:
Welcome back to the second hour of our climate change study.
With us from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association we have Andrea Brocklebank, executive director of the Beef Cattle Research Council. Also, by video, we have with us Fawn Jackson, manager, environment and sustainability.
Thanks to you both for being here.
To give us a bit of direction, I'm going to read the motion about what we're trying to do. I've read it with the committee before, but I'll just make sure we're focused on what we're trying to achieve.
Part of the motion is on “how the government can help the Canadian agriculture sector better adjust to the increasing severity of issues associated with climate change and better address water and soil conservation issues”. I know that's quite broad, but it will just make sure that we're focused.
We will start with a statement from you, Ms. Brocklebank. We might have more time than we usually have, but usually it's a seven-minute presentation. The floor is yours.
:
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. My name is Andrea Brocklebank, and I'm the executive director of the Beef Cattle Research Council. I'm joined by Fawn Jackson, who is the environmental and sustainability manager for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
My family operates a cattle operation in southern Alberta and Fawn is in Manitoba. The location of the majority of cattle operations in areas with comparatively poor soils, low rainfall, and uneven terrain makes raising cattle challenging. Building resiliency to changing climatic conditions is second nature to producers. It's an area that we have long focused on, and we will continue to do so.
Today, the Canadian beef industry has a tremendous opportunity to expand. This is exciting not only for our producers but for the 228,000 Canadians who work within our industry. This is also exciting for the conservation community, which understands that more cows mean more grasslands and more habitat for wildlife.
Our ability to expand will be contingent upon long-term investments in research and sound public policy to ensure our industry's resilience. The BCRC funds research to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of Canada's beef industry. We have administered two beef science clusters and are currently awaiting a decision from Agriculture Canada on our third science cluster. Continued investments in research are critical to developing solutions to the challenges presented by climate change. I'd like to give you two examples.
First, Canada's cold winters have prevented many parasites and animal diseases from surviving and becoming endemic here. Climate change threatens animal health and welfare, and research has shown that disease-bearing parasites are expanding their ranges.
The dog tick can carry the bacteria that causes anaplasmosis, which results in abortion, anemia, and severe productivity losses in cattle. This tick used to be found in southern Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. Recent research has found this tick farther north in Manitoba and as far west as Alberta.
Widespread ticks will make it much easier for anaplasmosis to spread. This is only one example of the animal health and welfare implications of evolving parasite and disease profiles associated with climate change. Investments supporting surveillance and alternative treatment strategies will be important in understanding animal health risks, as well as strategies to mitigate these risks and maintain animal health and welfare.
Second, we know that demand for food is growing globally and that Canada can play an important role in meeting that demand. This is not an easy task given that climate change could negatively impact productivity at a time when we need to improve productivity. Climate change is expected to result in greater climate variability, which includes extreme weather events and more frequent occurrences of regional climatic conditions that are too hot and dry or too cool and wet. Climate variability increases the risk of crop failures and, as a consequence, more land may be allocated to pastures, which are less susceptible to periodic stress than annual cash crops. Even on these resilient landscapes, though, losses in productivity and ecosystem health can happen very quickly, while improvements are usually made very slowly and over a long period of time.
Consequently, investing in forage and grassland research is critical not only to maintain but to enhance productivity, focusing on enhancing resilience to drought, waterlogging, heat stress, and frost, while at the same time preventing soil erosion, protecting soil carbon, and preserving moisture. In building resilience to climate change, government can play an important role through research by fully funding the proposed third beef science cluster. Furthermore, we recommend the funding of the smart agri-food supercluster, investing in long-term, higher-risk discovery research, and investing in critical research infrastructure and capacity.
To change over from research investments to policies that support resilience, the CCA has three main areas of recommendation.
First, continue and expand investment in disaster response programs. With climate change, the risk of severe weather events increases. Droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events significantly impact the economic and environmental performance of our industry. As these risks increase, it is imperative to have tools available to help manage financial risk for our producers. CCA believes there needs to be sufficiently funded national agriculture risk management programs that are delivered consistently across all jurisdictions.
