AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 12, 2002

¿

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.))

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Mark Eyking

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

¿

0915

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Ms. Claire Bolduc (President, “Ordre des agronomes du Québec”)

¿

0920

¿

0925

The Chair

¿

0930

Mr. Marco Morin (President, Outaouais Division, “Ordre des agronomes du Québec”)

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. David Anderson

¿

0935

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Claire Bolduc

¿

0940

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

¿

0945

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Paul Steckle

Ms. Claire Bolduc

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Dick Proctor

¿

0955

Ms. Claire Bolduc

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Claire Bolduc

À

1000

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

À

1005

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Claire Bolduc

À

1010

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Claire Bolduc

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Claire Bolduc

The Chair

À

1015

Dr. Gordon McBean (Professor and Research Chair in Policy, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario)

À

1020

À

1025

The Chair

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Gordon McBean

À

1030

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gordon McBean

À

1035

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Murray Calder

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Murray Calder

À

1040

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Murray Calder

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Murray Calder

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. David Anderson

À

1045

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Dr. Gordon McBean

À

1050

The Chair

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

À

1055

Dr. Gordon McBean

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Gordon McBean

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 011

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the agricultural sector.

    Our witnesses haven't yet come, so there are a couple of business items we can look at for the period after Christmas. When we go home, our researchers would like to go home too, but there are rules that they have to stay and do some work. The main point I'm trying to make is if they have some heads-up on what we want to do from January 25 until we recess for the summer, it will give them a chance to do research and get some things ready for us.

    We went to the liaison committee to make sure we got our request in for funding, because funding runs until March 31. Then of course a new allocation of money comes onto the table and the committee can request further studies, and so forth. We asked for money to look at a study of the impact of the Kyoto Protocol and climate change on the agricultural sector, dealing with the drought, and secondly, a study on GMOs. I was only acting on my own intuition, and the committee may want to make some changes, but the liaison committee has approved a little less than $60,000 toward our work between January 25, or whatever, and March 31.

    Around the table this morning, are there areas any member wants to give to us to study, so we can get our researchers working on particular topics?

    One suggestion was world trade. We have something coming down the pike in December in terms of the request for New Zealand and the United States, concerning our supply management business. There are other factors going on in Geneva, and that might be a topic you would want our people to look into.

    Mr. Anderson.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): I would like to see a study on the long-term effects of the suggested NISA changes to the program at the farm level.

    The Chair: NISA is one.

    Mark, do you have a second one?

    Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): On the international stuff and what the U.S. is doing with its food bill, security, and all that, what effect could that have on our producers? Maybe we could look at something like that.

    The Chair: We're just going to make a list. I don't want any decisions, just your suggestions.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Rather than just being that broad, there is one clause in that farm bill on country-of-origin labelling. I've asked before if there has been any costing on how it's going to impact Canada. They had some costing on the American producers, but not the Canadian. I think it's absolutely vital that we know what's going to happen with that cost. By the way, that's less than two years away. In fact, they're starting to implement it right now on a voluntary basis. That's absolutely vital.

    Mr. Mark Eyking: Hopefully, with our agricultural framework, something will fit in there so it all works together.

    The Chair: Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Do we normally get the CFIA before the committee, as a kind of standing request? I think there are some issues there. We probably all have our own little lists, but I think the CFIA should be before the committee.

    The Chair: Are there any other topics?

¿  (0915)  

    Mr. David Anderson: Can we suggest them later?

    The Chair: Sure. We may even have a bit more time this morning.

    Yesterday, a few members around the table participated in a Canada-U.S. luncheon. Ms. Ur brought up the problems in agriculture. Sometimes as members of Parliament we don't realize all this, but we have counsels general in a great number of American cities who represent different states. They each gave a little explanation of what they do, and agriculture plays a big part, especially in the northern and western states. They pointed out that they were only too willing to hear from members of Parliament and to assist members of Parliament who might want to make contacts in the United States.

    So just keep that in mind. I know we don't have very good travel conditions, in terms of what our budget will allow, but we are quite handy to American cities like Seattle and Buffalo, where we have consulates. That might be an area to think about.

    This morning, looking at our agenda, we'd like to welcome to our meeting two witnesses from the Ordre des agronomes du Québec: the president, Claire Bolduc; and the president of the area here in Ottawa, Marco Morin. So welcome, bienvenue.

    I'm not sure who will present first, but we usually look for about 10 minutes. We have simultaneous translation, as you probably can see. My French is terrible. Claude here can help us.

    Madam Bolduc.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc (President, “Ordre des agronomes du Québec”): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    As you can see, I speak French because I don't speak English very well.

[Translation]

    First, I would like to thank you for having thought of inviting the Quebec Order of Agrologists to appear before the committee.

    The issue of climate change is very important to us, as you can see from our interventions last year. The theme of our annual convention was precisely “Les changements climatiques, comprendre pour mieux agir” (Understanding climate change as a means to more effective action). We chose this theme in order to focus the attention of Quebec professional agronomists on all of the events surrounding the phenomenon of climate change, in particular the release of greenhouse gases.

    I would also like to mention, given that at the close of our convention we called for the urgent ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, that we are very happy that this was done this week, and with a very large majority. As agronomists and Canadian citizens, we can only be proud of that ratification.

    What is the Quebec Order of Agrologists? It is the organization entrusted with administering the provincial law to protect the public in the area of agronomic services. To do this, our organization monitors the agronomic practice of its members by monitoring their professional ethics and by setting out agronomic standards and rules of practice. Pursuant to this act, agrologists must be registered as members of the order to practice the profession and bear the title of professional agrologist. The objective of our organization is not to defend the interests of our members, but rather to take a broad overview of the interests of citizens as a whole and of the clientele which uses agronomic services.

    That being said, I would like to remind the committee that agricultural activity and everything related to it is probably the human activity which is most affected by variations in climate. Consequently, this activity depends directly on climate and biophysical conditions; climate dictates the choice of crops, the methods used in livestock production, and the calendar of activities. As we know, agriculture has an impact on climate change, just as climate change necessarily has an impact on agricultural activity. It was, thus, imperative that we support the Kyoto Protocol and promote its ratification.

    I would also like to remind you that agricultural activity, before being an economic activity, is a social activity, a socio-economic activity, in fact. Indeed, the main objective of agricultural activity is not to create employment and generate a surplus in the GDP, but to insure the food supply of populations. That is why we say that it is a social activity primarily, rather than an economic activity.

    Agricultural activity also plays other roles that are supported by what we call the multifunctionality of agriculture and of agricultural activity. It is an activity that is linked to territory, that takes place on surfaces, on large areas of a country's territory, in rural zones. It is an activity on which Canadian and Quebec landscapes depend. Finally, it is an activity which supports the dynamics of populations in rural communities.

    In light of what I have just said, priority actions in the agricultural field over the next few years with regard to climate change have been very clearly identified by Quebec agrologists, and they belong to three categories. I will say at the outset that you cannot be in favour of this objective and not support the means needed to attain it. Having ratified Kyoto, all the necessary means must be put in place to implement the accord, for the well-being of the population, with the least possible impact on it.

¿  (0920)  

    And so, climate change is already having a major impact on agricultural activity.

    As we know, global warming is accompanied by extreme climatic situations, for instance in terms of heat, drought, and precipitation. The amount of precipitation is on the average acceptable, but it is no longer spread out over the season as a whole. It may arrive during a very specific period. In the space of three weeks, one can have practically 80 per cent of the total precipitation that usually falls during a season, a factor which is new for agriculture.

    As for the changes which agriculture is already undergoing due to climate change, it is important to see to it that in research, both basic and applied research, needs, directions and projects are clearly identified, that the necessary budgets are allocated, that currently ongoing climate change is predicted and that steps are taken to minimize its impact on agricultural activity. These impacts are already known. This research will support future research which will devise models for the impacts of climate change. One of the projects of the Climate Change Plan for Canada is to prepare better models and foresee the impacts of climate change. This research must be supported by interventions at the regional level.

