Evidence of meeting #134 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was use.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
The Chair Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Let's get today's meeting under way. We have two different panels. The first is on our study related to agriculture, forestry and waste.
3:35 p.m.
Mike Lake Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, just before we get started, did we ever hear back from the minister on whether she is planning on coming on the supplementary estimates? I just want to know that now, instead of finding out at the end of the meeting whether we heard back anything.
3:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
It's just a point of clarification, I guess. We saw her on TV. She was in the House two minutes before we started here, so she's in town. I was just wondering.
3:35 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I was actually hoping to deal with that tomorrow at our subcommittee meeting.
For the committee's information, the invitation went for the dates that we have and her office communicated that she's not available. That is as far as we got.
3:35 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
To our witnesses, welcome. For today's panel, we have the first hour and a bit dedicated to the study on agriculture, forestry and waste. Then at around 4:45 p.m., we'll be moving into the supplementary estimates (A) budget stuff with Parks Canada for the last 45 minutes.
For our witnesses, I think each of you has been invited to make opening comments for 10 minutes. I'll use this handy card system. When we're down to the last minute, I'll hold up the yellow card. When the 10 minutes are up or when we get into the questions and answers, each of the members have six minutes and when that time is up, I'll hold up the red card. Don't stop immediately, but wind up your thought and then we'll move on to the next round of questions.
Mr. Moffatt and Ms. Miller, who would like to go first?
Mr. Moffatt, you have 10 minutes.
3:35 p.m.
Professor Mike Moffatt Senior Director, Smart Prosperity Institute
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me.
Today, I'll limit my remarks to agriculture, since that's what we're working on at Smart Prosperity, although I should note that Smart Prosperity has argued elsewhere for the important role of clean innovation and market incentives for enhancing forest carbon sinks and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry sector, including through innovative bioenergy and other bioproducts and for moving towards a resource efficient, circular economy.
Canada is already a greenhouse gas efficient producer of crops and livestock. The sector has more than doubled the value of its output over the past decade or so, while keeping emissions near constant, which has caused the sector's overall greenhouse gas emissions intensity to decline by 0.9% per year from 1990 to 2012. Due to improved feeding practices and other factors, we are also one of the most greenhouse gas-efficient animal protein producers in the world. This means that increasing Canada's export market share could potentially decrease global greenhouse gas emissions, if our production is causing production in other jurisdictions to decline.
Agriculture currently accounts for only 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, but as Canada and the world move towards deep decarbonization, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from crop and livestock production will increasingly require action from industry and policy-makers. This is particularly crucial if we are to meet our ambitious growth targets set out in the agricultural economic sector table report, as well as our long-term potential to meet the economy's burgeoning demand for safe, quality food.
Given tight margins and an industry that competes on a global market, the most realistic long-term solutions involve innovative technologies and practices, including but not limited to improved crop and livestock genetics, changes in animal diets, using technology and big data to improve nutrient management and emerging technologies for producing low-carbon fertilizer. Governments have a clear role to play in fostering this innovation.
We need to start acting now because promising opportunities for low-cost reductions in the agricultural sector are currently available and can potentially improve the sector's competitiveness. Based on our preliminary research at Smart Prosperity, we believe that the most promising efforts to reduce emissions, while maintaining producers' profitability, will be to improve nutrient applications and that's mainly nitrogen from fertilizer. There is extensive evidence from Canada and elsewhere that modest reductions in fertilizer application rates can enhance farmers' profits. For example, one recent study estimated that advanced nitrogen best management practices for corn in Ontario, and canola, wheat and barley in Alberta could potentially decrease per acre nitrous oxide emissions by 29% to 33% relative to the reference case. This is a win-win because it also increased profits by anywhere from $29 to $71 per acre.
Potential policy instruments to achieve this include improved extension and certification services, innovative tools, such as income support and insurance schemes, reverse auctions or cross-compliance schemes. As well, we can improve access to technology, such as seasonal weather forecasting services.
