:
Good afternoon. My name is Hans Kristensen. I'm a hog and poultry producer from New Brunswick, and the 1st Vice-Chair of the Canadian Pork Council. I would first like to thank the members of this committee for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the study on climate change and water and soil conservation.
Like all Canadians, hog producers are concerned about the implications of climate change and what impact we as food producers have on the soil and water resources that we depend on. Climate change is not a theoretical challenge for us. It impacts the crops we grow, the facilities we use to protect our animals, and the plant and animal diseases we face every day. Often our families live on our farms and, more often than not, success is measured by our ability to transition our farms from one generation to the next.
In addition to these larger considerations, we also face the practical reality of having to compete every day in a global marketplace. Canadian pork producers export almost 70% of what they produce. We operate in a very competitive global environment, and one of our key advantages is our access to high-quality soils and ready supplies of water.
We are well aware of the importance of these resources and, as a result, we work hard to ensure their long-term availability. The necessity of being globally competitive means that we must continually focus on producing more pork while simultaneously utilizing less land, water, and energy. In addition, hog producers are keenly aware of the importance of maintaining the trust of all Canadians, not just those who consume our pork. Our social licence is very important to us.
What this means is that producers are under tremendous pressure to not only be stewards of their environment, but to be seen as environmental stewards. We accept this challenge and have started to closely track our progress. For example, Quebec producers are now routinely monitoring their improvements. In four short years, for example, the amount of water used to produce pork has declined by almost 2%. Quebec producers have also benchmarked their sector against global producers and found that their carbon footprint is 31% less than the global average.
Research shows that hog producers who utilize production systems similar to those employed in Canada have, over the past 50 years, decreased the natural resources consumed by pigs by 50% per kilogram of pork produced. Farmers are using 40% less water, 33% less feed, and as much as 59% less land.
At the national level, the pork value chain round table will be building on the work undertaken at the provincial level to complete a life-cycle assessment of Canada's pork industry. Over the years, we have embraced a number of different initiatives, often in partnership with federal, provincial, and/or municipal governments.
An early example of this was the adoption of the environmental farm plans. The environmental farm plan is an assessment completed by farmers that is aimed at identifying and mitigating potential environmental risk on the farm. These plans, coupled with technical and/or financial incentives to address the identified challenges, have served not only to raise awareness of the issues at the farm level, but also to implement actions to address them. It's a classic example of thinking globally and acting locally.
An area where our industry has gone to great lengths to develop science-based practices to reduce our impact on soil and water is in the management of hog manure. The application of hog manure to farmland is an economical and environmentally sustainable mechanism for increasing crop yields by providing inputs of nutrients and organic material. Nutrients in hog manure can replace chemical fertilizers. This results in decreased greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of these chemical fertilizers. However, the value of manure is more important than the accumulated value of the individual nutrients. Hog manure is an excellent soil amendment that improves soil quality by building up its organic matter.
To help maximize the value of hog manure, producers across Canada have developed nutrient management plans. These plans, developed with the guidance of soil and water experts, ensure adequate manure storage is available, and that the manure is supplied in a manner that most greatly benefits the land. In many parts of Canada, producers use an injection method when spreading manure. This direct injection in soil ensures the maximum utilization of available nutrients by the crop.
Government financial support, often linked to environmental farm plans, has been very effective in helping to implement actions to better manage the storage and application of manure. Producers are also working closely with government to identify watershed-wide solutions to managing water quality. As an example, Ontario producers are actively engaged with Government of Ontario officials and other agricultural industry stakeholders on the domestic action plan for the Great Lakes watershed area.
However, there is more work that needs to be done. For this reason, producers are partnering with governments and investing heavily in research and development.
As an example, close to half the carbon footprint associated with raising pigs comes from the process of growing the crops the pigs eat. Improved feed efficiency provides a tremendous opportunity for reducing the overall impact of pig production and the number of acres needed to feed pigs. Research projects are under way to look at virtually all components of the question, from identifying animals with superior genetics, to the use of probiotics to help improve nutrient availability in the gut. Efforts to identify practical methods that will lead to improved feed, water, and energy efficiencies are also in place.
Given the importance of innovation, we are very pleased with the Government of Canada's focus in this area. Canadian pork producers look forward to the rollout of the new Canadian agricultural partnership. Thanks to the AgriScience program, hog producers will be able to continue their long-term partnership with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in utilizing research to address the fundamental challenges facing our industry.
