Evidence of meeting #84 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Thevathasan.
Now we have Mr. Barlow for up to seven minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for some great input.
I wanted to ask Naresh first, if I could.... I had an opportunity to meet with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada at the GrowCanada Conference in Calgary a couple of weeks ago, and they brought up an interesting point. As we talk about where we want to go in terms of our agricultural output.... Mr. Desrochers had some interesting numbers there on growing more on much less land, but if we want to set our goalpost on where we want to go, I think it's also important to know where we start.
One of their main concerns is that there really hasn't been an in-depth soil analysis of the status of soil in Canada as a national program since maybe the late eighties, early nineties. Has any work been done on that at some of the universities, either the University of Guelph or others that you know? Are there any that are doing more of an in-depth analysis of the current status of soil in Canada?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
Yes, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out in-depth soil surveys in Ontario now. I'm aware of that because they contacted me with regard to the soil carbon sequestration of agroforestry. That study I know. I think the Canada Lands Surveys and the other provinces are also taking an in-depth...but I know for sure that Ontario is taking an in-depth analysis of soil surveys and of carbon sequestration potential at different soil depths and horizons.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Would that be something...? It hasn't really come up—and we're early in this study—but even with regard to the food policy I don't think it really came up. Would that be something that would be worthwhile to do, or are we relying on each province to do it on it's own?
I know my municipalities talk about that all the time: “You can develop, subdivide, on class 3 and class 4 soil, but we're going to do everything we can to protect class 1 and class 2.” There are uses for class 3 and class 4 soil that can be done, whether it's ranching or whatnot. I'm worried that it's being done piecemeal. Would it be worthwhile to do something on a larger scale?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
Absolutely. It is worthwhile. The provincial governments are doing it because each province has now committed to the Paris accord, and they are looking at the carbon sequestration potential.
What is interesting is the expansion of ranchers in the Clay Belt region. We have 29 million acres in Ontario and Quebec, and the farm prices are very low. They're encouraging ranchers from the south to move to the north to have established ranches in the Clay Belt area. The introduction of trees in those land areas not only will improve the soil aspect but also will improve the terrestrial carbon sequestration potential significantly. Twenty-nine million acres is a significant amount of land, and it doesn't have many trees now.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Desrochers, you brought up a great point in terms of the pulses that are being grown in western Canada. Five years ago, I would never have had peas or lentils growing in my constituency. Now there are literally thousands of acres. Also, producers are now concerned about the rules, regulations, carbon taxes, and all these things that are being put on them that are making them less and less competitive. Can you talk a little bit about some of the impacts that these things are having?
We're seeing studies all the time that show that not only is the carbon footprint of our farms significantly less than what I think people believe it to be, but also, possibly, there is very significant carbon sequestration on those agricultural properties. Can you talk a little bit about that?
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Geography Department, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'll speak in very general terms. When we talk about climate policy in this country, and frankly pretty much anywhere, the problem is that we tend to forget about the big picture. We just look at the impact that a tax would have on reducing carbon production, or at least carbon emissions. We tend to forget that there is a real price to taxes, especially in a context with....
Whatever you might say of the head politician south of the border, if they are creating an economic environment in which people are not submitted to the same constraints we have here, we are going to put our farmers out of business and penalize consumers. I don't see the point of establishing policies that have not, frankly, delivered much in terms of concrete results in other parts of the world and penalizing our farmers in the process, especially in a very competitive environment.
Again, what I try to point out in the little memo I sent you is that our main policy should always be win-win or “no regret” things that deliver benefits to producers and consumers, but also to the environment. The more we allow our farmers to compete, the more efficient they will become over time, the more jobs they will create, the lower the food prices will be for our consumers, and the more our environment will benefit in the process.
Virtually every day, again, in terms of water retrieval, reforestation of the land.... I understand that marginal agricultural land might be a concern to some of you, but at the same time, if you take a bird's-eye view of these things, I have no problem with the rewilding of the earth.
I'm sorry if this is a rambling answer. I think our farmers have enough problems. We don't need to shoot them in the foot with policies that make them uncompetitive.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
One of the main things you said was that the economic implications are perhaps more important than the climate things, and I think we've seen it with our agriculture sector. By innovation and technological advances, they are able not only to grow more on less land but also to reduce their carbon footprint.