    Canada being made up of fairly vast regions, such as eastern Canada, the Maritimes, and central and western Canada, it is difficult to devise an easily adaptable model because of the particular character of agricultural activities in each area. Indeed, well-targeted and well-adapted research should also be regionalized, and we are talking about regionalization on a very small scale.

    I will use Quebec as an example, but this could apply to New Brunswick, the Maritimes or the western provinces as well. What is happening in the Lower St. Lawrence is very different from what is happening in the Outaouais in climatic terms and in terms of biophysical characteristics. The same is true if one considers the Eastern Townships, the Sherbrooke region, as opposed to Abitibi-Témiscamingue. These are two important agricultural areas, but they have different characteristics. So research needs will have to be very closely related to regions.

    If we develop a better knowledge of regional characteristics and of the regional consequences of climate change, it will be possible to adapt agricultural practices in an appropriate way to react to climate change.

    Moreover, agriculture does not affect only a few businesses, but a large number of small production units. In spite of everything we hear, there are very few very large scale factory farms in Canada and in Quebec. There are many small farms, operating in very diverse areas, very different areas, and very specific environmental conditions, and they adopt very different production systems. If we want research models and the results of applied research to be well used, we must support all measures to further technological transfer.

    Naturally, agrologists are very involved in technology transfer, but this also involves other organizations. I am thinking in particular of the work done by Agriculture Canada and the transfer of the results of academic research.

    It is also urgent that there be coordination of the various environmental objectives of research projects and technology transfer.

    I will give you another example, that of the management of animal waste. It is said that liquid manure contaminates streams and rivers very easily and has a negative impact on the environment. However, when one works with solid manure, one sees that solid animal waste has a much greater impact on the release of greenhouse gases.

¿  (0925)  

    Consequently, if we only work on one aspect of things, we run the risk of devising very partial solutions which will be rather ineffective; thus the urgency of seeing to it that the various research projects and research objectives are coherent, in order to integrate into one recommendation or the same orientations the work which will result from research and will be transmitted to farms.

    Finally, a word about certain agricultural practices that are currently being considered to help reduce greenhouse gases, such as organic soil matter that can allow for the sequestering of carbon dioxide and thus act as a carbon sink. Where certain specific activities are concerned, such as the effort to develop replacement fuels — like ethanol — for fossil fuels, we must be careful that the solution not be as problematic as the situation we are trying to correct. Ethanol is produced from corn, which is at the present time an environmentally problematic crop. If we want our energy to come from different sources, we will have to see to it that the crop involved does not cause as many problems as the energy source we now rely on.

    Secondly, the sequestering of CO₂ involves all agricultural practices. In this regard, the practices which allow for the sequestering of CO₂ in the soil or promote CO₂ carbon sinks are appropriate to some degree. Beyond a certain degree of effectiveness, they cause agronomic and even environmental problems of some gravity. This is another example of the importance of coordinating research projects and research objectives, and it shows how sometimes a solution may be good at the outset but in the medium term cause problems that are equivalent to the ones we are trying to solve.

    In conclusion, we invite you to do everything in your power to ensure that the various research projects and research objectives that aim to improve the Canadian environment are coordinated and coherent, including those that involve climate change. There has to be good communication so that we determine comprehensive objectives rather than specific sectoral objectives. We must bank on the professional activity of our best and brightest, on the people who have the necessary knowledge and skills to help make information and research results accessible to agricultural producers.

    I would now like to say a few words about ecoconditionality, an approach that is currently being discussed in Quebec to encourage those farms that adopt good agri-environmental practices, and to discourage the use of environmentally unacceptable agricultural practices through coercive measures. This approach can be applied to agriculture, but also to other sectors of economic activity. This may be something that should be considered for other sectors aside from agriculture.

    I thank you for your attention. I am going to give the floor to Marco Morin who will be making our concluding remarks.

    The Chair: Mr. Morin, if you please.

¿  (0930)  

    Mr. Marco Morin (President, Outaouais Division, “Ordre des agronomes du Québec”): To complete what Ms. Bolduc has been saying, I would add that what is really important to us is that it be understood that agriculture is not only an economic sector, but also a sector which has several impacts on Canadian society. Thus, we feel that the multifunctional view of agriculture, as a social as well as an economic and environmental activity, must be taken into account in any action being considered — or which must be undertaken — in regard to climate change.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    David.

    Mr. David Anderson: One of the only studies we can find that has been done on the costs of Kyoto indicates that input costs for farmers could rise by up to 30%. We had agriculture bureaucrats in here last week who said the oil companies and energy companies would not be allowed to pass their costs on to farmers--which we believe to be hogwash.

    You've talked about farming being a socio-economic unit and about multi-functionality. If inputs were to increase like that, with the corresponding decrease in income for farmers, how do you propose that the agriculture sector should handle that? Do you feel that the government then has a responsibility to further support farmers?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: One important point needs to be raised concerning inputs. A great deal of reliance has been placed on external inputs and synthetic inputs to manage agricultural activities. We will in future have to look first to resources that are available on site to maintain the fertility and productivity of a farming enterprise. This is what we call the return to basic agronomy.

    On a farm, crops must be rotated to control pests. There are residues of crops and animal waste which most times can be recovered for soil fertilization and to improve crop yields. Farmers should be encouraged to use these resources first as they are available on farms and do not cost a great deal.

    Afterwards, certain inputs will continue to be necessary, and yields may diminish. It is for that reason that we strongly encourage the government to consider agriculture as a socio-economic activity first and foremost.

    If the government were to intervene in a really significant way, it would be to support agricultural activity, not only in terms of food crops, but also in terms of other productions generally. It should also to a certain extent support exports, since Canadian agricultural products are of a high calibre and are in demand.

    The government should then support agricultural activities in communities throughout the territory. This perspective is very promising since it would allow for the capture of greenhouse gases. Having farming enterprises distributed throughout the country will allow for a more effective capture of greenhouse gases than the concentration of activities.

    Finally, to answer the question directly, I would say that the intervention of the federal government—I know that it is crucial that you obtain a reply that is adapted to each of the regions of Quebec, and here we are talking about the provinces—will have to be linked directly to research. The federal government has the means to fund research and has a duty to support basic research, which generally speaking does not allow private businesses in this sector to make significant profits.

    Insofar as supporting production and activities is concerned, you must see to it that the distribution throughout the territory is adequate; this should be seen to when certain programs are transferred to the provinces.

[English]

    Mr. David Anderson: We would have no problem with the government putting money into research. I would think we all think that's important.

    You talk about going back to the basics and the basis of what farmers are doing, but farmers are already doing most of those things you talked about. The farm community is going to be expected to find another 20 megatonnes, I think, of emissions reductions. From what we heard the other day, they're not going to get credit for what they've already been doing.

    I was looking at your news release here. You talk about the fact that by 2010 you expect there will be a 20% increase in animals, which our other information indicates contribute to the majority of the greenhouse gas problems we have in Canada from agriculture.

    So I'm just wondering, when you put those things together, how do you see us being able to meet those targets in any realistic way and still expand the farm economy the way it needs to be done?

¿  (0935)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: With regard to livestock production more specifically, if you want to maintain and even increase agricultural production, as we intend to do by having very specific objectives, in Quebec in particular, we must discuss the matter of livestock production and animal husbandry.

    We know that animal husbandry, thanks to appropriate initiatives, for instance such as the use of multiphase meal to feed monogastric animals, such as hogs, and ionophorous antibiotics for ruminants, makes it possible to obtain comparable yields from the animals while producing less greenhouse gases. We also know that in the dairy industry, among others, when productive animals are chosen, one can obtain the same quotas...

[English]

    Mr. David Anderson: Excuse me. We need to go down, though. We're being told we can't have the same performance. We need the reductions at the same time we want the expansion. We want the expansion....

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Indeed, certain research activities confirm that the current level of production can be maintained while reducing the production of greenhouse gases significantly, in particular with regard to the type of animal feed that is used and the way in which manure and liquid manure is handled. By intensifying this research work, livestock production can even be increased while continuing to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, hence the importance of research and of having the various research objectives coincide.

