Agriculture Committee on Feb. 7th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to our meeting. 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 of climate change and water conservation issues.

I'd like to welcome our guests.

I apologize that I didn't have time to go to shake your hands prior, but welcome again, Mr. Kristensen and Mr. Stordy, from my beautiful province of New Brunswick. I'm so happy to see you here.

I believe we have Mr. Cedric MacLeod whom I also know. He's on the telephone from New Brunswick.

It's good to have you with us.

Mr. Kristensen, go ahead for up to seven minutes.

[Hans Kristensen, 1st Vice-Chair, Canadian Pork Council]

Good afternoon. My name is Hans Kristensen. I'm a hog and poultry producer from New Brunswick, and the 1st Vice-Chair of the Canadian Pork Council. I would first like to thank the members of this committee for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the study on climate change and water and soil conservation.

Like all Canadians, hog producers are concerned about the implications of climate change and what impact we as food producers have on the soil and water resources that we depend on. Climate change is not a theoretical challenge for us. It impacts the crops we grow, the facilities we use to protect our animals, and the plant and animal diseases we face every day. Often our families live on our farms and, more often than not, success is measured by our ability to transition our farms from one generation to the next.

In addition to these larger considerations, we also face the practical reality of having to compete every day in a global marketplace. Canadian pork producers export almost 70% of what they produce. We operate in a very competitive global environment, and one of our key advantages is our access to high-quality soils and ready supplies of water.

We are well aware of the importance of these resources and, as a result, we work hard to ensure their long-term availability. The necessity of being globally competitive means that we must continually focus on producing more pork while simultaneously utilizing less land, water, and energy. In addition, hog producers are keenly aware of the importance of maintaining the trust of all Canadians, not just those who consume our pork. Our social licence is very important to us.

What this means is that producers are under tremendous pressure to not only be stewards of their environment, but to be seen as environmental stewards. We accept this challenge and have started to closely track our progress. For example, Quebec producers are now routinely monitoring their improvements. In four short years, for example, the amount of water used to produce pork has declined by almost 2%. Quebec producers have also benchmarked their sector against global producers and found that their carbon footprint is 31% less than the global average.

Research shows that hog producers who utilize production systems similar to those employed in Canada have, over the past 50 years, decreased the natural resources consumed by pigs by 50% per kilogram of pork produced. Farmers are using 40% less water, 33% less feed, and as much as 59% less land.

At the national level, the pork value chain round table will be building on the work undertaken at the provincial level to complete a life-cycle assessment of Canada's pork industry. Over the years, we have embraced a number of different initiatives, often in partnership with federal, provincial, and/or municipal governments.

An early example of this was the adoption of the environmental farm plans. The environmental farm plan is an assessment completed by farmers that is aimed at identifying and mitigating potential environmental risk on the farm. These plans, coupled with technical and/or financial incentives to address the identified challenges, have served not only to raise awareness of the issues at the farm level, but also to implement actions to address them. It's a classic example of thinking globally and acting locally.

An area where our industry has gone to great lengths to develop science-based practices to reduce our impact on soil and water is in the management of hog manure. The application of hog manure to farmland is an economical and environmentally sustainable mechanism for increasing crop yields by providing inputs of nutrients and organic material. Nutrients in hog manure can replace chemical fertilizers. This results in decreased greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of these chemical fertilizers. However, the value of manure is more important than the accumulated value of the individual nutrients. Hog manure is an excellent soil amendment that improves soil quality by building up its organic matter.

To help maximize the value of hog manure, producers across Canada have developed nutrient management plans. These plans, developed with the guidance of soil and water experts, ensure adequate manure storage is available, and that the manure is supplied in a manner that most greatly benefits the land. In many parts of Canada, producers use an injection method when spreading manure. This direct injection in soil ensures the maximum utilization of available nutrients by the crop.

Government financial support, often linked to environmental farm plans, has been very effective in helping to implement actions to better manage the storage and application of manure. Producers are also working closely with government to identify watershed-wide solutions to managing water quality. As an example, Ontario producers are actively engaged with Government of Ontario officials and other agricultural industry stakeholders on the domestic action plan for the Great Lakes watershed area.

However, there is more work that needs to be done. For this reason, producers are partnering with governments and investing heavily in research and development.

As an example, close to half the carbon footprint associated with raising pigs comes from the process of growing the crops the pigs eat. Improved feed efficiency provides a tremendous opportunity for reducing the overall impact of pig production and the number of acres needed to feed pigs. Research projects are under way to look at virtually all components of the question, from identifying animals with superior genetics, to the use of probiotics to help improve nutrient availability in the gut. Efforts to identify practical methods that will lead to improved feed, water, and energy efficiencies are also in place.

