Agriculture Committee on May 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Good morning, everyone. We'll get this meeting number 16 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food called to order. We will be continuing our study on the environmental contribution of agriculture.

I have a few housekeeping notes, colleagues. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person who's speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. As we know, no screenshots or photos are permitted during the proceedings and, of course, for those in the room, let's make sure that we're being mindful of the health protocols that are established by the Board of Internal Economy.

I certainly look forward to welcoming our guests. For your benefit—I believe you are all in the room, so it's exciting to have you back—in terms of language, you can toggle between English and French on the headset in front of you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of the environmental contribution of agriculture.

I'd like to welcome our first panel today. Joining us in person we have Susie Miller, executive director of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops; and Erin Gowriluk, who is the executive director of Grain Growers of Canada. We have Fawn Jackson, who is the director of policy and international affairs with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I also have Duane Thompson, who is the chair of the environment committee for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

Each of our organizations will have five minutes for opening remarks.

Colleagues, one thing I just wanted to highlight is that there is a possibility of a potential procedural vote this morning. If you'll indulge me, I was wondering if we might be able to get unanimous consent that, if the bells do start for whatever reason, you can give me discretion to get us closer down so we can continue our work.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I believe there are a number of us who would prefer to vote in the House, so if we could have enough time that we could get back to the House, it would be appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. I think the establishment by our whips is 15 minutes. When the bells do ring, Mr. Epp, is it okay that we wait until about 15 minutes before the vote and then I would release us?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

That would be fine. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. Thank you, everyone.

We'll move forward with opening statements by our witnesses. We have Ms. Miller, I believe, first up.

You have five minutes. It's over to you.

[Susie Miller, Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops]

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before you, and actually in person. It feels good.

I'm Susie Miller, executive director of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops. We're an organization that is committed to pursuing opportunities and meeting the challenges of the sustainability of the production of cereals, oilseeds and pulses in Canada. Our members are grain farm organizations, input suppliers, grain marketers, food companies, conservation associations and researchers. We cover all of the stakeholders.

You've already received an extensive amount of excellent advice. Rather than repeating that, I thought I could focus my remarks on what grain farmers have told us about sustainability challenges and opportunities. We conducted conversations with them in winter last year and winter this year. We talked to over 600 individual farmers.

What they're saying is this. First and foremost, they want to be recognized for their contributions to climate solutions and for actions that they've taken and continue to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on their farms and to sequester carbon in their soil. They feel somewhat like they're the villains, and they see themselves more like heroes. Good environmental practices like soil health have always been important to crop farmers. They're proud of the work they do. They want to be seen as professionals who have the expertise to undertake the right decisions.

They've told us that there are many ways to reach the end goals of soil health and GHG emissions reduction. It's important for them, for government and also for their customers not to arbitrarily dismiss certain practices as inadequate, to favour one practice over the other or to select a specific practice as “the” solution. They think their ways of reaching the end goal should be based on science, and they want the calculation of costs and benefits and impacts on them. Research is critical to identify not only best practices but also how to limit the risks of implementing new practices. They expressed that new and improved technology can help them in where they want to go.

They also told us—I'm sure you've heard this before—that the differences between regions and between farms must be recognized. One size does not fit all is something that we heard quite frequently. One example they raised quite often was no till. As a beneficial practice in western Canada, it could be more challenging in eastern Canada with wetter climates. Cover crops, for example, are challenging when the ground is frozen by the time you harvest.

Farmers have also told us that modern farming practices and wildlife can and do coexist. When it comes to nature-based solutions, they see some significant cost or lost revenue that can conflict with their risk management and viability goals. They would like to see these costs quantified and considered when supporting nature-based solutions.

They expressed most of all that they really do want to contribute. They feel that they do already, but they want to contribute more. They see potential conflicts, or more like trade-offs, between various priorities of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada that implicate them: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farms, increasing the feedstock for renewable fuels, Canada’s contribution to world food security and the farm sector’s contribution to the economic growth. They're not certain how they can help meet all of those at the same time.

They would like changes to the market, which does not value the contribution they're making to climate solutions or consider the investments that farmers have to make. They worry about the loss of their ability to use modern farming practices that help them improve soil health and sequester carbon. They fear, as I'm sure you're aware, additional regulations or targets that are arbitrarily imposed, from their perspective, without due consideration of their ability to meet them.