AgriRecovery has been delivered in several areas in Canada and has helped producers sustain their business after weather-related disasters. However, there is room for improvement, including the creation of clear triggers and reference materials regarding what the program will and will not cover. Historically, AgriRecovery's dependence on political decision-making during a disaster has compounded confusion in challenging times and has made planning for disasters enigmatic for producers.
Second, invest in forage insurance. While the CCA understands the benefits that an ad hoc national blanket framework provides, government should consider the different types of risk that are unique to each agriculture sector. For the beef industry, improved hay and forage insurance that includes a mechanism to help producers account for increased feed prices during times of shortages could potentially replace some of the calls for AgriRecovery responses. The CCA encourages both federal and provincial governments to continue to work towards implementing AgriInsurance recommendations made by the FPT forage task team.
Third, increase investment in infrastructure that supports the long-term mitigation of disasters. The construction of improved water management infrastructure such as irrigation systems and flood structures, including dams and outlets, are examples of worthwhile projects.
In closing, we recommend that primary agriculture and meat and food processing be exempt from carbon pricing. Do not confuse this request with a lack of environmental commitment. It is just not right the tool for the beef industry. The greenhouse gas footprint per kilogram of Canadian beef is half the global average and has fallen by over 15% since 1981. These improvements are the result of research, innovation, and appropriate policies, such as those we've mentioned today.
Thank you for your time. We'd be happy to answer any questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Brocklebank, thank you for your very instructive presentation.
When you think of cattle producers, you don't necessarily immediately think of the consequences of climate change. We forget that cows are animals that have to be fed. We don't think about fodder or a whole host of other things. I thank you greatly for having raised these matters.
If committee members permit, especially since we will probably have a bit more time today, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Dreeshen, who is a new member of the committee. Since this is Bell Let's Talk Day, which is in support of mental health, Mr. Dreeshen has a fine proposal to submit to the members of the committee.
I will let Mr. Dreeshen make his request.
:
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chair and all committee members.
There's a serious issue that is taking place, and I felt that since this is Bell Let's Talk Day, I would like to present a notice of motion. I would like to read it into the record.
I don't have it in as good a form as I would like, so I will read it carefully into the record: “that the committee consider undertaking a study on the mental health challenges that our farmers, ranchers, and producers face; that this study meet with farmers, ranchers, producers, and community health groups with the goal of understanding the issues they face and the sharing of best practices; and, that the committee report its findings to the House”.
I realize that there's a 48-hour time frame for discussion on this, unless, of course, one were to have unanimous consent to waive that 48 hours. I will leave that with the committee.
Again, when you take a look at the added stress that there is in agriculture and the concerns that are there, you can see so many people who are doing so much work in this area. Certainly, I know that The Do More Agriculture Foundation has presented information in just the last couple of days. Also, we can go back to many groups that are talking about the concerns for the mental health of agricultural producers. I would like to leave that on the table for discussion.
Again, perhaps I could ask for unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours. I guess I will do that, but you may want to have a discussion on this.
:
Since today is a day dedicated to mental health in Quebec and Canada, I found Mr. Dreeshen's idea very timely. Normally, we would need 48 hours' notice, but in light of the circumstances, Mr. Dreeshen had this idea today, and I think it's important that we be able to discuss this.
We are asking that the committee meet with farmers, cattle producers and groups who work in the mental health field, and that it do a study on this topic. Normally, the motions are not very long, and we determine the direction and details of the study in question later.
It would be a good gesture on the part of the committee if it adopted this motion today. We could all announce on social networks that the committee will be undertaking a study on producers' mental health, and next week, we can pin down its direction and content. I see no problem in our supporting this unanimously. We can pin down the specifics of the study later. If we are unanimous, no party will take advantage of this.
The mental health of producers and breeders is of concern to all of us. That is what is behind Mr. Dreeshen's motion.
I heard Mr. Poissant's comments, but I think that we could very well adopt the motion unanimously and define the framework of the study later.
:
Thank you, Chair. I will enthusiastically speak in support of this motion.
I've just come from the justice committee, of which I was a member last year. The justice committee is in the middle of wrapping up a study on mental health supports for jurors. We learned an incredible amount. Other than our military and our first responders, there are so many professions where mental health suffers.
As we have this discussion, especially in terms of the significance of this day, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit. By and large, farmers are tough folk. They're quite stoic and like to go it alone, but that's not a healthy approach, as we have learned.