Given the importance of innovation, we are very pleased with the Government of Canada's focus in this area. Canadian pork producers look forward to the rollout of the new Canadian agricultural partnership. Thanks to the AgriScience program, hog producers will be able to continue their long-term partnership with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in utilizing research to address the fundamental challenges facing our industry.

In the case of pork, our research efforts are quarterbacked by Swine Innovation Porc. They operate from an office in Quebec City and facilitate research in the Canadian swine sector. Their main objective is to enhance the profitability and environmental sustainability of Canada's pork industry by supporting the development of the most innovative technologies that will benefit the entire pork value chain.

While the pork sector has benefited greatly from the science cluster initiative, we are limited in the resources we can bring to the table. In 2016, the Canadian Pork Council completed the public process to establish a promotion and research agency. Creating an agency would provide producers with a new source of industry funds that could be used to expand our innovation program. This agency is absolutely critical to our future improvements. We look forward to the Government of Canada completing its review of our application and taking the measures necessary to establish the agency.

Huge strides are being made in tackling climate change as we are continuously improving the efficiency and environmental sustainability of our production by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting innovative health and husbandry practices, adapting tools that support sustainable and environmentally responsible production, and utilizing fewer resources. These initiatives are lessening the environmental impact of pork production, while maximizing its contribution to our economy.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak on this important subject. I'll be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Kristensen.

Cedric, we'll give you up to seven minutes for your statement. You can go ahead.

[Cedric MacLeod, Executive Director, Canadian Forage and Grassland Association]

Thanks very much. I regret that I'm not able to be with you in person, to sit next to my colleagues from New Brunswick. The pork industry actually started my professional career in agriculture. I was working on climate change with the pork industry, so it's interesting how we've come back together.

I'm in Abu Dhabi this week. We're promoting Canadian export forages around the world, so I'll touch on that a bit later.

I do want to echo Hans' comments, and thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I don't believe you have my speaking notes in front of you, but they have been submitted.

I just wanted to give a bit of an overview on the scope of the Canadian forage sector. We are roughly 70 million acres strong in Canada. Roughly 34 million acres are seeded to tame hay, pasture, and forage seed crops; and the remaining 36 million are dedicated to native rangeland which is largely in western Canada.

To contrast that to the field crop sector, in 2017, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's 2017 “Outlook for Principal Field Crops”, there were roughly 65 million acres of annual crops planted in Canada. The forage sector as a whole is actually five million acres more than the whole of the annual crop sector. We do cut a fair swath across the landscape in Canadian agriculture.

The uses of our forages are obviously tied very closely to the ruminant livestock industries. In Canada this includes primarily beef, dairy, sheep, goat, and bison, to a lesser extent; and the equine sector, surprisingly, consumes a lot of forage in Canada. It's surprising when you get right down to it. I know in New Brunswick there are as many horses as there are dairy cows or beef cows. It is a significant industry and it consumes a lot of Canadian forage.

Roughly 5% of production in Canada is exported to destinations in the U.S., Japan, Korea, China, and the Middle East. We're here this week representing the industry. The forages exported here are largely timothy and alfalfa hays to service the dairy, in the majority of cases, but there's a significant use by the horse, sheep, goat, and actually camel industries. I've never been to a camel farm, but tomorrow we are venturing into the desert to see one. I'm very much looking forward to that.

In terms of economic value of the forage sector, based on the 2011 census of agriculture data, the industry was pegged at about $5.09 billion, making it the third-largest crop after wheats and canola, so it has a significant, direct impact to Canadian agriculture. Also, being the foundation crop for Canadian dairy and beef industries, we're supporting their $11-billion industry, which in turn supports roughly $50 billion in annual value chain economic activity in Canada. Again, in addition to being dominant across the landscape, it's also making a significant economic contribution.

The environmental contribution which we're speaking about today is also fairly impressive. When we talk about environmental contribution, we talk largely about the ecological goods and services, EG and S, provided; and those would include, but are not limited to erosion control, flood control, improved surface water quality, wildlife habitat, pollination services, and soil carbon sequestration, which has been a major focus for us over the last couple of years. I'll describe a large project we have on the go in a few moments.

