:
Welcome, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, and Thursday, October 26, 2017, the committee resumes its study on climate change and water conservation issues.
I'd like to remind our guests today that the motion for the current study deals with 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. That's basically what we're trying to achieve here.
With that, today we have, from Fertilizer Canada, Mr. Clyde Graham, senior vice-president; and from the Grain Growers of Canada, Mr. Doyle Wiebe, director, and Mr. Tyler McCann, interim executive director.
Welcome to all. We shall have opening statements of up to seven minutes.
Do you want to start, Mr. Graham?
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting Fertilizer Canada to speak with you today regarding your study on climate change and water and soil conservation issues.
I'm pleased to provide the committee with information about our association's mandate and to present our recommendations to enhance the government's goal of supporting the Canadian agricultural sector to better adapt to potential impacts of climate change. This is an area of significant interest to Fertilizer Canada.
Fertilizer Canada represents the manufacturers and wholesale and retail distributors of potash, nitrogen, phosphate, and sulphur fertilizers. Collectively our members employ more than 12,000 Canadians and contribute over $12 billion annually to the Canadian economy through advanced manufacturing, mining, and distribution facilities nationwide. Fertilizer is an important input for farmers, providing nutrients to plants that are not readily available in the soil, fostering plant growth, and increasing yields. Approximately 50% of crop production can be attributed to fertilizer use. That's on a global basis, but very similar to what we would see in Canada.
Our product has increasing importance as we seek to feed an increasing global population. In a continuously evolving climate, Canadian farmers must ensure that crop production is sustainable. The framework we use to sustainably grow food is “4R” nutrient stewardship. It says that to utilize fertilizer properly and to achieve the benefits of an abundant and healthy crop, farmers should follow the “4Rs” of fertilizer use: using the right source of fertilizer and applying it at the right place, at the right time, and at the right rate. 4R nutrient stewardship is innovative, as it encourages an adaptive and integrative nutrient management approach that is specific to any farmer's soil and climate conditions, including the crop they're growing, while mitigating negative impacts on the climate.
We believe that 4R nutrient stewardship is an important tool for supporting the Canadian agricultural sector in the face of climate change and addressing associated soil and water concerns. While we understand that the focus of the current study is not on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we do think it's important to note here that 4R nutrient stewardship does lend itself to addressing this environmental concern as part of the bigger picture of soil health and climate change. Our Canadian-made offset, the nitrous oxide emission reduction protocol, or the NERP, which applies 4R nutrient stewardship, is evidence of this. Recognized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as a climate-smart agricultural practice, this protocol can reduce on-farm emissions of nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas, by up to 25%.
Our first recommendation to the committee is that the federal government formally recognize and endorse 4R nutrient stewardship as the leading approach for sustainable nutrient management in Canada. We have well-established partnerships with provincial governments, retailers, conservation authorities, crop advisers, and farmers themselves in the major agriculture-producing provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, and we're working very closely to get a program going in Quebec—for regional implementation of 4R nutrient stewardship.
We also participate in national efforts, including the Canadian round table for sustainable crops and the national environmental farm plan program, both of which are integrating 4R nutrient stewardship in measuring progress and compliance for agricultural sustainability. Additionally, the International Joint Commission, which oversees the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes, recognizes 4R nutrient stewardship as an effective method for reducing nutrient runoff.
The timing for the federal government to acknowledge this approach has never been more critical given the level of awareness and support the 4Rs have achieved over the past several years among the agricultural sector at large. The Canadian government should take advantage of this voluntary effort by acknowledging 4R nutrient stewardship, integrating it into its communications about nutrient management, and encouraging our agricultural sector to adopt its principles and practices.
I do want to note that the federal government has been very good in providing us with funding for research and extension over the years, but what we're really seeking is that the federal government, through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, really integrates the 4Rs into the way it talks about fertilizer use and nutrient management and gives it that final push to make it truly a federal-provincial program.
Building on this, our second recommendation is to provide incentives or recognition to farmers who adopt 4R nutrient stewardship. Fertilizer Canada has an ambitious goal of achieving 20 million acres under 4R nutrient stewardship by the year 2020; approximately 20% of Canada's cropland.
Enabling farmers to implement 4R nutrient stewardship practices on their farms will drive greater uptake. This might be a financial incentive, a workshop, other means of engaging farmers, or just a simple pat on the back. When farmers see the co-benefits, economic and environmental, of applying the 4Rs, they are more likely to use the practice on their farm. For example, many Prince Edward Island farmers are seeing evidence of yield and environmental benefits of 4R nutrient stewardship compared to traditional practices of fertilizer application.
