Evidence of meeting #87 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 crops.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clyde Graham  Senior Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada
Doyle Wiebe  Director, Grain Growers of Canada
Louis Gauthier  General Manager, Les Fraises de l'Île d'Orléans inc.
Marc Laflèche  Chairman of the Board of Directors and Agricultural Producer, Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens
Emilia Craiovan  Representative, Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Welcome, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, and Thursday, October 26, 2017, the committee resumes its study on climate change and water conservation issues.

I'd like to remind our guests today that the motion for the current study deals with how the government can help the Canadian agriculture sector better adjust to the increasing severity of issues associated with climate change and better address water and soil conservation. That's basically what we're trying to achieve here.

With that, today we have, from Fertilizer Canada, Mr. Clyde Graham, senior vice-president; and from the Grain Growers of Canada, Mr. Doyle Wiebe, director, and Mr. Tyler McCann, interim executive director.

Welcome to all. We shall have opening statements of up to seven minutes.

Do you want to start, Mr. Graham?

3:30 p.m.

Clyde Graham Senior Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting Fertilizer Canada to speak with you today regarding your study on climate change and water and soil conservation issues.

I'm pleased to provide the committee with information about our association's mandate and to present our recommendations to enhance the government's goal of supporting the Canadian agricultural sector to better adapt to potential impacts of climate change. This is an area of significant interest to Fertilizer Canada.

Fertilizer Canada represents the manufacturers and wholesale and retail distributors of potash, nitrogen, phosphate, and sulphur fertilizers. Collectively our members employ more than 12,000 Canadians and contribute over $12 billion annually to the Canadian economy through advanced manufacturing, mining, and distribution facilities nationwide. Fertilizer is an important input for farmers, providing nutrients to plants that are not readily available in the soil, fostering plant growth, and increasing yields. Approximately 50% of crop production can be attributed to fertilizer use. That's on a global basis, but very similar to what we would see in Canada.

Our product has increasing importance as we seek to feed an increasing global population. In a continuously evolving climate, Canadian farmers must ensure that crop production is sustainable. The framework we use to sustainably grow food is “4R” nutrient stewardship. It says that to utilize fertilizer properly and to achieve the benefits of an abundant and healthy crop, farmers should follow the “4Rs” of fertilizer use: using the right source of fertilizer and applying it at the right place, at the right time, and at the right rate. 4R nutrient stewardship is innovative, as it encourages an adaptive and integrative nutrient management approach that is specific to any farmer's soil and climate conditions, including the crop they're growing, while mitigating negative impacts on the climate.

We believe that 4R nutrient stewardship is an important tool for supporting the Canadian agricultural sector in the face of climate change and addressing associated soil and water concerns. While we understand that the focus of the current study is not on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we do think it's important to note here that 4R nutrient stewardship does lend itself to addressing this environmental concern as part of the bigger picture of soil health and climate change. Our Canadian-made offset, the nitrous oxide emission reduction protocol, or the NERP, which applies 4R nutrient stewardship, is evidence of this. Recognized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as a climate-smart agricultural practice, this protocol can reduce on-farm emissions of nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas, by up to 25%.

Our first recommendation to the committee is that the federal government formally recognize and endorse 4R nutrient stewardship as the leading approach for sustainable nutrient management in Canada. We have well-established partnerships with provincial governments, retailers, conservation authorities, crop advisers, and farmers themselves in the major agriculture-producing provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, and we're working very closely to get a program going in Quebec—for regional implementation of 4R nutrient stewardship.

We also participate in national efforts, including the Canadian round table for sustainable crops and the national environmental farm plan program, both of which are integrating 4R nutrient stewardship in measuring progress and compliance for agricultural sustainability. Additionally, the International Joint Commission, which oversees the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes, recognizes 4R nutrient stewardship as an effective method for reducing nutrient runoff.

The timing for the federal government to acknowledge this approach has never been more critical given the level of awareness and support the 4Rs have achieved over the past several years among the agricultural sector at large. The Canadian government should take advantage of this voluntary effort by acknowledging 4R nutrient stewardship, integrating it into its communications about nutrient management, and encouraging our agricultural sector to adopt its principles and practices.

