Agriculture Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

In another part of budget 2021, we announced some dollars to go towards helping farmers make some of that land more profitable by keeping wetlands and keeping forestry on land, and I think we mentioned using a reverse auction. Have we started to think about what that will look like shortly given the objectives of that particular program?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I'd like a quick answer, please.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Is there such a thing?

[Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Services, Department of the Environment]

I think the question on the reverse auction is for me.

The short answer is that the work is still ongoing, so the details still need to be worked out. As with any of the programs described, we're going to need to work with the stakeholders to define that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Shannon.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. We are very grateful to them.

Ms. Shannon, I'd like to give you the opportunity to finish your last response, because you were forced to answer in a few seconds. I'd like to hear the long answer, please.

[Tara Shannon]

Thank you very much.

There isn't too much more for me to add, except I note that the budget did identify up to $60 million to support a number of initiatives on farms and agricultural lands, including a reverse auction. A reverse auction is a way for the Government of Canada to support farmers who wish to set aside lands for wetlands, habitat conservation or grassland redevelopment, among other reasons.

Details do need to be worked out. The budget was just announced and we're pleased, but we have to continue with some work to define that.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Valicenti, I'd like to come back to your last response. You spoke of knowledge transfer between academia and the farming community. What is happening with investment in research and development for new technologies? You spoke of grain dryers, for example. I'd like you to talk about budget estimates. We've heard from people in universities that university infrastructure is underfunded. Do you have anything planned for that?

When you talk about new technologies for grain dryers, $50 million might seem like a pretty small amount. The witnesses we had talking about this issue said that the current alternatives were not economically viable. These are the areas in particular where the federal government could make a difference. I'd like to hear from you about that.

[Marco Valicenti]

Thank you very much, Chair. I would make two comments.

On the grain drying, again, I would remind the committee that in budget 2021 as part of the $165 million agriculture clean-tech program, $50 million was carved out for this as well as $10 million for fuel switching, which was another component that was deemed to be part of the $165 million.

We are pretty active with Canadian companies as well in looking at those new technologies. This is a fund will exist for a number of years, seven years, and we know that there is a need now. We are looking at new technologies, as I mentioned, such as biomass. But it does allow for companies to think about building some of those newer prototypes whereby we can fund the research and the innovation component of green efficiency, or grain drying or barn heating, as well. The program will allow both immediate...as well as thinking about new prototypes in this area.

With regard to academia, I wanted to mention again, on the agriculture climate solutions, that it's a $185 million, 10-year program, the living labs component. Within these groups of individuals, we will have producers, academia, and NGOs as well developing within their landscape, within their project proposal, new BMPs that will support more efficiency in the greenhouse gas reduction components. That's going to be an element where academia will play a part of that.

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

That's good. Thank you.

I was just talking about that $50 million over seven years that you mentioned.

Given that it's a difficult area in which to turn a profit, could that amount possibly be increased?

Has anything been planned? Is it just a preliminary sum that can be increased based on policy decisions down the road?

[Marco Valicenti]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, the level of funding is not a question for officials. We have $50 million, and I think we're going to play with that money, for sure.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to turn to Mr. Moffet now. I will proceed quickly and, if necessary, I will come back to him in the second round.

Mr. Moffet, you mentioned in your remarks that we need to move beyond the status quo, that is, excluding what was already being done. At previous meetings, we've seen people who have been farming organically for over 20 years. They are pioneers who have developed techniques.

Do you have a plan for including those individuals in your offset system to recognize what they are doing?

Even though it's not new, what they are doing is still very positive in terms of environmental protection. It's pretty hard not to recognize that. Encouraging a producer who is an extremely big polluter to pollute less is fine, but is there no way to include those who have already done a lot of the work in your process?

[John Moffet]

That's an excellent question, and it's a big challenge for us.

The reality, however, is that what we need to do is to focus on creating incentives for new or changed behaviour so that we increase sequestration or reduce emissions relative to their current levels.

There are some practices where there are some farmers working on the cutting edge in experimenting with doing things differently. To the extent that we can identify those activities and develop a standardized approach to measuring the impacts of those activities, if those farmers and other farmers undertake those activities they would be considered beyond business as usual and could be eligible for an offset.

The challenge for us comes in determining when an activity that once was new is now close to business as usual in Canada. That's the challenge that we have in determining exactly what qualifies for an offset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Right now we will have Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you to our departmental witnesses for engaging with us on this study.

I'm not sure if Mr. Parry or Mr. Moffet will be best suited to answer a question regarding the soil organic carbon change indicator. It is on AAFC's website, and the last data that we have is 10 years old.

