In Saskatchewan?
Evidence of meeting #54 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programs.
Evidence of meeting #54 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programs.
April 19th, 2007 / 2:40 p.m.
National Manager, Industry and Government Relations, Ducks Unlimited Canada
In Saskatchewan.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
National Manager, Industry and Government Relations, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Sorry.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Bob Sopuck Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
Thank you. Our presentation will be joint with Ian Wishart from Keystone Agricultural Producers.
On behalf the Delta Waterfowl Foundation and Keystone Agricultural Producers, I would like to thank the standing committee for this opportunity to present the concept of ALUS.
It may seem a bit unusual for a conservation group to be asked to present what is essentially an agricultural policy proposal, but there are some very important environmental challenges on the agricultural landscape, not the least of which is how to design a program that both provides solutions to difficult environmental problems while at the same time respecting the rights of landowners and recognizing the requirement to foster an economically sustainable agriculture.
Canadian farmers face many economic challenges, but they are also facing an emerging environmental agenda. An urban-based electorate is demanding new products, often referred to as ecological goods and services, such as cleaner water, flood control, water storage, clean air, wildlife, and pastoral landscapes from farmers.
The alternative land use services proposal is based on the concept of paying agricultural producers for providing environmental benefits to the public by conserving and enhancing the public environmental resources on private land. ALUS integrates the environmental demands of Canadians into the mainstream of agriculture in a non-regulatory manner. ALUS would deliver environmental benefits. It is non-trade distorting, farmer friendly, and it would be attractive to both rural and urban citizens. After all, whether they realize it or not, most Canadians live in the agricultural regions of Canada.
It must be emphasized that Canada is one of the few industrialized countries without such a program. Canada's main trading partners, most notably the United States and the European Union, have significant EG and S incentive programs for their producers. Indeed the lack of such a program in Canada puts our producers at a competitive disadvantage relative to our trading partners.
ALUS is the first incentive-based national conservation proposal to be developed by the farming and ranching community in Canada. ALUS recognizes the role of producers as good environmental stewards and encourages them to enhance environmental benefits for all Canadians from private farm and ranchlands.
There have been two traditional approaches to environmental conservation on private farmlands, namely regulations and/or land purchase. Neither of these policy options has been particularly effective. Examples of failed regulatory programs include the Species at Risk Act and the increased enforcement of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. Both are costly programs that have failed to deliver environmental results. They have only served to alienate rural communities and impose unnecessary costs on producers. ALUS is an alternative to promulgating environmental regulations beyond reasonable baseline levels.
The assumption behind land purchase programs is that somehow we need to eliminate the private landowner in order to generate environmental benefits. While land purchase may have a place on a small scale, it is evident that widespread land purchase by conservation agencies cannot deliver real results on a large scale. You simply cannot buy enough land.
Land purchase programs also compete with the land requirements of existing producers and their families. The restriction on land purchases by conservation groups that was in place in Saskatchewan for five years is a recent example. ALUS incentives would be provided by the beneficiaries of environmental services and include all Canadians with a stake in a healthy environment.
ALUS is proposed because conservation experience has shown that environmental regulations and land purchase are less effective and more costly over the long term than incentive-based approaches to derive environmental benefits from agricultural landscapes.
Mr. Wishart.
2:45 p.m.
Ian Wishart Vice-President, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Alternative Land Use Services
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you.
ALUS differs from other environmental programs in three fundamental ways. First, it is a farmer-driven environmental incentive program. The ALUS concept was initiated by Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba with assistance from Delta Waterfowl Foundation. ALUS is now a policy with most producer groups across Canada.
Secondly, ALUS differs because it will be delivered by existing agricultural organizations and institutions, which are well positioned to carry out this role. For example, crop insurance agencies are trusted by producers, and have the people and the technical ability already on the ground to monitor a fully accountable program.
Third, ALUS is vastly different from conservation programs delivered by government and by urban-based conservation NGOs because ALUS uses a landscape-based, whole-farm, rural-community approach. Basically, it's a working landscape. In short, ALUS is different and better because it invests public sector resources in the capacity of the people who live on the land and live in rural communities to deliver landscape conservation.
ALUS should be the environmental policy flagship for the next stage of agriculture policy framework because it fits so well with current agricultural and environmental programs undertaken by a wide range of organizations in government and the private sector. For example, ALUS will build on the benefits of the environmental farm plan process; add incentives to protect natural assets, biodiversity, species at risk, and fish habitat; and promote carbon sequestration and clean air benefits as well as water quality in communities.
ALUS encourages the active participation of farmers and ranchers in conserving the environment and producing more environmental benefits. ALUS is designed to mobilize producers as conservationists, changing the way they think about the environment and recognizing the vital role of producers, and providing Canadians with quality products: crops, livestock, and a new third “crop”--environmental benefits.
