Environment Committee on May 17th, 2012

[Stephen Vandervalk]

There could be numerous reasons. It could be the environment where they farmed. With the soil in certain parts of southern Manitoba, they have to conventionally till before they can seed. That's part of it. Some of it's education, not believing that going to what we call a one pass system is a financial benefit for their farm. There's some of that. Of the 20%, it's because of the environment, how their land is. If it's a certain type of clay-based land, or if their land floods, or if it's a very wet area, they have to conventional till to dry the soil to be able to seed. The majority of it would be for that reason.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

You also said that only a very small number of farmers were going the organic route, because it was not profitable enough. If the science were to one day make organic farming profitable, do you think farmers would turn green?

[Stephen Vandervalk]

Oh boy, that's loaded. As for the “green turn”, I would definitely argue that farming organically is not necessarily greener whatsoever. In fact, you could argue the other way in many cases, that it's not as environmentally sustainable as regular farming is. Farming organically is profitable. I wasn't trying to say that. A choice is being made. You get more value for your product in many cases, so lower yielding sometimes makes up for that.

As you said, unless technology gets to a point where organic farming can produce the same yield as conventional farming, it's going to be very difficult, because we are at this point.... And in the future it's going to get worse. We have a hard enough time feeding the world as it is. When you're losing 30% to 40% of your yield, that doesn't help trying to feed nine billion people. I think if technology changes you'll see people going in and out of it, and it's something that has to be based on financial considerations for your farm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Mr. Toet.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things we've heard a lot about throughout the testimony is the need for connecting Canadians. In this regard, I'm going to talk more to the agricultural sector.

Mr. Grant, you even touched on it a little bit when you said there's a growing disconnect between consumers and producers, and we need to address that. What are your thoughts and ideas on how we can foster that greater connectivity? Have you given any thought to how we can incorporate that into an NCP as part of the education aspect, particularly in regard to that disconnect between consumer and producer?

[Lynn Grant]

It's not particularly my field, but I do have some thoughts on it, not specifially with regard to a national conservation program, but just general comments.

One comment is that as a society we need to make sure we talk directly to any issue. I'm thinking of some of the so-called polite terminology that we use when we talk to our kids and relatives about grandma dying. I mean, she died. She's dead. We say she passed away. We use all this polite terminology to gloss over the reality. When we do that, we also hide the reality, and we also fail to make people, especially our kids, understand an issue like death. I use that one because it just covers everybody.

In our industry we have slaughterhouses, and they are just that: we kill animals to process them into food. We don't use the proper terminology, so that generally disconnected society gets very uptight and nervous when they understand that these animals are dying for food production.

By the way, when you pull a radish out of the ground, how long do you think that little sucker lives before he's technically dead too? That's just the way nature is. That's how we are when we die, except that we embalm ourselves so that the bugs can't live on us. Essentially that's it. When we use poor terminology and gloss over reality, that's what happens. As a society, we need to make sure that the public, which isn't aware of where its food comes from, at least knows the correct terminology and what really happens.

To get the connection back, we all, especially producers, need to take a more vested interest. We need to incorporate it into a school program and just use those examples.

I'm taking up your time.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Vandervalk, can you add to that? You looked as though you wanted to say a piece on that.

[Stephen Vandervalk]

Yes. I'm on a board of directors for something called Agriculture for Life. It's made up of a couple of farmers and oil companies, power companies, and farm companies, and its mandate is to teach schoolchildren especially what's involved in farming.

When you ask students where bread comes from, a lot of them say “Safeway”. They have no idea. We get them onto the farm, show them the technology, show them how farming has changed, how it's actually kind of cool. You don't steer the tractor. You don't do much any more. It's all done with a lot of high technology. There are school programs and stuff. Part of a plan could include getting more education on where the food comes from and on how rural life isn't a simple backwoods type of way to live but is actually a business—and a great business.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Ms. Jackson, I think you wanted to jump in too.

[Fawn Jackson, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

At CCA we're very aware of the growing disconnect between consumers and producers. A lot of what we do today is we invest in our own youth. How can we leverage them to help spread our message? They have such large networks in terms of social media, Facebook, Twitter, and all these sorts of things. How can we ensure they have the tools to spread our message? That's one of the ways we focus on connecting the consumer to the producer. That is one of the areas we need to focus on in a national conservation plan: how to ensure that young people come back into the agriculture community.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

Do I have any time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Ward wanted to make a quick comment.

[Norman Ward]

Thank you.

I'll address that question and Ms. Fry's question at the same time.

Western Stock Growers' Association brought up the concept of a marketplace for environmental goods and services. One of the best ways to connect people is to connect a consumer to someone who produces a product. We've glossed over the opportunity to provide compensation to people through the marketplace. We truly think that an environmental services marketplace will provide some of the necessary help and impetus to a national conservation plan.

Here in Alberta, the Alberta Land Stewardship Act recently passed. There is a provision in the legislation for a marketplace for environmental goods and services.

Again, by linking those customers, we are able to start to bring that information forward to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Monsieur Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to Mr. Gardner.