    In the case which interests us particularly with regard to livestock, when research will be done on animal feed, it should in future not only be concerned with productivity, with maintaining the quality of production, and with respecting the consumers' wish to have healthy food products that have not been in contact with antibiotics or hormonal additives, but also with the decrease of greenhouse gases. Current research work has given clear signals with regard to animal feed, animal waste, livestock housing, the various types of crops, various crop rotations that can be encouraged to support livestock, and will at the same time be useful for greenhouse gas capture.

    You tell us that farmers have adopted these methods. Those who are adopting these methods are the leading producers, the highest-performing producers or the ones on the vanguard. We must see to it that all agricultural producers adopt these methods in the very near future, which is a big challenge because the level of technicity or the intellectual level of the agricultural clientele is not the same everywhere.

    Generally, when the most innovative producers adopt certain methods, some 20 years may go by before the agricultural community as a whole adopts them. So the emphasis must be placed on technological transfer particularly. I am insisting a great deal on research work because currently it is taking place in isolation to some extent. We are working on climate change, animal waste, the protection of water, but there is no concerted effort on all of these fronts as a whole.

    I do not know if I have answered your question, but if I had to counsel the Canadian government on where to invest, I would tell it to make it a priority to have researchers talk to each other more often.

¿  (0940)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. David Anderson: Did I use up my time, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Maybe just for the benefit of the witnesses, each member has so many minutes to be involved in dialogue with you. It's seven minutes for the first round. Your answer is part of that seven minutes.

    Monsieur Loubier, are you ready?

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good day, Ms. Bolduc and Mr. Morin. I have a question for you.

    You were talking earlier about the production of ethanol. You said that we had to be very careful because there is a great deal of talk about ethanol production as a solution within the framework of sustainable development policies and about environmental pressures from petroleum products being less acute when one uses a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. You seemed to say that environmental impacts might be more severe with the use of ethanol.

    This is a controversial issue. When an investment was considered in the Varennes corn processing plant, there were two schools of thought and the issue was never really settled, except when the decision was taken to invest.

    Does the Quebec Order of Agrologists have a clear position on this? Are you for or against the production of ethanol from corn? If you are for it, are you in favour of the production of ethanol using other crops? What is your position exactly in this regard?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: The Quebec Order of Agrologists has never had to take an official position either for or against ethanol. Our organization rarely takes such clear-cut positions, because research is always evolving.

    What I can tell you is that at this time corn is a crop which requires a great deal of energy in terms of fossil fuels, not only to grow it, but also in terms of investments for fertilizers and crop protection agents. All of those costs taken together are greater than the profits one can make.

    That being said, research could perhaps lead to the development of different farming methods that would make it possible to greatly reduce the environmental costs that we are currently aware of. Corn is recognized as a crop that is hard on the soil. It must be rotated very effectively. But this is not the case where corn is grown currently. We also know that if we want to produce ethanol on a large scale, we will need a great deal of corn.

    Is this the most appropriate crop to get there? I have read a great deal on crop residues that can be recycled in the making of ethanol. I am thinking of strawboard, among others, of all these straw residues, or about certain crops such as linen or hemp, which can be reused to make hemp cloth...

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: In the fields of St. Hyacinthe.

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: No, you know the type of hemp I mean. Current knowledge on the potential of these crops is very limited, in particular the potential of hemp or that of short-stemmed grains. The interest in rotation is very different from what we see in the case of corn. Our reservation concerning the use of corn to make ethanol is that we must avoid devising a remedy that is worse than the disease. We really must give ourselves the means to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the system we want to put in place. According to current knowledge about how to grow corn, this is very problematical. For the time being, those are the results we are familiar with.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Paul.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you for appearing this morning.

    First, let me just say to you that I'm a farmer. I assume you are an agronomist?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Yes, I am.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay. We have that premise for some of the questioning.

    Can you keep your answers succinct, so we can get as many questions in as possible?

    First, I support Kyoto. You'll be happy with that.

    Can you give me a quick summary of your view and picture of agriculture, as you would see it if you could develop its design in the next 20 years from now? Are you on the side of the organics? Are you on the side of those who believe we should reduce the animal units in our country to reduce the greenhouse gases? How does this relate to the carbon sink? Can you give me a picture of this briefly? Where is agriculture to be, in your vision?

    You say we should listen to the people. We're here to listen to what you have to say this morning.

    Can you give us your vision of agriculture, particularly as it relates to the Quebec issue? You talk about the St. Lawrence River having an effect on the impact of global warming in your area. Give us your vision of agriculture in that area, in 20 years from now.

¿  (0945)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: To respect the Kyoto objectives, Quebec agriculture will have to change its fundamental structure considerably, first of all as concerns the rotation of crops.

    In the St. Lawrence Plain, currently, a great deal of corn is being grown. Corn is used abundantly in animal feed and it is not the most effective plant is terms of greenhouse gas capture, as opposed to perennial plants. So we are going to see quite an important change in the crops being grown in our soil.

    Insofar as livestock production is concerned, I think we will all agree that we are going to reach the maximum number of animal units we can sustain in Canada quite quickly. If we want to see gains in agriculture, these will involve specific products, niche products, products that meet certain very particular specifications, rather than through large-scale production. It will not be the quantity of production so much as the quality of production that will prevail.

    In addition, the agricultural landscape will also change. We will see structural changes in farms. For instance, in the St. Lawrence Plain, in the St. Hyacinthe area, there are very few trees, very few plantings of wind-break shrubs, and very few buffer strips of grasses along stream banks to protect bodies of water, and all of these plants are potential greenhouse gas capture structures.

    Finally, the distribution of agricultural activity throughout the territory appears necessary to me. At this time, there are areas such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue or the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe region, in Quebec, as well as the northeastern part of Ontario, which are areas with good agricultural potential that are underutilized. They could be used for agricultural activities involving perrenial plants, feed plants, for instance, that would allow for better greenhouse gas capture.

    I foresee a considerable transformation of agricultural production over the next 20 years. In Canada, we are used to having a good production, a quality production, and that is what we should bank on to reach agricultural export objectives, rather than on increased production.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Steckle: I think you've given me some idea of where you see us going.

    But regarding your last comment about meeting our objectives on the export side, if we follow your vision of what you see for it in 20 years from now, I don't know how you're going to meet your export demands. I do agree with you that we need more plants and trees in this country. I agree with that. I agree with many of the things you said. But I fail to see how we can have a social climate taking precedence over the economic. Unless we have economics working in favour of a farmer, and the ability of a farmer to take a profit from his work, we're not going to see people stay on the land.

    In the production of animal units, no matter what kind of quality product...we already have that quality product today. How can we compete in the world global market when we can buy products from abroad that many people believe are equal to our products at a lesser cost? If we're going to produce less, and we're going to produce a higher-quality product, how can we instill in Canadian consumers' minds that it's better to eat a higher-priced product from Canada than eating something of equal quality from another country? How do you rationalize all of these things? We still need profitability, which is the reason we're in the business of farming.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: And that is where socio-economic activity has a role to play.

¿  (0950)  

    Supporting agricultural activity is a social choice made by government. It must be so, and this is being done currently. Government action to support agricultural activity is directly related to ensuring what we call food security for population, not in terms of the quality of food products, but in terms of guaranteeing supply. This will also have to be a choice made by government, and this choice to support our agriculture for several reasons, such as the social reasons we were talking about earlier, will have to be clearly expressed and explained to consumers. We know that an agricultural subsidy is given to a producer or a group of producers, but that the effect is felt by all of the population. It is essential that government interventions support agricultural activity, and ensure that if the cost of agricultural products does not increase for the consumer, it is not left up to agricultural producers to foot the bill.

    In this regard our position has been clearly set out for a number of years. Canadian, Quebec and Ontario products should be priority items on Canadian tables. This is a societal choice. We have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This is a choice that should be consistent with other choices, among them the decision to support agriculture, to prioritize the injection of money into farms or production, and to encourage the consumption of Canadian products.

    To conclude, with regard to exports, it might be good to prioritize export activities that involve processed products, value-added products, rather than the quantity of exports, which would also be a positive measure for our producers. Let's put the emphasis on quality, on value added. Let's bank on that, first and foremost.

