posed is that I would just urge you to listen to the people who live along rivers and First Nations communities in rural areas. They know the mitigation that needs to be in place. They know where they’re vulnerable. Sometimes, I know our producers in rural areas don’t feel heard when they’re raising the issues they’re fearful of, and then their worst fears become reality.
Ms. Groothof: Living in the prairie here, there were two breaches in the dike. We’ve known for many years that this diking has to be upgraded much higher than it is right now. I know, environmentally, a lot of people don’t like to dredge rivers, but I’m sorry, the fish were swimming down the road because the dikes broke. So I don’t know how not dredging it is a good idea either.
We definitely need to talk with the United States, because the water is coming up from there, and it is flooding the land there as well. I have family who live across the line, and they asked, “Did our bales float across the border to your house?”
We also need some help with our pumper station. They’re not up to standard. I’m afraid this is going to happen again if we don’t get the infrastructure in place. The freeway also needs to be lifted or built up higher in the area where it floods, because that’s the main route into our area here. Also, the railway is on the far side right next to the States; it gets breached by the water, which wrecks the railway and we can’t get grain here.
There are so many problems, and we need government to look at this and fix this infrastructure. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Wetston: A lot of issues have been covered. I really appreciate the information you’ve provided, so thank you for that.
I want to get a bit more granular, if I could, for a moment. B.C. has experienced a lot of challenges in the last few years with heat, drought, fire and water damage that we’ve seen in the Sumas. Regarding that, I recognize it’s been very challenging.
Can you share a bit more clarity on the extent of contingency planning that is going on between producers and municipal, provincial and federal governments? We hear a lot about eligibility criteria, caps, red tape, et cetera, but prevention is really important. Obviously, you’ve talked a lot about infrastructure.
Can you share a bit more insight to that particular issue? It more or less flows from some of the questions that other senators have asked. Thank you. I’m not directing it to any particular individual, but if anyone wants to take a shot at that, I’d appreciate it.
The Chair: Who would like to start?
Senator Wetston: Chair, if no one wants to answer the question, I have another question.
Mr. Krahn: I can help a little bit.
Some of the items we’ve discussed in industry were mentioned here. Diking, of course, is important — increasing the dike height, increasing the number of dike areas, maintenance of the pumps, expanding the pumps, and beyond that, regarding transportation infrastructure, raising the railway and changing the railway routes. One of the big ones would be the north-south railway. I know Mr. Pryce mentioned it earlier. That one going into the Peace area of B.C. is an opportunity to move grain when some of the other areas are closed. That might be an option.
Beyond that, we need more routes for highways. Right now, the Trans-Canada Highway 1 is our only one, for the most part. A recommendation would be to not just increase the height of that but to have other highway routes, rather than a single route with just some back roads. That would help with food security, access, labour, movement of help and so on.
Senator Wetston: Thank you. I don’t want to get too personal but this, but, for Mr. Guliker, you did indicate — and I’ll just try to repeat what you said — what you should have spent your time on, you didn’t spend your time on. Am I getting too personal by asking you how you should have spent your time? I know it wasn’t watching streaming services or Netflix or things of that sort. Can you share any of that so we have a better understanding of your personal experience?
Mr. Guliker: Yes. Of course, we started with trying to dike. We have an excavator and dump trucks, and I had a fair bit of gravel at the farm, so I tried to start diking critical infrastructure on my own farm. Where the food delivery systems were, I was trying to build walls so water wouldn’t get at the dry feed so I could feed the hogs.
Because you have that expectation that the water is not going to come too high, you didn’t tell your employees and the people around you, “Hey, get out of here. Go park your vehicle somewhere higher.” Instead of taking equipment away from the farm, you tried everything to save the livestock inside the farm.