ALUS is Canada's fastest-growing grassroots landscape conservation policy initiative. The concept has been adopted as official policy for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and in fact was recently endorsed by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association's environment committee and is actively promoted by several provincial producer organizations.
To date, a groundswell of grassroots support for ALUS includes farming and ranching organizations at every level across this country, and a wide range of conservation organizations and governments. Municipal governments in several jurisdictions have promised and delivered financial support for implementing ALUS. In fact, that makes our conservation program unique, in that it has full engagement, in most cases, of our municipal--third level--government.
ALUS has also received widespread support in the farm, conservation, and general media. ALUS pilot projects have been proposed to test the ALUS concept in Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Pilot projects have attracted a wide range of partners who stand ready to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars as matching funds for testing the ALUS concept in these jurisdictions. Manitoba has a fully funded ALUS pilot project in which the federal government is a partner, but ALUS projects in Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have not yet been successful in attracting federal dollars.
The results of the ALUS pilot project in the rural municipality of Blanshard, Manitoba, have been compelling. Over 70% of the producers in the region have enrolled lands in the pilot project--lands of vital interest to society, including wetlands, woodlands, repairing areas, plus fragile and erodible lands. Almost 22,000 acres have been enrolled in the first eight months of the pilot project, far surpassing our original predictions.
The pilot has also shown that Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation, formally known as Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation, has the capability to administer a transparent, verifiable, and accountable program with minimal additional costs.
It must be noted that Blanshard is in the Lake Winnipeg watershed, a watershed which contains vast amounts of private agricultural land. The problems of Lake Winnipeg are well known, and an incentive-based conservation program on the agricultural landscape will contribute significantly to the health of Lake Winnipeg.
2:50 p.m.
Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
The cost-effectiveness of ALUS was recently explored by leading agricultural economists Edward and Allen Tyrchniewicz. The authors concluded that ALUS would cost in the order of $740 million per year to fully implement across Canada and would deliver approximately $820 million per annum of potential benefits to society, plus generate additional benefits of at least $61 million per year in avoided costs.
ALUS pilot projects in Manitoba and Ontario have indicated an unprecedented interest by producers in participating in a farmer-developed and community-delivered conservation concept. Lessons learned in Ontario and Manitoba show ALUS is broadly supported as an environmental solution by producers and that farmers in rural communities do have the knowledge and commitment to deliver a fully accountable landscape conservation program.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
Okay.
2:50 p.m.
Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
I'm conscious of the time constraints, Mr. Chair.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
Okay. Having done this in a previous life, I am very conscious of time.
Our farm group partners and the Delta Water Fowl Foundation recommend that all parties in the House of Commons support the ALUS concept; second, that ALUS pilot projects be funded by the Government of Canada; third, that the Government of Canada direct key staff in the relevant departments to work with farm and producer groups to develop and implement ALUS; and fourth, that the Government of Canada work towards the implementation of a national landscape conservation program for Canada as part of the next generation of Canadian agricultural policy.
Thank you.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Jennifer Hillard Research Director, Consumer Interest Alliance Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Bezan.
My name is Jennifer Hillard, and I'm the research director for the Consumer Interest Alliance, which is actually a fancy title for a volunteer job with a lot of work. I have another member with me, Florence Watson, who is also from Winnipeg.
I'd really like to thank all the members for coming to our wonderful province and letting us present to you without having to travel to Ottawa. It's a huge advantage.
The Consumer Interest Alliance Incorporated--we call ourselves CIAI--is a national, member-based, volunteer organization, and we work primarily in the areas of food and agriculture, financial services, and standards. Our objective is to represent the long-term interests of Canadian consumers based on science and research. We operate primarily through participation in consultative processes. We don't picket, boycott, or operate in an advocacy mode.
The first point we would like to raise is that we're disappointed in the failure of Agriculture Canada to specifically include consumers as stakeholders in this round of the APF consultations. In the consultations for APF I, we were a significant stakeholder throughout, and this time we haven't been invited to meetings. We've had to push ourselves forward, and I think that's a shame, because we are part of the market chain.
A statement was made this morning by Mr. Steckle that suggested that consumers and producers are not on the same side. That always disappoints me, because in my opinion, consumers and producers are at the two ends of the market chain, and we're both victims. We're victims of a processor-distributor-retailer chain that is heavily vertically integrated, and the system has failed to maintain adequate competition for an effective and fair marketplace.
Another point raised this morning by the gentleman from the Manitoba Pork Council was that consumers should be paying more for products in the grocery store. I maybe don't disagree with that, but that's not going to help producers. If you look at the price spread, a decrease in farmer pricing doesn't result in a decrease in consumer price, and an increase in consumer price doesn't result in an increase in producer price. It gets gobbled up in the chain in between, and the system has to find a way to fix that.