Most of all, they want to be an active partner with governments and customers in determining the best way to make their contribution to climate change mitigation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Miller. You were right on time.

Ms. Gowriluk from the Grain Growers of Canada, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Erin Gowriluk, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to address all of you today on this topic of importance to farmers, to Canadians and to the world.

It is very nice to have the opportunity to see many of your faces in person now. Thank you for that.

My name is Erin Gowriluk. I'm executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, a national association that represents the interests of about 65,000 grain, pulse and oilseed farmers in every province across the country.

As the voice of Canada's grain farmers, I would like to stress that our members view their relationship to the land as paramount. Their livelihood depends on it. Leaving a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations is what farming is all about. Today I'm proud to be able to share that story with all of you.

In anticipation of my appearance here today, I reached out to our members with an invitation to share their sustainability stories, along with some concrete examples of methods and practices they have used to increase productivity on their operations while protecting their viability. Our members responded resoundingly and with enthusiasm.

First and foremost, many of our members pointed to the significant research investments that farmers directly have made to improve the sector's environmental contributions. Long before any significant political pressure or policy mandates, farmers invested in sound science aimed at reducing emissions as well as their carbon footprint. The reason for this is simple: It just makes sense.

In fact, our member associations have invested millions into establishing best practices in fertilizer management so that the best possible crop yields can be achieved while minimizing the crucial inputs needed to grow them. Investments in research like this make business sense just as much as they help the environment. When expensive nitrogen, for example, is lost to the atmosphere or misapplied, it also impacts farmers' already razor-thin margins.

The innovation does not stop there. There have also been significant investments made into research on how to use nitrogen more efficiently, and how to modify genetics to allow the plant to fix its own nitrogen. This has been coupled with research on how to reduce herbicide and insecticide use, all while making the plant itself more responsive and less impactful on its own ecosystem.

While this important research continues, Canadian farmers have also been on the cutting edge with their on-farm practices to ensure that the farm is efficient, profitable and sustainable. Among the many practices that were shared with me, I would like to highlight a few critical ones. They include the adoption of variable-rate technology, or “precision agriculture”, to optimize the use of seed, fertilizer and crop protection products; the adoption of new three-tier and four-tier diesel engines in tractors as well as the use of GPS technology to prevent field overlap, reducing the amount of fuel that is used; and, of course, as Susie mentioned, the widespread adoption of conservation tillage, which creates a carbon sink while increasing organic matter in the soil.

For any of the committee members who have not yet had a chance to visit a farm that has embraced these technologies, I would encourage you to do so. It is really remarkable technology that has had incredible environmental impacts on Canadian farms across the country.

I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Mr. Chair, for visiting Saskatchewan to do just that.

The reason I mention all of this is not to say that further progress cannot be achieved. Canada's grain farmers are consistently looking for the most efficient way forward. While many of these practices have come at a cost to producers, they were adopted voluntarily in the absence of any regulatory requirement to do so. That is why it is so important that we do not lose sight of the economic viability of Canadian farms. No matter where you farm in this country, you are operating on increasingly narrower margins. In fact, this year many Canadian farmers will be planting what is likely their most expensive crop.

Consider the unprecedented cost of fuel, fertilizer and crop protection products, and the global and environmental uncertainty facing thousands of grain farmers still recovering from last year's devastating drought. To meet government and industry targets, farmers will need to continue to invest in their operations and in new technologies and equipment that will make them more efficient. Farmers will make these investments when they're confident in the economic stability and sustainability of their operations. Governments can help facilitate this by ensuring that farmers have access to predictable and reliable risk management programs like AgriInvest and AgriStability.

Another way to encourage farmers to invest in new technologies and practices is by supporting Bill C-234 and providing relief from carbon pricing on natural gas and propane used to dry grain. Rebates will not make up for the costs incurred by carbon pricing.

Grain farmers are prepared to do more, as evidenced by their track record. That is why on March 28 of this year the Grain Growers of Canada announced the creation of a climate solutions initiative to help meet Canada's ambitious goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The road to 2050 will propose a path forward that focuses on innovation, research and beneficial management practices. This will boost productivity while continuing to enhance soil quality, improving the carbon sequestration potential of cropland and reducing emissions.