I do want to note that the federal government has been very good in providing us with funding for research and extension over the years, but what we're really seeking is that the federal government, through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, really integrates the 4Rs into the way it talks about fertilizer use and nutrient management and gives it that final push to make it truly a federal-provincial program.

Building on this, our second recommendation is to provide incentives or recognition to farmers who adopt 4R nutrient stewardship. Fertilizer Canada has an ambitious goal of achieving 20 million acres under 4R nutrient stewardship by the year 2020; approximately 20% of Canada's cropland.

Enabling farmers to implement 4R nutrient stewardship practices on their farms will drive greater uptake. This might be a financial incentive, a workshop, other means of engaging farmers, or just a simple pat on the back. When farmers see the co-benefits, economic and environmental, of applying the 4Rs, they are more likely to use the practice on their farm. For example, many Prince Edward Island farmers are seeing evidence of yield and environmental benefits of 4R nutrient stewardship compared to traditional practices of fertilizer application.

Fertilizer Canada also has a number of publicly available tools and resources that help farmers use the 4Rs in different Canadian landscapes, and suggests practices that can reduce the impacts on soil and waterways.

Our third recommendation is to continue to support agricultural research to better understand nutrient losses and their impacts on soil and water, and how those impacts can be measured using the 4Rs. Our industry is science-based, and is committed to research and innovation to ensure environmental stewardship when fertilizer products are being used.

Fertilizer Canada's 4R research network has nine leading Canadian scientists collaborating on innovative best management practices using 4R nutrient stewardship that demonstrate tangible environmental benefits. As an example, one researcher in the prairies is finding that in-soil placement of phosphorus fertilizer can be an effective strategy to maximize crop response and minimize the potential for phosphorus runoff.

We hope to advance this work to protect fresh water through the proposed smart agrifood supercluster; a short-listed application currently before Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. As Fertilizer Canada's contribution to this proposal, we seek to expand research and programming to enhance water quality in the Lake Erie and Lake Winnipeg watershed regions. We're also collaborating with other agriculture commodity groups on a fertilizer use survey, which over the past four years has been collecting data on farmer practices for source, rate, time, and place for the major Canadian crops.

With all this information there's an opportunity to understand interactions between practices, how they interact under specific climatic conditions, and how they collectively can provide benefits to improving soil and water quality.

Environmental stewardship and sustainability are not new ideas for our industry or for Canadian farmers, who have long embraced past management practices on their farms, yards, and business operations.

As we move forward, it's increasingly important to demonstrate our successes in measurable ways, and also to identify areas of potential improvement. Farmers need all of us in the agrifood sector just as much as we need them, so we can continue to have abundant and nutritious food.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Mr. Graham, if you can wrap up, please.

3:35 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada

Clyde Graham

We do believe that more can be done though, which is why we strongly encourage the members of the committee to consider our recommendations, which would be a formal recognition by the federal government to incentivize farmers and support research in the area of 4R nutrient stewardship.

Thanks very much.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you very much, Mr. Graham.

From the Grain Growers of Canada, Mr. Doyle Wiebe, for up to seven minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Doyle Wiebe Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Mr. Finnigan and all members of the committee, thank you for this invitation today.

My name is Doyle Wiebe. I am a farmer and a director with the Grain Growers of Canada. We have 13 members representing over 50,000 grain producers from coast to coast. I'm currently chair of the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, treasurer of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, and past president of the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association. I'm also a member of a new committee formed last year by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, entitled the agricultural water management policy advisory board. This committee was formed to help with the implementation of new water drainage regulations in the province, which have been brought in to support the hundreds of farmers looking for ways to deal with unprecedented water levels on their farmlands.

I'm a fourth-generation farmer in my community of Langham, near Saskatoon. This spring I will be seeding my 45th crop along with my business partner, a new, young neighbour in the community who is planning to be my successor on the 6,000-plus acres we farm together today. He has two young sons whom he hopes will succeed him in due course. We grow canola, wheat, and barley as traditional crops, but we are also working at growing new crops like peas, soybeans, and quinoa, to diversity the rotation and reduce the risks associated with variable weather patterns, which affect each crop differently.

