Agriculture Committee on March 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Madam Stroeve-Sawa.

We're going to now turn to Ducks Unlimited.

Mr. Thoroughgood, you have five minutes.

[Paul Thoroughgood, National Manager of Agriculture and Sustainability, Ducks Unlimited Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament, my name is Paul Thoroughgood. I'm the national manager of agricultural sustainability. With me is [Technical difficulty—Editor.

On behalf of the 100,000 supporters that we have across the country, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important study.

As you're aware, we have worked in partnership with various sectors across the country, including agriculture, to improve the ecological health of Canada's working landscapes since our founding more than eight decades ago. We believe that despite market pressures and global challenges there are solutions at hand that will enable us to meet our economic, social and environmental goals.

Furthermore, we believe that Canadian agriculture is and must continue to be a significant solution provider to these challenges.

One example I'll cite is how Canadian farmers, scientists and extension agents showed the world how to make wind erosion of our soils a part of the past through the innovation of no-till farming and, as mentioned earlier, beef and dairy sectors in Canada both produce their products with less than half the global average greenhouse gas footprint.

One of the things we'd like to discuss is that areas under agricultural production, like pastures, hayfields and crops, are recognized as assets on the farm, and they generate economic livelihood for landowners. In comparison, remnant habitats, like wetlands and grasslands, are often viewed as unproductive and even as liabilities, which makes them ripe for removal. This leads directly to the loss of these habitats right across our country and to losing their ability to remove carbon and store it.

The power of remnant habitats to help fulfill Canada's environmental goals is significantly greater than their area. For example, based on Ducks Unlimited Canada research, as well as research conducted by our partners, maintaining four acres of wetlands stores as much carbon as would be sequestered by no-tilling an entire quarter section of cropland on the Canadian prairies for 25 years.

The environmental benefits generated by sustainable agriculture also go well beyond carbon sequestration. Ducks Unlimited Canada submits that biodiversity enhancement and recovery, water quality improvements and water quantity management are key environmental benefits that also should be recognized. Remnant grasslands and wetlands embedded in cropland, for example, provide critical habitats for many species, as well as providing improved water quantity and quality services.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] to realize its full environmental and economic potential we believe the practical and pragmatic solution is to sustainably intensify production on the landscape while ensuring that no natural areas are brought into production.

Adoption of beneficial management practices like 4R nutrient management and integrated pest management are important parts of this process. We believe that 4R, in combination with retirement of marginal crop areas within fields, could meet or possibly even exceed Canada's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer applications by 30% by 2030.

In summary, for Canadian agriculture to optimize its contribution towards helping Canada meet its climate and biodiversity goals, we offer the following recommendations.

First, Canada should re-incentivize the retirement of economically and environmentally underperforming areas within cropped fields, very similar to Greencover Canada and permanent cover. Similarly, we should incentivize the retirement of smaller areas within cropped fields to remove them from production.

As well, Canada should develop a comprehensive soil health strategy to support the resilience and productivity of our soil resource.

We also should increase investments in technology transfer for higher public good BMPs like 4R nutrient management, integrated pest management and the protection and management of remnant areas.

We should increase investments in geospatial and other scientific data to support the monetization of ecological goods and services provided by good land stewardship. This would include the development of ecological goods and services protocols.

We would recommend accelerating the completion of Canada-wide inventories for things like grasslands and wetlands, which will support sustainable agriculture.

Last, we would suggest the development and adoption of a comprehensive land use strategy by all levels of government and stakeholders to strike a balance between urban expansion, agricultural production and environmental protection.

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Technical difficulty—Editor] turn to question period. Before I do, I have not forgotten about Mr. Barlow's motion that was brought forward.

I'm going to start with the first round of questions for six minutes each. Mr. Drouin, I know you're in the room, along with Mr. Perron, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Barlow. I expect that you all can have a conversation and liaise with me, so I know how much time we're going to have to leave at the end.

