Agriculture Committee on March 28th, 2022

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

Thank you.

Mr. Carey, in the last 30 seconds, do you have anything to add on where knowledge gaps might exist and where you think Canadian research can be best focused?

[Keith Currie]

Certainly, we're continuing to work on a soil strategy—

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

I was asking if Mr. Carey from the ACA could add to that. I'm sorry about that.

[Dave Carey]

I think he's right. We don't know exactly where the baseline is—the measurement—so, if anything, we need to take a step back. Some of the soil health testing methods we're using are almost a century old. Again, are we looking at carbon saturation, or how much soil can be pulled in?

I know the current measurements only look at root depth for crops that go to a certain point, whereas a crop like canola goes deeper. There are some fundamental basics, Mr. MacGregor, that we don't know yet, which makes it very difficult to determine, as we get into more nascent sciences, and possibly to measure indirect emissions, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Carey.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Lehoux, go ahead for five minutes please.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will be for Mr. Currie, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Currie, you talked about livestock in‑feed additives. Health Canada considers those products drugs, but that is not the case in the European Union, Brazil and other countries you mentioned.

I would like you to elaborate on the issue of considering those products drugs rather than food.

[Keith Currie]

Thank you.

I'll ask my colleague Frank Annau to step in here on that question.

[Frank Annau, Director, Environment and Science Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you so much for the great question.

That was definitely [Technical difficulty—Editor] in regard to the 3-NOP cattle feed.

With respect to the actual difference in the approval process through Health Canada for it being considered a medication versus a cattle feed, our understanding is that the process does require a longer evaluation and more steps to go through in order for it to reach markets.

With respect to how that lines up with criteria for evaluating that difference in the EU, I think a little work has to possibly be done to look into why the EU may consider that classification to be quicker, more specific to cattle feed and more rapid in coming to market.

We do know, according to the Alberta study, that with different mixtures of cattle feed—whether it was mixed with corn feed or barley feed—you can get upwards of an 80% reduction in methane per cow, with usually a minimum of 30% reduction. That's obviously a very significant impact, especially with the increased recognition that methane has gotten over the last year under the IPCC reports.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Do you have a recommendation for us from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on this matter?

What kind of pressure should we be exercising to speed things up?

Many countries consider it a food, not a drug, which changes a lot of things for producers.

Could you provide a recommendation on this?

Who should we talk to first to speed up this process?

[Frank Annau]

My immediate reaction would be to look into the EU, specifically under their farm to fork strategy, at what evaluation process they may be using in order to make sure that this feed gets to market as quickly as possible.

Whether it can be considered more of a feed approach as opposed to a veterinary drug here in Canada would be a really great place to start, as well as making sure that cattle feed from other potential approaches are evaluated here as well. There's news, for example, about red seaweed cattle feed additives that may have a reduction per cow.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Annau.

I'm going to put a question to Mr. Bernier from the Union des producteurs agricoles.

With regard to the need to fund research more adequately, particularly applied research, what progress has been made on that front?

Do you have any solutions to propose to accelerate the funding of applied research?

[Daniel Bernier]

It certainly takes more research, whether it's finding alternatives to pesticides or techniques to reduce greenhouse gases. Food was also alluded to. We need to invest in knowledge. That is how we can move our agriculture forward. We must invest more in research and not forget the transfer of this knowledge to agricultural producers.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Exactly. My question was along those lines. It's important to do research, but if we want to stay competitive, it also has to be applicable afterwards, in a simpler way, in the agricultural field.

I would like to hear your views on this.

[Daniel Bernier]

One solution we advocate is to partner researchers with producers to bring science as close as possible to the needs of agricultural producers.

At our living lab at Lake St. Pierre, we have just this approach, and it is very much appreciated by agricultural producers. We do research specific to the needs expressed by agricultural producers.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you both very much.

Ms. Taylor Roy, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you so much.

Thank you to all the witnesses. This has been incredibly informative. It obviously points out the need for a lot more research in this area.

My first question was to do with the statement made by Mr. Bernier—and perhaps Mr. Caron, since you haven't spoken to address this—that the greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector are necessary and are likely not to be reduced.

In terms of net zero, with some of these other things you've been talking about, like the carbon sequestration in soil, can you see the sector getting to net zero, as opposed to eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions?

[Daniel Bernier]

In fact, carbon sequestration can certainly help the agricultural sector to reduce its carbon footprint, but I would be surprised if carbon neutrality is achieved. Also, I wonder about this: when you want to sell these reductions on the carbon market, it means that it is other sectors, particularly the industrial sector, that could appropriate this reduction. So, at some point, we will have to clarify what we want. Do we want agriculture to reduce its carbon footprint or do we want to use agriculture as a producer of carbon credits for industry?

Both are possible, but if we hope to reduce the carbon footprint of our agriculture, we should be careful. If we sell our reductions to other sectors, we can't count them twice. Either they belong to us or they belong to the industry or potential buyers.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, I understand that. However, having said that, do you think it would be possible to get to net zero if you were retaining those carbon reductions within the agricultural sector? Could you see getting that 8% down to zero?

[Daniel Bernier]

I doubt it. We can certainly reduce our emissions by 10%, 15% or 20%, or even more, but to get them to zero, that would surprise me.

Note that I only have the Quebec picture. It is possible that the carbon sequestration capacity is greater in western Canada. We must be aware that agricultural soils do not have an infinite capacity to sequester carbon. It takes soils that are relatively poor in organic matter and for which a change in practices can contribute to increasing the organic matter, and therefore the carbon in the soil. This can then be done for a few decades, but there will come a time when the soil will be saturated with organic matter and will stop sequestering carbon.

In Quebec, we have some sequestration capacity, but it is not enough to bring the carbon footprint to zero.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

My other question is for the Agriculture Carbon Alliance. There are two parts to it.

One is about the price on pollution—the carbon charge—and the rebate that's being given right now. You mentioned that having this rebate at the end of the year, and the time lag, were reducing investments being made by the agricultural sector. Would a move to providing those rebates perhaps four times a year, as opposed to through a credit on the tax system, improve that?

The second part of that question is what investments you feel are not being made. Are those investments that would otherwise be reducing carbon emissions or greenhouse gas emissions?

[Scott Ross]

I could speak a bit to it, and I'll let Dave speak to the time lag, because that's something he's a little more familiar with.

In terms of the types of investments we're looking at, it really ranges, depending on the type of farm we're speaking about. There are significant investments that are possible in terms of a barn perspective. There's LED lighting, heat exchanges and anaerobic digesters. There is a whole host of these sorts of investments that can be made, but the concern is ensuring that sufficient capital is available.

I think a more expedient return of funds from the rebate would be beneficial. From my perspective, there is still a concern with the extent to which the carbon price that an individual farm is paying is reflected in the rebate they're receiving. There are some equity considerations there.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have one more question to do with the grain drying and the use of propane and other fuels.

I read about the electrification of the system in Manitoba and perhaps using heat pumps, as well, to help with this. Is that at all feasible, and has anything been done on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Could we have your answer in 15 seconds, please?

[Dave Carey]

Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec have hydro electrification. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, it is not possible. The grid does not allow it, or it's not hydro-based; it's actually coal-based in some regards. Unfortunately, the answer is no.