When our first set of dikes failed — we have two different heights of barns, so we chased our animals, the smaller ones, to the higher part of the facility, with the help of all 14 employees. We were thinking, okay, the taller, bigger animals, the sows in that case, would be okay, but the water just came higher and all of them drowned. Those were futile efforts, basically. I was thinking, well, I could save more animals or save things. Our farm is separated between two areas on the flats. We were affected on the Monday, and then we had very little resources left for the following day when the dike broke on the other side of the flats.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Thank you all for getting up so early and for sharing this with us, including that last personal challenge that you faced, Mr. Guliker. It makes me a little emotional. To your credit and to the credit of the people in your community, you did such great work, and that is kind of uplifting as a Canadian, to tell you the truth.
This is just a small question to build on those of Senator Marwah and Senator Deacon. It seems to me it is important for us to fully appreciate the consequences that you and your colleagues and neighbours suffered from a financial point of view. We should build that up in a large way so we can fully understand the losses from this incident and the losses also to the Canadian economy. We should make the case that Senator Deacon was describing, that it is critical for us to make the kinds of investments that we are talking about. We actually have, sadly, an almost concrete measure of the consequences of not doing better. That seems to me to provide the motivation for doing better.
Mr. Pryce, could you comment on whether you see that case being built so that the kinds of investments that are needed from the various orders of government will actually come true? Thank you.
Mr. Pryce: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I think the various levels of government have recognized the seriousness of the impact of the floods. We have seen figures like the Insurance Bureau of Canada saying that the total insured damages were, I think, $450 million and maybe $285 million for agriculture, although, of course, that’s just the insured damages and not the damages not covered by insurance. It doesn’t include the knock-on effects that were touched on in previous questions.
There is a recognition from various levels of government of the need to do better and the urgency of it, but then perhaps in that urgency, there has been a lack of recognition of how there could be a multiplication of the impact of their efforts if there were greater coordination.
We have things like this Watershed Security Strategy and Fund that the B.C. government is pushing forward, along with other programs. We see the federal government working with some municipalities, but there certainly seems to be a lack of coordination, maybe a siloing of these efforts. If there were a greater coordination among these perhaps mutually complementary programs, it might avoid duplication of efforts and ensure that we are not suffering quite as much the next time something like this happens.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I had been planning to ask about dikes and such but that has been well covered, so I’m going to move to an area we haven’t really talked about which is the implications for consumers in the next few months. In the immediate aftermath of the flood, there were huge problems with the supply chain and getting goods to market, but what do you think are the long-term effects? What are the medium-term consequences for this spring and summer? What will my blueberries cost me, because I live in the summer on Fraser Valley blueberries. What will it mean for people who are buying pork and chicken at the supermarket?
Ms. Gill: Thank you for the question. We don’t anticipate any major impact on consumers. It was concentrated in a smaller area. About 2,500 acres, out of nearly 30,000 acres, were impacted, and perhaps 1,000 more severely. For our industry, I don’t necessarily see any impact on the consumer.
Senator Simons: That is good news. What about dairy and pork?
Mr. Krahn: As far as poultry is concerned, the system of supply management here allows us to be more resilient in food security than we otherwise would be. The supply for B.C. and Canadian chicken will likely not be affected by this, but, in general, the feed costs and the costs of not just fuel and grains are currently being increased drastically every few weeks. It is not simply because of the lack of access in November and December but just in general. With all the costs we are all experiencing with inflation, we can expect higher retail prices for probably all agricultural products, if we haven’t already experienced it.
Mr. Dewit: Just to add to Mr. Krahn’s comments, pork in B.C., like I mentioned in my opening remarks, is a small industry. We used to be much larger several years ago. Pork in Canada is different than chicken and dairy. We are not supply-managed. It’s a North American market. Canada exports 70% of its pork offshore. China and Japan are our major customers. For the Canadian consumers, there is no shortage of pork. It moves freely in the country and across borders.
When a weather event like this happens and we get our railways and highways cut off — major port to Asia is also cut off. That’s where this event this affected the prairies as well, where major processors there cannot move their product overseas until the railways were reopened or the trucking routes.
The Chair: Mr. Dunn, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Dunn: Just quickly to echo the comments of Mr. Krahn. Our supply management system in dairy certainly shone here in terms of ensuring that consumers had milk readily available at the same prices they were continuing to pay. Certainly, the cost of our inputs are increasing. That is a concern for all of our farmers.