We believe that a united approach to climate change is the strongest way forward. Rest assured, Canadian grain farmers are ready to do their part with our policy-makers and legislators as key partners. We are prepared to produce even more food while we support a growing population.

Thank you for your time today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gowriluk.

We're going to turn to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

Ms. Jackson and Mr. Thompson, you have five minutes collectively.

[Duane Thompson, Chair, Environment Committee, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

My name is Duane Thompson. I'm a beef and crop producer from Saskatchewan and the chair of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association's environment committee. I'm pleased to have CCA staff person Fawn Jackson with me today.

The last time we presented to the committee we discussed the beef industry's contribution to environmental outcomes and outlined our robust 2030 goals. As part of the discussion, we outlined the 44 million acres of grassland under the stewardship of Canadian beef producers and how we're losing this at-risk ecosystem at astonishing rates.

With that in mind, we would like to do a deeper dive into the land use within the agriculture sector, as it's the highest correlating factor to our ability to deliver on our shared environmental commitments, including climate change and biodiversity, amongst others.

Analysis by the Nature Conservancy of Canada shows that, on average over the past 25 years, roughly 148,000 acres of temperate native grasslands have been lost through conversion each year. This doesn't include the tame pastures and hay lands, which are also being lost. In fact, a recent study by Nature United identified stopping this loss as the number one solution we have for natural climate solutions.

Naturally, we have to ask, why did this happen and what do we need to do to turn this around?

There are several reasons we saw this change and shift in agriculture use. Of course, the beef industry has had its economic challenges in the past, particularly in the early 2000s, following BSE. We saw a large economic impact that led to large land use changes that were felt for many years following. However, today, despite the beef industry being in a much stronger position economically in comparison to the BSE days, we continue to see loss of grasslands directly correlated to the shrinking cow herds.

One of the key factors is that the beef industry has less ability to manage risk associated with our sector in comparison with the cropping sector. For example, on our farm, we have more effective tools to manage our crop risks than we do our beef risks. Furthermore, our crop insurance is a cost-shared premium where our beef insurance is not. This is extremely important to our young producers and families. These factors lead to business decisions where farmers and ranchers convert land from pastures to cropland or perhaps sell for other purposes.

Today, with the demand on biofuels and crop prices as they are, there are further economic reasons for people to consider switching land use. Of course, in some cases, it might make sense to switch land use and we certainly want to leave it up to our private landholders to be able to make those decisions. However, we, along with our conservation partners, as you've previously heard, understand the immense environmental value that goes with keeping grasslands in production in Canada, such as carbon sequestration and immense biodiversity, including for species at risk.

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.

There are also further tools that we see as helpful to maintain grasslands, such as a national perennial forage conversion program, investments in term easements, enhancement of funding for programs that support best management practices, or programs that reward producers for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, water and wetland conservation.

In the beef industry, along with the robust membership of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, we have ambitious 2030 goals, including maintaining 35 million acres of native grasslands and sequestering an additional 3.4 million tonnes of carbon every year. These efforts, combined with our work to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity hoofprint by 33% by 2030, which I would note is certainly on the right track with exciting new feed additives, as mentioned by the CRSB at their committee appearance, have us excited about both the environmental and economic future of the Canadian beef industry.

We in the beef industry are proud to be one of Canada's largest agriculture sectors, supporting 348,000 jobs and contributing $21.8 billion to the GDP, while conserving 44 million acres of the important grassland ecosystem that stores 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon.

We have much to offer, both to the Canadian economy and our environmental commitments, and we look forward to working with you on these shared goals.

Thank you very much for having us today. We look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

We're going to move right to questions.

First up we have Mr. Epp for six minutes. Mr. Epp, it's over to you.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for their excellent testimony.

I'm going to pose a series of questions and ask all three of you to respond. I'm going to pick up a comment from Ms. Gowriluk where you identified all of the practices that have come already voluntarily, and the emphasis here is “voluntarily”. I've heard the term previously about cross-compliance. There are environmental goals that each of you has articulated, and the government's articulated some.

My questions are this. In your testimony here, we hear you. In your engagement with AAFC and with ECCC, do you feel you've been heard? What would be your comments on a linkage? We are moving into the year where we're negotiating the cap, going forward. What are your comments on cross-linking environmental goals and BRM goals?

Let's begin maybe with Grain Growers, please.

[Erin Gowriluk]

Certainly. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Epp.

