Agriculture Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Blois and Mr. Valicenti.

Mr. Perron, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moffet, I'd like to pick up where we left off earlier.

You mentioned that it was a challenge to recognize the good environmental practices used in the past.

In your discussions with my colleagues, one thing you mentioned was no till agriculture, a practice that could be encouraged. However, if I understood your answers correctly, someone who has practised no till agriculture for the past five years would be left with nothing. Objectively, I feel it would not be a good idea to do that.

Wouldn't there be a way to average greenhouse gas emissions or pollution per farm or per area? I don't pretend to be a scientist or a departmental policymaker, but I'd like to propose an idea. An average could be set, and those who fall below that could get offsets and transfer them to other producers. That could be a major incentive to follow the pioneer model, rather than penalizing the pioneers.

I'd like to hear what you think about it.

[John Moffet]

The approach you describe is one that we use where we regulate a sector. They have to achieve a certain standard. In doing that, we can reward companies or farmers for doing better than average. An offset is something that you're not required to do.

The challenge we have with offsets is that there is no regulated requirement. We're giving somebody an economic benefit. As a matter of policy, the government has decided, consistent with basic international practice on offsets, that offsets should only recognize changed behaviour going forward and not be a reward for early action.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I invite you to consider it. I don't want to spend all of my time on it.

With respect to leveraging innovation, do you plan to give producers more flexibility, in business risk management programs, for example, to use the money when they are ready to use it? Do you plan to recognize innovation?

One witness who appeared before this committee told us about “biochar”, which could replace some fertilizers.

[Marco Valicenti]

In the context of the agriculture clean-tech program, yes, we are looking at both an on-farm adoption and also an innovation component. I should say that part of the dollars will also be used for agri-food processing. There is an opportunity to get and use those dollars to support increased innovation technologies with regard to some of our environmental goals.

So yes, both components will be part of the agriculture clean-tech program.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Are you finished asking questions, Mr. Perron?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes, unless I have some time left.

You told me I had two and a half minutes left three and a quarter minutes ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I may have made a mistake. I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

If you're offering me two more minutes, I'll take them. You know me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

It will have to wait until the next round.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor, you have for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question will go to AAFC. Our first report as a committee was, of course, on the suite of business risk management programs. We all know that farmers face a multitude of risks: price volatility, changing international relationships, but also, increasingly, climate change. Your own website details the risks associated with a changing climate. There certainly are a few opportunities but also a whole boatload of risks.

I have a two-part question. First of all, has AAFC looked at what the projected expenditures will be for the suite of business risk management programs in the context of a changing climate? Do we have an analysis of what our expenditures might end up being in terms of tax dollars?

Secondly, is there any kind of movement afoot to look at whether sound management practices are going to be including anything related to farmers adopting climate change adaptation measures?

[Matt Parry]

Thank you for the question. I'll start a response, but again I'll look to my colleagues to supplement if they wish.

I would note that there are regular assessments of the environmental impact of the Canadian agricultural partnership's business risk management programs. These periodic assessments take place every five years, I believe, and since the coming into force of the Farm Income Protection Act, there have been seven environmental impact assessments conducted. There is a periodic review of these programs and how they operate and how they reflect the conditions.

I can't speak specifically to the costs in the question that was posed, but I would note that there is a regular discussion, and obviously, there are also ongoing discussions with the provinces and territories about the functioning of these programs.

I'll just check whether any of my colleagues want to add to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

If you want to reply, give a quick answer.

[A voice]

No. I think we're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

I know we're out of time, but I'm just curious. I think Mr. Valicenti has said that carbon in the soil is not static, so it can be released at any time through different practices. How are we going to regulate if another person owns a farm and starts plowing instead of doing direct seeding and stuff like that? Are there going to be regulations? How would you regulate that?

Does anyone want to answer? Maybe there's no one. We'll leave it at that.

I thank the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Mr. Goodlet, Mr. Parry, Mr. Valicenti and Dr. Gracia-Garza; and from the Department of Environment, John Moffet and Tara Shannon. Thank you all for this very interesting conversation.

With that, we'll suspend the meeting for now. We'll be back soon and go to our next panel. Thank you, all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I want to welcome today the following panellists.

We are scheduled to have Pierre Lampron, the president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, but we're still waiting for him.

We're also having David Wiens, vice-president of Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I should say that with today being World Milk Day, the timing is good to have you on our committee. Also, from the National Farmers Union, we have Mr. Darrin Qualman.

He is director of climate crisis policy and action at the National Farmers Union.

Welcome, Mr. Qualman.

If you want to start, Mr Qualman, you have seven and a half minutes for your opening statement. You have the floor now.

[Darrin Qualman, Director of Climate Crisis Policy and Action, National Farmers Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'm pleased to appear before you today.

