“I would like to be clear, there is no mandatory reduction in fertilizer use on Canadian farms. Instead, we want to support measures that producers can take voluntarily to reduce their emissions…” Thus spoke the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, concerning the Trudeau Liberals’ intention to reduce fertilizer emissions. But that well-worn cliché “let me be clear” leaves farmers, agribusiness and even federal government insiders unconvinced. Is her statement the Napoleonic velvet glove on an iron fist?
House of Commons Science Committee interviews support those concerns, as well as recently released Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada (AAFC) internal emails, thanks to True North (TNC) news and its Access to Information requests. Documents posted by TNC reveal the unsettling fact that the Liberal government fails to consider the impact on food production when reducing fertilizer usage, despite strong cautions raised by numerous ag-producer groups. Nor were some key federal senior scientists consulted in the policy-making process, as noted in the minutes of House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research meetings.
For example, chief scientist advisor Dr. Mona Nemer has a mandate to provide the federal government with relevant science when creating public policy. Yet, as reported by Farmers Forum, when Manitoba MP Dan Mazier (CON – Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa) questioned Dr. Nemer in committee as to whether she had seen any studies on how reducing fertilizer would affect food production, Dr. Nemer replied “The short answer is ‘no’.” She added that the focus was the reduction targets, and that agriculture presented “huge opportunities” to reach those lower emissions targets. Should agriculture be happy to hold this ominous distinction? Nemer then concluded that line of questioning with an inference to “natural” farming as the goal.
In yet another standing committee session, MP Ben Lobb (CON – Huron-Bruce) elicited a surprising response from Dr. Shawn Marshall, a science advisor with Environment and Climate Change Canada. Lobb asked Dr. Marshall how much consultation was held with citizen scientists, or ground-level scientific observation, during the process of forming policy.
Dr. Marshall responded: “This really gets into the policy realm, which is beyond the purview of the science, the scientists, the science managers and the science advisers here”, stating that the focus of the policy was on environmental impact. Dr. Marshall further affirmed that the 30 % figure was more of a policy decision rather than being directed by scientists.
Click here to see more...