Fertilizer Canada also has a number of publicly available tools and resources that help farmers use the 4Rs in different Canadian landscapes, and suggests practices that can reduce the impacts on soil and waterways.
Our third recommendation is to continue to support agricultural research to better understand nutrient losses and their impacts on soil and water, and how those impacts can be measured using the 4Rs. Our industry is science-based, and is committed to research and innovation to ensure environmental stewardship when fertilizer products are being used.
Fertilizer Canada's 4R research network has nine leading Canadian scientists collaborating on innovative best management practices using 4R nutrient stewardship that demonstrate tangible environmental benefits. As an example, one researcher in the prairies is finding that in-soil placement of phosphorus fertilizer can be an effective strategy to maximize crop response and minimize the potential for phosphorus runoff.
We hope to advance this work to protect fresh water through the proposed smart agrifood supercluster; a short-listed application currently before Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. As Fertilizer Canada's contribution to this proposal, we seek to expand research and programming to enhance water quality in the Lake Erie and Lake Winnipeg watershed regions. We're also collaborating with other agriculture commodity groups on a fertilizer use survey, which over the past four years has been collecting data on farmer practices for source, rate, time, and place for the major Canadian crops.
With all this information there's an opportunity to understand interactions between practices, how they interact under specific climatic conditions, and how they collectively can provide benefits to improving soil and water quality.
Environmental stewardship and sustainability are not new ideas for our industry or for Canadian farmers, who have long embraced past management practices on their farms, yards, and business operations.
As we move forward, it's increasingly important to demonstrate our successes in measurable ways, and also to identify areas of potential improvement. Farmers need all of us in the agrifood sector just as much as we need them, so we can continue to have abundant and nutritious food.
:
Mr. Finnigan and all members of the committee, thank you for this invitation today.
My name is Doyle Wiebe. I am a farmer and a director with the Grain Growers of Canada. We have 13 members representing over 50,000 grain producers from coast to coast. I'm currently chair of the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, treasurer of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, and past president of the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association. I'm also a member of a new committee formed last year by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, entitled the agricultural water management policy advisory board. This committee was formed to help with the implementation of new water drainage regulations in the province, which have been brought in to support the hundreds of farmers looking for ways to deal with unprecedented water levels on their farmlands.
I'm a fourth-generation farmer in my community of Langham, near Saskatoon. This spring I will be seeding my 45th crop along with my business partner, a new, young neighbour in the community who is planning to be my successor on the 6,000-plus acres we farm together today. He has two young sons whom he hopes will succeed him in due course. We grow canola, wheat, and barley as traditional crops, but we are also working at growing new crops like peas, soybeans, and quinoa, to diversity the rotation and reduce the risks associated with variable weather patterns, which affect each crop differently.
The soil in my area is considered marginal. It is quite sandy and prone to salinity, which is exacerbated when soil moisture levels are high. Historically, this type of soil was prone to wind erosion in fallow years, which is mostly done to conserve moisture for the next year's crop, as sandy soil does not hold a lot of moisture. In the most recent years, however, we have seen a complete shift from the driest conditions in my father's lifetime to the wettest. Currently, it is quite dry again.
In the last 10 years, crop insurance programs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have paid out more due to excess moisture than due to dry conditions. In my own case, five years ago I lost 25% of my cultivated acres due to excess water levels. Just imagine how losing 25% of the productive assets of any business and leaving most costs untouched will affect the profitability of that business. It's not sustainable.
Yes, climate change is real. With warmer winters and generally more moisture, fungal diseases, insects, and surface water issues in areas where there is nowhere to drain it have required new ways of thinking.
I tell my non-farming friends that I do not gamble; I manage risk. I mentally take stock of all the risks I need to manage each year, and I determine what strategy is best to mitigate them and yet remain profitable. Weather, which farmers talk about every day, is the single largest risk to any dryland grain producer in the world. Because of this, farmers themselves have been incredibly innovative and proactive in adapting to the changing climate. Many have worked with equipment manufacturers to deal with wetter soil conditions.
For example, it was quite rare 10 years ago to see dual wheels on combines. Now it is mostly standard equipment. There are even tracks on some. Dual wheels on wet soil help to spread the weight of the equipment, reducing soil compaction, preserving soil health, and not getting stuck in the mud.