In the case of pork, our research efforts are quarterbacked by Swine Innovation Porc. They operate from an office in Quebec City and facilitate research in the Canadian swine sector. Their main objective is to enhance the profitability and environmental sustainability of Canada's pork industry by supporting the development of the most innovative technologies that will benefit the entire pork value chain.
While the pork sector has benefited greatly from the science cluster initiative, we are limited in the resources we can bring to the table. In 2016, the Canadian Pork Council completed the public process to establish a promotion and research agency. Creating an agency would provide producers with a new source of industry funds that could be used to expand our innovation program. This agency is absolutely critical to our future improvements. We look forward to the Government of Canada completing its review of our application and taking the measures necessary to establish the agency.
Huge strides are being made in tackling climate change as we are continuously improving the efficiency and environmental sustainability of our production by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting innovative health and husbandry practices, adapting tools that support sustainable and environmentally responsible production, and utilizing fewer resources. These initiatives are lessening the environmental impact of pork production, while maximizing its contribution to our economy.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak on this important subject. I'll be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.
:
Thanks very much. I regret that I'm not able to be with you in person, to sit next to my colleagues from New Brunswick. The pork industry actually started my professional career in agriculture. I was working on climate change with the pork industry, so it's interesting how we've come back together.
I'm in Abu Dhabi this week. We're promoting Canadian export forages around the world, so I'll touch on that a bit later.
I do want to echo Hans' comments, and thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I don't believe you have my speaking notes in front of you, but they have been submitted.
I just wanted to give a bit of an overview on the scope of the Canadian forage sector. We are roughly 70 million acres strong in Canada. Roughly 34 million acres are seeded to tame hay, pasture, and forage seed crops; and the remaining 36 million are dedicated to native rangeland which is largely in western Canada.
To contrast that to the field crop sector, in 2017, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's 2017 “Outlook for Principal Field Crops”, there were roughly 65 million acres of annual crops planted in Canada. The forage sector as a whole is actually five million acres more than the whole of the annual crop sector. We do cut a fair swath across the landscape in Canadian agriculture.
The uses of our forages are obviously tied very closely to the ruminant livestock industries. In Canada this includes primarily beef, dairy, sheep, goat, and bison, to a lesser extent; and the equine sector, surprisingly, consumes a lot of forage in Canada. It's surprising when you get right down to it. I know in New Brunswick there are as many horses as there are dairy cows or beef cows. It is a significant industry and it consumes a lot of Canadian forage.
Roughly 5% of production in Canada is exported to destinations in the U.S., Japan, Korea, China, and the Middle East. We're here this week representing the industry. The forages exported here are largely timothy and alfalfa hays to service the dairy, in the majority of cases, but there's a significant use by the horse, sheep, goat, and actually camel industries. I've never been to a camel farm, but tomorrow we are venturing into the desert to see one. I'm very much looking forward to that.
In terms of economic value of the forage sector, based on the 2011 census of agriculture data, the industry was pegged at about $5.09 billion, making it the third-largest crop after wheats and canola, so it has a significant, direct impact to Canadian agriculture. Also, being the foundation crop for Canadian dairy and beef industries, we're supporting their $11-billion industry, which in turn supports roughly $50 billion in annual value chain economic activity in Canada. Again, in addition to being dominant across the landscape, it's also making a significant economic contribution.
The environmental contribution which we're speaking about today is also fairly impressive. When we talk about environmental contribution, we talk largely about the ecological goods and services, EG and S, provided; and those would include, but are not limited to erosion control, flood control, improved surface water quality, wildlife habitat, pollination services, and soil carbon sequestration, which has been a major focus for us over the last couple of years. I'll describe a large project we have on the go in a few moments.
Dr. Doug Yungblut, in 2012, did a study on the full economic value of the industry and the ecological goods and services value, and the suggestion from this report is that in Saskatchewan alone, the EG and S value contribution is somewhere between $895 million to $1.9 billion, and in Alberta, respectively, $390 million to $1.3 billion.
The high estimate for Alberta and Saskatchewan alone is over $3 billion in ecological goods and services annually. It's a significant contribution.