We're going to start with Mr. Falk for six minutes. It's over to you.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for their presentations this afternoon.

I would like to start off with the CRSB folks. Thank you for that presentation. In it, you talked about the number of producers that are signing up or qualifying to be part of a certification program you have going.

Could you talk a bit more about what needs to be done to increase participation in your certification program?

[Andrea Stroeve-Sawa]

One of the biggest things is the cost of the producer audit. It's a big barrier, so we're working on ways to reduce the financial burden of the audit. Enhancing public awareness and trust of the program are also an opportunity to increase adoption and demand.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Is there a financial incentive to producers for being on the program?

[Andrea Stroeve-Sawa]

I can speak to that a bit, and I might ask Monica to jump in.

I am a beef producer from Taber. Cargill is offering an incentive. For the animals that go through the program and are processed at Cargill, the company will pay a certain dollar amount per head to the rancher and to the feedlot owner, or the person who backgrounds and the person that finishes those animals.

I don't know, Monica, if you have anything to add to that.

[Monica Hadarits]

I would add that there's no financial incentive directly through the CRSB, but there is an opportunity for that to happen through supply chains. However, that's not something that's required [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Right. I was wondering if there was an incentive for producers to be part of the program—Andrea mentioned the cost of participating through the audit—and whether there was also an incentive that would motivate people to be part of the program, but not one that's mandated by the industry.

Is there a preference being shown by the packers or the slaughterhouses for animals that are part of the program?

[Andrea Stroeve-Sawa]

There is a preference, and it depends on the packing house they use. Cargill is offering it. JBS is not offering at this point.

Monica, do you need to add anything in there?

[Monica Hadarits]

No, I think you covered it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What would be ways, in your opinion, that we could maintain Canada's grasslands?

[Andrea Stroeve-Sawa]

We need to recognize the work of the early adopters, the people who have been doing this grazing management for years and years and who have not only maintained their grassland management, but actually improved it. We need to explore tax incentives and programs that encourage keeping native grasslands intact, including market mechanisms that provide ecosystem service payments. We need to invest in further research and understanding of land conversion across Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

In your presentation, you talked about the 3-NOP product, which is available right now, I think, through veterinarian application or prescription. There's been a request from the industry for the government to certify it more quickly, like many other countries have done. You mentioned the EU, Argentina and Brazil.

I think you mentioned that a 70% emissions reduction is a reasonable expectation. That would be, I believe, methane reduction. Is that right?

[Andrea Stroeve-Sawa]

Yes. That's in the feedlot sector.

As we understand it, there's no clear regulatory pathway for feed additives to receive an environmental claim. Currently, those products go into an existing drug approval pathway that's really time-consuming and very costly. The technology exists and has been proven to be safe and effective, but we can't access it. The only pathway that companies have to date for these types of products is through a veterinary drug submission with Health Canada.

We would recommend that a feed pathway be developed that would allow the registration of these types of products by the CFIA as feeds and not as veterinary drugs.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for that clarification.

I'll move over to the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association, Mr. MacLeod.

You talked about the benefit of native rangelands and that this past year we lost a million acres of that. We currently still have 36 million acres of native rangeland. What would be the saturation levels for carbon sequestration in native rangeland as compared to cropland?

[Cedric MacLeod]

That's a great question, and you're hitting on an important component of trying to drive carbon into agricultural soils. We do know that, over time, we reach those saturation levels, and it's really the degraded landscapes that have the best opportunity to absorb more carbon. To Paul's point, some of those maybe marginal cropland acres that have been best suited to perennial cover is where we're going to get our best bang for the buck on additional carbon storage.

What we've advanced is the idea of making sure that we're protecting those and avoiding the conversion of those rangelands to annual cropland and losing carbon through that process. We built a Canada grasslands protocol that helps to quantify that and offers carbon offset opportunities through the voluntary market to avoid the conversion of those grasslands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacLeod.

I apologize, Mr. Falk. We're out of time, but thank you for your six minutes.