There are two areas of the APF that are of particular interest to CIAI. We've slipped into the environment area, but we would like to comment on environment, food safety and quality, innovation and science, and market development and trade. It's a fairly short presentation, despite its spread.
CIAI is not an environmental group. We limit our involvement in environmental issues. We believe that there are lots of active NGOs out there. Basically, we are a consumer group. However, we don't believe that the picture being presented to the public of the agricultural impact on the environment is necessarily supported by the facts. Most producers are good stewards of the land--it is their capital, and it makes good business sense for them to take care of it.
Unfortunately, it's not as easy a sector on which to report back on environmental activities as heavy industry, which measures imports and measures releases into the atmosphere. It's much more difficult for the agricultural sector to do that.
APF I created some great opportunities for agriculture through the environment pillar, particularly the environmental farm planning systems. This opened doors to ways of collecting some aggregated data that would support claims of good stewardship. Unfortunately, the provincial programs that are operating EFP programs are currently in a state of limbo. Nobody knows whether they're going to continue beyond March of next year. At a time when we would like to be reviewing these programs, taking the next step, and maybe putting a little more rigour into them, we are working on wind-down plans. I would like to urge this committee to maintain some continuity in these programs in APF II so they can continue to grow and deliver better possibilities for actually measuring continual improvements in the sector, rather than just give a snapshot of what agriculture's activities are in the environmental area.
Moving on to food safety and quality, this is obviously a key area of interest and concern for a group that represents consumer interests. We would like to begin by saying that we believe that Canada's agricultural sector produces food that is of very high quality and that Canada has a good mix of regulatory and voluntary systems that should ensure wonderful food safety. We support wholeheartedly the concept of branding Canada. We don't think Canadians pat themselves on the back as frequently as we should. However, there are some weaknesses in the enforcement system that are actually undermining confidence in the system and making it difficult for consumers to acquire the knowledge they need to make informed decisions.
In many cases, we have not adopted Codex standards for the composition of food; yogourt is a prime example. In other cases, we have compositional standards, but processors are ignoring them and the CFIA is failing to enforce; cheese is a prime example of this.
CIAI fully supports the concept of quality being an issue for the industry and an area where competition and the marketplace should drive improvements. However, compositional standards of processed food can affect the nutritional quality. Some of these are important food items, and destroying their nutritional quality has long-term negative impacts on the health of Canadians.
During a recent CIAI study on cheese standards, one focus group member said this problem is contributing to our population being "overfed and undernourished".
At the retail level, the lack of competition is creating problems with getting new, innovative, and local products onto the shelves of the majority of grocery stores. This is driving more and more consumers to farmers' markets and other forms of direct buying. Much of the food sold this way has bypassed the food safety regulatory systems that the government has put in place to protect Canadians, and while voluntary on-farm food safety programs are generally wonderful for taking food safety protection back beyond the gate, we're not convinced that they're adequate without the regulatory layer.
CIAI would like to see the food quality and safety section of the next APF address the issue of enforcement of existing standards, including more efforts to harmonize with some of our major trading partners on standards, regulations, and enforcement systems where such harmonization of standards maintains protection of Canadians and does not result in settling for the lowest common denominator.
In the area of innovation and science, science is moving very fast, and the food and agricultural sector is very innovative. Functional foods and nutriceuticals, biotechnology, and nanotechnology are all moving at lightning speed.
CIAI has two key areas of concern relating to the new technologies. First, can accurate, science-based consumer information be disseminated in a way that enables Canadian consumers to reap any benefits available through informed choice? Informed choice is one of the WTO's internationally recognized consumer rights. The second question is, can the regulatory system keep pace with science, both to ensure adequate protection of consumers and to enable industry innovation?
CIAI believes that poorly presented information, failure to identify realistic and appropriate consumer benefits, and a paternalistic attitude taken by government and industry with regard to the science opened the door for misinformation and scare tactics relating to food and agricultural applications of biotechnology.
Add to that the failure of government to recognize that there were issues of ethics involved that went beyond science, and the inability of the regulatory system to adapt fast enough to handle a new technology, and we ended up with almost an international consumer revolt against "GE food" that is hindering applications that may offer consumer benefits.
We had an example of that raised this morning, with the issue of trying to register a high-phytate barley, which is stuck under the novel food regulations that were put in place to protect consumers from biotechnology.
CIAI is concerned that the fast-growing area of nanotechnology should be handled differently. We hope this committee will consider ways of addressing commercialization and regulation of this technology and any other new technologies in APF II, so that Canadian consumers can access the possible benefits of these technologies.