One of our challenges is that we don't have a comprehensive market process that allows us to monetize even a portion of that EG and S value that is provided by Canadian forage producers to the Canadian public at large. That is having an impact on the prevalence of forage across the landscape. We are certainly seeing forage acres decrease over time, which is largely following the decrease in the beef sector output. As you're aware, that industry has been shrinking somewhat, year over year, for the last number of years. There are a number of regional programs, however, that are working to incentivize forage inclusion in crop rotations. I'll talk about those in a few moments as well.
I want to touch briefly on some of the challenges we have, particularly as a national industry. Again, we're 70 million acres and very diverse. Coming from eastern Canada myself, and working largely through Quebec and into Ontario, the prevalence of confined feeding systems means that most of our forages are harvested from the field, stored, and then fed in confinement-type situations. The beef industry does still employ grazing during the summer. This means that we're seeing forages that are intermixed with annual crops. From a sustainability perspective, it's very important for us to pay close attention to soil conservation and livestock manure management practices so that we're ensuring that long-term soil health is maintained and manure nutrients are managed effectively and responsibly.
Hans mentioned in his statement as well the importance of soil health and responsible manure management use. I echo that wholeheartedly.
:
It's the perfect question: what do I need? I love to answer that one.
The progress we've made over the last several years has been substantial, and I would like to thank the federal government for that, because a lot of that wouldn't have been possible without the financial partnership we have with Swine Innovation Porc in Quebec City. That's funded jointly by producers and the federal government, and we're very much looking forward to seeing that funding level continue.
When we ask about what we need tomorrow, in my mind it is an easy ask. I mentioned in my presentation that the Canadian Pork Council has completed the public process to establish a promotion and research agency. This is essentially a no-cost ask to government. It will give us a check-off on pork that's being imported into the country. To be clear, all pork producers in Canada pay a check-off, and that check-off goes toward research to help us with environmental sustainability and also to promote the entire efficiency of our industry. What we're asking for is that imported pork be treated the same way, that there is the same check-off paid for any imported pork.
This is exactly the same as in the U.S. When I export live animals or pork to the U.S., I pay the national check-off in the United States. We're simply levelling that playing field. This is just an action we need the government to take. The process is in place. It's on the desk of government. We're simply asking the government to finish this, because that will provide us with an additional source of revenue to continue our research and take us to the next level.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold, for sharing some time with me.
Mr. Chair, I want to bring forward my motion that I brought notice of on Monday. I would like to bring that forward for discussion now, if I may, please.
My motion read:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food undertake a study of the Canada Food Guide and hear specifically from agriculture and agri-food stakeholders; and that the Committee report its findings to the House prior to the release of Part 1 of the new dietary guidance policy report.
I'd like to take a few moments, if I may, just to speak to that motion, Mr. Chair, and to my colleagues on the committee. I apologize to our witnesses, but I think this is something very important and certainly important to our witnesses; it's apropos that these are the ones who are with us today.
I'm pretty confident that my colleagues on both sides of the floor and from all the parties have heard quite loudly from their constituents on the concerns and the direction that the Canada food guide and the national food policy are going in. Certainly it was quite evident for those of us who were at that breakfast yesterday, when Dr. Samis was talking about concerns he was raising, namely—according to several doctors we've spoken with—that this is not only going in the wrong direction, but actually could be counterproductive in terms of what we're trying to accomplish.
The part of that food guide that we need to be concerned about is where it's encouraging people to stop eating what doctors, physicians, nutritionists, dieticians, and our stakeholders believe are healthy animal proteins, as well as dairy products.
Our job here as the agriculture committee, Mr. Chair, is to represent our stakeholders from all areas of agriculture: our farmers, our ranchers, agrifood, our processors, and those businesses who rely on that. I was quite dismayed when the health committee brought this forward and committed just two meetings to the food guide, without inviting a single farmer, rancher, processor, agribusiness representative, medical professional, nutritionist, dietician, or physician who would have brought a different perspective and different studies and science to that report.
It behooves us a great deal to bring this forward and study it at this committee. It's to ensure that our stakeholders feel they've had a voice in this process; right now they haven't. As I said, I know you guys have heard the same messages as we have on this side of the table. They feel extremely frustrated that they are not being given a voice in the direction of a document that will impact them more than any other sector of the economy.
