AGRI Committee Report

CHAPTER 6: THE ENVIRONMENT

After hearing and analyzing the extensive testimony it received, the Committee feels it is clear the agricultural sector considers pressure exercised by society is increasing, particularly in the environmental management and food safety sectors. There can be no doubt that Canadians are demanding more from farmers and the agri‑food sector.

Nor can there be any doubt that Canada’s farmers are well aware of their role as stewards of the land and the environment. Not only are they aware of this, but many take that role very seriously. However, the Committee observed that farmers are at times at a loss with regard to that role and, more often, with regard to their ability to perform it correctly. If there is one constant, it is that, at the very least, they do not want to be given new responsibilities without having the means to carry them out.

The new environmental challenges in the agricultural sector are numerous and rarely restricted to a single region. We are thinking, among other things, of the enormous challenge posed by climate change, the constraints imposed with regard to the land and air and water quality. In addition, there are the stormy debates on the interaction between city and countryside, centering on the thorny issue of the right to agricultural activity, which others call “the right to farm”.

Among the topics addressed by the many witnesses who appeared before the Committee some particularly drew the Committee’s attention and are addressed in this chapter. They are environmental farm plans, species at risk and wildlife habitats (including the programs of Ducks Unlimited) as well as fish habitat as administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Certain keywords appeared in the extensive testimony heard by the Committee on environmental issues. The Committee focused more particularly on the ideas of joint action (between governments and farmers), incentives and compensation (particularly financial) and awareness and education (for both farmers and consumers). These are central to the success of a new Canadian approach to agriculture.

A. Whitehorse Agreement and Environmental Farm Plans

Last year, representatives of the federal government, the provinces and territories met in Whitehorse and adopted a national action plan designed to make Canada the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmental protection. That plan, which is the subject of a national dialogue on strategic orientations, will be based on the establishment of common objectives for each element.

As Minister Lyle Vanclief said before the Committee, it is in the context of this national action plan that all farms will be bound to develop an environmental plan within five years. The environmental plans would be a kind of response to the changing nature of agriculture and Canadians’ heightened sensitivity to these issues in recent years. The primary objective is still to ensure significant improvement in quality of the environment by coordinating measures taken on all farms in the country. In the view of governments, the adoption of a standard approach to the sustainable development of agriculture across the country would show buyers that Canada’s production methods are environmentally friendly and would enable Canadians to enjoy a cleaner and healthier environment.

Certain provinces feel that the environmental farm plans are essential to this sector’s future and development. Already in Nova Scotia, some 100 farms are now registered in the environmental farm plans program, under the aegis of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture.

At the hearings, the Committee also observed that farmers, at least in certain regions such as Ontario, did not appear to reject the environmental farm plans. Witnesses told the Committee that the experience had been positive in Ontario because the federal government had provided funds for the purpose and thus formed a federal‑provincial partnership. The environmental farm plans, in their view, should apply on a national scale, be comprehensive in scope and funded on an ongoing basis; the provinces and the federal government should commit to this, they said, and the sooner the better.

Those witnesses also mentioned that numerous similar environmental initiatives could be successfully implemented if federal agencies could cooperate with their provincial counterparts.

In other regions, farmers’ perceptions appeared to differ. Some preferred the environmental farm plan component to be optional — as the Government of Alberta appears to have indicated — and pressed the federal government not to impose a mandatory program, but rather to provide an appropriate working framework. At the very least, they emphasize the importance of setting an adequate deadline for the introduction of corrective procedures which would be made necessary under the environmental plans.

The Nova Scotian agricultural environmental approach was cited as an example by a number of farmers, who told the Committee that, under Nova Scotian legislation, producers who, through self-audits, discover non‑conforming situations are not prosecuted if they develop and carry out a plan designed to correct the problem.

Some witnesses, like Russell Husch of the B.C. Agriculture Council, advocated the introduction of a single window for all matters pertaining to the environmental requirements of each level of government. However, this kind of approach means that federal, provincial and municipal governments must be able to act together and develop realistic common objectives achievable by Canadian farmers. Farmers, however, absolutely do not want to have to knock on the doors of numerous government offices each time they want to develop a new project on their land. The Committee believes that this is precisely how the new Whitehorse initiative is relevant and can produce results if everyone takes part in it in good faith. This does not necessarily mean that a single and universal national policy must be achieved; what is really important is the clarity and coherence of environmental objectives pursued by governments in the agricultural sector, together with realistic and adequately funded implementation measures.

RECOMMENDATION 21

The Committee therefore recommends that the federal government, together with the provincial and territorial governments, continue its consultations on the environmental component of the national action plan and establish a genuine partnership with the agricultural sector for the purpose of developing a national framework for the implementation of environmental farm plans. In addition, farmers should receive appropriate technical and financial assistance to carry out this exercise.

Like many farmers, the Committee firmly believes that the success of the environmental component (as well as that of the other components) of the national action plan, will depend to a large degree on the ability of government stakeholders to sensitize and educate not only farmers but also all Canadians on the subject of the orientations that have been adopted. As consumers of agricultural products, Canadians must also know that the new safety and environmental requirements entail a cost that cannot be attributed to and assumed solely by farmers.

RECOMMENDATION 22

The Committee therefore recommends that the federal government and its partners in the provinces and territories implement effective programs to sensitize and educate all Canadians about the new national action plan on agriculture.