Dr. Doug Yungblut, in 2012, did a study on the full economic value of the industry and the ecological goods and services value, and the suggestion from this report is that in Saskatchewan alone, the EG and S value contribution is somewhere between $895 million to $1.9 billion, and in Alberta, respectively, $390 million to $1.3 billion.

The high estimate for Alberta and Saskatchewan alone is over $3 billion in ecological goods and services annually. It's a significant contribution.

One of our challenges is that we don't have a comprehensive market process that allows us to monetize even a portion of that EG and S value that is provided by Canadian forage producers to the Canadian public at large. That is having an impact on the prevalence of forage across the landscape. We are certainly seeing forage acres decrease over time, which is largely following the decrease in the beef sector output. As you're aware, that industry has been shrinking somewhat, year over year, for the last number of years. There are a number of regional programs, however, that are working to incentivize forage inclusion in crop rotations. I'll talk about those in a few moments as well.

I want to touch briefly on some of the challenges we have, particularly as a national industry. Again, we're 70 million acres and very diverse. Coming from eastern Canada myself, and working largely through Quebec and into Ontario, the prevalence of confined feeding systems means that most of our forages are harvested from the field, stored, and then fed in confinement-type situations. The beef industry does still employ grazing during the summer. This means that we're seeing forages that are intermixed with annual crops. From a sustainability perspective, it's very important for us to pay close attention to soil conservation and livestock manure management practices so that we're ensuring that long-term soil health is maintained and manure nutrients are managed effectively and responsibly.

Hans mentioned in his statement as well the importance of soil health and responsible manure management use. I echo that wholeheartedly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but we've gone a bit past seven minutes. I'll have to ask you to conclude very rapidly. We'll have lots of questions, so you'll probably have a chance to elaborate on your presentation.

[Cedric MacLeod]

Excellent. I have some summary comments. I was almost done, so thanks for that.

I have a couple of recommendations for continued development in the forage sector. We certainly want to move down the road of developing methods to quantify ecological goods and services. It's very important to be able to put a few dollars back into producers' jeans.

We are focusing heavily on quantifying soil carbon sequestration rates under Canadian forages, which will help to monetize those EG and S values.

We want to continue to promote the use of conservation cropping measures that will maintain soil health and help us to use our manure resources effectively so that we have resilient cropping systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacLeod.

Now we'll go to questions. I just want to highlight the fact that Mr. Raj Saini is here today, replacing Lloyd Longfield.

Again, the focus of our study, just to make sure we stay within that, is how the government can help the Canadian agriculture sector better adjust to the increasing severity of issues associated with climate change and better address the water and soil conservation issues. That was part of our motion, so just keep that in mind.

We shall start our question round.

Monsieur Berthold, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here.

I have two questions.

Mr. Kristensen, I would like to congratulate your industry for greatly improving how it does things in recent years. The efforts of Canadian producers to take care of their land, their environment and the resources available to them often don't get enough recognition. Your experience or your example of recent years is very interesting to see.

If I understand correctly, you want to go even further and, for you, this means allocating more funds from the government to your research agency. If we left more money to producers by not imposing a carbon tax on them, do you think your industry would be able to go further?

[Hans Kristensen]

It's the perfect question: what do I need? I love to answer that one.

The progress we've made over the last several years has been substantial, and I would like to thank the federal government for that, because a lot of that wouldn't have been possible without the financial partnership we have with Swine Innovation Porc in Quebec City. That's funded jointly by producers and the federal government, and we're very much looking forward to seeing that funding level continue.

When we ask about what we need tomorrow, in my mind it is an easy ask. I mentioned in my presentation that the Canadian Pork Council has completed the public process to establish a promotion and research agency. This is essentially a no-cost ask to government. It will give us a check-off on pork that's being imported into the country. To be clear, all pork producers in Canada pay a check-off, and that check-off goes toward research to help us with environmental sustainability and also to promote the entire efficiency of our industry. What we're asking for is that imported pork be treated the same way, that there is the same check-off paid for any imported pork.

This is exactly the same as in the U.S. When I export live animals or pork to the U.S., I pay the national check-off in the United States. We're simply levelling that playing field. This is just an action we need the government to take. The process is in place. It's on the desk of government. We're simply asking the government to finish this, because that will provide us with an additional source of revenue to continue our research and take us to the next level.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kristensen.

Mr. MacLeod, you made some recommendations for recognizing the forage industry with regard to improving the environment.

I have a quick question. With climate change, there is now one more forage harvest per year compared to the last few years. We are seeing a lot of that in Quebec. This must have had a major impact on the results of your industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Was that question directed at Mr. MacLeod?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, sorry.