Not only will it impact them—their livelihood as farm families and businesses—and the economy, but I'm worried about the broader message this is going to be sending. We talk about protecting our agriculture sector, our agribusinesses, and supply management on the international stage. We're in the middle of NAFTA negotiations. I'm very excited that the trans-Pacific partnership—the CPTPP—is going to be signed, hopefully, in the next few months. These are amazing opportunities.
However, how can our stakeholders—our farmers, ranchers, and producers—trust us to protect their best interests on an international stage, when we are not even protecting them here at home in a domestic document that the government has full control over? How can we say to our stakeholders, absolutely, we're going to ensure that these trade agreements...and you have these markets that will be available to you, but we're not going to give you the same support here at home?
We talk about non-tariff trade barriers, and what's going on in Italy and India right now. How can we profess that our food is the safest in the world and processed under the strictest regulations? How do we sell that internationally when we are telling our own Canadian consumers to be eating less of these products because they're not good for you? That sends a very mixed message, not only to our potential markets around the world, but certainly to our stakeholders here at home.
I'm very concerned about that, especially when our number one job here, in my opinion, is to be the voice of our agriculture sector across the country, and I don't think any one of us can argue that it's very clear that Health Canada is going in a direction that is detrimental to our agriculture sector and to food processors, as well as the producers on the ground.
I put out a statement on Monday after I tabled that motion, and it did not take very long to get a stack of letters of support from stakeholders who want us to study this issue. I want to really stress this point: these letters are not only from the livestock industry or the dairy industry. There are letters from grain growers and horticulture associations. None of them want us, as a government, to be picking winners and losers in this food guide document. They all want to be successful. They see that the Canada food guide and some of the food policy when it comes to front-of-package labelling.... Again, it goes to this: how do we talk about food safety when we're telling Canadians that the food we produce here on the farm is unhealthy?
They want to ensure that we're successful and that we're championing our agriculture sector. I truly believe the direction that Health Canada is going in with the food guide is based on some sort of activism and some sort of ideology and is not based on good science. Again, I think it's our job here to ensure that there's a balanced approach to the food guide and that all stakeholders have a voice, and not just industry. We should ensure that we invite medical professionals who are going to give us a balanced view on what the food guide should be, what should be included, and what is best for Canadians.
From what I've seen in that first draft of the food guide, and certainly from the feedback I've had from our stakeholders, the direction the food guide is going in is extremely one-sided. It is not balanced. Again, I think it is our job to make sure that we stand up for our stakeholders, that we stand up for our farmers, our ranchers, and our food processors. I'm asking for your support on this motion.
I would like to add, if I may—I apologize again for taking some time, but I do believe this is an important issue—that the .... I would never profess that the minister should instruct us on what to do. We are an independent body, and I think that's very important. The Minister of Agriculture, in a meeting with the Dairy Farmers of Canada this morning, did say that he would not oppose the agriculture committee's studying of this issue. I think that's a good sign: we have some support from the minister to take this on.
Again, I'm hoping for your support on this issue. I think it's extremely important. If we do not agree to do this study and to do it right, my question to you and my colleagues who are on this committee is, what are we here for? What are we here for if we are not going to take an opportunity to stand up for our stakeholders and be their voice at the table? Whatever the results of that study may be, I think it is our job to ensure that we take a balanced approach. That report is given to the who can then be at the cabinet table with the to ensure there is a much broader vision on what that food guide should entail.
I thank you again for giving me this time, and again I thank our witnesses who are here today. I truly believe this is of the utmost importance. It's very timely. We only have a finite amount of time to ensure that our message, the message of our agriculture community, is brought to the forefront.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I understand, based on the decision made by my colleagues opposite, that the motion we presented to study Canada's Food Guide…
This time is allotted to me and I can do exactly what I want, Mr. Breton. I have one minute and thirty seconds to express myself. I can continue to talk as much as I want.
I see that with this tactic, the Liberals are preventing the committee from studying Canada's Food Guide here, despite the fact that we have received I don't know how many letters from people in our sector, namely farmers, who are really very worried.
I'm talking about the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Canadian Horticultural Council, and the Food and Consumer Products of Canada. The Liberals have just said no to all these people today.
There is also the National Cattle Feeders Association, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, and the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
I absolutely cannot understand this decision, especially since the himself said today favourable to the idea of the committee's studying Canada's Food Guide. Indeed, he understood that the Food Guide could have a major impact on Canadian farmers.