I want to know about the progress being made on that and about some of the methodology that you're using, because if we want to know where we're going, we have to know where we're at currently.

I know Canada is a very regional country. Our agricultural soils are very different, depending what region you're in, but is there a sense of just how much carbon our soils can absorb on a per-hectare basis in different regions? Is there a maximum amount? How much carbon generally do you think our soils are capable of taking out of the atmosphere through these beneficial farming practices?

[Matt Parry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. It's a very good question.

I will turn to Javier from our science and technology branch to respond to this one.

[Dr. Javier Gracia-Garza]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

Indeed, the information that is available right now, as you pointed out, is dated. It was collected in the census back from 2011. This census is done every five years, so we are in the process of updating that with information up to 2016.

That said, we do have information, and it's a system that records that...between the census and internal modelling that we do for each of the difference practices—the crops, etc.—that are developed throughout the country. The figures will be updated soon, and we're working to actually change this scheduling to be more frequently reporting on the soil carbon that is in our soils.

The methodologies that we follow are pretty much standardized around the world, using the kinds of models or systems that are approved through international standards.

Now, on your last question about the diversity of different soils that we have in the country and the different geographic sorts of conditions, we have different coefficients and models for each of the different areas. We are in the process of establishing, through some of that activity, the differences of what different soils in different regions of the country are capable of storing.

That being said, the carbon cycle is a very dynamic system, and what is possible biologically is something that needs, I would say, continuity in maintaining practices. It is not something that I can define as a very stable thing, but it's a dynamic system.

I'll stop there.

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

Okay. Understood. Thank you so much.

Mr. Parry, at an earlier meeting last month, one of our witnesses was Danone, a big multinational company that is investing a considerable sum of its own funding into regenerative agriculture. They have received feedback from the farmers involved, who have reported lower input costs, better yields and overall soil health. There's an accumulating body of evidence out there showing that this is not only going to be good for our environment, but it's also going to benefit our farmers' bottom line.

Is there any kind of data similar to what Danone is engaging in that AAFC is also using to help develop some of these programs? I know that farmers know a lot of this already, but there's always room for improvement in any kind of a system you're operating in, and that knowledge transfer I think is a really important part of it. Is there anything you can contribute on that?

[Matt Parry]

I think my answer would be a fairly general one in the sense that the government has made it very clear that it intends to work closely with farm groups, producer organizations, the food industry and other stakeholders to very much explore these opportunities and look for ways to address environmental issues, such as climate change, while at the same time expanding and growing businesses. I would make the point that there have been several references to the living labs work, which is intended to bring together different perspectives and really look at those projects or activities that can really provide a win-win-win scenario.

I'll just check if any of my colleagues want to elaborate on that.

[Warren Goodlet, Director General, Research and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

I would just add briefly that, as part of the living labs, there's also looking at the socio-economic factors of it, including the economic barriers and benefits that the farmer sees. Therefore, there is a bottom-line economic aspect to that work, as well as the scientific angle to the living labs. Both sides are being looked at there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Goodlet.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Now we'll go to the second round, starting with five minutes for Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to the departmental witnesses for joining us today.

I'd like to begin with some basics. Agriculture's fairly positive environmental record since 2005, particularly with greenhouse gases, has come from many, many different things, but one of those things is a basic toolkit called the 4Rs.

I'd like to begin with AAFC. For the record, so it's not me or one of my colleagues reading it in for the report, can you talk about the 4Rs—define them and talk about your view of them?

[Matt Parry]

The 4R process refers to a set of practices and activities that I believe has been developed by Fertilizer Canada. It is very much about practices that farmers can undertake to improve the application of fertilizer.

I'll turn to one of my colleagues who may be able to speak in a little more detail on the four elements that were noted.

Dr. Gracia-Garza.

[Dr. Javier Gracia-Garza]

Sure.

Very quickly, the 4R process is this: done at the right rate, at the right time, at the right placement and with the right type of fertilizer. I think it is a set of different practices that is attempting to use the inorganic fertilizers in the most efficient possible way. Independently, each of these different points—rate, etc.—is something that's scientifically—academics, our own scientists within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.... It's research that has been going on for many years and is now packaged by, as my colleague said, Fertilizer Canada to advance it as a package. It is a group of different principles that farmers should be applying to make good use of fertilizers.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll go back to Mr. Parry.

You talked about the different programs targeted at environmental initiatives. What percentage of AAFC's budget is directed toward environmental initiatives and support? Just give me a rough ballpark percentage.