Evidence of meeting #110 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was international.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you very much.
We'll conclude with you, Mr. Cannings. The floor is yours for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
I'm just going to finish off with Mr. Webb.
I'm trying to figure out the role of some of the broader world agencies around this, like the WTO. If we move to a system in which we have carbon border adjustments in agriculture, how will that be regulated?
Will it be more bilateral trading agreements? Will it be something under the umbrella of the WTO that could set this up?
There are certain sections of the WTO that seem kind of dysfunctional right now because of how the United States is playing into it.
I'm just wondering if you could comment on the higher-level issues.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Institute for Food Security
It's evident that the director of the WTO actually embraces the idea of these border carbon adjustments, but it's the membership of the WTO that has to get on board with this. Again, it comes down to how we get everybody on the same page. The comment about harmonization and alignment is so critical.
I think the WTO is going to have a role. The lady on the last panel, whose name I can't remember, talked about the devil being in the details.
The risk of these border adjustments being seen as a non-tariff trade barrier or as an unfair government subsidy is very real. Before implementing a policy, I think that knowing how you're going to adjudicate it is absolutely essential. It requires those international trade organizations to be on board.
It's a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Dr. Webb, I have just one final question.
I think what I'm hearing today is.... The elephant in the room has been around carbon pricing in agriculture. It's largely non-existent on farm fuels. Bill C-234 is before the House. I chide my Conservative colleagues sometimes about when it might be called.
I think the broader question, whether or not carbon pricing applies, is if there would be some other form of, let's say, contribution from the industry. If we believe there's work to be done—and I take the point you've made about the fact that farmers have done this by adopting technologies and that they've been focused on innovation—there may come a time when there is a trade-off between the economy and the environmental outcome. How do we actually go about finding that balance?
I take your point about a Canadian ag strategy and regional pieces; that's all fine. However, we're talking about Canada's position in the world in terms of how we reconcile both Canada's existing, perhaps, competitive advantage on sustainability and the idea that we want to continue working industry-wide—not just in agriculture—on reducing emissions with not wanting to undermine competitiveness in a world where we are trading globally.
If you held the pen, how would you construe it?
I'm not hearing about CBAM. Is it maybe a club approach, where you would align with other countries that are clearly asking their agriculture industry to do something, whether it be on pricing or on other types of initiatives, such as massive government subsidies to try to help industry, that have an impact on the taxpayer's purse?
How would you draw it, if you had the pen, in about one minute?
Chief Executive Officer, Global Institute for Food Security
Thank you for the job, Mr. Chair.
Again, from a Canadian perspective, one of the things I think we need is a unified voice on agriculture. We don't have an ambassador for agriculture. We have lots of people around who talk, but we don't have a unified voice or a common voice to champion this. I think that is something we could really use.
On the standpoint of how we do the implementation, it has to give us bang for our buck. What's the rate of return on the investment? I don't believe we've got to where we are in Canada because it didn't make economic sense. It makes economic, environmental and social sense with everything the farmers have already done. We need to be myopically focused on those economic, environmental and social returns and not see them as a trade-off for one another. I think that's where the whole mindset shift has to take to place.
New tools and new innovation are absolutely key. We've heard from the other witnesses today about the lack of access to tools and technologies. That's a pity. I know that needs to happen, and Canada needs to be at the forefront of that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I think we would agree on that. The question is how we both reward it and don't have it undermined. We'll continue this discussion.
Thank you to all of our witnesses. On behalf of the members, Madame Lefebvre, Monsieur Bourgoin and Dr. Webb, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, members, for hanging in. I know we had a delayed vote. We will see you bright and early on Thursday morning, at 8:15.
The meeting is adjourned.