Evidence of meeting #86 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Co-Organizer, Victoria Orange Shirt Day, As an Individual
I think the government needs to come and sit down and listen to the people who live by the water. The water is life. We're committing genocide against the land.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We have time for a second round. We have the House resources, so I'd like to do a truncated round of the kind we did with the first panel. That's basically four minutes and two minutes.
We'll go now to Mr. Kram for four minutes.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
My questions will be for Mr. Annau from Fertilizer Canada.
Mr. Annau, in your opening statement you talked about technologies and practices that can reduce phosphorus runoff into our lakes and rivers. Could you expand a little on these technologies and practices?
1:20 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
Absolutely. There are a number of examples in terms of precision agricultural technologies that we feature in our 4R best practices.
One example would be switching from broadcast fertilizer to banding. We basically insert bands of fertilizer within the actual crop itself, within the soil by the root system, in order to basically provide more of an efficient uptake of nutrients.
There is also reduced overlap. We use section control and on-board GPS to help with the actual tracking of where the machinery can pass through the crop to make sure there is less overlap. By reducing the amount of overlap, we have less of a pile-up of nutrients, which would be less susceptible to runoff in the event of extreme rainfall.
By a similar extent, there is also variable rate equipment that can control the rate at which the fertilizer is applied. Again, that's using on-board sensors to determine where within the crop the nutrients are most required in order to ensure efficient application at the right rate of nutrient application. Once again, this reduces the amount of excess nutrient within the field itself, so in the event of any extreme rainfall, there would be less runoff.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
You also talked in your opening statement about the cost of initial implementation of some of these technologies. For an average farmer on an average farm, how much money are we talking about here?
1:20 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
In terms of equipment, unfortunately, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but it would be in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the equipment you're looking to invest in. We do know that there is government support available on that. I believe the agricultural clean technology fund, for example, does provide a level of support there. I think the cost-share ratio does require a minimum of $50,000 for participants to apply on that.
We definitely address the fact that for smaller farmers who'd benefit from the cost savings that would accrue through best practices associated with this machinery, that potentially might be a bit high of a buy-in. We have always discussed potentially scaling down the equipment so that it's more affordable to a wider variety of farms. To that effect, FC studied that, I believe with ISED, in 2019, prior to the pandemic. I think the outcomes in that report are still forthcoming, but that would be one approach that I think would help with support.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
About three years ago, the government released its report entitled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”. It outlined the government's plan to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% below 2020 levels. I would think that it must include a significant reduction of fertilizer applications to reduce emissions by 30%.
Can you give us an idea of how much fertilizer applications would have to be reduced by in order to reduce emissions by 30%?
1:25 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
We know that the government has put the position forth that it's not an application reduction target, just an emission reduction target. For example, Prime Minister Trudeau did show up at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's AGM this past winter to announce that.
However, we did see language around use reduction mentioned in the budget, so it's something that we do put a bit of a note of concern on.
We do believe that reductions are achievable in terms of implementing 4R practices to ensure that the right rate does require less emission reduction. We hopefully encourage government to focus on not putting reduction caps on fertilizer.
We did have a 4R agro-economic study in the fall—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have to move on to Ms. Taylor Roy for four minutes, please.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to actually continue the line of questioning with Mr. Annau.
I was very interested to hear about the 4R program. We've heard about it many times before. I think it's a fantastic program for our farmers to be using, and I know that many have adopted it, as you have said.
You mentioned the targets you have. I think it was 15 million acres by 2025. Is that correct?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
What percentage of the total farm land does that represent, then—of farmers who could possibly adopt the 4R program?
1:25 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
I actually don't have that information off the top of my head, unfortunately.
Just to be specific, the 15 million would include acres under both our certification and our designation programming, the certification having that component largely run within Ontario, which does have that auditing component for [Inaudible—Editor].
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
If you're able to submit what percentage of farmers are participating in the program and what the goal is in terms of potential to the committee, I'd appreciate it. I think it is a very beneficial program for agriculture, and I know they're doing a lot.
I understand that we are looking at the offset you have talked about as well, which I think would be beneficial.
When you talk about the cost—the hundreds of thousands of dollars—for the equipment that's needed for the targeted fertilizer application, could you put that in context? I find the numbers, when they're just out there, hard to understand compared to, for example, the other capital costs on some of these large farms or the overall expenses on the farms.
If you could submit something that shows what the cost of doing this is, especially on an amortized basis over time, relative to other costs that these large farms are incurring, that would also be helpful.
You mentioned that the agricultural clean tech fund already has funding for this.
1:25 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
Yes, it has funding for support for precision agricultural technology. That's one of the sources of support available.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Do you feel that this funding is sufficient? Do you know what the uptake has been on it?
1:25 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
Unfortunately, I don't know what the uptake of the program has been, off the top of my head. I know it's definitely been used as a key resource for a lot of farms.
In my previous role, I worked at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The initial investment costs for smaller farmers was somewhat of a concern in terms of the cost share.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
The nitrous oxide that is emitted by these fertilizers.... I understand that it's multiple times more destructive or detrimental to our environment than carbon dioxide, for example.
When you talk about the difference between emissions and the actual amount used, how can emissions be reduced without the amount of fertilizer being reduced? I seem to have some question in terms of the application or the alternatives to some of the nitrogen fertilizers that are being used right now.
1:25 p.m.
Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
Absolutely. That's specific to the 4R program that I was talking about, which is a right source of fertilizer applied at the right rate in the right place at the right time.
For example, you can take a similar quantity of fertilizer and apply it after a rainfall, and you would likely have reduced emissions compared to if you had applied it before the rainfall. Increased rainfall, for example, causes volatilization, which increases, of course, emissions from fertilizer.
The goal with the application method there is to make sure that it's really subject to local environmental conditions, as well as regional soil conditions, to account for those variabilities.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Mr. Garon, you have the floor for two minutes.
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You referred to some documents earlier, Grand Chief Bonspille. Just a reminder that you can send them to the committee in the coming days or weeks.
Having said that, the Liberal member told you that your comments were off topic. I can tell you that's not the case. Talking about the environment at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development—