The soil in my area is considered marginal. It is quite sandy and prone to salinity, which is exacerbated when soil moisture levels are high. Historically, this type of soil was prone to wind erosion in fallow years, which is mostly done to conserve moisture for the next year's crop, as sandy soil does not hold a lot of moisture. In the most recent years, however, we have seen a complete shift from the driest conditions in my father's lifetime to the wettest. Currently, it is quite dry again.

In the last 10 years, crop insurance programs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have paid out more due to excess moisture than due to dry conditions. In my own case, five years ago I lost 25% of my cultivated acres due to excess water levels. Just imagine how losing 25% of the productive assets of any business and leaving most costs untouched will affect the profitability of that business. It's not sustainable.

Yes, climate change is real. With warmer winters and generally more moisture, fungal diseases, insects, and surface water issues in areas where there is nowhere to drain it have required new ways of thinking.

I tell my non-farming friends that I do not gamble; I manage risk. I mentally take stock of all the risks I need to manage each year, and I determine what strategy is best to mitigate them and yet remain profitable. Weather, which farmers talk about every day, is the single largest risk to any dryland grain producer in the world. Because of this, farmers themselves have been incredibly innovative and proactive in adapting to the changing climate. Many have worked with equipment manufacturers to deal with wetter soil conditions.

For example, it was quite rare 10 years ago to see dual wheels on combines. Now it is mostly standard equipment. There are even tracks on some. Dual wheels on wet soil help to spread the weight of the equipment, reducing soil compaction, preserving soil health, and not getting stuck in the mud.

Off the farm, farmers are also leaders in developing proactive approaches to this issue. As I said earlier, I am involved with several organizations that work to mitigate the impacts of climate change on our operations. The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association is a great example of a group that has been around since the mid-eighties, promoting conservation and agriculture systems to improve the land for the future. In addition, Grain Growers of Canada is a member of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, whom you heard from here in December. The CRSC is working within the industry to develop and measure sustainability metrics for Canadian grain in a proactive way.

While farmers are working hard to find solutions and are investing time and money in research and innovation, they cannot do it alone. As such, one of the areas where government investment would go a long way is in research and innovation. The federal government already has a track record of supporting and nurturing agricultural innovation through Growing Forward and Growing Forward 2. This is a natural fit. Potential partnerships already exist for government and industry. Public research is crucial to developing crops that will allow us to adapt to climate change.

Plant breeding efforts have needed to shift focus to try to address disease and insect issues and other stresses. There has been some success, and we have embraced these solutions whenever possible to improve performance and avoid pesticide applications. As a result, new drought and disease-resistant varieties are having a real, positive impact on the environment.

These efforts in both the public and private sectors need to be strengthened and enhanced if we are to continue to increase our production as costs continue to escalate. This requires investment by government in public sector research.

It is also essential to have a regulatory and policy environment that allows private sector research to thrive and new technologies to become available to farmers who need them. All of this work is intended to help me manage the risks in front of me as best I can. However, there's only so much a farmer can do when nature works against all odds. That is why strong business risk management programming is an important tool for managing and adapting to changing climates. Crop insurance with premiums cost-shared by governments and producers is an essential risk management tool for grain growers across Canada.

While BRM programs should only pay out assistance when truly required, it is essential that tools be available and meaningful when risks can no longer be managed by the farmers themselves. However, every farmer has a different financial risk, and risk profiles have been changing over time. Mine is quite different from my business partner's and BRM programming must be improved to help ensure his little boys will have the opportunity to continue his legacy.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of BRM programming. We have a unique opportunity to take a close look and develop programs that work for the future. Grain growers look forward to working with the government and committee to ensure that the review is meaningful and puts everything on the table. That is the only way we can ensure that BRM programs will be the backstop growers need as they face increasing risks in the future.

Grain farmers have adapted to many challenges and are leading in environmental stewardship. They are in business for the long term, and therefore look at the long-term impacts of their practices. Farmers are increasingly asked to do more with less, and they have become very efficient at using the most modern technologies. We are only now getting a clear picture of just how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil thanks to modern farming practices, and it is much more than was theorized 30 years ago. It is imperative that the positive impacts of this are passed on to farmers when government puts climate change initiatives like carbon prices into place.

