Evidence of meeting #83 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lng.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's fast. You have a fast watch there, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your time.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses, who are joining us remotely as well as in person. Thank you for coming to meet with us in person, Mr. Wood.
Ms. Clapp, you wrote in an article that the major agri-food firms play a significant role in undermining global food security.
I recently met with constituents to talk about food security in Canada. The government introduced legislation that has met with wide support, Bill C‑56. In part, its purpose is to address the concentration of power among the major food chains, which creates problems, including undermining food security in Canada.
In concrete terms, how do those big food chains weaken or undermine food security in Canada and elsewhere in the world?
11:35 a.m.
Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
I presume you're talking about the food retail sector or different parts of the food supply chain. If it's okay, I can give a general answer, because a large amount of my work has been on the concentration of power among a small number of firms at various points in agri-food supply chains. That is the case all the way from farm inputs—like seeds, chemicals, machinery and fertilizer—to food production and processing, and also the international food trade, the grain-trading companies, as well as on the food retail side.
The concentration of power at these different points in the food supply chain can affect food security, because when there are just a few players in the market, they tend to have what we call “market power”, which enables them to have a greater degree of say over the supply-and-demand conditions within which they operate. This enables them, for example, to pay less to suppliers at the same time that they might charge more to consumers. This can lead to a situation where workers in the food system might be receiving less of the benefits from the system than they would otherwise. Also, consumers might end up paying more out of their own pocketbooks for food. These effects can multiply throughout the food system.
I hope that answers your question. Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Yes, thank you.
In your opening statement, you talked about how climate change and extreme weather events have a tremendous impact on agriculture and, by extension, global food security.
One of the main reasons countries go to war is to go after more resources. With food and water resources growing more scarce because of climate change, it's said that climate change will trigger more wars.
Do you think climate change is going to trigger more wars over access to resources? Are there meaningful ways to achieve more stability around the world?
11:40 a.m.
Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Thank you very much for that question.
Yes, indeed. The acceleration of global climate change can exacerbate geopolitical tensions as countries vie for access to vital resources, including resources in the food system.
From my research, which has looked at problems of concentration in food systems, one of the best ways to address the problem of climate change, which can, for example, reduce the production in a particular exporting country.... Take India, for example. Last year, in an extreme heat event, it lost around 25% of its wheat crop. It's an exporter to many developing countries, but also this year, El Niño has caused a reduction in its rice production. As we know, India has put an export ban in place on non-basmati rice, which has led to higher prices of rice on the world market. That directly affects food security.
One way to deal with this issue, I would argue, is to ensure greater diversity for resilience within global food systems. What I mean by that is enabling more countries around the world to produce more of their own food that they consume at home in order to allow a diverse system whereby countries can rely not just on global markets, but also on their domestic production. I'm not saying that every country should be food self-sufficient, but what we need is a system where there's a better balance between domestic production and trade. It's difficult to achieve that balance exactly, and Canada certainly plays a role in global food and grain markets, but I think there's a definite need to increase that domestic resilience in production through sustainable forms of agriculture that are more resilient to climate change.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Your time is over.
Mr. Bergeron, it is now your turn. You have six minutes, Mr. Bergeron.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today to give us insight into how the war in Ukraine is impacting food and fuel supplies.
Thank you, Mr. Wood, for being so patient last time, and for coming back today and meeting with us in person. We certainly appreciate it. I'll start with my questions for you.
On October 25, you said structural changes in today’s world had amplified the impact of food security crises. You went on to say this:
In the 1980s, there were periodic crop failures in the former Soviet Union, yet there wasn't as much of the risk of mass starvation in the world as there is these days. There's a lot more vulnerability in the global system.
Why is that?
11:40 a.m.
Professor, Western University, As an Individual
I can start by using an analogy from quantum physics. Everybody has heard of Schrödinger's cat. I will tell you in one sentence how it works: Everything is connected.
The issue with climate change is that it is fundamentally about the breakdown of the relationship between humanity and the natural world. Now, I have a couple of points about that, which are really important.
The first is that interconnections can occur in unforeseen ways. You can speak to volcanologists, say, about the effect of the melting of the ice caps, the weight of the earth's crust and what this means in terms of climate change and food security. You're well aware that in the 1980s the Soviet Union regularly had poor harvests. Lots of the time, people in the world economy didn't notice. There's essentially what economists like to call the “omnicrisis”. It's that you have multiple crises interconnected in subtle ways. There's a huge body of literature on this.
Now, the bad news is that the human mind is wired in such a way that it deals quite well with immediate, visible challenges. The human mind is not very good at dealing with large, complex and interconnected existential challenges. However, realizing that there is this very strong interconnectedness of events means that we have to be a lot more aware of what is happening in different parts of the world and try to explore for ourselves how they are connected.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you ever so much.
Mr. Wood, what you're saying is somewhat counterintuitive. Advances in technology should result in higher food production. That's what I would think anyways.
Do you think improving technology is having a counterproductive impact on nature, leading to lower production?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, Western University, As an Individual
I think the first thing, which is well known in the sciences, is that we know the immediate benefits of advances in technology, but we don't know the consequences a long way down the line. Jared Diamond makes the point that when automobiles came out, everybody was relieved. We didn't have piles of horse manure and dying horses in the streets, yet obviously there were subtle effects down the line. Technology has unforeseen consequences. Every technological advance has unforeseen consequences. The trouble is that we don't know the consequences until a while down the line.