    Have I answered your question?

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Madame.

    I always had the same trouble at university. They'd say a 1,000-word essay and I'd want to do 2,000. Then they'd say cut it out. So we have to try to be a little bit more concise.

    Dick.

[Translation]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much for your presentation.

    In your reply to Mr. Loubier's question, you referred to a potential problem with regard to the production of ethanol from corn. In Saskatchewan, we have introduced ethanol produced from wheat for the first time. Fifty per cent of Canada's agricultural lands are to be found in Saskatchewan.

    Do you think that the production of ethanol from wheat will be accompanied by the same problems as the production of ethanol from corn?

[English]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Your French is very good.

[Translation]

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Wheat is a plant which has a different system and a different life. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that if more than 50 per cent of a given area is devoted to a single crop, you are not making room for crop rotation which in the medium term allows the soil to renew itself and produce good crops. This is the aspect you must be attentive to if you produce wheat for the purpose of supplying an ethanol plant.

    Everything rests on crop rotation and balancing various crops. Wheat is also an annual crop and not a perennial one. So it may be less effective in capturing CO₂ than a perennial crop.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: I understand that there is an additional possibility of capturing carbon dioxide with ethanol,

[English]

but the farmers are coming together around the ethanol plants with livestock operations, so that the mash from the ethanol will be available to feed the animals. So we have that part of it. We have the carbon dioxide that they're able to capture, as well as, obviously, the ethanol. So it would seem to me that there are a lot of potentially good things that come from having ethanol from wheat. I would be interested in your comments on this.

¿  (0955)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Indeed, several crops have a good potential for the production of ethanol. The challenge consists in maintaining a balance among those various crops and the different products that will be brought to the various processing plants. In agriculture, everything rests on the balance you can establish among the various crops, among crop rotation, among the crops and the livestock, the needs of the livestock, between what you put in and what you produce. It is all a matter of balance.

    I thing that there is a future there, that this is interesting. We will have to make sure that the directions we take are not one-way streets, but rather multidirectional, if we want this balance to be maintained. Agriculture is the least natural activity we know of.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

    Rose-Marie.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It has been a very interesting presentation.

    I find it interesting, and maybe I've missed your whole presentation, but what I see you projecting here in your presentation when you say niche markets, a countryside with beautiful landscape, reminds me of a bed-and-breakfast utopia, but not sufficient dollars to generate for people to survive on our rural landscape. You keep saying that farming is more a social activity than economic benefit. That's not the way it is in Ontario. I don't know; it might be different in Quebec.

    When my farmers back home read this transcript today--which they do, because they're very on top of situations--I think they're going to be quite taken aback. Obviously you're not supportive of large farming industries then. You feel they are the culprits in this situation regarding agriculture. Is that what you're saying?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Large farms have had to deal with imperatives that were imposed upon them. We do not say that they are the culprits, because these are often people who took the initiative and introduced new technologies. But we have to be careful: the increasing size of farms means that activities are being concentrated, often in relatively small areas. This is what I want to draw your attention to, rather than to the size of the farming enterprise as such.

[English]

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Can you not appreciate the fact, though, too, that farmers are the greatest stewards of the land? They were there before we ever started talking about Kyoto. That's their business place as well as their home place. That's where their families live, so they're going to be, first and foremost, very much on top of environmental issues.

    I just find it interesting, your concept that it's more a social activity. I don't know how we could ever possibly promote that through our Canadian consumers, that a government should support farming activities more in the social aspect of farming because the economics wouldn't be there in your world. I don't know whether that would be a saleable approach in Canada. Many consumers feel that farmers are getting too much subsidy--that's not my viewpoint, but that's a perception out there.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Consumers have become disengaged from what is happening in the agricultural field. This is a phenomenon that began some 40 years ago. They rediscovered agricultural activities less than 10 years ago. Currently, they are expressing a great deal of concern about what is going on in agriculture. They raise questions on specific points concerning agricultural activity and they forget to take in the broader picture. The consumer should reappropriate agricultural activity as a whole, as he has lost sight of the broader picture.

    As to the concept of the multifunctional character of agriculture or the various roles agriculture fulfils, this is not a new concept; it is, indeed, quite widespread in Europe. Countries such as Switzerland have applied this concept together with their consumers. France is also developing this intervention model to ensure that their territory will be occupied, on the one hand, and also to ensure, on the other hand, the vitality of rural communities. Examples of this model can be found abroad and could be applied successfully here.

    As for what consumers feel, I agree with you that agriculture is not overly subsidized, given what is expected from agricultural products here in Canada.

À  (1000)  

[English]

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do I have any more time left?

    Regarding ethanol, I'm a strong proponent of ethanol, and flags really went up when you stated that you're not truly supportive of corn ethanol. There is a corn ethanol plant next to my riding, which I'm very proud to say is there and doing well.

    You were saying there are problems with it. There are problems when you initiate new benefits to the agricultural community, but I think the drawbacks certainly are very few compared to the benefits of corn ethanol. To say that corn is not a positive crop in the agriculture sector.... You made a statement that Ontario has great potential in agriculture. Well, I welcome you to Ontario any time. I'd love to drive you around. Agriculture is very vibrant in Ontario, and doing very, very well.

    But on the corn ethanol, I really think, regarding some of the information you have, I would like to share some of the information I have on corn ethanol with you at some point, and perhaps you could comment on that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: I accept your invitation. I am a farmer myself, and my reference university, in light of the crops I produce, is the University of Guelph. So I am very familiar with Ontario agriculture. We have some very fruitful exchanges with the northeastern part of Ontario, with Kapuskasing and so on. I do accept your invitation.

    My word of caution about the growing of corn concerns current corn-growing practices, which are recognized as being potentially problematic for the environment. In seeking to solve a problem, one must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease.

    That being said, it will be a pleasure for me to go and visit the plant in your riding and I can certainly comment on what I see, but I will not limit myself to visiting the plant. I will also go to see the fields and see how the corn is produced. The problem to my mind is not in the plant, but in the fields, and that is where we will have to modify our growing practices in a significant way to reduce or allay all of these problems.

[English]

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Okay.

    The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

    Rick, the time has come.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The term “multi-functionality” has been broached. The proposal you've put forward, or at least the philosophy you've put forward, is not new. As you've said, in France and in the EU, multi-functionality is a way of life. It's where the ecosystems, the environment, agriculture is, as you say, more of a socio-economic plan as opposed to an economic plan.

    I have a couple of simple questions. First of all, did I hear you right? You started your presentation by saying that the primary objective of agriculture is not to make a profit but simply to grow food for the society to eat. Did you say that?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Indeed, that is what I said. The first objective is not to maximize the profitability of a production unit, but to produce quality food. Agricultural producers have been asked to make their production units profitable, and they put in place production methods that are currently being challenged by consumers. So I did say that we should prioritize the production of quality foods rather than the profitability of production units.

À  (1005)  

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. There also has to be an aspect of social or societal contribution, and that's where the multi-functionality comes in. Are you aware that currently in the EU, approximately 50% of their budget goes to farm subsidies so that small farmers, which are normally inefficient, can remain on the farm, just so that you can have what you refer to as quality food? Are you suggesting that our society, whether it be the Quebec government or the federal government, look at those kinds of subsidies for agriculture in order to make your model work?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: That is indeed the type of intervention which governments should prioritize. This is an important social choice, a choice which must involve consumers intimately. It is a choice which governments should in our opinion promote. Others have done so. Switzerland, for instance, maintains non-profitable production units in certain areas to ensure the vitality of those regions. This is also done in France in some regions. Supporting agriculture also means supporting...

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have to jump in. You are suggesting that there should be a government subsidy as opposed to a consumer cost. Do you think the consumer would bear that cost in the cost of the product that's being produced on those inefficient farms?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Whether governments or consumers pay, the funds are coming out of the same pocket, the same public purse. Government chooses to invest in one sector rather than in others. At that point, when the choice is made to invest, it ensures that it has the support of the consumers to back those choices.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have two questions.