There's a lot of public good in what we do. Added costs in the value chain trickle down to farmers, and we cannot pass these on. Grain farmers' contribution to cleaner air, water, and removal of greenhouse gases from the environment, while building healthier soil for the next generation, is part of the legacy we are leaving today. We are proud of that legacy and want to work with government to ensure a strong future for our industry.

Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your questions.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you very much, Mr. Wiebe, for your presentation.

Now we shall move into the question rounds.

Mr. Barlow is going to lead us off.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to read a motion I'd like to discuss later on in the week at a future meeting, if I can. I don't want to discuss it now, just in the future.

The notice of motion I've tabled is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food undertake a study of the Canada Food Guide and hear specifically from agriculture and agri-food stakeholders; and that the Committee report its findings to the House prior to the release of Part 1 of the new dietary guidance policy report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for being here. I apologize for being late, but I had a rancher in my riding who had some issues, and I had to take that call. I appreciate that you have taken the time to be with us today.

I'd like to start with Mr. Wiebe. Thank you for sharing some personal anecdotes with us about what's going on at your farm. Those are always heartfelt, and I think they have a strong impact on us when we hear how these decisions actually affect people on the ground.

I'm curious. With grain growers, we have Health Canada and PMRA reviewing 11 or 12 neonics, including imidacloprid and similar products. These help ensure that our producers are spraying less and that you can grow crops you normally wouldn't have been able to grow. I'm talking about quinoa and pulses you maybe couldn't have grown in other places.

What would be the impact on the amount of time that you're actually in your fields if some of these products were decertified? Have you done any work on that?

3:45 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

From what I'm aware of, the pesticides now being reviewed would actually increase if they were decertified or taken off the list of products available to me. I would probably have to spray other things that are more harmful to the environment and use up more of my time, fuel, and effort. It would make my job that much more difficult. Right now there are risk management strategies for dealing with certain insects that affect certain crops. The most common crop that would be affected is canola, which is my go-to crop.

There's a particular insect that is there when the crop comes out of the ground, generally, and if you miss that two-day window of spraying it when it comes up, you're done.

It would be quite costly, not just to me, but to the environment as well.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

I think you hit it right on the head. This allows you to be very specific on where you spray and not just massively spray a whole field. You can be very specific on where you go, and it ensures you're on the soil less often. I appreciate that.

We had a report that came out last year that showed the difference in tillage—and we've heard it a couple of times in this committee—between western and eastern Canada. In some of our western provinces, zero tillage is a normal part of the discussion, whereas in eastern Canada not quite so much, for various reasons. A report also came out about the impact the carbon tax will have on agriculture. When you look at western Canada, for example, where zero tillage is almost a normal part of business—not so much in eastern Canada—do you think issues like that should be brought into consideration when the federal government is implementing a carbon tax?

Should farmers and ranchers be able to perhaps get credits or be exempt from the carbon tax if they are implementing those types of soil conservation methods and practices in their operations?

3:50 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

Yes, you've touched on a topic I've been working on for a number of years, and the position that a group of similar-minded organizations, including Grain Growers as the national body, but also a number of provincial groups where I'm from in Saskatchewan....

Just to put it in perspective, it's not an east-west thing. Yes, there are different climates—somewhere between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg it changes or something. It's also the fact that western Canada is home to somewhere around 75% of the grain production acres in Canada, so it's a much more dominant part of our landscape, literally. We are one of the few places in the world where our climate is such that we can sequester carbon.

I'm not trying to get into a debate so much about how a carbon tax might impact us on the cost side. We just know it's likely going to filter down into some costs. Regardless of that, there should be recognition of the great good we're doing with that sequestration. It's not trivial. It's millions of tonnes, every year, not just once in time. The minimum tillage practices are the primary driver of that, but also other things too.

The fact is we are doing those things, and yes, we're benefiting from them to some extent anyway, but these practices were brought in at a time when carbon credits were talked about, 25 years ago. This file has been around that long in some of the circles I've been working in. We are very cognizant of the different politics around it, but we are really pushing for some recognition that sequestration is a public good as well, and that we're trying to be part of the solution, and not just be penalized with an extra cost that we can't pass on.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

I don't think we're arguing climate change or not, I just think we've seen the reports that a carbon tax is much more punitive on rural Canadians, especially the agriculture sector. We want to try to find a way for that to be taken into consideration when these types of programs are rolled out.