The last item we'd like to touch on is market development and trade. We believe that consumers should benefit from freer trade through access to a greater variety of product choices and more marketplace competition. We do not believe that Canadian consumers are reaping the benefits expected under NAFTA, particularly in the area of food and agriculture. Some of the regulatory systems of Canada and the U.S. could, in our opinion, move much faster towards harmonization without having a negative impact on the health of Canadians or the environment, and with a positive impact on the Canadian economy.
Agricultural inputs, both pesticides and veterinary drugs, are put through very thorough and high-cost processes on both sides of the border; however, the size of the Canadian market limits the number of products that are prepared to go through our system. This often prevents producer access to newer and better products with fewer negative impacts, while not preventing those that would not pass the Canadian system from showing up in imported food. This does nothing to benefit consumers and prevents Canadian import products from competing on a level playing field.
CIAI would like to see APF II support more harmonization in areas where there is a net benefit to Canadian consumers and the Canadian economy.
In an effort to circumvent the processor-distributor-retailer monopoly in the agrifood sector, much work had been done in the name of “value chains”. We don't believe a lot of this work is truly “value chain”, as it fails to recognize that it must result in something of value to the consumer, who is also part of that chain. Too often the thrust is to see what can be developed, and then see if they can market it to consumers.
CIAI believes that the true value chain would identify consumer needs and then seek to create products that fill those needs. And we'd like to see APF II continue support for value chains, provided they really are truly a value chain.
Finally, on the whole, we believe that regulations should be science-based, not political science-based. We agree with you on that one. But it's also incredibly important that they be integrated, that in terms of what's going on in Health Canada and in Environment Canada and Agriculture Canada, when it comes to these regulations, everybody needs to know what everybody else is doing.
Thank you very much for your time.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
If you will keep it brief, we'll get around as much as possible.
Mr. Easter.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Jennifer.
I note our interpreter is breaking into a sweat back there.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I do have a specific question to the group representing ALUS, but I might say it is really good to hear from a consumer perspective that's supportive. We may disagree on some points, but you seem to have a lot of respect for the industry and a great deal of understanding. Jennifer and Florence, I want to just say that to you, because what we read from some of the national press and the overview that they give in the Globe and Mail, National Post, CTV, and CBC is nothing but basically a clear lack of understanding of the farming community. I just want to say that in the beginning.
I have a specific question to you, Bob. You mentioned in one of your last points that you should be funded by the Government of Canada. How, specifically, do you see ALUS being funded by the Government of Canada?
And to anyone else, really, one of the things that we have heard a fair bit over the last number of years is that we do have to find a way on carbon sinks. Does anyone have a plan on how you get paid for carbon sinks? I think there's a general attitude, at least from the farm sector, that if we're going to do all this stuff on the farm sector for the public good--providing public services, public goods, landscapes, clean air, carbon sinks, environment--then there has to be a way of that being another commodity, really, that farmers should receive some economic benefit for.
But the key first: how do you expect this crew over there to fund ALUS?
3:05 p.m.
Vice-President , Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alternative Land Use Services
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
I firmly believe that the easy way is the best way, at least as a way to start.
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with your point that those public goods that are produced on private land that currently have no market and there is no potential for a market in them and the benefits wholly accrue to the public at large, the public at large, through taxes, should support.
This is the way all other countries do these kinds of programs, including the U.S. And these kinds of programs are part of the U.S. Farm Bill to the tune, right now, of $5 billion per year.
It is our strong view that there are a number of programs that are currently within the Government of Canada and have been there a long time--so I'll get by the issue of partisanship immediately, they've been there for a long time--are not effective and do not deliver environmental results and only serve to alienate rural communities.
I'll be quite specific now. The Species at Risk Act, for example--I think the budget for that is to the tune of $100 million per year, and it's on the agricultural landscape where the Species at Risk Act could and might have the greatest effect. Right now the effect of the current Species at Risk Act, through the regulatory approach, is making landowners very fearful about seeing one of those species on their land.
I think that's an appalling state of affairs. It would be much better for landowners to welcome endangered species on their land. So a redirection of the roughly $100 million that is now being spent on the Species at Risk Act I think could really work.
There are a number of lake cleanup programs, like for Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe, and so on, areas in an agricultural watershed. Those could directly go to farmer payments.
The Tyrchniewicz report estimates a reduction of $61 million in current government payments. That could be directed to farmer payments.
Concerning the current green cover program under a portion of the current environmental pillar of the APF, our estimate is around $78 million. That could be directed to a farmer payment program.
And indeed, under Sustainable Development Technology Canada, there are a number of infrastructure programs designed to help with the provision of clean water. By cleaning water upstream, you don't need water treatment plants. Our estimate is that there is potentially $20 million there.
Our estimate is that there is currently now between $800 million and $900 million of existing environmental expenditures on the agricultural landscape that could be better directed at providing producers with incentives to deliver environmental services.