B. Species at Risk and Protection of Wildlife Habitats

The Committee heard testimony from a number of farmers and representatives of agricultural associations concerning the protection of species at risk and wildlife habitats. Some witnesses confirm that they did not object to the bill on species at risk being considered by Parliament and that they could ensure the preservation of the species on their farmlands. Regardless of the expectations of governments and the Canadian public in this regard, they expressed various reservations and were very clear about the conditions associated with this stewardship role: “ [...] we are clearly doing something right, and society must compensate us because we are preserving this heritage for the future.” (Mr. Don McCabe, Ontario Coalition for Major Crop Research)

There is no doubt in the Committee’s mind that governments must provide compensation for the protection of species at risk on agricultural land and to offset losses caused by wildlife and predators. However, the Committee is disturbed by parts of Bill C-5 on species at risk concerning compensation. In particular, it hopes the Department of the Environment will not take four or five years to decide on the parameters that will determine the type of compensation. It also feels that sufficient amounts of money will have to be made available for the purpose of fairly and reasonably compensating property owners, including farmers.

COMMENTARY:

As Bill C-5 is still under consideration by Parliament, it is somewhat inappropriate for the Committee to make a formal recommendation on the subject. However, the Committee nevertheless hopes that, should the bill be passed, the Department of Environment will quickly make known the terms of compensation of property owners and set aside sufficient sums for that purpose.

C. Preservation of Marginal Agricultural Land

Ducks Unlimited briefed the Committee on its National Conservation Cover Incentive Program (NCCIP), which would be carried out in particular through the development of marginal lands such as wetlands. The purpose of that program is to improve the long-term management of those lands so as to improve the supply of goods and environmental supplies. According to Ducks Unlimited, “The benefits that would accrue to society through the conversion of riparian areas and marginal agricultural land to permanent vegetative cover significantly outweigh the cost to do so.”⁴ In 1989, the U.S. passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which serves to fund the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, in which Canada takes part. The Act provides for funding of up to US$45 million. Congress annually votes an amount, which since 1991 has averaged between $15 and $18 million, and an equal amount must be paid by non‑federal American organizations and/or non-governmental organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. The Act provides that 50% of funds shall remain in the United States, whereas 45% are earmarked for Canada and 5% for Mexico. On an exceptional basis, the U.S. Congress granted the maximum amount in 2000, which significantly increased Ducks Unlimited’s ability to purchase wetlands.

Farmers generally support a wetlands conservation program because they acknowledge its importance for the environment. However, certain details of the program raise questions, particularly concerning compensation for farmers. Ducks Unlimited estimated the costs and benefits of its NCCIP for the western provinces, the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario. The largest cost component consists of compensation payments to producers, which were estimated on the basis of the average annual cost to rent agricultural land in the various provinces. The methodology employed uses 1996 census data and is based on the calculation of a simple average of all land rental prices for all four western provinces, which yielded an annual compensation payment to western producers of $32 per hectare. The same calculation yields compensation of $87 per hectare per year for the Atlantic provinces, $124 for Ontario and $80 for Quebec.

The testimony given before the Committee indicates that farmers did not generally venture to suggest what the amount of compensation might be; should it be standard across Canada, based on the type of production, reflect solely in the local agricultural situation? Whatever the case may be, farmers want fair and equitable compensation. We can only admit that, since it is based on the calculation of an average for all western provinces, or all Atlantic provinces, the methodology does not take into account variations in land prices and the opportunity costs of those lands based on the market. This approach could certainly induce farmers the market rental value of whose lands is below the estimated compensation amount to take part in the program, but that would not necessarily be true of those who have lands with a higher market value. Depending on the standard deviations of prices between provinces, or even between regions in a single province, there is every reason to believe that there might be poor distribution in the withdrawal of lands for conservation purposes. Considering that the environmental component of the APF includes a component on the better management of agricultural land, proper national allocation seems important. For that reason:

RECOMMENDATION 23

A marginal agricultural land conservation environmental program would provide benefits for all Canadians. If such a program were created, the Committee recommends that a fair and reasonable compensation be paid to farmers for the withdrawal of their marginal farm land from agricultural production.

D. Fish Habitat

The Committee observed considerable frustration, to say the least, among Canadian farmers with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which is responsible for implementing section 35 of the Fisheries Act. That section confers on the department the right to intervene in all matters pertaining to fish habitat. The obligation under the departmental policy on management of fish habitat is that there be no net loss of habitat. This means that compensation must be paid for any damage caused by any project or action where it is anticipated that fish habitat will be damaged; this compensation may take the form of the creation of new habitats elsewhere, an approach which is not easily realized in agricultural environments.

In view of a number of farmers who testified before the Committee, section 35 of the Fisheries Act is an example of excessive environmental regulation. Some express their frustration with DFO officers’ zeal in looking for chub or minnows in drainage ditches. In British Columbia, salmon swim into the drainage systems of lands located in salmon river basins. Others discuss the lack of standardized interpretation and application of section 35 across the regions.

RECOMMENDATION 24

The Committee recommends that DFO review its criteria for the application of section 35 on fish habitat in the context of agricultural areas and practices, and that it adopt a more standard approach for the Canadian agricultural sector as a whole which takes into account its particular socio-economic characteristics.

The Committee was very interested in the approach outlined to it at its hearings in Kamloops to facilitate cooperation and liaison between farmers, particularly livestock producers, and DFO for protecting fish habitat. In that specific case, DFO recruited a habitat management coordinator responsible for liaison with farmers on issues specific to the protection of fish habitat. It appears that this route greatly facilitates efforts to work with DFO and is proving to be much more effective. However, there remains the question of the financial resources to implement that approach, as not all local or regional organizations can afford the cost of hiring a coordinator.

RECOMMENDATION 25

In order to facilitate the liaison between farmers and DFO regarding the protection of fish habitat, the Committee recommends that DFO and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada appoint regional habitat management/agricultural coordinators, and that the two departments pay associated costs.

⁴       Ducks Unlimited Canada, A National Conservation Cover Incentive Program for Canada, presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 1, 2002, p. 11.