    One, is there any place in your model for a 10,000-acre farm?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Yes, but the 10,000-acre farm will receive much less support than a smaller farm will. Financial support is being tailored to the size of the business. This is already being done in Quebec, in fact.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You've talked about ethanol, and there's been lots of discussion as to whether there's a real value to the production of ethanol from corn or from wheat. There is research and development, which you spoke highly of, currently going on with the production of ethanol from a biomass, and it could well be straw, it could well be wood pulp, wood fibre. As an agronomist, do you see better advantage of that kind of production of ethanol, as opposed to the use of corn or wheat?

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: What is problematical when one grows only corn is that one concentrates on a single type of production and eliminates diversity. If one uses several types of fibres to produce ethanol, one maintains the diversity which is necessary to the balance of ecosystems.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you would support the production of ethanol from biomass.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Yes.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Rick.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Ms. Bolduc, welcome to the committee. I know that as an agrologist, you affect agriculture, but I am sure that you also have an effect on the French language. I did not know that my friend Rick spoke such good French.

    You talked about coordination, but there is something I am not very well acquainted with. There is a law regulating agrologists in Quebec. Is there a similar law in all of the provinces? Is there a Canadian association? Do Canadian agrologists have an organization?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: The Agrologists Act is particular to Quebec and falls under framework legislation known as the Professional Code. Ontario has no specific act, but in all of the other provinces, there is either an act or an order. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, there are agricultural institutes.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Is there an organization for Canadian agrologists?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: Currently, all of the institutes belong to the Agricultural Institute of Canada, except for the Ordre des agronomes, which is not formally a member of the Agricultural Institute, but does contribute to several of its projects.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: And do your comments here this morning reflect the positions of the Quebec Order of Agrologists or of agrologists throughout Canada?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: They reflect the thinking of the Quebec Order of Agrologists.

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Very well. You talked about multifunctionality. We know that the Americans and some Canadians are opposed to multifunctionality with regard to WTO negotiations. It is a nice concept, but one which is not supported by all of the producers and all of the countries. How will multifunctionality help us to attain the Kyoto objectives if it is not recognized by all of the countries?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: The United States has already said that it will not be ratifying the Kyoto accord. That already constitutes a problem.

    If countries such as Canada, that can play a leadership role on the world stage, do not take up clear positions in the agricultural area, it will be difficult to change attitudes. Quebec supported the multifunctionality principle and the idea of socio-economic activities being associated with agriculture. This is an approach which is decidedly more European than North American, and we are conscious of that. We are also conscious of the fact that it will be difficult to get everyone to subscribe to these changes.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I have several other questions.

    There is one thing which was particularly interesting in this morning's conversation with you, but which I find particularly worrisome. You referred to coordination and to various other things, such as ethanol. My colleagues seem to get worked up whenever the issue of corn is raised. Earlier, you said that antibiotics could be given to beef cattle to capture CO₂. Everyday I hear about the issue of antibiotics being given to livestock. People do not like it. I have the feeling that we are trying to create something...

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: You are perfectly right. These are not antibiotics, but ionophores, ions that are given to livestock, which control bacterial and protozoan populations in the rumen. Ionophores promote certain populations to the detriment of others. They act like salt in our own food.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: You talked about research a great deal. I must acknowledge that I believe in it very much myself. Since I came here, I learned that in the past, a great deal of money was allocated to research in Canada, but that we have backed off somewhat from that position and that research has become a more private venture. So government has reduced its research undertakings, and research is now more focused on what companies want to do and is perhaps less accessible to farmers.

    Have you carried out any studies on the quantity of research that should be done and on the amounts of money that should be allocated to it?

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: In terms of overall budgets?

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Yes.

    Ms. Claire Bolduc: The more, the better. Basic research, for instance on protozoans and bacteria in the rumen, which have a positive or negative effect on the emission of greenhouse gases, is not profitable for private enterprise. Businesses that do research on animal feed are more interested in finding the best meal or the most effective additives which will improve the dressing percentage or the milk production of cattle. They do not do research on basic issues such as the microflora or microfauna in the rumen. This type of research should be done by government first and foremost. This is non-profitable research which is necessary to the development of knowledge and is neglected by private business. The same thing applies to research on and registration of pesticides, or to research on the use of animal waste. No businesses do research on animal waste, because it is not profitable.

    The private sector does research when it is profitable, because they want it to pay. A lot of agrifood industry research sectors are overlooked.

    We already mentioned the importance of some of these: animal waste and greenhouse gas emissions; animal waste and the protection of streams and rivers; animal feed and physiology; more effective animal feeding and its relation to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. There are several examples that could be given.

    The Chair: It is very difficult.

[English]

    Our program this morning was planned for two groups of witnesses. Madam Bolduc and Mr. Morin, if you would like to stay at the table, maybe you have other things too, but we may want to ask further questions.

    We'd now like to welcome Dr. McBean from the University of Western Ontario. He's a professor there and works as a research chair in policy for the institute for catastrophic loss reduction. We know you're on a very tight schedule. I see you have three or four meetings this morning. You're almost trying to compete with some of us in terms of time allocation.

    Before you came we talked about climate change, and it will be a further study of this committee. We will undoubtedly want to call on you again. I know you have to leave at 10:45 for a meeting at 11, so we'd like to hear your presentation.

    With the committee's forbearance, I'm not sure how we'll be able to pose some questions. It might be best if committee members put their questions to the chair. I will look through them on paper and see if we can ask just a few concise questions. We just don't have time for the five minutes, seven minutes sort of thing.

    Welcome, Dr. McBean.

À  (1015)  

    Dr. Gordon McBean (Professor and Research Chair in Policy, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak here. As you noted, I am a professor at the University of Western Ontario, but I'm also here in my capacity as chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. I have with me Dawn Conway, who is the executive director of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

    Both the foundation and my institute at the University of Western Ontario are very concerned about climate change. We're interested in it and undertaking research activities there, recognizing this is a multi-decadal issue. Parliament has now ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but we recognize that over the years to come there will still be substantial amounts of climate change, and Canadians in all communities of life will have to adapt to that climate change.

    One of the areas that will be particularly affected by this is the agricultural community in Canada. There are opportunities and challenges. As the climate becomes warmer, certain things may be possible that are not presently possible. The predictions of the science community, in a general sense, are for more intense precipitation events and a higher probability of droughts in the decades to come. Both of those will have challenges, and to some extent opportunities, for the agricultural community.

    You've been discussing tariff agreements internationally, and agriculture is very much an international activity. We always have to keep in mind not only the impacts of climate change on Canadian agriculture but the impacts of climate change on corresponding agricultural activities in other countries, and where we are more or less benefiting, or at least where our competitive position is changing.

    I've been a climate scientist for more than 30 years. I've had a number of opportunities to speak on this issue recently. I've always felt we had enough climate science to justify decisions on things like Kyoto protocols. But those are global kinds of considerations, and we understand the global impact of the increasing greenhouse effect. We have less information on and less competence in our predictions in the actual details of change in any one area. I now live in southwestern Ontario. I actually grew up in the Vancouver area. My father grew up on a dairy farm in Chilliwack, and my mother and father were both born on farms on the prairies, so I have some sort of family and personal interest in the farming community in this country.

    I'm asked questions by people such as Don McCabe of the Corn Producers' Association, whom I meet regularly in meetings, it seems: “How much can you actually tell me about the details of the changing precipitation regime for my agricultural area of southwestern Ontario? Will the increasing number of extreme weather events be significantly larger, or a little bit larger? How will it change geographically?” The climate science community is not yet able to answer those questions with the level of precision the agricultural and other communities in Canada need, in order to have a very fine understanding of what appropriate adaptation strategies would be.

    Is it really going to be warm enough and will the seasons change enough to have farming in the New Liskeard area--that's where my daughter lives now--or in the Peace River country? Is the growing season going to be really long enough? It will undoubtedly be longer, but how much longer? Will it give us opportunities for which kinds of crops?

    One of the things I'm here to talk to you about arose somewhat as a result of my presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, of which my member of Parliament, Sue Barnes, is the chair.

    I think we still need support for climate science within the Canadian community.

    I just want to comment on some of the things the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science is undertaking.