:
I apologize, but I'll just to add this. The way our industry is currently set up, we have nine provincial members that have their own organizations and they have their own authority to collect a levy, so there's some level of co-operation. The establishment of this agency would increase that level of co-operation, similar to what we're doing with Swine Innovation Porc, but also do that to apply to promotion and research.
It's taking what funds are already being used domestically and providing more efficiency. Frankly, some of the issues that are in, we'll say, Alberta are very similar to New Brunswick or Quebec, and we use in this case the environment aspect, so there's part of that. There are domestic producer funds going to support the initiatives that Hans outlined: research, promotion, and whatnot.
However, in the pork industry we import a significant amount of pork globally, not just from the U.S. but also from Poland, the EU countries, and others. Because Canadians enjoy ribs, we need more and we mostly import. However, they enjoy the benefits of the work that the Canadian industry is doing at little to no charge, but when we export product—in this case to the United States—we contribute funds to the U.S. program. We're looking to set that up here in Canada.
It's not new. The beef agency has been operating for essentially the past three years, and it is a similar model that we're following, where they collect a domestic levy but also a levy on imported products. We're just looking for the same treatment, similar to our Canadian beef counterparts, but also to bring a level of balance and fairness in the Canadian domestic market for pork.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament on this committee. Thank you for inviting me here to be part of today's hearing. While I have the floor I also want to thank all of the members of this committee for being vocal supporters of Canada's organic industry. This interest in and commitment to organics resulted in funding recently announced by the for the Canadian organic standards. Thank you for being a part of that and recognizing that Canada is and should continue to be a world leader in organic food and farming, and that organic standards are integral in achieving that.
As a professional agronomist specializing in organic agriculture, I am pleased to speak to you today about the energy efficient and climate-smart practices used in organic agriculture that mitigate climate change, enhance soil health, and protect water resources.
Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the environment and our economy. A key aspect of these techniques is that they allow a farmer to enhance soil health and fertility, and retain soil carbon, without the need for external inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers, which, as we know, contribute to over 70% of total noxious oxide greenhouse gas emissions. The largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon is soil organic matter. In fact, a protein produced by a mycorrhizal fungi called glomalin is integral in accumulating soil organic carbon.
A number of studies have shown that organic practices such as longer crop rotations and the use of perennial legumes and green manures lead to a greater organic soil matter and therefore greater carbon sequestration, which is important in climate change mitigation. This addition of soil organic matter also drives soil health. As a result, organic systems have been found to perform particularly well under environmental stress. For example, organic systems have enhanced yield stability under periods of drought because water and soil erosion is reduced and water retention and plant-available water is improved.
There is much more to say on the benefits of organic agriculture, but the point I wanted to make is that the agronomic practices used by organic farmers build soil organic matter, which leads to greater carbon sequestration, better soil health and improved water conservation. These are principal components of climate-smart agricultural strategies that are being promoted globally, because they mitigate climate change and create farming systems that are more resilient in the face of more extreme weather events.
Reflecting on this and on behalf of the Canadian Organic Growers, I strongly recommend that the Government of Canada continue to make strategic investments in soil carbon studies and measurement tools along with organic research, knowledge transfer, and standards maintenance in order to continue driving the adoption of climate-smart organic farming practices in Canada.
Now I'll pass over to Ms. Cornish for more on carbon sequestration.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak to you about this potential game-changing initiative for Canadian farmers and ranchers.
I'm the Director of Food Water Wellness Foundation; and we're based in Olds, Alberta.
Canada's 159 million acres of agricultural land represents a powerful, yet largely underutilized, tool in the fight against climate change. The same soil that produces our food has an ability, through photosynthesis and biological systems, to draw carbon dioxide, or CO2, from the atmosphere and lock it in the ground in a process called sequestration. Once in the soil, the CO2 is converted to soil organic carbon, or SOC, a crucial element for soil fertility and health.
However, Canadian agricultural producers who prioritize the building of the soil organic carbon receive little recognition and support for the carbon offset they provide. Current agricultural offsets such as the Alberta system are based on conventional cropping practices that are rigidly defined. Producers who are seeking to improve their land and sequester carbon are excluded if they do not comply with the practices outlined in the protocols. Also, all 70 million acres of pasture land in Canada are excluded from the protocols, greatly limiting the offsets available for sustainable development of Canadian industry.
