Agriculture Committee on May 30th, 2022

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses this morning. Your presentations have been very interesting.

I would like to ask the Beef Cattle Research Council some questions, just following up on your presentation. You indicated that by 2030 you are aiming for a further 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Could you also provide us with the amount of increased production you expect as a target for 2030? Also, how do you expect to get there?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I can't recall the increase in production. A lot of our focus is on a fairly steady state in terms of the 33% reduction and keeping our cattle herds steady. That being said, whether we can increase our production per animal has been our focus, and we've continued to be able to do that, as you've seen over the last two decades.

In terms of how we achieve that 33% reduction, a lot of our focus is on feed additives and looking at opportunities there. The 3-NOP that was mentioned is one of the highest priorities, but there are other ones that we're looking at.

We're also looking at opportunities for research and extension. Technology transfer extension is one of the keys that we see in getting producer adoption of beneficial practices, adoption of new technologies, new forage varieties, feed varieties and those types of things.

The other key area that we are focused on is utilizing food waste and feed waste from other sectors. We have been able to incorporate a lot of different food waste recently from all sectors along the supply chain, as well as from our crop partners, where we're consuming by-products. This is an opportunity for us to use stuff that otherwise wouldn't be usable because, fortunately, cattle can eat a lot of different things.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In that vein a bit, you've talked about the importance of grasslands and, especially, marginal lands that cattle can take significant advantage of and produce a high-quality protein.

Based on 160 acres of grassland, compared to 160 acres of alfalfa, can you briefly tell us the difference in the number of cattle that that can support?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

No, I can't, because it varies so much across the country. To the point made previously by some of the presenters, what we can produce in an area like southern Alberta versus what we can produce in the rocky hills of B.C. or in eastern Canada varies significantly. That's why these programs, as mentioned before, need to be very adaptable.

Across the country, if we look at the 60,000 beef farms that we have, each production system is adjusted to their area, their ecosystem and the land, but also the intensity. That's really dependent on moisture and soil quality.

What I would say, though, is that producers want to be sustainable, because they want to pass on their operations to the next generation. There's a lot of focus on using the land that can't be used for crop production, so it's not always a direct comparison.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's good. Thanks.

Mr. Everson, I'd like to key in on some of the comments you made. You talked about how farmers can't be regulated out of business and should be supported, not disadvantaged.

When we look at the impact that carbon taxes have had and the proposed fertilizer regulations.... You've briefly touched on that, but can you extrapolate a bit more what impact that's going to have on your sector?

[Jim Everson]

The important thing, and the message I was trying to get across, is around the incentives to go forward. Look at how to enable the producer to make a difference and how to support that producer going forward. There was talk just a moment ago about how to do that.

To Mr. Perron's question about helping growers who are already proactive, I think sustainability is not a destination. It's a continuous effort. You might be more proactive than your neighbour, but you should still be supported to try to move that to the next stage and to make the investments that are necessary to move forward. I see a number of programs coming together to help the producer move ahead.

In the case of nitrogen in fertilizer use, we have a strategic plan in our industry to grow the production of canola to meet global demand and to do it on the existing acreage we have by increasing our yields. That requires more nitrogen. It doesn't mean that you can't at the same time reduce nitrogen emissions. What we're going to do in partnership with the government is reduce emissions, but not at the cost of regulating a farmer's use of nitrogen on their canola.

Instead—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Do you have that commitment from the government?

[Jim Everson]

Instead, through the OFCAF program, what we hope to do—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Everson, I apologize. We're at time. I'll give you 15 seconds. I want to make sure we can get that in. I'm not trying to cut you off.

[Jim Everson]

We want to be sure the producers have all the tools they need to more precisely use nitrogen, so that they can use it more wisely on their farm, reduce its overall use and reduce emissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Thank you, Mr. Everson.

We have Mr. Drouin for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

My first question would be to Ms. Haverstock with regard to my colleague Mr. Barlow's question. With 3-NOP and DSM—I didn't hear you correctly—did you say they applied or they haven't applied yet to Canada, or you're not sure at all?