I lend my support to this motion. Congratulations.
:
There has been a very large undertaking to join the conservation and agriculture communities, because there's a growing awareness. As Andrea mentioned, when there are more cows, there are more grasslands, more habitat for species at risk, and more carbon stored in the grasslands.
There are a number of initiatives under way. I know that Ducks Unlimited is extremely supportive of working with cattle producers on a number of different initiatives. For example, they do some extension work. They do some easement work. They have some land purchase programs, whereby land is put back into grasslands. As far as I understand it, they purchase cropland, put it back into grassland, and then put it back on the market with a no break/no drain easement on it.
There is an initiative called the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, and I am very fortunate to get to work with them. We have membership from the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Nature Canada, and Ducks Unlimited. There are a number of different projects under way at the CRSB to help build those relationships and that work between the conservation and the ranching and farming communities.
:
There's been data gathered for many years on carbon sequestration on grasslands. Researchers were gathering the data a long time ago.
For a long time, though, I think we were focused on production, to be honest with you. What we understand very much now, though, is well-managed grasslands. Grazing them continuously is actually better than just letting them stand, because it rejuvenates them. We're starting to understand that. I think one of the biggest things about forage and grassland research is that what happens in Manitoba can be very different from what happens in B.C. and Alberta. There are just different climatic conditions and different ranges.
What we're trying to do under the next beef science cluster is to do a better regional analysis as to carbon sequestration currently and what the best practices to maximize carbon sequestration across these different rangelands are. Given that the soil conditions are different and the climatic conditions are different, what you recommend in Manitoba may be very different. We are working very much in partnership with the researchers across this country and also with groups like Ducks Unlimited, which have their own research under way.
:
That sounds good. Thanks again for the opportunity to present. It's good that I got my exercise before I came here.
First of all, I think looking into some of the challenges of climate change is very important. We have a written presentation that will be circulated to people, but I wanted to cover off some of the main points we have.
I know you have had a number of witnesses who have spoken to you in regard to some of the conditions agricultural production will need to adapt to in light of climate change, so I'm going to focus my comments on what we see as the major needs for agriculture producers in this changing climate.
Let me start by saying that farmers are inherently adaptive. We have a long history of embracing innovation through technology, education, and best management practices to improve environmental, economic, and social sustainability. This has led us to a strong record of continuous improvement and has made us one of the most sustainable producers of agricultural products in the world.
We have a need to understand, in greater detail than is presently available in many agricultural areas, how the climate will be changing. In fact, we still have growing areas in Canada that are not covered by weather radar. Understanding the changing climate will support agricultural producers who produce specific commodities or varieties best suited to their local agronomic and environmental conditions.
It should be noted that many of us have already made changes in response to the changing climate. I myself am growing varieties of crops that were originally developed far south of where I farm in northern Ontario.
Recently, much of the political dialogue and investment has focused on climate change mitigation at the expense of adaptation. As agricultural producers, we are concerned about the climate change impacts that are affecting us with changing precipitation patterns, increased variability, and more extreme weather events, including precipitation, drought, heat, or cold.
These lead to changing pest pressures, as we can no longer rely on cold winters as a natural pest deterrent; changing range patterns of local species; new invasive species; heat stress on farm animals; new growing regions; new varieties; and new crops. These pressures have all had an impact on soil and water conservation. In order to maintain resilience, we need a better understanding of the most appropriate adaptive actions relevant to our own operations.
British Columbia, for example, has made significant inroads in building adaptation within the agriculture sector through the BC Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative, which is jointly developed and administrated with the agricultural industry. This program has conducted regional workshops that have brought together producers to develop adaptation priorities relevant to their own operations, local environments, and known expectations of the impact of climate change. This type of approach has led to effective and efficient tools and suggestions for improving the capacity for adaptation and resilience in their operations.
We need to build on this example so producers in other regions have similar access to this type of education. I know Manitoba will be releasing a report soon on adaptation efforts in its area.
We need governments to follow up with incentives and other supports necessary to take these adaptive actions. Leveraging best management plans through the environmental farm plan is one potential avenue to do so. I can speak from experience as I've used this program to access cost-shared funding for solar-powered watering systems for our cattle. This zero-emissions technology protects watershed quality by keeping cattle out of streams, which results in improved water quality and reduced soil erosion. There are many great examples like this that simply need the right incentives to spur adoption.