The federal government can play a critical role in establishing a carbon offsets framework to incentivize all producers to sequester carbon on their land. This would be a game-changer for Canada's agricultural producers currently facing narrowing profit margins, and a win-win for all Canadians. As Dr. Singh mentioned, carbon-rich soil can absorb and hold more water, mitigating extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and wildfires; and rebuilding SOC restores degraded soil and increases food security as healthy soil improves crop yields and reduces the need for high-emitting, high-cost agricultural inputs.
Unfortunately, many of our agricultural practices conventionally do not promote the carbon sequestration because they're antagonistic to the biological systems that are critical to the process. Regenerative and organic practices that support the biology in the soil, like those mentioned by Dr. Singh, as well as carefully planned grazing, conservation cropping, and cover cropping increase the soil's natural ability to sequester carbon. Using these practices and numerous others have the potential to increase soil organic carbon by as much as three billion tonnes per year globally.
Climate stability could be achieved if enough land, including the massive tracts in Canada, was sequestering carbon. We could see atmospheric CO2 reduced by 50 parts per million to 350 parts per million by 2100. We are asking that you consider supporting biodiversity monitoring in concert with broad-scale, in situ soil research. Such research would measure soil carbon in all types of agricultural land under a broad spectrum of management and would remeasure to see the amount of CO2 sequestered in the soil.
The research would capture innovation that is happening on the ground by producers to create data-driven management tools and enable farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer, hopefully resulting in all 159 million acres actively sequestering carbon.
For this reason, I would ask you to support the provinces and territories in expanding their agricultural carbon offset programs to include this learning, and to develop performance protocols based on soil carbon sequestration. Action is critical at this time to help farmers to improve their soil and generate revenue through carbon offsets to help them deal with planned increases in carbon pricing and tight margins. As well, creating offsets will help industry comply with the emissions targets Canada's agreed to as part of the Paris agreement. Taking action would be a win-win-win for the planet, industry, and agricultural producers.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today.
:
Good afternoon honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak about the opportunity of organic systems to increase agricultural resilience to climate change and promote soil health.
Because the success or failure of agriculture is highly dependent on the weather, climate change is expected to present farmers with substantial agronomic challenges.
Projected temperature increases, changes in precipitation patterns, and increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as drought and flooding are expected to reduce agricultural productivity.
Warmer, wetter climates and increases in carbon dioxide also favour many agricultural weeds, pests, and pathogens. The geographical range of both invasive weeds and insect pest populations is expected to shift and expand as increasing temperatures enable them to survive over the winter.
Research also demonstrates that rising carbon dioxide levels are likely to have a positive effect on the establishment and persistence of invasive weed species and that commonly used herbicides such as glyphosate show reduced efficacy in settings with elevated carbon dioxide. Increased pest, pathogen, and weed pressure may also have numerous environmental and human health implications if increasing the toxicity of pesticides and the frequency of their application are considered to be the primary solutions to these challenges.
Organic agriculture is founded on the principles of soil health and resource conservation and takes a whole-systems approach to management, utilizing a wide range of farming practices that protect the environment and promote ecosystem services. For instance, organic farms utilize techniques that reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff pollution, and they support a diversity of wildlife, including pollinators and beneficial insects. In return, the farm benefits through improved pollination of crops, higher water quality, better pest control, and healthier soils.
Soil health is considered by many to be the basis of organic systems, making them particularly well positioned to adapt to many of the challenges associated with climate change. Organic farmers tend to use cover crops and crop rotations in place of mono-cropping, and to utilize compost, legumes, and manure in place of synthetic fertilizers. These management techniques not only lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy efficiency; they increase soil organic matter, the foundation of healthy soils.
Soil organic matter has a positive impact on the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties. It provides structural stability to the soil, reduces erosion, protects against soil compaction, and improves aeration, water infiltration, and soil water-holding capacity, all key characteristics that will be particularly important in times of drought or flooding. Soil organic matter also serves as a reserve for nutrients essential to plant growth, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur, and it makes up the base of the soil food web, providing a foundation for all soil life.
A growing body of research from around the world demonstrates that organic farms often have higher levels of soil organic matter, greater beneficial soil biodiversity, and overall improved soil health when compared to their conventional counterparts. One of the most recent studies to examine soil organic matter between organic and conventional farms compared over 1,000 soil samples from across the United States and found that, on average, soils from organic farms have 14% more soil organic matter than soils from conventional farms.