I appreciate that answer.

We heard from the University of Saskatchewan's crop development program on the difficulty in getting new seed and plant varieties approved and certified. Is that an issue as well when we talk about soil conservation and you talk about innovation, to try to streamline that process so you're able to access some of these things?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

A very quick answer.

3:50 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

I'm not a seed grower, but I'm going to a meeting tomorrow of an organization called Seed Synergy, which is doing cross-Canada meetings with farm groups to see what is the best way to move forward to help drive that agenda, that issue, and to get the private sector more involved to see how better varieties can be developed for us.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Mr. Wiebe.

Mr. Longfield, for six minutes.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for both presentations.

It really helps when we can get close to the ground, so to speak, on soil management. Also, not to argue through you to the other side, but it shows the reason that carbon pricing programs need to be locally developed and provincially controlled. We put federal guidelines in place, and then it's up to provincial governments to work out the mix within their communities.

You've been working on it for quite a long time.

In terms of the progress on sequestration, on managing the carbon cycle, how far along are you on the carbon cycle? Do you feel it's maturely managed? Or is there more research needed to be done to manage the carbon cycle in the soil, increase carbon in the soil, and reduce carbon?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

All the results to date, particularly of soil measurements of organic matter over the last 20 years, have indicated a whole different curve, if you will, from the original century model, as it was called. We know the practices are good. It's a matter now of proving it to the world. It's starts here in Canada, and then we'll try to prove it to the world as well.

Another meeting I'm supposed to go to tomorrow is to discuss the proposal. It has been mostly in Saskatchewan for the last 20 years. We'd like to broaden that to the prairies to have a better handle on the different climatic factors and different management systems, including the livestock sector in their pasture and hay land management.

The foresight was given by an Agriculture Canada researcher based out of Swift Current, Saskatchewan over 20 years ago. He has been involved since the Kyoto days. He theorized it with his colleagues around the country. He has been the lead on this because he's close to the ground, literally, in Saskatchewan. He's going to be publishing his results finally in a journal. It had never gone that far, but it has been publicized otherwise. It's very encouraging that we are doing more good than any scientist otherwise had thought we even could in adding carbon organic matter back to the soil.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

So we have some longitudinal studies, and are they complete? Did we miss any piece when we lost our census, as an example? Is the scientific data pretty intact?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

I can't comment on exactly how rigorous the census part of it is. It does ask that one question about our tillage practices, but I wouldn't consider that all that rigorous.

The science behind measuring, seeing how, and interviewing the farmer has been on the same site for those 20 years. They go back to the same spot in those fields to measure it. There is a spot the farmer doesn't even know about, a little piece of metal a foot in the ground they can find, and they go back there repeatedly every five years. The next one coming up will be this coming fall, I think.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

What organization is looking at that? You have a meeting coming up tomorrow. Is that something we can include in our study as background to make sure we don't miss that?

3:55 p.m.

Director, Grain Growers of Canada

Doyle Wiebe

The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association has been the coordinating body of that for many years. There are supporting organizations like SaskCanola, Sask pulse, Sask Wheat, and those other commissions that are supporting the whole nature of that work because of the impact we know carbon pricing may have on farmers and so on to ensure this data is well recognized scientifically and worldwide.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Data's going to be very important going forward.

I'm thinking also with your neighbour, Mr. Graham, looking at precision agriculture, and the data that's being captured around mapping the soils across western Canada.... Which organization is working on that, and how can we make sure we include that in our report?

3:55 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada

Clyde Graham

I'm not familiar with who would be leading in terms of soil mapping, but provincial agriculture departments would be engaged, and a lot of the agronomic service companies would be doing mapping of soils.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Is it supported by Fertilizer Canada? Is it something that Fertilizer Canada uses?

3:55 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada

Clyde Graham

Our emphasis has been on the practices that farmers are using to apply fertilizer to improve those. That has been our focus.