    This foundation was established by a Canadian scientific society, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, as a way of supporting academic research in universities across the country.

À  (1020)  

    As a result of Budget 2000, $60 million was transferred to this foundation to be spent at a rate of roughly $10 million per year over a six-year period. We're halfway through that period now.

    I think we have a number of accomplishments. We have a number of research projects in place at Canadian universities, such as the University of Lethbridge, the University of Toronto, Guelph university, Laval university, and the University of New Brunswick, as well as others. At present we have 76 projects in place. Not all of these, in fact not even a large fraction of these, deal specifically with agriculture and related interests in forestry, but 14 of them do. Some of these projects deal with trying to understand the issue of the emission of greenhouse gases by agricultural soils and crops and issues related to the changing role of extreme weather that might affect agricultural activities.

    We're working with a number of partners. The federal Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food did have a member on our board of trustees, and he has rotated off. Three members at the federal level are appointments on the recommendation of the federal Minister of Environment. We also have members of the agricultural community on our grants review committee to look at proposals.

    I'd just like to note that we are, as I said, only a couple of years old, but we have put in place approximately two-thirds of the funding. Approximately $40 million of the funding is now committed to high-quality research projects, which we think will make a difference in Canada. We have been talking to committees like yours and others about the possibility of further support from the federal government.

    I won't go into great detail about our projects. We do have a short, special issue of our newsletter on the foundation, which we can make available to you. It gives some information on it.

    With regard to the projects we are supporting, we put great emphasis on several things: one is that these are not ongoing, endless research projects. They are projects that have a beginning and an end. At the end they are to deliver research information that is directly related to the policy and service needs of governments, specifically the federal government but also other governments, as we understand them.

    We also look very clearly at developing the longer-term capacity of the Canadian scientific community. Right now about 60% of the funding we're giving out goes toward supporting graduate students and post-doctoral fellows and building the next generation of Canadian scientists.

    We also emphasize partnerships, and in our major networks the partnership effect has more than doubled the amount of funding that has come into this area. They work very much with federal government agencies and the private sector--not yet with any of the agricultural companies, I would say, but a number of the forestry companies are joint partners in our examination of forest ecosystems and the forestry role. Other private sector people are also involved. We work with BIOCAP, which you may have heard of. It is working on the sequestration of carbon in soils.

    In view of the time, I'd just say that we wanted to bring this foundation and the work it is doing to the attention of your committee. We hope your committee will agree that this kind of research is important. We do need a higher level of research to plan the adaptation strategies for Canadians as we move into the decades ahead. It's unfortunate, but the collectivity of human activities have created, basically, a certain momentum of the climate system. It will be decades before the Kyoto agreement and other agreements that may follow will have an impact on our planet, but we need to know, and I think the agricultural community needs to know, with more confidence how those changes will come in terms of details of the weather and climate in their area. That's the kind of research we're focusing on, and also some studies as to how the agricultural community will play its role in present and future agreements on greenhouse gas emission reductions. But our emphasis in this discussion, really, is how to build the science for those adaptive strategies of the future.

À  (1025)  

    I would invite any questions or comments from members of the committee. In view of your tight schedule, and every one else's, I'll stop my presentation there. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: How many of you have points you want to raise? Dick, were you right in there, too?

    I'll start with Rose-Marie. Probably the most frustrating point we seem to be finding is that there have been changes, but the changes are often very specific; they're not generalized. For example, you'll talk to someone from Saskatchewan, say, and twenty miles down the road they had a pretty good growing season. But here on the south side or north side of a certain highway it was entirely different. Are there any explanations of that type of phenomenon? There's no blending of the climates. It's sort of....

    Dr. Gordon McBean: As you said, Mr. Chairman, the climate basically varies on all spatial scales and temporal time scales. We have confidence we understand the global and hemispheric scales. We know that globally in the last 100 years the climate has warmed by about 0.6°C. We know from mapping in Canada that the western and northwestern parts of Canada have warmed significantly more and the eastern parts have warmed, and in fact cooled in the Labrador area. But it's when we get to that finer scale of resolution you're talking about that...

    I was in Edmonton on Tuesday of last week speaking on climate change there, and I was speaking to Mr. Horsman, the former cabinet minister in the government. He was pointing out the same thing, that on the north and south of a certain highway you get quite different regimes. That's the kind of thing we need to understand, but we don't yet have that level of understanding. It's the kind of thing that our global climate simulations don't yet resolve with the kind of accuracy we need, and that's the kind of research that, among other things, this foundation and the work is focusing on.

    The Chair: Rose-Marie.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We've read all kinds of information on drought and things that have been happening, especially out west, with the lack of rain. Do you believe that drought is linked to climate change, or simply part of normal climate variability?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: In the present context it is a mix of both. We know there has always, of course, been a natural variability in our climate system; droughts and warming have happened.

    I've just been informed my next meeting has been cancelled, so you can talk to me longer if you want.

    So we have a natural variability of the climate system. But if you look at the patterns of change over the last few decades, you will see a pattern that is not consistent with natural variability but is consistent with the kind of variability that would come with increased greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere. That includes the increased frequency of droughts on the Canadian prairies, the increase in the extreme precipitation events we are seeing in some parts of Canada. The best estimate of the scientific communities is that what we're seeing now is probably fifty-fifty natural variability and human-caused, anthropogenic-caused climate change.

    As we move into the decades ahead, because the greenhouse effect will become stronger and stronger, we will see an increasing human-dominated variability and change dominated by that human part compared with the natural variability.

    That was a long answer to your question, I'm sorry.

À  (1030)  

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No, no.

    Maybe this is basically what the chairperson had asked. They're indicating that not all regions will be affected by climate change. In your research work you have done thus far, are you aware of what areas will be hit more, or is it to be only the patterns we're seeing presently?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Certainly there will be change everywhere. On average, Canada will warm up significantly more than the global average, probably two to three times the global average because we are a northern climate. However, the most pronounced warming will take place in the Arctic regions, in the north. There will be less warming in eastern Canada than there is in western Canada because that is the way in which the greenhouse effect changes the patterns of atmospheric circulation. So there will be different amounts of warming in different parts of the country as we look into the decades ahead. We have a general sense of that. We just don't have the details that we can give you with comfort.

    On precipitation, again, the general projections are increased precipitation in the north, less precipitation, or at least very little change, on the prairies. But with the warmer temperatures you get more evaporation and the net result is that in what is already a very tenuous balance between precipitation and evaporation, a slight change in that, which is what is projected, would result in significantly less water availability.

    The Chair: Thanks.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have two questions.

    One, the research and development, the $10 million that you have on an annual basis, has any of that been put into the biotech side of research and development, either biotech from the crop side or from the GM?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: No. The mandate of the foundation, as agreed to by the federal government when the moneys were awarded, was to focus on the natural sciences. It was to look at the understanding of physical, chemical processes within the natural environment. So we are specifically not to work on GM or biotech.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I won't ask my next question, which is, does your organization embrace biotech? But I won't ask that question.

    With the change in climate that we've identified, there are some opportunities there, I think. You talked about the precipitation, the evaporation. There is potential for drought-resistant crops that we can now grow in different areas. Do you not see that this is a normal expansion of your mandate to go into that kind of area?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: We'd be quite happy to have that as part of our mandate, with additional funding to support research in that area.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: We'll get to that in the next question. I have two other quick questions.

    The Chair: The questions have to be very short.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The U.S. and China are not part of the protocol. China and the U.S. are substantial CO₂ emitters. Does that cause your organization any great concerns, knowing there are not going to be any attempts to try to curtail some of those CO₂ gases from those two? If that continues to go on, is this not a moot point, trying to reduce our 240 megatonnes when in fact it's going to be reproduced in some other areas of the world?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Let me say, first of all, the foundation has no view on that. This foundation was established--

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Or on biotech.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I didn't say we had no view on it; I said we were not mandated to fund it.

    Let me answer the implied part of your first question. This is now more of a personal opinion as a scientist and professor rather than as chairman of the board of trustees. There are two points I'd make.