Off the farm, farmers are also leaders in developing proactive approaches to this issue. As I said earlier, I am involved with several organizations that work to mitigate the impacts of climate change on our operations. The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association is a great example of a group that has been around since the mid-eighties, promoting conservation and agriculture systems to improve the land for the future. In addition, Grain Growers of Canada is a member of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, whom you heard from here in December. The CRSC is working within the industry to develop and measure sustainability metrics for Canadian grain in a proactive way.
While farmers are working hard to find solutions and are investing time and money in research and innovation, they cannot do it alone. As such, one of the areas where government investment would go a long way is in research and innovation. The federal government already has a track record of supporting and nurturing agricultural innovation through Growing Forward and Growing Forward 2. This is a natural fit. Potential partnerships already exist for government and industry. Public research is crucial to developing crops that will allow us to adapt to climate change.
Plant breeding efforts have needed to shift focus to try to address disease and insect issues and other stresses. There has been some success, and we have embraced these solutions whenever possible to improve performance and avoid pesticide applications. As a result, new drought and disease-resistant varieties are having a real, positive impact on the environment.
These efforts in both the public and private sectors need to be strengthened and enhanced if we are to continue to increase our production as costs continue to escalate. This requires investment by government in public sector research.
It is also essential to have a regulatory and policy environment that allows private sector research to thrive and new technologies to become available to farmers who need them. All of this work is intended to help me manage the risks in front of me as best I can. However, there's only so much a farmer can do when nature works against all odds. That is why strong business risk management programming is an important tool for managing and adapting to changing climates. Crop insurance with premiums cost-shared by governments and producers is an essential risk management tool for grain growers across Canada.
While BRM programs should only pay out assistance when truly required, it is essential that tools be available and meaningful when risks can no longer be managed by the farmers themselves. However, every farmer has a different financial risk, and risk profiles have been changing over time. Mine is quite different from my business partner's and BRM programming must be improved to help ensure his little boys will have the opportunity to continue his legacy.
The federal, provincial, and territorial governments are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of BRM programming. We have a unique opportunity to take a close look and develop programs that work for the future. Grain growers look forward to working with the government and committee to ensure that the review is meaningful and puts everything on the table. That is the only way we can ensure that BRM programs will be the backstop growers need as they face increasing risks in the future.
Grain farmers have adapted to many challenges and are leading in environmental stewardship. They are in business for the long term, and therefore look at the long-term impacts of their practices. Farmers are increasingly asked to do more with less, and they have become very efficient at using the most modern technologies. We are only now getting a clear picture of just how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil thanks to modern farming practices, and it is much more than was theorized 30 years ago. It is imperative that the positive impacts of this are passed on to farmers when government puts climate change initiatives like carbon prices into place.
There's a lot of public good in what we do. Added costs in the value chain trickle down to farmers, and we cannot pass these on. Grain farmers' contribution to cleaner air, water, and removal of greenhouse gases from the environment, while building healthier soil for the next generation, is part of the legacy we are leaving today. We are proud of that legacy and want to work with government to ensure a strong future for our industry.
Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to read a motion I'd like to discuss later on in the week at a future meeting, if I can. I don't want to discuss it now, just in the future.
The notice of motion I've tabled is:
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.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to our witnesses for being here. I apologize for being late, but I had a rancher in my riding who had some issues, and I had to take that call. I appreciate that you have taken the time to be with us today.
I'd like to start with Mr. Wiebe. Thank you for sharing some personal anecdotes with us about what's going on at your farm. Those are always heartfelt, and I think they have a strong impact on us when we hear how these decisions actually affect people on the ground.
I'm curious. With grain growers, we have Health Canada and PMRA reviewing 11 or 12 neonics, including imidacloprid and similar products. These help ensure that our producers are spraying less and that you can grow crops you normally wouldn't have been able to grow. I'm talking about quinoa and pulses you maybe couldn't have grown in other places.
What would be the impact on the amount of time that you're actually in your fields if some of these products were decertified? Have you done any work on that?
:
Yes, you've touched on a topic I've been working on for a number of years, and the position that a group of similar-minded organizations, including Grain Growers as the national body, but also a number of provincial groups where I'm from in Saskatchewan....