Enhanced carbon sequestration will also play a role in reducing the sector's carbon footprint, although technical and institutional hurdles pose some challenges for creating a substantial and viable offsets market. In part, this is due to issues of permanence, additionality, transaction costs and possibly the low price commanded on the market for offsets. We believe at Smart Prosperity that the economic growth potential for agriculture is enormous, but we need to take the long view. Sector growth should not be achieved through significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, the last couple of decades have shown that smart policy choices can lead to simultaneous improvements in both economic and environmental performance.
Thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Ms. Miller, we'll move over to you for your opening comments.
November 27th, 2018 / 3:35 p.m.
Susie Miller Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
Thank you for inviting me to speak here today.
The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops was formed in 2013 specifically to facilitate cross-commodity collaboration on sustainability issues facing the grains sector. For our purposes, sustainability means social responsibility, environmental sustainability and economic viability.
Our members include, as you would expect, grain farmer organizations, grain marketers and grain customers, but we also include input suppliers, researchers and environmental organizations. The scope of our work, because we do say crops, is limited to grains, oilseeds and pulses.
In 2015, we embarked on a major initiative to provide fact-based information on the sustainability of Canadian grains. This culminated in the publication of our grains sustainability metrics platform in March 2018.
In the process of collecting and developing fact-based information, we undertook a major study to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, which we express as a carbon footprint, for the production of 10 major field crops in all of the regions of Canada where there is a substantial production of that grain. This study was completed in 2017. We used internationally recognized carbon life-cycle analysis methodology. It was produced under the oversight of academic and government researchers and was peer reviewed. It's my understanding that the results are actively being used by several government departments as the latest information on carbon footprint for crops.
I'm going to share some of the results with you today. In front of you, you will have a chart. It shows the results of the carbon footprint for eight of the 10 crops that we surveyed that are grown in Saskatchewan.
This shows the actual greenhouse gas emissions, kilograms per tonne of crop produced. The orange is from fertilizer manufacturing. The green is from energy use on the farm to grow and harvest the crops, specific to the crop. The blue is the GHG emissions from seeds and pesticides. The pink is the GHG emissions from nitrous oxide emissions, which include emissions from crop residue in the field, which is a natural biological decomposition, and from nitrogen fertilizer that escapes into the air or runs off the field. The grey is a soil organic carbon change.
Referring specifically to the soil organic carbon change numbers, these are all negative. This signifies that the production of each of the crops is resulting in a carbon sink. In Saskatchewan, not all across the country, but in Saskatchewan, that is the case.
For example, looking at canola, which is currently the largest crop by volume in Saskatchewan, the GHG emissions are reduced by 43% because of the sequestration of the carbon in the soil. For wheat, it's a 60% reduction. For field peas and lentils, it more than balances the greenhouse gas that is emitted from all other sources. The carbon footprint of crop production varies across Canada due to climate, the crops grown and the crop management practices. I've chosen Saskatchewan because the province has 45% of the crop land in Canada and because of the significant change that has occurred over the last 25 years in production practices that have led this region to being a significant carbon sink.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reported in 2016 that agricultural soils represented a net source of 1.2 megatons of carbon dioxide in 1981, but in 2011, it became a net sink. There's no absolute change available for Saskatchewan, but they did report that in all parts of Saskatchewan they had over a 90 kilogram per hectare increase in soil organic carbon per year. It's the most significant. That's the top of the level that they measure.
What led to this sequestration? One factor contributed the most. That was a change in farm practices from full tillage to reduced tillage and no tillage.
As a bit of explanation, what full tillage means, as defined by Statistics Canada, is the sort of traditional ploughing, where most of the crop residue is reintroduced into the soil and the soil is basically bare. Reduced tillage retains most of the crop residue on the surface; it's not ploughed under, it's on the surface. No till means no disturbance at all; the seeding is done under the soil with equipment that goes in directly.