The second thing is that transformative technological fixes seem to be becoming harder. There are a whole range of ways you can explain that. Possibly it's the way the patenting system works, or possibly it's because of crises multiplying faster than the fixes. This essentially makes for much more unpredictability.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Do you think Thomas Robert Malthus was right to say that population growth will eventually outpace our ability to feed everyone?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, Western University, As an Individual
That's an interesting point. Obviously, different people in different parts of the world have very different diets and different issues. However, it does feed into that point. One in every five people in the world is now on the move, and those figures will increase. Essentially, you could argue that it is not so much a problem of the number of people. It's when people are situated in areas of the world that are prone to natural disasters and climate change, and disparity in global diets.
However, these great historical forces are very difficult to manage.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
We now go to MP McPherson.
You have six minutes.
November 20th, 2023 / 11:45 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here today and for your testimony.
Dr. Wood, I'm going to continue on with you, if I could.
One thing we know is that right now in the south of Ukraine, it's very difficult for farming. The mines in place in the south and eastern parts are having a huge impact on the production of food. I know that we have a number of Russians on the sanctions list, but l learned last week that Canada exported 193,000 detonators to Kyrgyzstan in 2022. That was up from zero detonators in 2021. Unfortunately, Kyrgyzstan then exported 115,000 detonators to Russia. In effect, it appears that the detonators from Canada are actually being used in those mines that are preventing food security.
You talked about the interconnectedness of everything and about how we need to do better as a global community. Perhaps you could just discuss the implications of our sanctions regime not working effectively and what that means for Ukraine.
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Western University, As an Individual
Obviously, the sanctions regime is not working. There are things that can be done. The most obvious and simplest one is better regulation of crypto. Twenty-five per cent of crypto use is by criminals. Criminals are unusual.... In the same way as people who are busting sanctions on behalf of Russia, they don't mind if they lose money. People are always horrified about how volatile crypto is. If you are a criminal or a sanctions-buster, you don't care how much money you lose. This is, of course, why crypto currencies haven't gone away. They should have gone away in terms of economic logic. That's the first thing.
Obviously, the second one is better regulation of tax havens.
The third thing goes back to your Kyrgyzstan point, which is having a better understanding of how value chains work. This is a bit of a sideline, as I had a significant British research grant a few years back looking at trying to improve accounting down supply chains.
I think the three things are practicality, improved accounting down supply chains and having much tighter restrictions around the flow of money. It can be done.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
These are detonators. We do have an arms trade treaty that Canada signs on to that we don't adhere to, obviously, but there are also economic implications. Canada is giving millions of dollars to Ukraine to demine their fields, and at the same time it is providing the product that actually produces the mines, which is, of course, pretty counter.
Thank you very much for that.
Dr. Clapp, we had Paul Hagerman at one of our previous meetings. He came in from the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. He talked about the need for balance in food security and about providing food to people versus their ability to have food security in a longer-term process. Right now, in terms of Canada's ODA, he argued that our balance is not appropriate at this point. We don't have an adequate balance.
I have a couple of questions for you with regard to food security in Canada's development window or envelope. First, right now our ODA—at just over 0.3%, when we have committed to 0.7%—is too low. We don't have our food aid indexed to the price of food as it increases. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how Canada could do better in providing aid for food and how we could manage that balance better between humanitarian and long-term development.
11:50 a.m.
Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Thank you very much for that question.
Indeed, Paul Hagerman is a good colleague. I would agree with him that there needs to be a better balance between short-term humanitarian assistance and longer-term assistance for food security, especially in the world's poorest and food import-dependent countries.
Obviously, the provision of humanitarian food assistance is addressing what we consider to be short-term emergencies. It's unfortunate that the amount of this aid is not indexed to food prices. When food prices rise, it means that the impact of what Canada is able to provide is definitely weakened. At the same time, we have to be careful not to rely on humanitarian assistance as a long-term strategy. That's where the recent reduction in Canada's development assistance overall, including for rural development, is unfortunate.
There need to be more resources put toward increasing the capacity of the poorest countries to produce their own food, and to do so sustainably. If Canada can be a leader in providing assistance, for example, for agroecological farming methods that rely less on synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels, this could go even further to help insulate developing countries from shocks caused by the kinds of events that lead to higher prices across the board—food, energy and fertilizer.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.
We will now go to the second round and start off with MP Chong.
You have four minutes, MP Chong.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Russia is still exporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas to Europe. Europe is buying billions of dollars of this LNG from Russia. The data I looked up recently showed that in the first seven months of this year, Russian LNG exports to Europe jumped 40%. The other thing that's happening is that Europe, because it can't get enough natural gas, is switching to burning coal for electricity generation. We know from the Government of Canada's own data that one-fifth of all global emissions come from coal-fired electricity plants. A kilowatt hour of electricity generated from coal has double the emissions of a kilowatt hour of electricity generated from gas.
On October 9, 2023, Gregory Ebel, the president of Enbridge Inc., wrote that Canadian natural gas exports could “displace coal” in Europe and Asia and “have a tremendous impact on reducing global emissions—one far greater than Canada merely achieving its own 2050 net-zero commitment.” He further called on the Canadian government “to adopt policies and regulatory measures to enable the responsible and efficient development and export of this important resource while also streamlining permitting processes to better respond to the urgent need for more gas.”
My question for you, Mr. Irving, is this: Do you agree with Mr. Ebel's assertion that increased exports of Canadian natural gas could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and if so, why?