Just to put it in perspective, it's not an east-west thing. Yes, there are different climates—somewhere between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg it changes or something. It's also the fact that western Canada is home to somewhere around 75% of the grain production acres in Canada, so it's a much more dominant part of our landscape, literally. We are one of the few places in the world where our climate is such that we can sequester carbon.
I'm not trying to get into a debate so much about how a carbon tax might impact us on the cost side. We just know it's likely going to filter down into some costs. Regardless of that, there should be recognition of the great good we're doing with that sequestration. It's not trivial. It's millions of tonnes, every year, not just once in time. The minimum tillage practices are the primary driver of that, but also other things too.
The fact is we are doing those things, and yes, we're benefiting from them to some extent anyway, but these practices were brought in at a time when carbon credits were talked about, 25 years ago. This file has been around that long in some of the circles I've been working in. We are very cognizant of the different politics around it, but we are really pushing for some recognition that sequestration is a public good as well, and that we're trying to be part of the solution, and not just be penalized with an extra cost that we can't pass on.
:
Mr. Graham, I'll start with you. When you look at the context that this study is operating under and the fact that we ultimately want to make recommendations on how we can increase soil and water conservation and address climate change, it seems that our use of fertilizers is an obvious place to start.
If you look at the history of agriculture over the last few decades, you see we've definitely learned from previous bad examples. The fact remains that, when we manufacture fertilizers, we burn fossil fuels. When we transport them to the farms, we burn fossil fuels. Farmers have to burn fossil fuels to apply them to the fields. We've also had the creation of dead zones in the ocean from runoff.
There is a rising movement in the world looking at the overall system of soil health, the complex interaction among microbes, fungi, and carbon sequestration—how they all work together. Given that you represent an industry association, could you live with the fact that we may eventually have to recommend a decrease in use of fertilizers?
I appreciate what you're trying to do already, but there are a lot of voices out there recommending that we get off synthetic fertilizer, or at least significantly reduce our dependence upon it. What would you say to that?
:
The basic concept is that there are four things you have to get right if you're going to use fertilizer well. First, you have to pick the right source of fertilizer, and that may be manure if it's available, or you have to make a decision whether you're going to use ammonia, or ammonium nitrate, or ammonium sulphate for your nitrogen source, and the kind of sulphur you need, etc.
You have to decide what nutrients are in the soil, and how much of the nutrients the crop will use. You have to determine the absolute amount of fertilizer that you need to apply to provide a good diet for the plants and crops that you're growing. Then you have to put the fertilizer in the right place. Often, that means putting it under the soil, so it's not exposed to the elements, and is in proximity to the seed where the roots can use the fertilizer efficiently, and there's less chance of it being lost to the environment.
Finally, it's the timing. For example, it used to be a practice, and it still is in some places, to apply manure in the winter, or fertilizer in the winter. You run a great risk if you're applying nutrients on frozen soil that in the spring it will simply run off. In other areas, timing may relate to when you have heavy rains, and you don't want to be applying your fertilizer right before heavy rains, as again that's a loss. Some farmers split-apply their fertilizer. They put on a certain amount in the spring, but then they go in the middle of the year when the plant is growing vigorously and needs a boost, and give it additional fertilizer.
It's looking at all those things together, those four areas—the source, rate, time, and place—that give you a better chance at getting your fertilizer to be more efficient in the crops you're growing.
A big part of the program is also to not just look at the economics of your farm, but also to look at the environmental issues where you are. In Prince Edward Island, the issue is that nitrates have been getting into the groundwater from a number of different sources, so a lot of the focus there, and using the 4Rs, is to reduce losses of nitrates to the aquifer system.
In western Canada, a lot of the focus has been on greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide being lost to the air because of the different growing conditions. In the Great Lakes region, people are very worried about phosphorus getting into Lake Erie, so a lot of the effort is on using the 4Rs to reduce phosphorus losses.
Finally, then, society itself has issues like being able to grow sufficient food for the population, but also more local things like reducing conflict between farmers and city people. If we, as a group in agriculture, are able to demonstrate we're being responsible in our fertilizer use, perhaps we'll have a better relationship with people who live in towns and cities.
It's those three areas of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—that are embedded in the whole planning process. It's really about making wiser decisions when you're using fertilizer, manure, or other sources of nutrients.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's great to have an opportunity to talk to farmers about the weather. As someone who has about 50 years of farming the same land, I know exactly the kinds of issues and concerns you're dealing with. I don't necessarily want to go through my life experiences, as I'll have opportunities later to tell my colleagues about that.
