Agriculture Committee on June 13th, 2022

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to all the panellists for being here today.

Mr. Vauthier, I have quite a number of questions for you. I know that unfortunately you're not able to answer. I am going to frame those questions, and if perhaps you're able to respond in writing, that would be helpful.

In particular, the FAO's rapid response plan talks about “life- and livelihood-saving interventions to support the most vulnerable smallholder and medium-sized farming households”. I understand that for a diverse and nutritious diet, smallholders in Ukraine actually make up for a large portion of that diet. I note that is one-fifth of grain, 85% of vegetables, 83% of fruits and 99% of honey, and it goes on to milk production, eggs and one-third of overall meat production.

What I want to ask you is, what kinds of investments are you asking for or in need of in order to support those smallholders so that Ukraine can restart, as you said, and support that nutritious diet among its people? I'll leave that for you. Obviously, you can't answer, but I want to pose the question.

I also want to pose another question in relation to the food import financing facility, which I think is another proposal that has been put forward by FAO. Maybe I'll frame this to Oxfam and Ms. Ravon.

How does this work with the humanitarian aid? My understanding is that the food import financing facility is a way to target the rising food import and input costs and really help countries that are net food-importing countries, but it takes a different approach. Obviously, it's a financing facility. It's maybe not going to meet the most immediate needs—I'm not sure—but how does that work with Oxfam's approach and the ask for humanitarian aid?

I'm not sure who wants to respond.

Ms. Lambert, I see that you have unmuted yourself, so go ahead.

[Brittany Lambert]

I think we have to look into the mechanics of that to be able to give you a detailed answer, but certainly what we want to see is humanitarian aid right now, but we also, at Oxfam, recognize that ideally we're in a world where there are more structural solutions, where we don't rely on humanitarian aid. Perhaps this food-importing facility could be something to that effect, but I would need to do some more detailed background research to give you a full answer.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that.

I would just note that in the notes we received from Maximo at this committee that eligible countries would commit to “increase investments in agrifood systems, thus increasing resilience for the future”. I was really happy to see that in there and would welcome any additional information on that.

Lastly, Mr. Vauthier, I'm also going to put this out there to you. Maybe you can respond in writing. I am wondering what the status is of $115.4 million U.S. that has been requested by FAO for implementing its rapid response plan and how much the FAO has secured in funding and how much in addition is still required. We've heard the ask from Oxfam for humanitarian aid, which is quite a large number—$600 million—but I also want to check on how FAO is doing with its fundraising to implement that rapid response plan.

Thanks very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. You are right on time.

We'll go to Mr. Perron.

Mr. Perron, you may go ahead. You have two minutes.

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

My question is for the Oxfam Canada representatives.

What is your view on the theft of Ukraine's grain and the fact that Russia's army is appropriating crops and sending them back to Russia?

Have you seen it happening on the ground? Do you have any information on that?

What can the west do to help mitigate the situation? Would it be helpful to follow up on site afterwards to quantify the crops that were stolen in Ukraine?

[Lauren Ravon]

I hate to disappoint you, but I don't have a good answer to that question, unfortunately. When it comes to stolen grain, we don't conduct any inquiries on the ground in Ukraine. All of our efforts are based along the border and in neighbouring countries. Our main focus is providing protection and assistance to displaced families and children.

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

We've heard that many displaced individuals make their way to neighbouring countries.

Are there many people who move to other parts of Ukraine, regions that are not as directly affected by the war?

Is the assistance you provide fairly evenly distributed throughout? Do you have a lot of trouble with logistics and distribution?

[Lauren Ravon]

Logistics and distribution are definitely challenges. As in any conflict, people who are displaced within the country itself tend to receive the least amount of assistance. Once people cross the border, they come under the international system for refugee protection and assistance. However, those who are internally displaced are often overlooked, since the conflict makes it difficult to access areas within the country.

For that reason, I can't give you any specific information on what is going on in the various regions of Ukraine. I can say, though, that food, protective services and supports for women who are victims of violence are harder to access within Ukraine than they are in neighbouring countries right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Ravon and Mr. Perron.

We now go to Mr. MacGregor for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Oxfam, in previous interventions you were talking about the fact that there are some structural inequalities that exist in the way our agriculture operates. With respect to countries like Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Ethiopia, which have been so reliant on food imports, you said that the warning signs were there in 2020. Of course, this war in Ukraine has exacerbated the crisis.

Can you expand a bit on the structural inequalities? Is it the fact that their local agriculture has been unable to compete with exporting countries? Can you develop that answer a little more for us, please?