I wrote down the seven-point vision you recommended. I believe the third point pertains to climate change. Is that right, or did I just misunderstand?

[Alan Gardner]

No, there is a fair amount of science that suggests that climate change may be occurring. Why is up in the air, but certainly that is true. I would say that from an economic standpoint Canada has a comparative advantage around the world in a number of ways. One is our ability to have agriculture. We have good soil, so far. Also, we have adequate water, so far, for the most part.

If you look at some of the literature and books that talk about food production around the world, the fact is that, other than resource extraction, which I know the federal government is focused on right now in terms of energy, food production and our ability to provide it through the availability of water is absolutely critical. It could mean the difference in the next many decades of Canada being a powerhouse, if you like, in food production, which of course would add to our standard of living.

Does that answer your question?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, thank you very much. I agree with you that we need an approach that is not solely based on natural resources. It must also take other factors into account, such as the very crucial arena of agriculture.

You also mentioned urban sprawl. That was the fourth point of your vision, I believe. Urban sprawl is a massive problem, both in Alberta as well as in Quebec. In the area surrounding Montreal and Drummondville, there is tremendous uncontrolled urban development happening. A ban is even being proposed to stop rezoning, because farm land is being used for urban development projects and big box stores.

What do you recommend in terms of controlling urban sprawl and protecting our best farm land?

[Alan Gardner]

That's a very good question, and a very difficult solution, as we all know.

Having spent 15 years as an architect in Canada, and at various times having lived and worked in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and so on, I understand urban sprawl very well. Our cities are still based on a model developed in the 1950s in Los Angeles. Calgary is one of the very best examples of that. We're still building roads and highways, and, as normal, we happen to be doing that on some of the best agricultural land, not just in Canada but in the world.

I would suggest this goes back to cumulative effects. When you talk about cumulative effects, the key thing in my experience working with Dr. Stelfox is that ultimately you have to put limits on where things go. If you look at Europe, for example, Germany, England, or some of the places that have a much greater population than we do, they have resolved some of that. One of the solutions is the conservation easement solution that we use, which is that we can, through incentives to private landowners, ensure that good agricultural land even close to cities is maintained in agriculture.

I would say that is one of the very best tools. I would like that better, because in a sense it is a market mechanism using incentives rather than regulation, as has sometimes been tried out. I believe Toronto tried a green ring or zone around the city. It has not been that effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have five seconds.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I want to thank you for your great answers and your time.

I will now hand the floor over to someone else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Mr. Lunney, you have five minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I think it was Mr. Newton who was a DVM for many years before taking on the cattle persona in a latter career. Mr. Ward, it was one or the other or both of you who made the point about a non-linear response. I think what you're asking for is flexibility.

You made remarks about many and varied mini-ecosystems. Indeed, we're not only talking about Alberta here. We're talking about all of Canada, the variety. The committee will be travelling to the east coast in the near future, where the issues will be very different from the ones here, although there will be commonalities.

When you talk about a non-linear response, I think you're talking about flexibility. Earlier, one of the presenters said that a national conservation plan implies some form of rigidity, and preferred the concept of a national conservation framework, where the objectives may be common but the applications may be different, allowing people to choose from a suite of environmental objectives that may apply in one environment and not in another. Is that really what you're driving at with your non-linear approach?

[Norman Ward]

It would be in part. I think we need to realize that as we drill down into these smaller holes, you will find that we need people on the ground. I'm speaking from a rancher's perspective now. We will need those people on the ground who are able to make those decisions in a complex ecosystem.

For instance, on broad conservation plans maybe by non-government organizations, we see a very high level of planning, but a lack of detail that needs to happen on the ground somewhat. We need to be able to involve all of those people on the landscape so that they're not excluded but they're also able to make those pertinent ecological decisions as they happen. Too often in larger environmental groups it's very hard to make those complex decisions. We need to be able to have those people on the ground to do that.

Again, I'm speaking from a rancher's perspective, because I am on the ground and I am able to make some of those decisions when it's necessary.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Okay. Was it you or someone else, maybe Stephen Vandervalk, who made a remark that privately funded compensation is more likely to be successful? Maybe you'd both care to comment on that.

Stephen Vandervalk, was that you who made a remark like that, and could you expand on what you envisage by that?

[Stephen Vandervalk]

It's coming from the marketplace and therefore it's usually going to be profitable for both parties involved. That's far more sustainable than a program that's just paying somebody to do something from a government that may disappear in the future and then it just goes back to the way it was, because it's not profitable or it's not something that both parties really wanted to do.

I think it's kind of like Ducks Unlimited and Bayer CropScience, who formed a partnership to get farmers to grow more winter wheat. So they try to educate and try to help financially to get people to grow winter wheat, and they try to show them that it is a good fit for their farm and that it makes them more money and also allows more eggs to survive in the springtime. Something like that is far more sustainable than having the government come in and say it is going to pay someone to do something and then it's gone and we say actually it didn't really help us out that much anyway, so we go back to doing what we were going to do. I would say that's why.