Agriculture Committee on March 28th, 2022

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

Do you think the cost of transition is a major obstacle to the farming community's adoption of that practice on a larger scale?

[Daniel Bernier]

Yes, definitely. For quick gains, we need that assistance. Otherwise, it will be done over the longer term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Perron, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us today.

I will continue along the same lines, Mr. Bernier.

You talked about rewards for environmental goods and services. The UPA is calling for an agri-environmental program to be created.

Could you elaborate on how that program could work?

[Daniel Bernier]

Those would be amounts proposed to producers to help with the extra costs related to some of the best practices. We think that, to advance those practices, we will need a reward system for pro-environmental actions that are not profitable. We feel that, if producers must always carry that burden and thereby jeopardize their profitability, we won't be able to move forward as quickly as we would like.

The carbon market could be worthwhile, but significant costs are still associated with that approach. In many cases, small farms have less access to those systems. So we think that rewards are part of the right formula.

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

I would like to know what you think about my idea that we must make sure that the reward system is decentralized. In other words, producers' efforts must be recognized and they must be enabled, as business owners, to use that money in order to want to make new investments in their business.

Is that how you see this or do you have a different view?

[Daniel Bernier]

This must be adapted as locally as possible, since environmental issues vary greatly from one region to another. We are seeing this phenomenon within the same province. For example, issues are not the same for the St. Lawrence Lowlands and for outlying regions. Therefore, the process must be decentralized and adapted to producers' realities.

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

If I understand correctly, the support is based on the principle of collective choice that is collectively assumed. You cannot carry the entire burden, but you are fully prepared to take action.

[Daniel Bernier]

That's right. As you know, in the agri–food industry, producers don't really have an opportunity to transfer to consumers increases in production costs. These societal demands are essentially meant to protect the environment, and we agree that this is necessary, but it leads to costs for businesses that should be shared among us.

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

To implement such a system, we must have a starting point. Do you think the efforts some producers are already making could be recognized?

As in all industries, there are trailblazers. An easy example comes to mind, that of producers involved in organic farming.

What do you think about that?

[Daniel Bernier]

Ideally, past actions should be recognized, to a point. Trailblazing producers, who innovate on their farms and take risks, have had to bear costs. It is thanks to them the entire industry can benefit from the knowledge gained. So we think it would be necessary to recognize those producers' past actions.

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

In that sense, don't you think it is ironic for a producer who has been selling organic products for 20 years or 25 years to have to pay to be recognized as an organic producer? Should they not instead be paid to be rewarded for selling organic products?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Daniel Bernier]

You are referring to the cost of certification.

In a way, producers agree to bear the costs of that certification. Generally speaking, those organic certified products have a value added. The issue is the cost of revising the standard. We think that is the federal government's responsibility. That standard is issued under the government's authority. Revision costs should be paid by the government. We currently know that there are issues. The government would like to pass the cost on to organic producers. I think that is very problematic.

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

We heard from the minister a little while ago. My understanding of her answer was that the money was made available temporarily. It was not a matter of money withdrawn, but the end of something.

What do you think about that? Should that money be permanently available?

[Daniel Bernier]

Yes, indeed. That money should be permanently available.

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

It is the government's responsibility. That standard enables producers to justify the value of their products and to promote their exports, if I understand the matter correctly.

[Daniel Bernier]

Exactly.

A national standard, which is there to guarantee the quality of the label, is a government responsibility.

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

Have you held discussions with the government on this? Were you told this money would be withdrawn regardless of what happens? Is there a time frame?

I feel like we are not hearing a lot about it, which is surprising.

[Daniel Bernier]

We have made our representations. We maintain that it is the federal government's responsibility. The funding is in the amount of $1 million every five years. The issue is knowing how producers could manage to fund that. We think that the federal government must handle it.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perron and Mr. Bernier.

I now give the floor to Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start my questioning with the Agriculture Carbon Alliance.

Mr. Carey, in your opening statement, there was one sentence that stuck out for me. You said that you wanted to have a formal working arrangement between ECCC and AAFC.

I was looking abroad to other jurisdictions. In Australia—I'm going to paraphrase from their national soil strategy—they say that there's “a 20-year strategy that sets out how Australia will value, manage and improve its soil”. Also, it “has been developed in collaboration with state and territory governments, the National Soils Advocate and other major stakeholders in soil science and land management”.

The aims are to restore and protect soil nationally. They want it to be driven by “collaborative and coordinated on-ground action, research, education, monitoring and governance”. They say, “All levels of government, industry, research institutions, private soil science practitioners and land managers have a role to play...”.

What are your thoughts when you hear that a foreign government like Australia is embarking on such a strategy? Do you see any parallels for Canada and any lessons that we can learn from Australia as an example?

[Dave Carey]

Thanks for the question. I'll see if Scott has anything to add at the end.

A big driving force behind the ACA coming to fruition was that, after December 2020, “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” had around 65 bullet points, many of which had an agri-environmental focus. Shortly thereafter, there was a big webinar with ECCC around nature-based climate solutions. There were hundreds of people on the line and perhaps two or three agriculture stakeholders.

We like to be permissive rather than prescriptive, but the current venues—working group-wise or round table-wise—do not work. We need to be able to engage in a pragmatic, proactive and collaborative way further upstream. When I hear about that level of collaboration.... That's exactly what we want. We need a way to work directly with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada—with those who have sufficient seniority within both of those departments—and to have the right farm groups and producer groups around the table, to ensure that the policies rolling out are applicable. We often get into this cubicle or regulatory mind-making in Ottawa or Gatineau—and I'm part of that—but it's not applicable to the 20 million canola acres, or to the beef farms and dairy farms across Canada.

We need some way to engage meaningfully at a “small p” policy level. We're not there to talk political realities, but we are there to talk about how the government's goals can align with the farmers', and how pragmatic policy can actually be achieved. I think that's something we do not currently have.

We defer to the government on how they want to implement that. There has been discussion about a joint role between Ag Canada and ECCC. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Ag Canada have a joint position. I'll pause there and see if Scott has anything else to add, Mr. MacGregor, but it's great to see that. That's how we're going to accomplish our goals.

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

Thank you.

With respect, Mr. Ross, I want to move on to Mr. Currie from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

On the same question, do you have any thoughts? Also, a supplemental.... You made reference to the living labs and so on. In the CFA's interactions with research institutions across Canada—notably the deans council of agriculture—and in addition to answering my previous question, can you also expand a bit more on where the knowledge gaps exist in measuring soil carbon content, etc.? Do you see any specific areas where you want to see federal research focus? I'd like your perspective, please.

[Keith Currie]

Thanks, Mr. MacGregor.

I think Mr. Carey outlined your first question very well. At the end of the day, what we're looking for is that practical applicability on the ground. We look at what governments have set as targets for the last 25 years with respect to climate change. Most have not even come close to meeting them, because they're not looking at what is practical to implement on the ground.

That's what we're asking for: Work with us so we can develop those programs together, and so we can actually move the bar going forward, without putting that burden back on the farm community, from a financial aspect.

When it comes to looking at research going on across Canada or what's needed.... At the end of the day, I think the big piece of the puzzle we're missing is data. Where are we starting from? It's very difficult to know where you're going if you don't know where you're starting from. That's a big piece we need to find out. How are we measuring soil carbon? Are we accurate? How are we going forward to find out which technologies out there can we further implement to improve carbon sequestration? We really need research on how to get and utilize that data to the best of our ability going forward.