When I received your invitation, I was very happy to see that you want to investigate ways to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, promote soil health, reduce the agriculture sector's dependence on fossil fuels and encourage farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices. These are precisely the right questions and the right aims. Thank you for pursuing this work.

In the seven minutes I have left, I will share with you seven points that can contribute to the foundations of your work.

First, your work is important, timely and will build upon and, most importantly, will advance the work that is under way in parallel. Work to develop on-farm measures and government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is advancing, but it can benefit from your support and assistance. I'll mention three pieces of work under way, as examples.

In 2019, the National Farmers Union produced the report, “Tackling the Farm Crisis and the Climate Crisis”. That report contains a detailed plan to reduce agricultural emissions by 30% by the mid-2030s to improve soils and to provide other environmental co-benefits.

In 2020, more than a dozen organizations came together to form Farmers for Climate Solutions. The Farmers for Climate Solutions task force has provided recommendations to the Government of Canada, and some of those recommended programs were included in budget 2021. Thank you for that.

In 2021, the NFU published its report, “Imagine If.... A Vision of a Near-Zero-Emission Farm and Food System for Canada”. That very positive and very readable report provides details on how farmers and policy-makers can co-operate to achieve ambitious and rapid emissions reductions in the coming decades. Your study will build upon work already under way. I mention the NFU's report so that you might have a sense of some of the research and resources that are available and that we are happy to share.

My second point is that in terms of reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, the most important thing you can know is that agriculture does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural inputs produce greenhouse gas emissions. We know this for sure because we have 10,000 years of data. For 10,000 years, farmers farmed and they did not affect the atmosphere or the climate. That remained true until the early 20th century. Then, as farmers adopted a growing array of farm inputs, emissions soared. It follows inescapably that any low-emission farmer food system will be a low-input system.

My third point is that measures to reduce emissions can increase net farm income. Farmers' margins have decreased steeply. Another way of putting this is that for every dollar that farmers earn, a larger and larger share goes to pay for inputs. Farmers' increasing over-dependence on purchased inputs is driving emissions up and driving margins down. Thus, reducing dependence on purchased inputs can have the double benefit of reducing emissions and increasing incomes.

My fourth point is that nitrogen fertilizer is a huge environmental problem. Nitrogen fertilizer is unique among all human products and processes in that it is a major source of all three of the main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. In its manufacture, nitrogen fertilizer is a major source of carbon dioxide. For example, the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba is the Koch brothers' fertilizer plant in Brandon.

In its use in farm fields, nitrogen creates emissions of nitrous oxide, and nitrogen fertilizer produces significant sources of methane from its natural gas feedstock. In Saskatchewan, where I am from and where I farmed for many years, nitrogen fertilizer tonnage has quadrupled since 1991. There is a wide range of damaging environmental impacts from nitrogen overuse, including ocean dead zones, acidification and nitrate pollution of groundwater. We must soon decrease our use of nitrogen fertilizer.

Again, agriculture does not create environmental problems. Overuse of agricultural inputs creates environmental problems. Thus, low-input approaches are a key to environmental solutions.

My fifth point is a request that you not support the wrong solutions. Under the guise of fighting climate change, there is a struggle for control of Canadian farms. We have a climate crisis. As is often the case in a crisis, some are looking for ways to profit.

Agribusiness corporations have come forward with technologies they say can reduce emissions, technologies such as data platforms, artificial intelligence, precision agriculture, sensors, drones, bots, driverless tractors, etc. However, these technologies threaten to entangle farmers in a vast web of data flows, patents, software licences and technology platforms. This web of technology will reduce farmers' control and their margins. There is an alternative, namely, measures that focus on soil health, biodiversity, resilience, farm-supplied solutions and working with nature.

As you undertake your study, please remember that there are two competing solution frameworks: in one, farmers are made ever more dependent on industry; in the other, farmers get more of what they need from biology.

My sixth point is to please advance justice, diversity, equity and inclusion. In thinking about ways to make our farms less environmentally damaging, please also ensure that the programs and policies you advocate benefit all farms, of all scales and all production methods. Please look for ways to support small and medium-sized farms, young farmers, new farmers, BIPOC farmers and the full diversity of Canadians who want to produce food for our tables.

Finally, point number seven is that we must pursue emission reduction with near wartime levels of intensity, effectiveness and speed. Climate change is the most serious crisis ever to face humanity. Despite this, we're moving too slowly to counter its intensifying effects. I ask you to proceed as if faced with a massive emergency, because we are. Please be ambitious and courageous.

Thank you. The National Farmers Union, the Farmers for Climate Solutions coalition, and others have prepared plans to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, increase resilience and reduce environmental impacts. I look forward to sharing those with your committee as you move forward in developing your report.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Qualman.

Madam Clerk, do we know if Mr. Lampron is back?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Alexie Labelle]

Mr. Lampron is not with us right now.