[Dr. Reynold Bergen]

I think that question's for the BCRC possibly, but excuse me, Ms. Haverstock, if you would prefer to answer.

My understanding is that DSM has not yet applied for approval in Canada. We understand that part of this is that Canada is a small market, but also, one of the big issues is that clarity as to the regulatory process is a huge priority for these companies when they're deciding which markets to pursue.

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

Do we know if they have the capacity to provide that across all the jurisdictions that they've recently been approved in? Does this come directly from DSM? I will approach them.

[Dr. Reynold Bergen]

Yes, what I said came directly from what DSM's representative said in a meeting I think last week or the week before. I do know they're also expanding their production capacity globally and developing some partnerships that will allow them to increase the supply to hopefully meet demand.

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

Thank you. I will approach them.

Mr. Everson, obviously at the Canola Council you're representing the larger facts of the canola industry, and you've talked about ways that canola can sequester carbon. Do you think that more can be done in your sector? Are you working directly with universities on that?

[Jim Everson]

Yes, very much, and more can be done.

As I say, the plant sequesters carbon and it's a good thing. It takes carbon dioxide from the air and uses it to make food, which is a great dynamic. If we can increase our yields, we can sequester more carbon on the same acre of land, so I think the answer to that then goes back to what we've been talking about around innovation and making sure that we have an innovative economy focused on agriculture. It's regulatory approvals; clear regulatory objectives with plant breeding innovation, for example; clear, science-based rules at the pest management review agency so that people can invest with confidence; and innovation around agronomic work, the science cluster program and continued investment in producing new ways of meeting global demand at the same time as dealing with environmental considerations.

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

I've spoken to Mr. Harper—not the Mr. Harper but I would say he's the Mr. Harper of the industry—and he was talking about costs of adapting precision agriculture on farm. It can be almost half a million to close to a million dollars. Is that something that you would see as favourable for government to continue to partner with farmers if we're asking them to adapt technologies that can lower their carbon emissions or lower their emissions, as you talked about, from fertilizers?

For example, we know that there's technology that exists where you can input fertilizer directly in the ground, which would save the emissions off the fertilizers. Is that something you see as favourable?

[Jim Everson]

I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. There's a whole continuum of producers out there. There are some who really haven't done much in the way of soil testing, so you can incentivize them to do soil testing, do a map of their farm and make the right decisions about nitrogen. That's really inexpensive to do. Then there are the farmers who have been more proactive and have done some of these things, and now in order to continue their variable rate 4R practices on their farm, they need to really invest in new machinery, which starts to get into very big dollars, but I think they're also the growers who are showing the industry and other growers the way to go.

I think it's all about having a regulatory environment that's favourable to innovation and incentivizing growers to move in the right direction, because as one of the other witnesses said today, they want to be sustainable, they want to pass on farms to their children in better shape than they got them, and incentives allow them to move in that direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have 10 seconds.

You're good, but you're not that good, so we'll go right to Mr. Perron, please, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Everson, I will continue on from your previous answers. You said it is important to encourage people who already have good practices. With regard to the latest genetics, among other things, you said that there should not be too much regulation. A bit later on, you said that effective, science-based regulation is needed.

So you are telling the committee that it is not a question of removing all regulation, but rather having regulation that is effective and based on science. Is that correct?

[Jim Everson]

Absolutely, and I think the public wants to be sure that there is strong regulation and that our institutions like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the pest management review agency are left to make science-based decisions on our behalf.

It's not about not having regulation. It's about having smart regulation and regulation that adapts to a changing environment quickly while at the same time ensures the safety and efficacy of products.

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

Thank you very much.

Since you were talking about the public, do you think there should be labelling to inform the public that new types of seeds are being used?

[Jim Everson]

I think what we need to do is to be sure that we have transparency so that manufacturers are able to register their products in a place where everybody is able to see what the key aspects, key characteristics, of those products are. That way everybody's informed about what the products are.

This could be through a labelling of the product or just through the regulatory process so that a consumer can find out. As new seed innovations come forward, Health Canada is working on a new policy there, and one of the aspects of that is transparency, being sure that people and companies that bring their products forward register them and make clear the process that was used to create the seed.

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

Thank you.