With response to the first part of your question in terms of whether or not we feel we've been heard, I think that grain growers across the country wanted to be seen as active participants in this important discussion. That's why we made the announcement we did on March 28 of the road to 2050. That's our way of saying that we can be a solutions provider and want to work closely with our government partners to ensure that the policies and programs that are developed in this space reflect the best interests of Canadian grain farmers.

At the same time, we want to ensure that they're practical and can be applied, because to Ms. Miller's point, some of those practices or the programs that are currently being funded don't necessarily make sense on farms across the country. This is our way of saying that we're going to have some solid recommendations with respect to what you can expect from Canadian grain farmers, and we want to be a part of those discussions.

I think with respect to the second part of your question on cross-compliance, we think it's really important that, while we're having this conversation about what more Canadian farmers can and are willing to do in this space with respect to their environmental contributions—that's critical—we don't want to see that become criteria for or a barrier to entry with respect to the risk management programs that are so fundamentally critical to Canadian farmers across the country, especially at a time when they're facing unprecedented risks.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Miller.

[Susie Miller]

To add a small amount to what Erin provided you, I think what we see from the industry sector is that there are many pressures on Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and that it is challenging to balance them all. Lots of things have come very suddenly and haven't allowed the type of discussion that we would prefer.

What we see are attempts at being open and inclusive and allowing us to participate.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Lastly, I'll ask the cattle folks, please.

[Duane Thompson]

I'd like to speak to the cross-compliance part of the question first. Cross-compliance is a challenge because, in this industry, agriculture is a system. Some of the unintended consequences of having cross-compliance across programs is that producers don't have the flexibility to optimize their systems.

By having cross-compliance, I feel that people might manage according to programs, rather than optimizing the system, which can directly affect the environment and the production system that we operate in. It's such a wide variety of production systems, even within the beef sector; never mind when you mix it in with cropping and a mixed operation.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Getting in to a bit more of the specifics, I'll go to Ms. Gowriluk.

Regarding gene editing, can you describe the huge advantages, at least from my perspective, that a rapid adoption of that technology could potentially bring, both environmentally and economically?

[Erin Gowriluk]

With respect to gene editing and other similar tools around modern agriculture, increasingly now and especially around climate change, we need to ensure that Canadian farmers have the tools in their tool box to address the situations and challenges that they're facing increasingly now as a result of climate change.

Gene editing is just one example of the many tools available to mitigate some of those risks. One example I would provide of that would be, more recently, the widespread drought that we saw across western Canada. If you're looking at gene-edited, drought-tolerant varieties, for example, more investment needs to be made in that space. Quite frankly, it needs a regulatory framework to allow the development of those products to reach market, so that Canadian farmers are better prepared to mitigate some of the challenges they're facing with climate change with some of those new varieties.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I have a follow-up question to that. Do you think layering on another layer of oversight at PMRA will speed up or hinder that process?

[Erin Gowriluk]

I'll go back to something that Ms. Miller said in her comments around what she's hearing from Canadian farmers. That is, collectively, we want to see that all regulatory frameworks are developed with science in mind. This government talks a lot about the importance of science-based, evidence-based policy and it's really important that while we have the conversation, we walk the talk.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to cede the rest of my time and bank it for the next time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. We'll keep that in mind.

We'll go to Mr. Louis now for six minutes.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Chair and Mr. Epp, I didn't know that you could do that. I guess we have a cede bank here.

Thank you to our witnesses, both virtual and in person, for being here. I was taking notes feverishly.

I will start with Ms. Miller from the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops.

You touched on best practices, the ways of limiting risks. At the same time, you also touched on one size does not fit all. You said that no till in the west is easier than the east. You said that cover crops are harder if the ground freezes.

What is that balance? How can we strike the balance so that we can have best practices shared, but at the same time focus on regions? What are those challenges, and what are the solutions you're doing?

[Susie Miller]

From the perspective of the farmers we talk to, it was about outcomes. Tell us what you want, and we'll figure it out.

It's not quite as simple as that, of course. It requires research and practical application. The farm is a whole unit. It's not one particular practice or another. In many cases, like Mr. Thompson's, for example, it includes both livestock and crops that need to be balanced. It's about flexibility and understanding that there is a capacity among the farmers themselves to make a right decision if you have the appropriate information available.