Certainly, if you cherish the environment, you support a farmer, because it's their life. Everything they do is so important to make sure that their land is ready for the next year. The pesticides that are being used are there for a reason. The work that has been done over the last 15 to 20 years to reduce the number and the amount of pesticides and to be able to select.... Even for sprayers nowadays you can go through and you're not spraying the whole field. You're just going after the weeds. Those are the kinds of things we have.
Mr. Graham, on the fertilizer side of it as well, we have the different types of placements and the different levels for various crops. All of this comes because of the technology that's associated with it. If you're going to pay $250,000 for a seed drill that's going to do that, then that's part of it, and it's also part of the reason.
Farmers are doing that, and there's a great risk they are taking in order to make sure they can look after their land and have the ability to take their product—the best in the world—and sell it around the world as well. These are the kinds of critical things that I believe we have to look at.
One of the things that I have here is on the business risk management programs and the discussion about where that may go in the future. Could I get some specific information on AgriStability and the late participation approach they have suggested?
A late participation mechanism has been added that provincial and territorial governments can trigger to allow producers to enter the program late in situations where there is a significant income decline and a gap in participation.
The mechanism will only be triggered in response to significant events and benefits will be reduced by 20% for producers who enrol late, to encourage regular annual enrollment by producers.
There are a lot of people who aren't involved in any of those kinds of programs. They manage their risk in so many different ways. They have cattle or whatever and have different ways of managing risk. My concern, of course, is that you're going to pay for that difference somewhere along the line. I've also read in documents that there are going to be extra associated costs, so that is going to come from somewhere. I'm just curious as to whether you've had opportunities to talk to the government about some of the effects that there could well be because of these new approaches they are planning to take on the business risk management programs.
I believe, Mr. Wiebe, that you probably have been somewhat engaged in that.
:
The way I look at it is that it's like buying insurance as the house is burning down. Yes, you take a 20% cut, but.... I know it isn't exactly that way, but take a look at the process there. Your neighbour, who's been engaged and involved with this all the time.... AgriStability has its own nuances anyway. It's a case of being able to just jump in.
The costs I've seen in some of the other articles that are associated with it.... They're going to add some costs here and so on. It has to be paid for somewhere.
I appreciate getting the information on that. The farmers have always had to do a census, and they continue to do that. We continue to get phone calls constantly about what we've grown or the fertilizer that we use. That continues as it always has. I just want to make sure that everyone recognizes that part of it.
Mr. Graham, the discussions that you have with regard to the four Rs in the recommendations.... Again, farmers have been doing these kinds of things because it's important. It's like getting the information you need from Kansas on the weather. You're going to do what is needed in order to make sure that there is some margin of profit for you to be able to function. These are the sorts of things we're looking at.
The concept of the government making decisions on financial incentives means you have to build a bureaucracy in order to deal with that type of thing, whereas most farmers would say to just get out of their way and let them do what they need to do because they understand their circumstances.
What kinds of issues do you see as far as potential incentives?
:
With regard to climate change, we are seeing some positive signs in our region. The changes can be quite positive at certain times of the year and negative at other times. That is not the case in other regions of the province, in Montreal in particular. Eastern Quebec is known for its cool and rather damp climate in the summer. We notice that, when we plant our crops at the end of April or early May, climate change does not really have a significant effect on us at this time.
We are seeing more dramatic changes in September and October, however, with temperatures that are much higher than in the past. This delays the deadly frosts, which is good for us. In the past few years, this has meant a longer production period in the fall. In the past five years, for instance, we have been able to produce strawberries outdoors right up to October 20 or 25, whereas in the past it was hard to get to October 10 and we often had to intervene to protect the plants from the fall frosts. Using large tunnels, we can now easily produce raspberries up to the beginning of November.
Although the production season is getting longer every year, we are increasingly noticing something else. Extended periods of insufficient precipitation will likely force horticultural growers in our region to keep larger reserves of water for irrigation to respond to severe drought. In 2017, for instance, on Île d'Orléans we went more than 60 days without precipitation, and close to 50 days in 2016. The Montreal region has experienced the complete opposite, with very heavy rains throughout the summer. Further, there were numerous disasters in late summer in the Saint-Rémi region, where more than 200 mm of rain fell in less than an hour, destroying all existing crops.