    First, on your whole question of drought-resistant crops, I think the kind of research we want to do in the area of understanding how severe it will be--will it be a really severe drought that happens every year, which is unlikely, or will it be oscillating up and down--would help decide how far to go with what kind of drought-resistant crops. So I think we're doing research relevant to that, even though we don't do the actual biotech kinds of things.

    Let me then step back again from my role as chairman of this board and comment that, as I think everyone is aware, or perhaps should be, the Kyoto Protocol has to be seen as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which Canada, the United States, China, and 180 other countries signed and ratified in 1992 under the government of the then Prime Minister Mulroney and the government of President George Bush senior. This agreement said we would work collectively within the countries to stabilize the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” but at the same time allow sustaining of food production.

    To reduce those emissions to actually stabilize the climate doesn't require 5% reduction, as the Kyoto Protocol talks about; it requires over 50% reduction. It has always been understood that climate change is a multi-decadal issue on the changes but also on the response strategy. It's also understood that China would be part of round two or three, and I expect the United States will be part of rounds two or three. So I'm not trying to justify, or otherwise, Kyoto.

    The Chair: I have a couple of others now too--Murray and then David.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Gordon, I'm going to ask you a number of questions, and actually they've been prompted by some of the statements of the previous presenter.

    The Chair: Keep them short.

    Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, it's going to be short. It's about three questions.

    Number one, do you consider farming a business or a way of life?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I presume it is both. My business is being a climate scientist, but it's also my way of life; that's what I do and enjoy and I do it because I enjoy it. I could have done other things. I assume the person running the family farm could do other things. The ones I know could do other things, but they chose to do that, so it's both their way of life and it is their business. So I don't try to make that distinction.

    Mr. Murray Calder: The reason why I asked the question is because I am a farmer in my other life--and I'm not going to mention chickens.

    The next thing is that obviously, because of the green cover within the farming community, we have to take a look at carbon credits. Do you have any ideas as to how that should be assigned to the farming community?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I really can't comment on how that should be assigned and what numbers are actually being worked on. I think there are two parts to that issue. First there is the role of the farming community as users of fossil fuel, and presumably the farming community, as with other parts, should take some role in emission reductions that would be through energy conservation or different types of fuels to provide the energy source. There are also opportunities, which we don't fully understand yet but which under the Kyoto Protocol are allowed, for the sequestration of carbon through different agricultural practices so that we put more of the carbon in the agricultural soils in Canada than we presently do by our practices. There is part of the Kyoto Protocol that allows for this. Some of the science we are supporting with the foundation will provide us with a better understanding of how to estimate that, how to predict where we might have some opportunities for sequestration of carbon.

    Mr. Murray Calder: I grew up on our family farm during the 1950s and 1960s, and I can tell you the way we're putting crop in right now is much more efficient than the way we put crop in back then, and we're not using the fossil fuel that we used to use back then because we're not going over the acreage the same way we used to.

    I have two questions. Given the fact that agriculture right now is more efficient and we're using less, should we get benefit from that right now? When should we start getting benefit, and who should actually get the cheque?

À  (1040)  

    Dr. Gordon McBean: First of all, the Kyoto Protocol is based on 1990 levels, and that was somewhat arbitrarily chosen. Nonetheless, the reference level for Canada's commitments are based on what we were doing then compared to what we will do in the 2010 period. So if we can--and again, some of the science has a role here--understand what our activities then were and how we could change them, the idea that we should get benefits for changes we made before that is interesting to discuss but not really part of the way in which the protocol was established.

    Mr. Murray Calder: I look at us as being 20% of the population on 80% of the real estate. We're not really the problem, are we?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I think the biggest issue to me, for the agricultural community, is not the emission reductions part of the game, but the adaptation to changing climate in the future. That's why I spoke of that as the issue. The farming community, like many other parts, is all part of this question of having, in my view, to react to a climate change that is driven by activities, in the case of your community, largely outside of that, and you will be impacted more than perhaps some other activities.

    Mr. Murray Calder: The bottom line, Gordon, is very simply this, that as a farmer, as a rural Canadian, I want to get benefit, because urban Canada is going to come to me looking for the solution.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Yes. As I said, I think there are opportunities in climate warming and climate change, as long as we understand better the details of how that will change so that you as a farmer can, in 10, 20, or 30 years, with your successive farming community, let's say, adapt and use those kinds of crops and things that will give you the maximum benefit as a producer in society, and as a result overall benefits.

    Mr. Murray Calder: I would hope that happens.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    David.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Chair, I'm not getting any reassurance this morning that this isn't going to be really damaging for the world I live in, which is small-town Saskatchewan. The more I see of this, the more I think we are beginning one of the biggest central planning projects we've ever seen in this country, probably the biggest one we've ever seen, particularly when I hear you say your biggest concern and biggest issue is adaptation to what this whole thing might mean.

    But I just want to ask you a couple of questions. I'm not ready to buy into a lot of the assumptions. I guess I'm prepared to support research, and I think our party does that, but I grew up before the ozone scare, when I was reassured by most of the scientific community that we were in fact cooling down. If I were to go back in your research and look into what you taught and the positions you took then, what position would you have taken on that issue at that time?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: This is a common but I think not entirely justifiable belief, that the scientific community was saying there was massive cooling. The climate was stabilized and, if anything, slightly cooling into the 1970s, and then it started to warm again. But this is part of the superposition of a natural variability. If you take a wave like this and you superimpose on it a curve that's going upward, you actually get, naturally, areas where it is warming more dramatically than you would predict through the greenhouse effect, which happened in the 1930s, and you get areas where it cools or warms less than you would expect through the greenhouse effect only, which happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

    If you go back, actually, I used to chair the United Nations scientific committee for climate research in my days in the late 1980s through to the early 1990s. That project, the World Climate Research Programme, or at least its predecessor, actually started back in the 1960s. The concern there was that climate was already starting to vary in ways. If you look at the Stockholm conference in 1972, they identified global climate change. You can actually go back to 1822, when Fourier wrote a paper saying the greenhouse effect is going to do this in 18.... Anyway, there's a whole series of books.

    Mr. David Anderson: I've read some of that material that suggests that right now we're in a natural cycle of climate change that will result in an increase in temperature for a while, and then it will tail off again. So I'm very concerned, and particularly so over the last month or two as we've discussed this issue, that we're going to force massive social change on people and on the people in this country for something when we don't have any idea whether it has been scientifically proven or not.

À  (1045)  

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Well, I would dispute you on that, sir.

    Mr. David Anderson: I'm sure you would.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: There is a very substantial scientific consensus in the scientific community on this issue, almost like no other, that climate warming, as is happening now, is due to human activities--at least 50%. We will see a substantial amount more in the future, and the few naysayers, including some in this particular city, are ones who are not talking with scientific credibility.

    Mr. David Anderson: It's not only a few, sir. There are lots of scientists, and renowned scientists, who are arguing your conclusions.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I challenge you to give me the name of more than ten.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay, we can do that sometime.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Credible scientists.

    The Chair: David?

    Mr. David Anderson: I'm done.

    The Chair: Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, as someone who does accept the idea that the climate is changing as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, let me ask you....

    You indicated that it was going to take decades before we would see the effect of the implementation of climate change. You also indicate that Kyoto is back to 1990 in terms of the levels, and 1992 with Mr. Mulroney and George Bush Senior. What I'm getting at is, have we lost a decade in all of this?

    There are people who are saying, well, we signed Kyoto in 1997, but we really haven't done anything; we just ratified it this week, and now the real work basically begins. So is your board concerned that we have lost a decade in all of this and that we should have been doing a lot more a lot earlier?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I need to clarify, first of all, that when I'm speaking on climate change science--and I will give you an answer to your question in a second--I'm not speaking as chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian foundation. The foundation is not partisan, in a sense, or it does not have a formal view. It's not part of our role to have a view whether we did or didn't; it's our role as a foundation, for which the funding was provided, to support the best, highest-quality research to clarify the issues, and that's what we're trying to do.

    My personal view is that we have lost time, but it takes time on these kinds of things. It's a huge issue. I would have to agree that the climate science has also evolved in the last decade.