I will tell you about our dairy farmers and their mentality. We had our production within about two or three days back to about 90% of normal levels. When the waters receded, our farmers went first to their barns and got their cows milking and then went to their homes where their families were flooded out and their basements destroyed. Their first thought was, let’s get the cows milking, let’s get the milk going, let’s make sure our cows are good and there is milk for our consumers. That’s certainly something that makes me proud to work with dairy farmers in British Columbia.
Senator Klyne: My question builds on Senator Marwah and others’ questions around this. Senator Simons mentioned we have talked a lot about mitigation of risk, but to Senator Simons’ earlier point, weather events will continue and probably more frequently. As I understand it, the farmland in the Fraser Valley between Abbotsford and Chilliwack was created by European settlers draining the Sumas Lake. This area is now known as Sumas Prairie, which is the subject area of catastrophic flooding.
It was mentioned that extensive defences against flooding for this area have been kicked around without commitment or conviction for some time now, decades probably. This question is for anyone who cares to answer. Today, is there commitment and conviction to build back forward with forward thinking and painful lessons learned? And what defences and risk mitigation are being committed to with conviction, be it floodgates, levees, floodway and storage areas, increased pump stations, new building codes, adopting natural flood protection and less reliance on levees and floodwalls? Where is the conviction and commitment for the future here in building back forward?
The Chair: Who would like to start to answer that question?
Senator Klyne: I think the City of Abbotsford has put some proposals together that range from $209 million to almost close to $2 billion.
Mr. Guliker: Fortunately, we have a very committed mayor, Mayor Braun, and he has really helped out with putting information sessions together for the community, to have their part in how the new infrastructure will be built. Of course, from a municipal level, his ability to basically talk across the border, because some of this does involve infrastructure in the U.S., he is very limited. He said as much. He is very committed to seeing this happen and making it happen. He was very instrumental during the flood, giving updates every day and working with the people on the ground. I guess what you guys could hear today is he doesn’t have the power to basically get the federal government in a building to talk with the U.S. side, how they make this infrastructure happen.
The Chair: Thank you. My colleagues will remember that we did hear from the mayor, his worship, a meeting or two ago.
Senator Klyne: One thing I was hoping to hear that there was a commitment and conviction at other levels of government. Basically, my summation would be that it is time for us to get on with this Canada Water Agency and rewrite the Canada Water Act and start to fulfill these things. Because this is going to be a recurring event. What I’m hearing is the province or the feds are not there supporting the municipal government.
Ms. Gill: Senator, I don’t know if I’ll be able to answer your question fully. Partly my silence was based on the fact that we don’t have a lot of information what the next action plan is. There are a lot of conversations about the lessons learned. Perhaps we are just heading into that and what the outcomes are going to be we don’t know or I don’t know.
Mr. Pryce: I apologize for my silence earlier. It was mainly because I am aware that the Barrowtown floodgates were repaired quite quickly after the initial breach. Otherwise, I’m not aware of any funding commitments by any other level of government, federal or provincial, regarding additional flood mitigation infrastructure. That was the reason for my silence. I’m not aware of anything. Thank you so much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to the witnesses for compelling testimony about an event that is truly heart breaking. We are about to enter into, probably in the fall, a study on soil health focusing on the role of soil in addressing factors around or helping with managing and mitigating factors relating to climate change. I want to get advice or insights into your experience as it relates to the effect of the flooding on your soil and the plant life we heard as it relates to Ms. Gill.
Are you aware of or are you looking into methods of soil management that can help to make sure that your recovery from major flooding events is more robust in future? Maybe the ability of the soil to absorb water more rapidly. I know it wouldn’t have helped in this situation. Have you been doing any work in that regard? Do you have any thoughts in that area that we could benefit from, given that we are going to be looking at this issue?
The Chair: Who would like to start the discussion?
Mr. Pryce: I will volunteer myself again. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, senator, for the question. I will admit that I’m not a soil specialist, so I’m not completely up on the science necessarily, but I do understand that low-till and zero-till farming does help with the carbon retention and that a flooding event or significant erosion of the topsoil would really impede the capacity to store carbon within the soil.
