Agriculture Committee on April 29th, 2021

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

You said there were around 240 to 250 to a survey.

[Virginia Labbie]

That's with regard to the survey that I've provided to you today, yes.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

How do you take these surveys? Can you just explain how you do this? You mentioned phone calls. You mentioned things like that, so how do you actually do your surveys?

[Virginia Labbie]

These are surveys that are sent out by email to our farm members directly. They have the opportunity to participate in these surveys. We go on the principle of one member, one vote, so our members fill out our surveys, provide their feedback to various survey questions, and provide their many comments about the issues that impact their agribusinesses.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

The budget was just released last week. I wonder if you have done any surveys with your organization or with your agri-food businesses. If you haven't, do you plan on getting feedback on the budget?

[Virginia Labbie]

Yes, we will be surveying our members. We know that farmers are leaders in carbon sequestration, and as I've mentioned, farmers have implemented many measures to protect the environment.

Certainly, in the months ahead, we'll be looking for more details on the many measures mentioned in the federal budget to determine if these programs will be practical and cost effective, and recognize farmers' strong environmental leadership.

We're currently working on a survey on the environment for all of our members, and we'll be surveying our farm members during that time as well.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

At the last meeting, we had Farmers for Climate Solutions testify. I assume you are familiar with them. They released a press release on the federal budget that said it brought “good news” for Canadian agriculture “as farmers begin preparing for the upcoming growing season.”

The government has allocated unprecedented funds to support Canadian farmers in adopting climate-friendly practices, a move that is expected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are generated on farms. “Ottawa will invest $200 million in new funding over two years to support farmers to reduce emissions”, “$60 million over the next two years to protect existing trees and wetlands”, and “$10 million over the next two years to power farms with clean energy.” Those are some of the things in the budget.

Farmers for Climate Solutions are happy with the budget, and I believe they do not support Bill C-206. They have over 20,000 members, and one of their members, Ian McCreary, a grain and livestock farmer in Saskatchewan, commented:

Our national and international customers want us to grow food more sustainably, and with only nine seasons left to achieve Canada’s 2030 target under the Paris Agreement, this investment will support farmers across the country to scale-up practices that are proven to reduce our sector’s emissions. Climate change poses the single largest threat to our sector, and this investment is an imperative for our ongoing success.

I guess my question is this: If Bill C-206 fails, what are the suggestions of your organization's members? Are they willing to do grants and rebates moving forward on what they pay for pollution?

[Virginia Labbie]

As you mentioned, we're on the ground every day, talking to our members about these issues and consulting them through our various member surveys. When we talk to farmers, they all say the same thing: Exemptions are preferable to rebates. That's why we're here today to support this bill.

Certainly, we have to wait to see what that looks like in terms of the details of that rebate—how they would qualify, who would qualify, how their business can participate, those sorts of things—so we would need more information before commenting on any kind of rebate system, and we would need to consult our members, as we always do. We always go to our members in terms of their views.

We are encouraged that the federal government has recognized that the federal carbon tax on natural gas and propane is a problem. We've seen that in the budget. We're encouraged that all opposition parties showed support for Bill C-206 at second reading, and when we talked to farm members, we found that they support exemptions, which is one of the reasons why CFIB is supporting Bill C-206.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Labbie.

Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

We'll move to Monsieur Perron.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes, Mr. Perron.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ghatala, I want to follow up on what we were discussing. You said that you thought that it was quite possible to incorporate 15% renewable gas into the fuels used for grain drying and other purposes by 2030, without changing the current equipment. It would be quite ironic to continue to tax producers who make that effort for the other fuels that they use.

I gather that you're suggesting that we pass Bill C-206. I have many questions, but we don't have much time. Let's try to proceed quickly.

If Bill C-206 were passed, would you propose an amendment to encourage producers to use biogas?

How else should the government encourage them to do so?

[Fred Ghatala]

Thank you.

By incorporating biogas, the clean fuel standard I mentioned would reflect the reduced carbon intensity of Canadian-produced feedstocks that are turned into advanced biofuels. There's a clear signal to continue to drive improved agricultural practices on the farm, which could include RNG.

We note, in part of our remarks, that growers are trade exposed. Grain drying is emission-intensive, so they are not able to avail themselves of things like the output-based pricing system or similar approaches that shield the full application of the carbon price. Our support of it is just the recognition that our sector has a decadal growth opportunity in front of it, but fundamental to that is the participation of Canadian farmers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay. It was a little vague, but I gather that you think that we should be providing support up front.

You spoke about biofuels that could be made from farm residue. Several producers have told us that they need it for their soils, among other things. The residue is ground up for the next year, and so on.

Do you think that it would be possible to use external material, such as forest products?

[Fred Ghatala]

Yes, absolutely. This is crops. This is forestry residues. This is coprocessing those products in refineries. This is in all of the above strategies. The clean fuel standard, if designed correctly, reflects the ability of all those teams to participate. Modelling by ECCC shows that low-carbon fuels provide 45% of the compliance credits. The good part about the CFS is that it allows multiple fuel types to participate, so there are many options for farmers and foresters and waste management sectors to all participate in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now we'll move to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll pose both my questions to the CFIB.

First, Bill C-206 is a pretty narrow bill. It's not a lengthy read or anything like that. Are you satisfied with the bill in its current form or are there any amendments you think could be made to it?

Second—and this comes from my last question—you did mention farmers are very proud of the work they do in being environmental stewards of the land. I agree with you. We know the pride that farmers have and that they depend on a healthy environment to raise good crops. Have you heard any feedback from your members on how that pride translates into effective federal policy?

Do your members want to see federal incentives for better agricultural practices being rewarded for carbon sequestration? As an organization have you ever received any feedback on those fronts?

[Virginia Labbie]

As I mentioned, our members are leaders in carbon sequestration. We've been doing this for 25 years as zero- and minimum-tillage practices, that sort of thing. Certainly our members want to be recognized for the important role they play in protecting the environment, and as I said, they've already taken a number of steps to do that.

Our view is to not add additional costs to their operation and to provide carbon tax relief at this point. This helps them move forward and helps them invest in technology and contribute to protecting the environment, as they're already doing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Are you satisfied with the bill in its current form? You have no suggested amendments.

[Virginia Labbie]

We're here to support the bill. Our members believe this is an opportunity to provide carbon tax relief, moving forward. Again, our members believe this is a first step in addressing some of the unfairness of the carbon tax. As I've talked about, there's definitely an unfairness there with how much farmers and small businesses bear in terms of the carbon tax. If you can provide an exemption for our farm members....

Let's remember that there is a precedent already in place. Certain exemptions already apply to the greenhouse sector. Expanding exemptions for fuel used to dry grains just makes sense for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Labbie.

This concludes the second portion of our study today.

I want to thank Fred Ghatala, director of Advanced Biofuels Canada, and Jasmin Guénette and Virginia Labbie from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Thanks for participating, and that will conclude our meeting today.

[Virginia Labbie]

Thank you so much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You're welcome.

Thank you so much to the committee. We'll see you all next week. Have a good week.