    The 1990 scientific assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which I was one of the co-authors, was not absolutely firm on things. It was hesitant, as we like to call it. We made certain recommendations, projections, but we said we didn't know for sure. By 1995 we had a much better understanding of the climate system. We were, for the first time, able to see--and I was a co-author of the 1995 report as well--that there was evidence of human activity. Actually, the smoking gun was starting to smoke. Not that we'd had five more years, but we also had five more years of highly focused science. So the scientific community was looking at this question. They were challenging each other.

    At a meeting I was at in 1994 we spent a week trying to decide whether we could actually say anything on climate change. I went in as a doubter and came out convinced. It was a week of really tough debate.

    In 2001, the last report was again another five years of both high-quality science and five years more of information. We said yes, we really are now able to say with confidence the global signal. But we also have these uncertainties on the specifics of this, and that's what our foundation is already supporting science on, and looking for support to continue that kind of scientific focus.

    The Chair: I guess, Rose-Marie, you have a question, and there are others.

    But just before that, if we go back to 1992...we're talking about the Americans, and there are a lot of concerns that the Americans have not signed off on the protocol. From your study, are the Americans doing anything to reach the objectives they signed off on in terms of their 1992 agreement?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: The U.S. climate program, which President Bush Jr., the present President Bush, announced, does actually include some activities. They have decided they will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol--that is very clear--but they have included a greenhouse gas emission reduction target within their U.S. climate program.

    They are also supporting scientific activities both in the climate science area--so they will again, like we're trying to do, better understand the climate system--and they're also funding areas in technology development that would make them, let's say, more efficient overall.

    So the U.S., as has been their recent habit, have declined to join international agreements, but at the same time are actually undertaking significant activities. They won't be doing a minus 7% emission reduction by 2010 as was agreed to in Kyoto, but they will actually at least make changes. Their emission reductions in 2010 will be less than what they would have been without the programs they're putting in place. So there is activity in the United States.

    There is activity in China actually. The Government of Beijing, for reasons of their own decision, have actually and substantially reduced the use of coal, converting to other types of fossil fuels that are less greenhouse gas intensive. So the areas of North China will actually emit significantly less than they would have otherwise by 2010.

À  (1050)  

    The Chair: It's rather amazing, in terms of this atmosphere business, that things that happen way down as far south as the equator and below are way up above influencing the problems that the circumpolar countries are experiencing. Maybe if you could just make a comment....

    I'm not sure if that's part of your expertise or not, but it's appalling to think that so many things are travelling around somewhere in outer space that are eventually coming down and are affecting climate and environment.

    Dr. Gordon McBean: Yes, our atmosphere is globally connected. It takes roughly two to four years...if you were to put an injection of carbon dioxide or any other gaseous type into the atmosphere somewhere—China, Australia, or wherever—within two to four years it would be globally mixed, so you could not tell where it came from.

    I am personally involved in, and the foundation is supporting, what's called the Arctic climate impact assessment, sponsored by the eight governments of the Arctic Council: Canada, Russia, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries. We are putting together an Arctic climate impact assessment, looking at the issues of the affected peoples of the north.

    Changes are already happening there. Rosemarie Kuptana spoke at a recent CBC forum that I was at. There is evidence of climatic change in the Canadian north and in other parts of the Arctic Circle. This is an area where you could say there is an influx of impacts from other parts of the world. We know that the persistent organic pollutants in mothers' milk in the north come from sources in the former Soviet Union.

    The Chair: So you're in a very complicated business, because it is a global thing. We as Canadians, and probably David, wonder about all of this.

    I would like to go further. Rose-Marie has another brief question. But maybe we will go to Claude first, because he has a new one.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I would like to ask a question and share a comment with you.

    The people I talk to when I am in my riding pay their taxes regularly and depend on the people they have elected to make governmental or societal decisions on what needs to be done, production methods, indeed, on everything we should or should not do. These are the people who are footing the bill for what we are trying to achieve. The money comes from them.

    This morning, we are talking about Kyoto and all of that is very nice, but when people ask me... The government hired agrologists who said that we have to produce such and such or do this, that and the other thing, but today, we are beginning to realize that we are not so sure about all of that. We had said that we were going to make ethanol from corn, but today we are being told that this may not be a perfect solution. We bury waste, but this may not be a perfect solution either. We are told that we must plant shelter belts. How are we going to calculate the effect of these buffer strips planted along stream banks?

    To what extent are the dangers being announced... Of course, certain things are being modified. When I was young, I would go to the abattoir. When a cow was slaughtered, a good part of the carcass was treated as waste. Today, all of the cow is used. When all of these catastrophes are announced, to what extent are the calculations behind them accurate? I would like to have an answer to give to the people in my riding, who are wondering what course to follow, who are footing the bill and who will continue to pay for the research that is done.

    There is one point on which I agree with you: there may not have been enough research done before certain things were implemented. This is an important point, to my mind.

    I will repeat a question that I asked earlier. I have asked it often, and I have never been given a clear answer.

    As a researcher, what percentage of the GDP do you think should be allocated to research in future, so that we know where we are going with all of these things? Could I formulate the question that way?

À  (1055)  

[English]

    Dr. Gordon McBean: I certainly have sympathy for your concerns about our lack of full understanding of things. I think it is appropriate in these and other issues to take, let's say, a step by step approach. We are refining our information as we move along.

    In the understanding we had on this issue of climate change, for example, the scientific community said at the time of the Kyoto meetings and before that you needed a 15% plus reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That was unlikely to happen, but the agreement was for governments to take a first step. I think taxpayers and citizens need to work with the science community. We need to have better connections with the community. As science provides certain information, then steps can be taken in the right direction, while understanding that, unfortunately, we don't have full scientific certainty in all of this.

    As for your percent of GDP that we should spend on research, I can only comment that, as far as I know, Canada generally has not spent the percentage levels of GDP on R and D, collectively in all fields, as the United States and some other countries have. I would encourage us to think this way. Most studies show this is a good investment.

    The Chair: Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was really pleased the chair had asked Dr. McBean about the approach the U.S. and China were taking, because many constituents have concerns that Canada is stepping first and foremost on Kyoto. They don't want it to end up having a negative impact on our society, especially if the United States and other countries haven't signed on. So I was pleased to hear your statement. I kind of understood that, but I was pleased to hear it coming from you. It will give us a little bit more information to use when our constituents call, if we can say we heard from a reliable source that it's not all negative.

    I guess I'm going to be a little bit facetious in my last question. If you don't feel comfortable answering it, you don't need to. All too often we preach one story and do another. Given that Don McCabe is one of my astute constituents, and Dennis Jack, the president of the corn producers, do you use ethanol-blended fuel in your car?

    Dr. Gordon McBean: More often than not, I fill up at Sunoco, which does use a blended fuel. I wouldn't say I drive many kilometres to find the Sunoco station, but I do as a matter of habit go to Sunoco for that, among other reasons.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That will be music to Don's ears.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, everyone.

    We're running out of time. We'd like to thank all our presenters this morning.

    Madame Bolduc, I think you mentioned crop rotation at least a half a dozen times. You wonder sometimes how we can get back towards fewer high input costs, and probably that's one of them.

    Dr. McBean, as we say, we are going to further assess the situation of climatology and change as it affects agriculture.

    It was a good introduction this morning. I know most of us are certainly perplexed with it. When you hear farmers who seem to be so specific...in terms of a guy a few miles away who has had a good crop year, while others weren't so good. We either have too much rain or not enough rain in many cases. It's a big factor. It's very difficult for us as a committee and as the government to address these kinds of concerns. You like to think that southwestern Saskatchewan, or someplace else in Canada, has a particular problem. Yet it's not that. It's more specific to just the small municipality or small region in some cases.

    Again, thank you for coming, Monsieur Morin, and Madame Conway certainly, and Madame Bolduc. We certainly appreciate it. I know it's a different philosophy there, but it's something I think we have to look at in terms of la belle province of Quebec and what you're doing there. I'm always impressed with the farmers of Quebec, because they're supported big time by their government, and you have a lot of beautiful farms as I drive through your good province. Thank you.

    I adjourn the meeting.