Soil quality results from the Long-Term Agroecological Research experiment in Iowa, which compares plots under organic and conventional management, found that after 15 years, organic soils were significantly healthier than conventional soils, based on a combination of chemical, biological, and physical soil health metrics.
Results from this study also suggest that improvements in soil health through the employment of organic farming techniques can provide exceptional benefits to farmers during extreme climate events. In 2012, despite serious drought conditions during the growing season, organic management enhanced agro-ecosystem resilience and maintained the capacity to supply nutrients to the crops.
In addition to promoting healthy soils, organic systems also utilize integrated pest, weed, and disease management. By omitting synthetic fertilizers and most synthetic pesticides, organic farmers are able to maintain higher levels of micro-biodiversity and macro-biodiversity in the soil and field.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that by supporting beneficial biodiversity, farms can considerably reduce the negative impacts of pests and pathogens. Thus, instead of relying solely on pesticides, organic farming provides multiple lines of defence to address emerging pest challenges.
Organic farmers are innovative. Many practices that have been long-standing tenets of organic production are now recognized as key management techniques for building climate resiliency and soil health across all of agriculture. What's needed is further research investment to continue to advance the development of sustainable organic practices.
Now I'll turn the floor back over to Tia to provide recommendations on what the industry feels is needed to unlock the potential of organic agriculture to foster healthy soils and contribute to climate change adaptation in Canada.
Organic production methods and standards fit perfectly into the national food policy pillar of conserving our soil, water, and air. In order to ensure that organic can prosper, lending its successful model to creating healthy soil and addressing climate change—adaptation as well as mitigation—the approach to agriculture of the federal and provincial governments needs to, number one, be more inclusive of all sectors, scales, methods of production, and market channels.
In order to be inclusive, the next agricultural policy framework must include a review of industry program cost-sharing, the application process, funding eligibility criteria, and what areas should be covered by government—not industry—in order to uphold the integrity of the “Canada Organic” logo, which is owned by the Canadian government.
The number two recommendation is to invest in organic research and innovation. Continued research in organic agriculture is required to further unleash innovation in technologies and techniques that will result in greater productivity, more efficient resource use, and improved sustainability of agro-ecosystems. There's a need for research that is designed to fit the specific needs of Canadian agriculture systems to address these various challenges. We recommend that more provisions be made for long-term research, greater than five years, and consideration of the nature of the research being done—commercial intellectual property versus the public good—when there is a requirement for industry matching funds.
Number three, adapt business risk management programs to be more inclusive of producers of all scales, types of production, and market challenges. BRMs should be adapted to serve all types of farming, including low-input and diversified farms. The AgriInsurance suite also needs to be expanded to include production insurance that is suitable for organic and transitioning producers across all provinces and protects organic premiums on export markets to zero-tolerance countries such as those in the EU.
Number four, incentivize and reward best environmental and climate-resilient practices. Programs should include incentivizing the use of techniques that will promote soil health, such as cultivation of more legumes and perennial crops, soil health and watershed conservation, long-term crop rotation and intercropping, biodiversity and habitat creation, rotational grazing, and the use of locally adapted organic seed.
Thank you very much for hearing our recommendations. We hope you take them into consideration.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Since I have had the opportunity to hold this magnificent position of official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food, I have discovered an extraordinary world. I have had the opportunity to meet some of you. When I talk to other people, I am surprised to see how organic is not always considered an agricultural sector. It is as if it is a separate sector because of the green, ecological and biological side. Yet the need exists. There are consumers who want organic agricultural products.
So I think you play an important role in our production chain and you too can contribute to achieving Canada's export objectives, exports that we want to see increased. This role is evident on a smaller scale because the scales of production are not the same. However, I am very pleased that you are here today to talk about water and soil conservation.
My first question may seem really straightforward, and I would like you to answer it in turn.
More often, we see the impact of climate change on large productions, but less so on small ones. In recent years, have you noticed any significant changes in how your producers do things?
Mr. Singh, do you want to answer first?
Ms. Cornish, coming from Olds and Olds College, that community is where I've been my whole life. I really think, too, when we talk about zero tillage, carbon sequestration, and so on, and programs that are out there, one of the concerns is how many passes you are going to have over the land. We really are talking about farms there that are 1,000, 2,000, or 5,000 acres in many cases. With the number of times you go over the land and the width of the openers you're using, these are definitions that go between, is it zero till, minimum till, or maximum till? Then if you go into agreements, you get paid, more or less, for the way you have done that farming.