In our region, the yields for crops such as potatoes were significantly lower last year since we do not have sufficient irrigation infrastructure to deal with such situations. In the very near future, we think the federal government should invest in irrigation infrastructure for horticultural production in Eastern Canada to prevent disasters caused by extended drought.
For southern Quebec, it is becoming clear that investment is needed in drainage and run-off infrastructure to drain the land quickly in the event of unusual episodes like the ones we saw in late summer 2017. That would save existing crops.
For my part, I have more than 33 years of experience growing small fruits on Île d'Orléans. In the beginning, strawberries were produced over a three-week period each year, from June 24 to July 15. With the advent of new production methods and everbearing varieties, we can now produce strawberries from the start of May until October 25, for five months of production. For raspberries, production used to run from July 20 to August 20. Now it starts every year on July 7 with the first raspberries and extends right to October 31.
And what about blackberries? Since the climate is too cold in our region, in Eastern Canada, that is, no one would have expected us to be able to produce so much.
Adapted production techniques, production infrastructure, and the overwintering methods for these plants make a difference, but a warmer climate increases their production.
As to the effects of climate change on soil preservation, that does not seem to be a big concern for our region for the time being. However, the extreme events that are happening more and more frequently, such as in the south of Montreal, result in a much more marked erosion cycle and degrade the soil more quickly.
We must remain vigilant about climate change. Although the effects are more positive than negative in certain regions such as ours, the opposite is true in others. Is this entirely the result of climate change? I cannot answer that question. There are extreme trends, however, such as droughts and rain storms, that are a cause for concern.
Thank you for your attention.
I had a little map distributed to you that shows the United Counties of Prescott and Russell as well as Glengarry and the region a bit further west. Do you see the yellow line? That is the South Nation River. You will notice that the South Nation flows from south to north and empties into the Ottawa River.
I would like to tell you a bit about the history of drainage in my region.
When the land was first cleared, it was hard for people to work the land or plant grain. It was good clay soil, but it was so flat that it was hard to drain it. There was the Nation River, the streams that flow toward it, as well as the gullies, as we say in my region. Farmers then started digging ditches to drain their fields. They made channels. That kind of flat land was perfect for growing hay and the land stayed moist in the summer. The problem was that people could not go into the fields too early to plant corn or soy and, as soon as it got rainy in the fall, they could not harvest the corn in the fields.
In the 1970s, systematic drainage was introduced in our region. Municipal drains were built to drain the lands and let the water run off as it should. The drainage was marvellous. Farmers had drains every 50 to 60 feet.
Nowadays, some farmers have started installing drains every 25 feet so they can get into the fields earlier in the spring. If it is rainy in the fall, they can get into the fields sooner.
The problem we have had in the past few years, however, is the drought in July.
I will let my colleague talk about the new control system to keep water in the fields.
:
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
I will briefly present on controlled tile drainage and research conducted by Agriculture Canada with producers such as Mr. Laflèche and the South Nation watershed. I completed my master's degree on this in 2009 at the University of Ottawa.
Despite climate change projections, producers must manage water on their farms efficiently and effectively. We want to provide farmers with the means to manage water in their fields in the context of maximizing crop production.
In Ontario, about 1.6 million hectares of agricultural land are tile trained. But tile drainage often drains water from fields during periods when producers want to conserve that water for crop use.
There are times to control water losses and times when we want to let it go. To do so, control structures can be installed at the tile outlets to manage water flow, making water available for plant use. Excess water from the field can still be drained by overflow in the structure.
I passed around a few papers. If we take a look at the first slide on the second page, we see the control structures. What we have noticed is that by installing these structures on the outlet tile, we reduced the tile flow by 60% and increased water storage in the field by 15%. By doing so, crops benefit from water and nutrients conservation. Yields increased from 10% to 30% in the short term, and in the long term from 3% to 8%. This practice also provides benefits to the environment, as nutrient runoff is reduced by about 60% and bacteria by 75%.
Studies on satellite imagery indicate as well that crop growth benefits from controlled tile drainage increase when seasonal precipitation is low.
Given all the economic and environmental benefits, why is controlled tile drainage not practised as it could be?
Well, we asked the question to the producers who have been participating in this practice. They are happy with the agronomic benefits derived from water retention and reducing nutrient loss, and they are also proud to reduce the impact on the environment. But deterrents to the practice include increased farm labour, increased cost to farming operations, and the lack of support.
At the beginning of our project in 2005, only one producer was interested in participating in this research. Today hundreds of hectares in the South Nation River basin are now under control tile drainage, managed largely as a result of our research. Thank you to the producers who agreed to participate.