Adaptation needs to be mainstreamed into regular business decision-making for producers. However, we should recognize that in the short term adaptive actions that build resilience can sometimes introduce an element of redundancy and increased cost of production.
Adaptive investments can be difficult to make with thin margins, uncertainty over trade agreements, and rising costs from other government policies. As returns on investments for adaptation are often somewhat uncertain and not realized in the short term, we believe there's a role for governments to play in supporting the industry. In order to move quickly on adaptation, we need to develop concrete, specific actions that are supported by a strong outreach and educational component and that are relevant to the location and operations of agriculture producers.
This also includes new investments in research in order to improve modelling of the impact of climate change and on genetics in order to develop new varieties suitable to what our climate is and will be, not based on a historical average. Productivity improvements through genetics can also greatly reduce the amount of emissions per unit of product and may be one of the most tangible pathways to producing more food, fuel, and fibre for a growing and more affluent global population while also reducing emissions. We see the need to take a more holistic approach through climate-smart agriculture. This approach recognizes equally the need to increase yields through sustainable intensification, the mitigation of the impact of climate change, and the implementation of adaptation ideas.
Multi-stakeholder groups such as the agriculture adaptation working group, which is a member of NRCan's adaptation platform, have the scope to explore the issue, but not the support from federal government in order to conduct the research and analysis needed. We also need to conduct further analysis on whether we have the right insurance products available in a changing climate. This includes ensuring that we are taking climate change into account in the ongoing business risk management review discussions to build an adaptive suite of public risk management programs.
In conclusion, our key recommendations are to work with producers in partnership to set research priorities; produce and disseminate the right tools to make the right adaptation decisions; inspire changes in management practices through incentives and program support; implement a cross-sector strategy to support a sustainable and resilient food system; and, invest in ecological goods and services programs to incentivize adaptation and address water quality and quantity.
We recognize that Canadian agriculture is a strategic sector of the economy that requires strategic investments in order to achieve our full potential of providing low-carbon food and agricultural products to an expanding global population while adapting to the impacts of climate change.
I look forward to your questions.
:
I'm going to do just a brief introduction first. I'm going to reach into the knowledge that I have from a number of projects that I've been working on over the last few years.
I was a contributor to the Ontario soil health strategy. I'm a member of the prison farm advisory panel. I provided a lot of input into the Ontario strategy to address climate. That includes the carbon tax and the rest of the subsequent regulations that are coming about.
I've attended meetings with the International Joint Commission, dealing mostly with Lake Erie, but they focus on all the watersheds that cross the two boundaries. I've participated a lot in the sessions leading up to the development of the Canada agricultural partnership for Canadian agriculture policies, which are coming in this year.
This is just background that I am using to develop my thoughts for today.
First of all, I would like to bring forth a bit of background so that you can understand where we're going to go. If we know where we are now, then we know how to develop a plan for where we're going.
A few years ago, and I think it was in 2014, Ontario was producing 165 million tonnes of carbon equivalent greenhouse gases. Of that 165 million, Ontario was sequestering 16.5 million, 10% of the carbon equivalence that was being produced.
Agriculture conceivably can double the amount of carbon that it's currently sequestering—agriculture in Ontario only. Those are the figures I have. When these numbers were established, Ontario at that time was sequestering 0.5 to 0 .7. Even if Ontario doubles the capacity to sequester carbon, it is still only 1% of the total carbon that's being produced.
I realize that this session is strictly on developing a plan for mitigating climate change, but we have to realize where we are first before we can develop a successful plan that can measure how we can mitigate it.
Carbon sequestration in the soil is like adding water to a leaky bathtub. The more you put in, the more it will go out. The thing about carbon sequestration or greenhouse gases is that the more you put in, the faster it goes out as well. We have micro-organisms, we have fungi, we have bacteria that are constantly eating that organic carbon as it's coming in.
Even if we attempt to sequester carbon, which is almost impossible in getting to the level that we want, meeting what Ontario is producing, or even meeting what Canada is producing, we really need to see what we can do to effectively reduce the impact of these events that we're seeing now with the climate changing.