[Lauren Ravon]

There is the issue of global market forces that make it difficult in any country to have a strong, local, vibrant agricultural economy. During the pandemic we even spoke about that here in Canada, in Quebec, about local agricultural production and not being so dependent on imports.

In poor countries, it's very different. If you have a strong economy, you have the cash reserves and the economic strength to be able to import during any given month of the year, whereas, in poor countries, you're too vulnerable to price increases and to market dynamics, like the ones we're seeing now.

What we've seen in this region is an under-investment in rural economies, in the capacity of people living in rural communities to make a living in their regions. This implies access to infrastructure: roads and water infrastructure as well as services to people. You can't have a vibrant agriculture economy if you're not also investing in things like schools and child care. Women, who make up the vast majority of the agricultural workforce in some areas, can't go off and have productive agricultural small-scale businesses if there's no one caring for their children, if they're spending all of their time collecting water or if they have no way to leave their children and go to market.

It's also recognizing that we need investments in rural economies as a whole that take into account gender dynamics, that take into account climate change, that take into account women's care responsibilities so that these economies are fit for purpose for the future, where we have a lot of women and children who are left behind in these rural areas because there aren't the services to survive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Ravon, and Mr. MacGregor.

Colleagues, that ends our first panel. I apologize because I know there were a number of technical issues.

I'd like to thank the folks from Oxfam, MP Zaburanna—we don't know what happened to her connection, so we hope all is okay with her—and Mr. Vauthier. I saw that you would have wanted to get in on many of these.

I welcome you to respond to Mr. Turnbull's questions. We can certainly work to get you those questions in writing. I know that we all collectively heard from you informally with Deputy Director-General Bechdol the other day. That information was very helpful and if there are even a couple of pages that you want to get to us in a written submission, we would welcome that. I'm sure it would be very beneficial.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Just very quickly, I wonder whether the FAO would table its rapid response plan with this committee. I'm not sure whether that's happened yet, but given that Mr. Barlow and others, including myself, have referenced it, I think it would be valuable to have on the record for us to consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Absolutely. I don't see any issue with that. Mr. Vauthier, that can accompany anything additional you would like to provide as context on the ground. You were very helpful in setting the stage for us, as was MP Zaburanna and others.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Colleagues, in two minutes we are going to be transitioning over.

Just quickly before we go, bells are expected at 12:30. I assume that you see that proceeding as far down the line with our next panel is going to be fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, this is the second panel. I know we've had a number of technical issues, but we're very fortunate to have three different witnesses today. We have Robert Saik, who is a professional agrologist and certified agricultural consultant; from Richardson International Limited, we have Jean-Marc Ruest, the senior vice-president, corporate affairs and general counsel; and from Fertilizer Canada, we have Clyde Graham, the executive vice-president—I know he's working on his technical side—and Catherine King, who is the vice-president, communications and stakeholder relations.

Mr. Ruest, from Richardson International, I'm going to start with you. You have up to five minutes for opening remarks.

[Jean-Marc Ruest, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and General Counsel, Richardson International Limited]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jean‑Marc Ruest, and I am the senior vice-president of corporate affairs and general counsel at Richardson International Limited. I truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

I'm very honoured to have been granted the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Jean-Marc Ruest, and as stated previously, I'm senior vice-president of corporate affairs and general counsel for Richardson International Limited.

Richardson International is Canada's leading handler, exporter and processor of Canadian grains and oilseeds. With a network of grain elevators and crop input facilities situated throughout the Canadian Prairies and port terminal facilities in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay, Hamilton and Sorel, we handle 14 million to 16 million metric tons of grains and oilseeds annually and export to over 50 countries around the world. Proudly headquartered in Winnipeg, we have been involved in agriculture and the international grain trade since 1857. As a company, along with our Canadian producer partners, we have witnessed and worked through world wars, the Great Depression and numerous significant conflicts that have occurred over the past 165 years.

In considering current global food security concerns and how they should be addressed, it is important to note that food sufficiency and food affordability are issues that predate Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While their impact has certainly been exacerbated as a result of the current conflict, it would be unwise to view the situation as a temporary one that will resolve itself when peace is hopefully achieved.

As a result, when we consider what Canada should be doing to address global food insecurity, in our opinion Canada should be doing so through a fundamental long-term policy lens rather than limiting itself to an emergency relief approach.

Canada is in a very fortunate position. We produce way more agri-food products than we consume, so we can export that surplus production to countries that don't have the capacity to meet their food needs. We are known around the world as a reliable supplier of high-quality agricultural products. That competitive edge has generated significant economic spinoffs for Canada and is regularly seen as a sure way to accelerate Canada's economic growth.