We're going to go to Ms. Taylor Roy now for six minutes.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all three witnesses. I found it very interesting with a lot of hope about the future by using our agricultural lands to sequester carbon and to help us with the environmental challenges we're facing.

I want to start with Ducks Unlimited. The work you're doing is great in trying to save wetlands and other marshlands. I grew up in the Holland Marsh area—Bradford West Gwillimbury and Barrie—where there are lots and lots of marshlands.

A lot of this falls under provincial jurisdiction. Just recently, a highway has been approved by the Ontario government that goes through some very significant wetlands and farmland connecting Highways 400 and 404. Much of this is in the provincial jurisdiction, where we cannot really intervene.

How do you think we can address the need to maintain these wetlands and show the value of them when there are proposals to build highways through these very sensitive and valuable areas?

[Paul Thoroughgood]

Thank you for the question. I'm going to hand it over to my colleague, Jim Brennan, who is an Ontarian rather than have a Saskatchewan farm boy answer your question.

[James Brennan, Director, Government Affairs, Ducks Unlimited Canada]

Thanks for your question. I know that area very well; I used to live in Barrie, Ontario.

The challenge with protecting wetlands, of course, is to know where they are to classify them and to afford some degree of protection.

You're absolutely right that land management falls under the provincial area of jurisdiction, so we end up straddling through our policy work in the federal end and provincial acts, regulations, policies and so on. Really the most effective thing to do would be to have comprehensive policies in place to protect wetlands, and Ontario does have a policy to protect provincially significant wetlands, which is about one third of the province. That, of course, leaves the remaining two thirds of the wetlands in the province relatively unprotected.

There are some further precedents or approaches to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts, so, when you do undertake linear construction activities like road building, we recommend, as do most conservation organizations when habitat loss takes place, that efforts be made to minimize, avoid or mitigate the impact.

As for mitigation, there are some very robust policies at hand in certain provinces in Canada. The Atlantic provinces have good policies in place, as does Alberta, but certainly putting in place policies to address those losses and to replace lost wetland area and function would be the most effective way to do that.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

To follow up on that, do you feel like the value of these wetlands is adequately enumerated when people are looking at them? I know with things like flood mitigation that wetlands have a [Technical difficulty—Editor] kinds of studies are being done that the full value of the wetlands is being taken into account.

[James Brennan]

We have certainly learned more about the value of wetlands over time, but I think the short answer to your question is that more work definitely needs to be done.

There are economic values associated with carbon capture, with water retention [Technical difficulty—Editor] ecological service values associated with wetlands. Certainly, efforts are being made now through the Statistics Canada census of environment and through various international accounting activities that are under way to try to measure and quantify the value of our natural assets, including wetlands. These are going to be really important to help us manage them now and into the future. Of course, there are costs associated with taking natural cover off the land.

When you do remove those assets, you invariably have to pay for them through man-made or built infrastructure replacement solutions, or our preference, which is—aside from leaving the natural cover in place—to mitigate or replicate those services, so that there is a no-net-loss type of situation in the end.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Mr. MacLeod, I was just wondering about the decrease in the rangeland and especially in the tamed, forage lands that we've seen. I can only imagine it's continuing to go in the same direction.

I wonder whether you feel there is a way to more greatly monetize the beneficial impacts of those lands on our environment in order to retain more of them. I know it's been done to some extent, but do you feel there is more potential for that? How would you suggest that be done?

[Cedric MacLeod]

I think the first opportunity is to recognize that carbon value and the increased carbon value. Through that, we would suggest that the Canada grassland protocol,—which is now approved under the Climate Action Reserve in the U.S., allowing for access to voluntary carbon markets—be firmly embedded in Canada's regulated carbon offset system to allow that carbon store to be valued, ideally, at that $170 per tonne range, both currently and into the future. That would offer significant incentive to keep those grasslands intact.

I think the second piece of that would be a full recognition of all the EG&S values maintained by those grasslands, which my other colleagues have already suggested is vitally important.