By adopting seeding and weed control practices that do not disturb the soil, the carbon remains in the soil. It's not released every year, and the growing process continues to add carbon, up to a limit. In 1991, only 10% of Saskatchewan was no till. By 2016, it was 74%, with an additional 20% in reduced tillage. That's a 94% change from conventional tillage to none or reduced.
What motivated farmers to do this? First and foremost, it was increased yield. By not disturbing the soil, water and organic matter was retained, leading to higher yields but also less risk of crop failure. Saskatchewan is a dry area.
Second, it was widespread practice to follow or let rest a certain percentage of the land each year to retain the moisture and the soil organic carbon, which is not necessary under no till. In 1981, 20% of the land was fallowed every year—taken out of production—and it was less than 1% in 2016. That meant that for each individual producer, they had 20% more land available to increase their income and also reduce their overall costs. It also meant lower farm equipment energy use, as well as significant reduction in the loss of soil due to wind erosion. That was a net effect.
There are many contributing factors to this adoption: first of all was innovation in equipment manufacturing. It wasn't by the big companies; it was by small local companies that were willing to take a risk and to start small and grow big.
There was investment by governments to assist in that innovation. There was research by academics and governments that demonstrated the benefits of adopting the new technology. They'll only believe their neighbours. Some will believe their neighbours; some will believe the research result.
The neighbours were very important. There were strong producer-based groups that championed adoption, usually by example, but there was also a science-based regulation system that permitted the introduction of crop protection products and crops that could be used with reduced tillage.
Although I've used Saskatchewan as an example, and Alberta is very similar, the adoption of no till and reduced tillage extends across Canada. In total, 60% of land in 2016 was under no till, and another 24% under reduced tillage.
However, there are limitations to the adoption of no till technology. It's not suited to some crops. The technology is not suited to some soils. Organic producers need tillage to control weeds, so it's not possible for any organic producers. The cost of acquiring the necessary specialized equipment is not necessarily feasible for the smaller operations that you might find in the Maritimes and in parts of Ontario and B.C. It's realistic, however, to expect some continued expansion of no till and reduced tillage, both of which contribute to soil organic carbon.
Although Mike and I had never met before today and we certainly had not had any discussions, I'd like you to turn your attention back to the pink part of the graph and the orange, which are nitrous oxide emissions and fertilizer manufacturing. If you're looking at ways for producers to improve their emissions while maintaining or improving their bottom lines, this is likely where it will have the most significant payoff.
As I indicated, biological processes such as crop decomposition, which contribute to nitrous oxide emissions, can't be controlled. Our surveys show that while generally producers follow good practices in the use of chemical fertilizers and manure, there are opportunities for improvement.
I'd like to highlight an approach that's taken by Fertilizer Canada to facilitate the adoption of the four Rs of fertilizer use: right source, right time, right place and right rate.
The research has shown that closely monitoring soil nutrient need and adjusting fertilizer type, amount, timing and method can significantly contribute to greenhouse gas reduction. As well, as Mike mentioned, producers can improve yield and reduce costs.
The reason this is so significant is that, in greenhouse gas equivalents, one nitrous oxide kilo is equivalent to 298 carbon. So, when you're talking about greenhouse gas carbon footprint, a small reduction in nitrous oxide emissions can significantly effect the carbon footprint.
Thank you for your attention. I'm available to answer questions.
3:50 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Now we'll get into a series of six-minute rounds.
First up, we have Mr. Peschisolido for six minutes.
3:50 p.m.
Joe Peschisolido Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Ms. Miller and Mr. Moffatt, thank you for attending.
Both of you in your presentations talked about innovation. In the variables, Mr. Moffatt talked about diet and the importance of the input. I got the sense that Mr. Moffatt was looking more at livestock, and obviously Ms. Miller dealt only with crops.
I also sit on the agriculture committee, and we've had a few discussions on the distinction between organics and traditional agriculture. I'm just trying to get a sense, because in throwing around “fertilizer“, “organic”, “nitrogen”, what is the impact of the variable of having an organic system without artificial fertilizer versus not? How does that impact on tillage versus non-tillage? You seem to be suggesting that organics is a bad way of going because that non-tillage is unavailable.
3:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
I can take that question.
When we did our study, we included organic and conventional together. We didn't separate them out. However, I can tell you the direction where there would be some differences.
As you indicated, the fertilizer manufacturing piece, the pink piece, would not exist because they use manure. However, soil organic carbon would probably turn from a sink to an emitter because of the tillage of the soil. That is what creates the soil organic carbon emission, the actual tilling of soil, which organic growers need to do.
On the balance, that's information we don't know.
3:50 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Are there thoughts of looking at that and comparing the two systems? It's interesting that, pretty well from a standing start of zero, in 10 years the market of the organic industry in Canada has gone up to $5 billion. In fact, there's a shortage of organic products in Canada and we need to import that.
I'll move to Mr. Moffatt and the variable of feed.
I'm assuming that the greatest emitters of carbon would be more the livestock sector rather than the crop sector. What is the significance of the type of feed when you are looking, not at the yield per acre, but at the number of pounds that a farmer would get per animal, whether it's hogs or...?
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
There are small differences. Those differences are small unless you're getting really innovative and doing things like feeding seaweed to cows—there are pilots—and things like that.
The biggest gain that we've seen—we're very preliminary in our research—has to be more on the genomic side, basically just technologies to breed cows to emit less. That seems to be where the gains would be, rather than in small changes in feed, but every little bit helps.
3:50 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Sure.
Mr. Moffatt, you talk about income support and insurance. Can you elaborate on the work you've done and how that would impact on reduction?
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
On income support in general, again, as my colleague was saying, a lot of these technologies have an upfront cost that is particularly expensive for smaller producers. We've been looking at mostly southwestern Ontario. There are new technologies that can help reduce fertilizer use, but they have a payback period of maybe six, eight or 10 years, so it's not necessarily cost-efficient for the farmers to use those. Once you take into account the externalities, though, not just on greenhouse gases but also on runoff issues, such as all the algae blooms in Lake Erie, I think there is a role for government to support farmers with those upfront investments.
I actually think some of the changes we saw in the fall economic update with the accelerated capital cost allowance may play a role there. I have to admit that we haven't analyzed that too closely; it's been a week.
3:55 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
We haven't talked about the agricultural framework that is funded both provincially and federally. Are there innovative programs there that we can work on to enhance the transition of the type of agriculture you are talking about?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
We're very early in our research. We haven't come up with any new policy recommendations for the next Growing Forward; I can't remember what they're calling it now.
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
Yes, the framework; we have not developed anything on that. Part of what we'll be looking at, however, is best practices from other jurisdictions to see if there are policies that the federal government or provinces may wish to adopt.
3:55 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You're out of time, Mr. Peschisolido.
Mr. Warawa, it's over to you.
3:55 p.m.
Mark Warawa Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Thank you.
To both of you, I'd like to continue with what Mr. Moffatt was talking about with regard to other jurisdictions. In terms of the industry, what other jurisdictions would be models of reduction? How are we learning best practices and measurable success? What are our models?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
That's a good question.
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
Actually, that is a good question. One of the things I did in preparation for this was to compare the results of greenhouse gas emissions for our crops versus in the rest of the world. In fact, we're as good or better. I think we have some advantages that we can't lose. One of those advantages is that we do have good research scientists who know and understand, and who can help us measure.
We probably have a better understanding of the contributions to greenhouse gas by various farming practices than most places in the world because of, frankly, Statistics Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, [Inaudible—Editor] that the industry can base upon. Continued investment in that type of measurement helps us know where we can do better.
Then you add in the investment in innovation, which is our model here in Canada of jointly working with government and industry, including the support that comes from the agriculture framework. It is really helpful at targeting to what will work, because that's important. You can do all the research and you can build the innovation, but if it's not being used, then you're not going to get the result you want.