Do you think that this should be the focus, and not taxes and regulations?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Geography Department, University of Toronto, As an Individual
That should be the focus of the government. At the same time, we should do something that will be a bit more painful, and that is stop subsidizing inefficiencies or having certain frameworks, like supply management, that don't allow the best farmers to grow and the less efficient ones to go out of business.
The more competitive we are, the more efficient we will be over time. Again, both the environment and consumers will benefit in the process. I see no inherent contradiction between becoming more competitive, more efficient, and delivering environmental benefits at the same time.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
One of your recommendations here—I'm reading through this—is not to “discourage innovative behaviour”.
What would you see as an option in terms of encouraging innovation? Are there some things we can do there?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Geography Department, University of Toronto, As an Individual
A lot of activists these days are very fond of the precautionary principle, saying that we should not develop technology in the absence of absolute certainty in terms of the outcome. In general terms, I would argue that a better ethical or philosophical standard would be the creation of lesser problems than those that existed before.
There are seven billion of us right now on the planet. There will soon be nine or 10 billion of us. We will always have an impact. As long as we don't import food from outer space, we will have an impact on the planet, but I think the track record of the farming sector in Canada and in other advanced economies is fairly good. Again, there will be a few hiccups along the way, but creating lesser problems than those that existed before should be our main standard.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Desrochers. Unfortunately, we're out of time.
Ms. Brosseau, you have the floor for seven minutes.
December 7th, 2017 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses. I think this is the first time you've been at a committee meeting, and you've done a great job. It's a pleasure having you here.
This is a great opportunity to talk about agriculture and climate change. There are a lot of challenges but a lot of opportunities too. Often at committee, we talk a lot about trade, because we are a trading country and it's always important to make sure there is a level playing field with our big trading partners.
Mr. Thevathasan, you spoke a lot about and you have a lot of experience in agroforestry. I understand that the United States has gone ahead, and they have a strategic plan. Did it start in 2011 to 2016?
4 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
That's right.
4 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
Yes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Can you talk about the success—where they're at with their agroforestry, and what they've been able to achieve? How would we get inspired by what our neighbours in the United States have done? Where is the Canadian government at on supporting agroforestry in Canada?
4 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
They have progressed in leaps and bounds compared with Canada. There's an agroforestry centre of excellence in Nebraska. The University of Missouri has the national agroforestry research leadership. The Association for Temperate Agroforestry is situated in the States, even though Canada is a member.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the amount of land area that has been brought under agroforestry systems significantly increased from 2011 to 2016, especially forest farming systems, which have seen a humongous amount of adoption. A lot of landowners are producing mushrooms, ginseng, and speciality medicinal plants. They have also crated niche markets for them, such as supplying specialty products to restaurants. That has also enhanced income for the landowners in the United States.
What made that happen was that the agroforestry strategic network policy provided incentives and guidelines for them to initiate such changes in the agricultural sector. That took off, and adoption went significantly higher. For example, in 1998, we brought 40 landowners to the University of Guelph, and we showed the land use systems and ecosystem services, plus the economic benefits these land use systems can contribute. All of them answered a questionnaire and said, “These land use systems contribute to the public good, but who is going to bear the cost? We are happy to adopt them, but why should I put in riparian buffers for somebody downstream to benefit? Will I get a tax credit on my property? What incentive will I get in order for me to invest in public-good land use systems?”
All of them contributed that answer. They did not dispute any of the economic, environmental, or ecosystem services these land use systems could bring about. They didn't dispute them at all, but the question was “who is going to bear the cost?” As the Canadian government has committed to the Paris accord, and we are spending $2.65 billion in developing countries to bring about the climate commitment of developing countries, I think we should also contribute to coming up with a policy measure similar to the United States agroforestry strategic network.
We started that. We had an agroforestry development centre situated in Indian Head, in Saskatchewan. They were trying to formulate the policy, but then it was closed. I think we need such initiatives in Canada.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
When was that closed, the initiative at Indian Head?
4:05 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
It was closed in 2012-13.
4:05 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
There is less work in agroforestry going on, but they are not contributing any national agroforestry work.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
There's been a steady decline in investment from the federal government in agroforestry.
4:05 p.m.
Prof. Naresh Thevathasan
Yes.