Mr. MacLeod, did you hear the question?

[Cedric MacLeod]

I heard right up until you said that Quebec has been growing more forage year over year, and that it must have made a significant impact. Then the translation cut out for a second.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay, I'll try that later, because I have to give the rest of my round to Mr. Barlow. He has something to address.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold, for sharing some time with me.

Mr. Chair, I want to bring forward my motion that I brought notice of on Monday. I would like to bring that forward for discussion now, if I may, please.

My motion read:

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.

I'd like to take a few moments, if I may, just to speak to that motion, Mr. Chair, and to my colleagues on the committee. I apologize to our witnesses, but I think this is something very important and certainly important to our witnesses; it's apropos that these are the ones who are with us today.

I'm pretty confident that my colleagues on both sides of the floor and from all the parties have heard quite loudly from their constituents on the concerns and the direction that the Canada food guide and the national food policy are going in. Certainly it was quite evident for those of us who were at that breakfast yesterday, when Dr. Samis was talking about concerns he was raising, namely—according to several doctors we've spoken with—that this is not only going in the wrong direction, but actually could be counterproductive in terms of what we're trying to accomplish.

The part of that food guide that we need to be concerned about is where it's encouraging people to stop eating what doctors, physicians, nutritionists, dieticians, and our stakeholders believe are healthy animal proteins, as well as dairy products.

Our job here as the agriculture committee, Mr. Chair, is to represent our stakeholders from all areas of agriculture: our farmers, our ranchers, agrifood, our processors, and those businesses who rely on that. I was quite dismayed when the health committee brought this forward and committed just two meetings to the food guide, without inviting a single farmer, rancher, processor, agribusiness representative, medical professional, nutritionist, dietician, or physician who would have brought a different perspective and different studies and science to that report.

It behooves us a great deal to bring this forward and study it at this committee. It's to ensure that our stakeholders feel they've had a voice in this process; right now they haven't. As I said, I know you guys have heard the same messages as we have on this side of the table. They feel extremely frustrated that they are not being given a voice in the direction of a document that will impact them more than any other sector of the economy.

Not only will it impact them—their livelihood as farm families and businesses—and the economy, but I'm worried about the broader message this is going to be sending. We talk about protecting our agriculture sector, our agribusinesses, and supply management on the international stage. We're in the middle of NAFTA negotiations. I'm very excited that the trans-Pacific partnership—the CPTPP—is going to be signed, hopefully, in the next few months. These are amazing opportunities.

However, how can our stakeholders—our farmers, ranchers, and producers—trust us to protect their best interests on an international stage, when we are not even protecting them here at home in a domestic document that the government has full control over? How can we say to our stakeholders, absolutely, we're going to ensure that these trade agreements...and you have these markets that will be available to you, but we're not going to give you the same support here at home?

We talk about non-tariff trade barriers, and what's going on in Italy and India right now. How can we profess that our food is the safest in the world and processed under the strictest regulations? How do we sell that internationally when we are telling our own Canadian consumers to be eating less of these products because they're not good for you? That sends a very mixed message, not only to our potential markets around the world, but certainly to our stakeholders here at home.

I'm very concerned about that, especially when our number one job here, in my opinion, is to be the voice of our agriculture sector across the country, and I don't think any one of us can argue that it's very clear that Health Canada is going in a direction that is detrimental to our agriculture sector and to food processors, as well as the producers on the ground.

I put out a statement on Monday after I tabled that motion, and it did not take very long to get a stack of letters of support from stakeholders who want us to study this issue. I want to really stress this point: these letters are not only from the livestock industry or the dairy industry. There are letters from grain growers and horticulture associations. None of them want us, as a government, to be picking winners and losers in this food guide document. They all want to be successful. They see that the Canada food guide and some of the food policy when it comes to front-of-package labelling.... Again, it goes to this: how do we talk about food safety when we're telling Canadians that the food we produce here on the farm is unhealthy?

They want to ensure that we're successful and that we're championing our agriculture sector. I truly believe the direction that Health Canada is going in with the food guide is based on some sort of activism and some sort of ideology and is not based on good science. Again, I think it's our job here to ensure that there's a balanced approach to the food guide and that all stakeholders have a voice, and not just industry. We should ensure that we invite medical professionals who are going to give us a balanced view on what the food guide should be, what should be included, and what is best for Canadians.