When it comes to the issues of water scarcity more generally in B.C., it’s something where we at the BC Agriculture Council have been looking to have more support from other levels of government. There’s the long-term water storage really that’s on site or on farms or through things like reservoirs is simply because if you do have periods of excess rainfall, it does saturate the soil. There isn’t really too much that you can do to improve the absorption. Of course, it’s trying to control that amount of water so that we’re having a greater supply during the periods of scarcity, and then not having that damage caused when there is a period of excess rainfall. It just spreads it out a bit more evenly rather than getting it all at once.
I hope that speaks to your question. I’ll make sure if we are asked to comment on this soil study in the future I’m better briefed. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Anyone else wish to comment? Seeing no one, I have one final question. It is for Mr. Guliker.
Thank you for your testimony. Obviously, we have already seen additional floods even this spring. You talked about humanity and the good of man in how you dealt with the issue. What preparations should be made within communities to prepare communities for these types of disasters down the road at the community level, at the personal level? Any thoughts?
Mr. Guliker: Of course, every emergency situation will be different. However, having roads blocked by people dressed up in suits and holding guns telling you that you can’t go to your farm; that this road is blocked; that that road is unsafe; or that you can’t go back to rescue your livestock is very disconcerting. Having a liaison group to go in between the police force and the community would help. We could say that these groups of people will help with letting people back into the emergency area. That way, it’s not people who are completely unfamiliar with the area and with what needs to happen. As the livestock industry and the farming industry shrink, there are fewer people who understand what needs to happen inside that zone. Not being able to get back into that area or being told you don’t belong there when you have a lot of things going on inside that zone is probably something that we should try to rectify. I remember being angry that I wasn’t allowed back in. Having a group of people who would respond to an emergency would be most important.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Dewit, do you have a comment?
Mr. Dewit: To add to Mr. Guliker’s comment, two of my sons-in-law live close to where Mr. Guliker’s farm is. The Barrowtown pump station — a major pump station in Sumas Prairie — was in jeopardy on a Saturday night, and 200 young men went in there against all odds. They sandbagged and saved the pump station. Security was yelling at them, “You can’t go there.” I get it. Human life is more important. But these guys were on a mission and they got the job accomplished. This is an area where there needs to be more coordination. Some of these flaggers are not even police officers. They are just doing their jobs. They have been told not to let anybody in. The farmers who lived there knew best and they got the job accomplished. There needs to be better coordination between some of those areas where people need to know what to do and who does what.
The Chair: Thank you. With that, we’ll wrap up this part of the meeting.
I want to assure my colleagues that when we asked our witnesses to join, we knew it was going to be a very early morning. Yet each and every one said, “We are all farmers. We’ll be there.” Thank you to our witnesses.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Mr. Pryce, Mr. Krahn, Ms. Groothof, Ms. Gill, Mr. Dewit, Mr. Guliker and Mr. Dunn, I would like to thank you very much for your participation today. Your assistance as we study this issue is very much appreciated. Thank you again.
I would also like to thank the committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions.
We are now going to proceed to item 2 on our agenda, the consideration of a draft budget under our soil health order of reference.
You will have received a copy of the draft budget for a group of four AGFO committee members plus one committee analyst to participate in the World Congress of Soil Science taking place this summer in Glasgow, Scotland. Costs involved in the budget before you include air transportation, accommodation, conference registration fees and associated costs for preparing ourselves for the issues around COVID.
With that, do any senators have any questions or comments about the proposed budget for this trip?
Is it agreed that the following budget application under the committee’s order of reference to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023?
The total for the conference, for your information, is $50,977. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I hear no dissent so I’ll declare the motion carried.
Before we go to the in camera portion of this meeting, I’d like to thank our Senate interpretation and logistics team again. They always ensure our meetings run smoothly. Thank you so much to our colleagues behind us in the booth. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
Senators, is it agreed that we suspend for a minute or two to end the public portion and proceed in camera?
Senator Oh: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)