Thank you.
Monsieur Laflèche and Madame Craiovan, I was listening with interest to your discussion on drainage issues and the controlled drainage system.
I come from what's known as the "Wet Coast”, Vancouver Island, and we get an extraordinary amount of rainfall every winter. Increasingly, we're seeing two different types of weather systems: very heavy rain in winter and spring and an increasingly dry summer, so that by the time we get to August, the ground looks like baked concrete.
I have a small farming property on a slope. We get an incredible amount of runoff and right now the water table is up to the maximum, so it looks like a standing pond. We've implemented a system whereby we've followed the contours of the land and built in some swales to direct the flow of the water around the property. We've also found that by raising the earth a little with a slight culvert, even in the dry summer months, that tends to retain moisture in the soil.
Are any kinds of experiments like that going on in your region?
I'd really like to thank the producers who are here today.
I am always so impressed when I listen to you, especially when I see how resilient you are in the face of the various climate change issues you have to deal with. You find solutions to the problems that arise in your environment. I am talking about not just problems related to climate change, but also all the problems you encounter every day. Again, I tip my hat to you.
Mr. Gauthier, my riding is also home to strawberry farms, in the Granby region. I have always thought we had the best strawberries in Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford, especially since one of our farms bears the name Roi de la fraise, or the strawberry king in English. I'll visit you on your island for a taste test. You're really a very nice person.
You mentioned the changes that do have their share of advantages, opening up opportunities for you. You also talked about the extended growing season. I am particularly interested in your production methods that have changed and the innovative solutions you have adopted, allowing you to increase your production and extend your growing season, despite climate change.
Could you elaborate on that for us?
:
I think the results need to be published.
The South Nation Conservation Authority has all the results, which have been published in journals and magazines.
People take an interest in this new way of conserving water in fields as soon as they see its benefits. Money talks, after all. They need to be told that their end-of-year harvest will be better and that, in the summer, hay fields will retain their root moisture. That is the way to do it. The government could introduce programs to make it easier for farmers, for instance, by offering subsidies.
This method of conserving water in fields is just one of many innovations. Over the years, farmers have adopted new farming practices. I own a plow, but I don't use it anymore. Plows were useful when all we had were ditches. For my father, it was important to plow properly so that the water would drain as it should. I no longer plow in the fall. Instead, I use an offset disc in the spring to keep as much organic matter in the soil as possible. That's another soil conservation method.
We look for new ways to keep organic matter in the field and moisture in the soil. Our research work was one of many projects.
:
We will now resume the meeting.
Thank you for your patience.
We are moving on to committee business.
[English]
I had a few items. There may be more.
First, I have a few reminders. Each party is invited to submit a list of the sites to visit, including their contact information, to the clerk of the committee no later than Thursday, February 8. If we are approved, then we'll have to submit that for final approval.
We're going to have instructions from the analyst for the drafting process of the report on the adaptation of climate change and water and soil conservation issues. We would need to have the recommendations sent by each party to the analysts before Wednesday, February 28. We will be given an outline on the 12th, and with that we can come up with our recommendations and submit them.
Are there any other matters to be brought forward?
Mr. Berthold.
:
Earlier I spoke to the clerk about our study on food inspection agencies. I submitted a pretty thorough list of all such agencies, thanks to Library of Parliament staff, who put together the list. I don't want to take all the credit. The analysts did a lot of research to build the list of agencies, which is very useful to have. I have no objection to making the list available to all committee members, if they would like.
Since we cannot hear from people at all those agencies, I think we should focus on the three major international agreements Canada has signed. We could invite officials from two agencies, that of the European Union and that of France, since both countries have comparable systems to Canada. The federal government here is focusing on the main points. France is working on its end. As far as cheeses go, understandably, France is the country that will be exporting cheese to Canada. I think it would be beneficial to hear from representatives of both of those agencies.
In terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, I thought the most relevant countries would be Japan and India. Given that both markets are very important to Canada, I think we should invite representatives from both of those national agencies. Of course, there is the U.S. Those are the five national agencies I think we should reach out to. We could invite the officials to appear before the committee, if they agree. We could ask them questions about their practices. The presentation by our own agency officials will provide some guidance for subsequent questions on the various procedures and practices.
If we hear from five representatives, I think one meeting would do it. We thought about holding two.
That is what I am proposing to the committee.