From what I've seen in that first draft of the food guide, and certainly from the feedback I've had from our stakeholders, the direction the food guide is going in is extremely one-sided. It is not balanced. Again, I think it is our job to make sure that we stand up for our stakeholders, that we stand up for our farmers, our ranchers, and our food processors. I'm asking for your support on this motion.

I would like to add, if I may—I apologize again for taking some time, but I do believe this is an important issue—that the Minister of Agriculture.... I would never profess that the minister should instruct us on what to do. We are an independent body, and I think that's very important. The Minister of Agriculture, in a meeting with the Dairy Farmers of Canada this morning, did say that he would not oppose the agriculture committee's studying of this issue. I think that's a good sign: we have some support from the minister to take this on.

Again, I'm hoping for your support on this issue. I think it's extremely important. If we do not agree to do this study and to do it right, my question to you and my colleagues who are on this committee is, what are we here for? What are we here for if we are not going to take an opportunity to stand up for our stakeholders and be their voice at the table? Whatever the results of that study may be, I think it is our job to ensure that we take a balanced approach. That report is given to the Minister of Agriculture who can then be at the cabinet table with the Minister of Health to ensure there is a much broader vision on what that food guide should entail.

I thank you again for giving me this time, and again I thank our witnesses who are here today. I truly believe this is of the utmost importance. It's very timely. We only have a finite amount of time to ensure that our message, the message of our agriculture community, is brought to the forefront.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Is there any discussion?

Monsieur Breton.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't disagree with what Mr. Barlow mentioned, but today I move that this debate be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Breton moves that the debate be adjourned.

There's no debate on that. Unfortunately, that's the rule.

The motion is that debate be adjourned on the motion.

We shall vote on the motion presented by Monsieur Breton. All in favour of the motion that the debate cease?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We shall continue. We had 4:21 on the clock. We have about a minute and 40 seconds.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I understand, based on the decision made by my colleagues opposite, that the motion we presented to study Canada's Food Guide…

This time is allotted to me and I can do exactly what I want, Mr. Breton. I have one minute and thirty seconds to express myself. I can continue to talk as much as I want.

I see that with this tactic, the Liberals are preventing the committee from studying Canada's Food Guide here, despite the fact that we have received I don't know how many letters from people in our sector, namely farmers, who are really very worried.

I'm talking about the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Canadian Horticultural Council, and the Food and Consumer Products of Canada. The Liberals have just said no to all these people today.

There is also the National Cattle Feeders Association, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, and the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I absolutely cannot understand this decision, especially since the Minister of Agriculture himself said today favourable to the idea of the committee's studying Canada's Food Guide. Indeed, he understood that the Food Guide could have a major impact on Canadian farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

Just to get back to the topic that we're here to discuss, I know we're not going to have as much time to discuss this issue, but you've talked about your environmental farm plan. Can you discuss what's been developed, over the past five years, with that particular plan? Also, where do you see the industry moving—obviously, with the right resources—in the next five years ?

[Gary Stordy, Director, Public and Corporate Affairs, Canadian Pork Council]

I would say that the environmental farm plan has been a great success for agriculture, in general. From farm to farm, it's specific as to how the producers go through the process of looking at the land, their facilities, and whatnot, and look at where they can mitigate any environmental impact. That's overseen many times, by an expert or somebody more familiar, who can go farm to farm and help the producer maybe see something that they didn't recognize or didn't understand had an impact.

In our industry, there have been on-farm programs for probably the last 15 years. Cedric MacLeod, who is on the phone, has certainly helped deal with what are called shelterbelts. Cedric is more informed than I am. There have been trees placed next to the farms, which had benefit for two reasons. First, it helped with an odour issue, but it also helped with blockages of wind to prevent any soil erosion, in certain areas. Frankly, let's face it, croplands can be relatively flat and exposed to air and whatnot. That's only one area. There are opportunities where identifying wetlands or grassy areas next to waterways and appropriate setback from those rivers should be examined every five years.

In our industry and in some parts of Canada, I do know that they need to reinvest in their lagoons that store the manure product that comes from the farms. That's not insignificant, just due to construction. They maybe need to update it or upgrade it, but all this process would be recognized through the environmental farm plan when someone external comes in and reviews their operation.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm just looking at what you guys in the pork industry have done. You're using 40% less water per kilogram of pork. You're using 33% less feed than you were before, and you're using 59% less land than you were 50 years ago. I think that is a great news story you have to tell.

I'm just wondering, Hans. You talked a little bit about Swine Innovation Porc and the research that is happening. Can you elaborate a little bit more on what they'll be working on in the near future?