When we consider what Canada should be doing to address global food insecurity, the simple answer should be to produce as much as we can and to export as much as we can as quickly as we can. Doing that would not only address an urgent global need but also be beneficial to Canada's economy. However, as obviously beneficial as the strategy would be, we have struggled to adopt the policies required to transform those intentions into action. In fact, I would submit that in many instances, policies that run contrary to the objective are being pursued.

In order to produce as much as we can, we need to encourage the development and adoption of technologies that increase production through a regulatory system that is grounded in science rather than in socio-political preferences. Unfortunately, the primacy of science in the regulation of agriculture and more specifically with respect to the development, registration and use of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides—all tools that are critical to a farmer's ability to increase production—are under threat.

Policies such as the EU's farm to fork strategy will significantly reduce production and increase the cost of grains and oilseeds, obviously adding to the global food security concerns. Canada and other countries on whom the world relies to meet their food supply needs must immediately and unwaveringly commit themselves to science as being the foundation on which agricultural production, regulation and international trade will be based.

We also need to ensure that grains and oilseeds produced throughout Canada can move by rail and through Canadian ports in a timely fashion in order to reliably supply our international customers. Unfortunately, the challenges to our ability to do so for the last several years are well known. Rail service has been an ongoing issue, exacerbated by washouts, fires, blockades and labour disruptions. We have all witnessed how any one of these factors can effectively shut down the Canadian supply chain, including the exports of grains and oilseeds, for extended periods of time. Our ability to efficiently operate terminals and load vessels in key ports such as Vancouver is also under threat for a number of reasons including infrastructure insufficiency.

The question to ask, then, is if we are challenged to move what we currently produce, at a time when the world desperately needs our products, then how do we expect to supply the world with more in the future?

A significant part of the answer depends on our collective commitment to addressing those challenges head-on through a combination of regulatory reforms and increasing capacity, limiting disruptions, particularly those not caused by natural disasters, and investment in critical infrastructure.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.

I would be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Ruest.

You may go ahead, Mr. Saik. The floor is yours.

Please position your mike exactly as it was during the technical test.

It's over to you, my friend.

[Robert Saik, Professional Agrologist and Certified Agricultural Consultant, As an Individual]

Hello, everyone.

My name is Robert Saik. I'm beaming in to you from San Sebastián, Spain. I echo the comments made by my colleague from Richardson grains.

I'm speaking here in Spain on the resiliency of agriculture globally. My background is that of professional agrologist. I've written two books on the subject of food production and technology integration. My heritage is 100% Ukrainian. Both sets of grandparents emigrated from Ukraine. I'm actively on the ground in Ukraine right now, even today. I've been playing a role in getting supplies to the people on the ground in Ukraine.

My concern from a standpoint of Canadian resiliency is that far too often we see ideology driving the agenda with respect to agriculture. “Farm to Fork” was already mentioned here. The objectives in the EU under Farm to Fork are a blanket 50% reduction in pesticides, a 50% reduction in antibiotics for animals and that 25% of the European Union would be organics production.

It's common knowledge—not rocket science—that organic production creates a drag on yield, so you have to put more land into production. We have to be very cautious about ideology driving agriculture policy. Agriculture decisions should be output based. No better example of poor policy is in the news today than Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka's policy to go 100% organic last April has been a disaster. It was the first domino in pushing that country to basically political and financial ruin.

What we need in Canada right now is close collaboration with those policy-makers to understand that agriculture must be output based and that the keys to sustainability in agriculture are soil health—so we need to concentrate on soil health—water use efficiency and greenhouse gas balance.

When I speak of “balance” in greenhouse gas, it's not a blanket reduction in 30% of nitrogen fertilizer across Canada. That's not the answer. It's a recognition by policy-makers of the technologies that are adopted by agricultural producers in Canada, including slow-release nitrogen fertilizers, variable rate application of fertilizer, split application of fertilizers, and soil testing, all the sciences that go into making Canadian farmers some of the most efficient farmers in the world, albeit we still have room to improve, but our nitrogen use efficiency in Canada is amongst the highest in the world.

We need to produce more. The world needs more Canada. It needs more canola. It needs more wheat. We've just been I think blessed with a good ruling on the recognition that genetic engineering, or gene editing, is sound science. That needs to be moved further and faster around the world.

I'll stop there. I'm looking forward to questions from the panel pertaining to agriculture food production and resilience from Canadian farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saik.