We're sending him some other codes so he can join the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Wiens, do you want to do the opening statement for the milk producers of Canada?

[David Wiens, Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can get started. I'll cover off some of the comments that Pierre was going to begin with. I know that you're all very familiar with Pierre Lampron, the president of DFC. I am the vice-president of DFC and I farm in southern Manitoba, and this is a good opportunity here to speak on some of the ongoing sustainability efforts of Canadian dairy farmers.

Of course, I don't want to miss out on talking a little bit about the pleasure of speaking with you on World Milk Day, as you mentioned earlier. It's a day established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to recognize the importance of milk as a global food. This year's theme is sustainability, and that's an area where our sector has made some tremendous strides, and farmers across the nation are embracing technology to help us create that low-carbon future for dairy. We'll talk a little bit about that.

We are proud to say that the Canadian dairy sector already has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. Producing one litre of milk in Canada emits less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of the global average, and that's a statistic that comes with great pride to us. In addition, from 1990 to 2016, the carbon footprint of a litre of milk produced in Canada has decreased by 23% according to government data.

Over the years, dairy farming has made great strides in cutting emissions and the land and water required to produce each litre of milk. A life-cycle analysis conducted by independent experts showed that from 2011 to 2016 the Canadian dairy sector reduced its carbon footprint by 7% , water consumption by 6% and land use by 11%. There are few sectors in Canada or around the world that can match this kind of progress.

In 2019, the Dairy Farmers of Canada received international recognition from Unilever for its commitment towards sustainable milk production practices. In that context, our presentation today focuses on how our sector is moving the needle, and the role that government can play.

For me, like many dairy farmers who grew up on multi-generational farms, sustainability is really a part of my DNA. On my own farm, my mother started the practice of planting shelterbelts some 50 years ago, which greatly reduces soil erosion by wind. I've continued this practice to this day and sought to build on this with other sustainable practices, and if we had time I could talk about some of those.

That said, our sector continues to make extraordinary progress, and at the heart of it is really our proAction initiative. This is a program that is mandatory for all dairy farms in Canada and it provides an efficient and coordinated national framework for dairy farmers to demonstrate and document best practices and how to show responsible stewardship of the land and, of course, the animals that are under our care.

This fall, our sector will reach another significant milestone on the path to a more sustainable future when the environment module of our proAction initiative is fully implemented. This module's foundational requirement is the environmental farm plan or equivalent. This requirement enables farmers to develop and implement individual action plans evaluating areas of strength while addressing areas of opportunity. Of course, that's really important because we are so diverse across the country and across the regions, which is something that the environmental farm plan really acknowledges and addresses in recognizing the unique situations on farm.

As part of our environment module, farmers are also required to safeguard soil, groundwater and surface water through responsible management of waste water and manure. Another key factor in our progress has been our continued investments in research. Canadian dairy farmers allocate more than $2 million annually to dairy nutrition and production research projects.

In addition, many farmers work with a ruminant animal nutritionist to develop tailored diets for their herds to reduce methane that is emitted naturally through the process of digestion. Indeed, among agricultural sectors, dairy farms host the largest number of biodigesters. This technology can both reduce methane emissions from manure storage by up to 60%, and also produce renewable energy, which can be used on farm and sold back into the local power grids.

The key obstacle preventing the wider use of biodigesters is the associated cost, which can be in the millions. While farmers currently absorb the majority of these costs, government funding for biodigesters, as well as other forms of renewable energy, would certainly be welcomed by our industry.

Furthermore, as new feed and additives are being developed, with a goal of reducing enteric emissions, funding for research and prompt approval processes to bring them to market would really be of a great benefit to us.

Dairy farmers are also working to improve biodiversity. In a 2017 DFC survey, 55% of producers had increased conservation tillage practices, 11% had decreased summer fallow and 16% had begun planting perennial crops in the preceding five years.

Furthermore, in 2020, DFC worked with Ducks Unlimited Canada and researchers at the University of Guelph to better understand biodiversity practices on Canadian dairy farms.

On average, the farmers surveyed were implementing five to six practices on their farms, such as crop rotations, reduced tillage, reduced use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and also the restoration of wetlands. Thanks to these innovations, the industry has become more efficient, making for a smaller environmental footprint for every litre of milk that we produce.

Canadian dairy farmers are increasingly adopting new practices in soil health and carbon sequestration, and have been building soil and capturing carbon on their farms for decades.

It'll be critical for our work to be recognized as the Government of Canada seeks to develop a federal greenhouse gas credit system. However, in the current proposed regulations, carbon offset activities that began on January 1, 2017, will not be recognized as they will be considered business as usual. However, best management practices that reduce emissions and sequester carbon involve a deliberate choice by the farmer each year at planting and harvest.