How does organic farming deal with that, where in a lot of cases what you have is a green crop that you're going to plow under in order to make sure you have nutrients for another year? How does that really tie into the discussion?
I like the comment that was made, that there are not enough champions to help farmers change. I understand that for those who are going organic, they're very much swimming against the current. There's a paradigm that exists. Farming has been done in a certain way for so many decades. It has usually involved a lot of fertilizers and the intensive use of massive monocultures. As we've seen, that farming technique has not been very good for our soil and our water, and I think farmers are starting to realize that.
On Monday we had a representative from Fertilizer Canada here. I started off by saying that if we're looking at ways to lessen our impact on the environment, it seems our use of fertilizers is a good place to start. They require fossil fuels to be made, to be transported, and to be applied, and of course we've had dead zones created from too much runoff.
They have taken some steps to have more targeted use, but their contention is that you simply cannot get the same yield without the use of synthetic fertilizers with those kinds of inputs. I know that a lot of organic farmers are challenging that paradigm. I'm wondering, if we're looking for the research on the economies of scale where organic agriculture can work to.... We used Africa, for example, and the farmer who has two to three acres. He was saying that without fertilizers, they simply cannot make a profit.
Are there any specific examples you could point us to that challenge that existing way of thinking and say, “No, actually, we can do it”? I'll open it up to anyone who wants to start.
:
Thank you very much for coming today. I have a very interesting question. It's something maybe you can educate me on.
I'm a pharmacist by profession, and one of the things that I did in my pharmacy is I expanded the scope of practice. It wasn't just pharmaceuticals but it was gluten-free grocery, some organic products, and some products.... We found that there were a lot of people who maybe weren't allergic to certain foods but who had an intolerance to certain foods.
One of the things I found when purchasing certain products.... They were labelled. Some labels said the product was gluten-free and it was certified as gluten-free. One of the things I had difficulty with, either as a result of sourcing or not being able to define clearly, was whether something was organic or not.
I know there's an organic standards association, but how strong is that? I want to get an idea of the strength of the testing or certification. People can say something is organic, but as an ordinary Canadian, what sort of confidence do we have that it is organic? As you know, there's a price differential between the products. I know for gluten-free there are certain manufacturers that we know have been certified in one way. However, one of the things I found, especially in procuring organic products, was that a lot of times I wasn't sure as to the certification or viability of a product. Can you just give us an idea of how the process works?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the witnesses. There's been some great testimony, very interesting.
I want to bring up an initiative that we've talked about a few times during this study. You brought it up, Ms. Cornish, when you were talking about in situ soil monitoring. I'd like you to explain that a little bit more if you could.
We've had discussion on how difficult it is for us when we talk about soil conservation and soil health. I know many of us in our rural municipalities, our counties, and MDs talk about 3T and 4T soil and trying to protect it, but development comes, and it isn't as protected as we would like.
Do you know, on the organic side, whether some of the provinces...? I think we need a national initiative to get a sense of where we are right now in terms of our soil health. From what I've heard from the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and some of these other groups, a really detailed study on the status of Canada's soils across the country has not been done in more than 30 years. Would that be helpful, or is it maybe too broad for us to take on? Would there be some benefits to putting some real work and funding behind that to get a starting point of where we are now? Then we can figure out where we need to be. It would be good to have a good understanding of where we are now.
Just to add my two cents, being a certified organic grower and a conventional one, I know that both have learned from each other. I've done it with both hands. The organic farming that my great-grandfather used to do has learned a lot from the conventional, but also the conventional, I can tell you, is quite a rigid system. To answer Mr. Saini, when inspection day comes around, you're quite nervous.
At any rate, Mr. Singh, Ms. Cornish, Ms. Loftsgard, and Ms. Misiewicz, thank you for your appearance here today.
To the committee, you will get a copy of the draft on Friday, I think. We have our analysts working very hard. We want to thank both of them. On Monday we'll have the instructions to give to the analysts about the drafting process. We will also have a second hour of subcommittee on agenda and procedure, if there's a.... Okay.
Thank you very much, everyone, and have a good day.
The meeting is adjourned.