I understand that we're having trouble with Mr. Graham's headset, but that you're able to step up, Ms. King. We'll go to Fertilizer Canada for up to five minutes.

[Catherine King, Vice-President, Communications and Stakeholder Relations, Fertilizer Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us.

Canada has a strong and diverse agriculture sector, and the foundation of this sector is fertilizer. Fertilizer Canada is an industry association representing manufacturers, wholesalers and retail distributors of nitrogen, phosphate, sulphur and potash fertilizers. These fertilizers are used in the production of agricultural crops that help feed the world. Simply put, fertilizer is food for plants.

In Canada, the fertilizer industry contributes over $23 billion annually to the economy and over $12 billion to GDP. Over 76,000 people are employed, directly or indirectly, by the industry. It’s not just Canadian farmers who rely on our fertilizer; 12% of the world’s fertilizer supply comes from Canada. As a major export industry, we supply fertilizer products to over 75 countries.

The world’s population is estimated to grow by two billion people by 2050. Global agriculture production will need to increase by 60% to 70% in order to feed all these people. This will not be possible without fertilizer. Higher yields will be necessary to meet the growing global demand for Canadian crops. This was echoed in the federal government's target of $75 billion in agri-food exports by 2025. Geopolitical turmoil in the world—most recently, the war in Ukraine—adds to the strain on the food supply. In response to the war’s impact on Russian potash supplies, our member companies in the potash sector have expanded their production, adding millions of additional tonnage to global supplies.

We are not only experts in fertilizer products but also innovation, knowledge and best practices for fertilizer use. 4R nutrient stewardship is a Canadian-developed innovation and, for more than a decade, we have worked with farmers, industry, the research community, governments and conservation groups to implement these best management practices, in order to optimize nutrient uptake and crop production while reducing environmental costs.

We have worked hard to become the global standard, including partnering with the Co-operative Development Foundation of Canada to deliver the 4R solution project in Africa for the last three years. The concept is simple: Apply the right source of nutrient, at the right time and in the right place, and you will get the best results. Fertilizer management practices need to balance economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Doing this requires a fair and predictable regulatory environment that supports programs like 4R and continued innovation in the sector.

Fertilizer is a critical piece to ensure food security at home and around the world. To ensure the Canadian fertilizer industry continues to play a pivotal role in food security, we ask the government to continue to enhance collaboration with the industry. Working together is the best path forward for achieving our mutual goals. We also ask for support in raising awareness and increasing uptake in the 4Rs to help farmers optimize their fertilizer inputs for strong, healthy crops and minimize their environmental outcomes.

Our industry has worked hard to ensure farmers and growers have the critical input of fertilizer for their crops. We need a practical, consistent and predictable regulatory environment, so our members can make long-term plans and investment. Canada must be seen as a reliable trading partner, and the government must work with industry to ensure there are no disruptions to the supply chain, so our products can get to our farmer customers, who can grow hearty and healthy crops to feed the world.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you, and for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. King.

Colleagues, I know we have bells. By my count, we have about 25 minutes and 30 seconds, which means we will get one round of six-minute questions. Use your time wisely.

Mr. Epp, I'm going to start with you. If you want to share, that will be your prerogative.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I will share with Mr. Falk.

Thank you for the excellent testimony.

I would like to begin with Mr. Saik. I share your heritage. My grandparents were born in Ukraine, as well. I would like to begin with you.

In response to the 2007-08 crop-price rises around the world, there was a debate—a food-versus-fuel debate. In your opinion, if we use the proper technologies to our limit, is that a red herring, given the food insecurity we have in part of the world today? In western Canada, we grow wheat, and the world is calling for more wheat. We also grow expanding amounts of canola for both fuel and oil. Can you make a comment on that?

I'll ask Mr. Ruest to follow up, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You're on mute, Mr. Saik. Go ahead.

[Robert Saik]

There's always a trade-off in agriculture, and ultimately it comes down to signals being sent by the marketplace to farmers. CPS wheat, for example, is mostly utilized for ethanol production, versus hard red spring wheat, which is mostly used for human consumption. If we want to have a higher level of human consumption, I think the signals can be sent through the marketplace fairly clearly. If the policy is that we should have more biofuel and therefore we need to produce more crops to go into the biofuel sector, that definitely is a signal that's put out to farmers through government policy.

I think you have a balance here of market signals from the world marketplace that is looking for food and an alternate signal that comes from policy that's generated around climate initiatives.

I'll leave it there.

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

Mr. Ruest, do you have any comments?