I think what we need to focus on is the soils. If we can have good, healthy soils, they will absorb more water in the case of an extreme weather event, and they'll retain more water in the case of a drought.
I'd like to talk a little about the extreme weather events that we are going to see. This past summer I believe I counted three events of over 100 millimetres of rain at one time. It used to be that 35 millimetres was an exceptional weather event.
We're seeing that the jet stream is stalling as it's moving from west to east. That means more precipitation for longer periods. That means also longer dry spells.
The key to mitigating these extreme weather events is soil.
Ron talked a lot about practices to enhance the soil capacity. We're talking about no-till; increasing buffer zones in water courses to reduce the runoff, to slow the runoff; forest cover; tree lines. But the key, the big thing here, is knowledge.
We have to know what practices we can employ to reduce the transfer of nutrients into the water courses, whether it's soil erosion, whether it's the nutrients in the soil. The way to do that is to increase the soil's organic matter, the carbon in the soil.
Enhancing the soil's capacity to mitigate the effects of extreme weather events needs to have an increase in soil carbon. It requires more energy, not less. We're seeing carbon taxes being imposed not only on all participants in our economy, but farmers as well. However, farmers need more energy, not less, and they need an encouragement to enhance these soils' capacity to mitigate the changes in extreme weather events. We're seeing the carbon taxes as more of a stick than a carrot. If farmers are going to grow your carrots, they need carrots. We need more encouragement and a lot less discouragement. We need the methods and the knowledge to improve the soil.
I want to talk a little about—and this is where it ties into my previous experience—
:
Keep in mind, especially in that area, that the majority of cattle production occurs in non-irrigated regions, so we're depending on grasses and what's there. What's there and how we manage it is the biggest thing and the biggest question.
I think what we are aware of is that there are certain regions where crop production has become highly risky due to climate variability, and as a result, that land is being converted to grass. That could be perceived as an opportunity for our industry, but it also shows the sensitivities of these lands, and you have to manage them very carefully. The degradation of two years of drought can take 10 years to recover, so that's the important part. It's not just that once the drought is over, cattle producers can increase stocking rates and move on. It takes significant time.
I think the biggest thing we're trying to do with producers, through research and also the extension work that we work with government on, is to help fund tools for them to understand the best management strategies on an ongoing basis, because that is changing what they're doing and how they're doing it.
:
I appreciate it. Thanks.
When farmers are trying to do a plan, a lot of times there isn't quite enough knowledge. There is knowledge out there, but it's not in our hands. It's learning. However, if we have to learn something, we have to take time away from our operations; we have to travel. Even for me now, I'm travelling an hour and a half, two hours, and sometimes four hours to go to a session and then back home.
That's more of a stick than a carrot. We need to learn. We can't leave our operations, because there are repercussions to doing that.
When we're also talking about encouragement, even in my own operation I'm evolving into no-till. Most of my farm is no-till now. About seven years ago I was doing an awful lot of plowing. I was plowing almost exclusively. In a weather event, we'd see 25 millimetres, and I'd see grey creeks, with the water running into the creek.
:
I could give you several examples. It almost ties into Mr. MacGregor's question about how we adapt to where we're going.
The first thing we have to remember is that everything is local. What works in western Canada would not necessarily work where I am. Their issue may be drought. My issue this year was too much water.
What kinds of investments can we make? On our farm, we've tiled 300 acres in the last two or three years. It was the only ground I got crop off this year because it was so wet.
I mentioned the investments in solar water-pumping systems. By digging out old springs and having storage areas for the water that was there, we had water reserved and we put a solar pumping system in place to do that.
We're looking at experimenting with different types of crops. One of the things we've done for about the last six years is we've planted Sorghum Sudan grass, which is basically a tropical plant. It's a plant from which in the spring to mid-summer we get all kinds of forage, when we happen to get the dry periods, to carry over.
To answer your question about the types of supports, I think we need to have investments in research. We can look at some of the plants we can use. I think we need some support programs. People are going through environmental farm plans and doing some of the best management practices. Then we have assistance for the capital investments that sometimes take place. The other thing, which I think goes back to what Tony was talking about, is figuring out how we share best management practices between farmers.