Agriculture Committee on Oct. 1st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'll start with you, Dr. Webb, and then we'll go to the Association des producteurs maraîchers for a comment, if you have one.

[Dr. Steven Webb]

From a Canadian perspective, as I mentioned, we already lead the way. We've implemented technologies that were pioneered here in western Canada, in Saskatchewan, like no till, minimum till, herbicide-tolerant canola and rotation.

The problem is that when you consider how we look at measurements, there are arbitrary dates, like the Paris accord in 2015. How are we, from a Canadian perspective, going to recognize the contribution that farmers have already made?

For example, one of the farmers on our grower advisory panel has been practising no till for 40 years. On their farming operation, which is 29,000 acres in Saskatchewan, they've increased the soil carbon from 3% to 6%. I don't think that individual is going to get any recognition for the amount of carbon they've sequestered. Again, I think that's part of the conversation that we need to have about how to ensure that we don't discourage the ongoing sustainable practices that are in place here in Canada while other countries catch up to us.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Are there other comments?

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

I would say two things.

First, in terms of leadership, let's first look at Europe. The European Union is trying to harmonize practices within its free-trade agreements for goods. Here, in North America, almost every province in Canada has its own system. As for the United States, as was explained earlier, the federal government has not provided general rules. States are left to establish their own practices. So there is a need to harmonize our practices, given the volumes that flow back and forth across the border.

Second, in terms of leadership, let's take the example of the Americans. The U.S. government is determined to give farmers the means to achieve their ambitions. We have seen the flurry of support measures in the Inflation Reduction Act. Here in Canada, farmers are still waiting to hear what provincial and federal authorities will do to support farmers' climate transition.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

To go back to my broader question, my understanding is that it's not about if there are going to be border carbon adjustments, including in very important segments like agriculture, but it's about how to do it.

This question is for Mr. Webb and our other witnesses. Of the current players that are feeding into this and the number of departments that are involved, do we have the players at the table to make sure we have harmonization and recognition of the work already done? Without having that as a reason not to continue to innovate and do more work, what players are not yet at the table that should be?

[Dr. Steven Webb]

I'll jump in here.

One of the things I see happening is more from the leadership in industry. You see organizations like CANZA, which includes the University of Guelph, the University of Saskatchewan and farmers, as well as Maple Leaf, Nutrien and the Royal Bank, for example, working through how to develop the MRV—the measurement, reporting and verification processes—to enable this.

GIFS is involved with a project that started with an MOU between Bayer and the Government of Saskatchewan, along with the University of Saskatchewan, to look at how to actually implement that ability to measure and report. This goes beyond the voluntary. If you're going to be trading carbon, how do you really line it up and lean it in? Those are ongoing activities. I don't know how well industry is engaged in this conversation. I think it's an “all hands on deck” situation. There are vehicles for this within Canada. We have a unique position with the national index on agri-food performance, which has over 150 members in coalition, from all sectors of agriculture.

Again, leaning into the power of the whole value chain would be really important in order for us to be effective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here with us.

I will address the representatives of the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec.

Earlier, you referred to financial assistance, support and predictability. What is your overall impression of risk management?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

Risk management programs are no longer adequate at all. In Quebec, in particular, the past three years have been difficult. In 2022, we were the victims of aphids and diseases in squash. In 2023, there were torrential rains. In 2024, it was the same thing. We realize that nothing is working anymore in risk management programs. There is no support to continue farming.

If other regulatory requirements are imposed, some producers will no longer be able to carry on.

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

Despite the goodwill shown earlier, it seems that products coming into Canada from abroad are not necessarily subject to the same requirements or the same rigorous inspections as Canadian products. Where does that put your producers?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

Let's take the example of products that require inspection before they can enter the United States. This is the case for potatoes and onions, for example. According to the last figures we were given, products imported into Canada are inspected once every 500 times.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

I would add a very concrete example that is only a few months old. In the middle of winter, 50 Canadians ended up in hospital after eating cantaloupes from Mexico. Five of them never came out of the hospital. In this case, one might ask how the risk management programs worked.

I have another question. A lot of resources are spent on risk management during the summer for field vegetables in Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. As far as I know, there is no field vegetable production in the middle of January in Canada. At that point, are all those resources made available to control foreign products coming into the country, or are we taking advantage of the opportunity to reduce work hours, on the pretext that they are not Canadian products? I would like an answer to that question.

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

Do you have an answer? Did you make a comment on the ground?

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

I wanted to be skeptical, so I'll withhold my answer.

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

Okay.

In my exchange with Ms. Donohue earlier, I mentioned the example of the famous carrots from China. You talked about that as well. We could also talk about lettuce from Mexico, for example.

You are dealing with the situation on a daily basis, when you have to compete with people who do not play by the same rules as you do. That is basically what you are telling us. We are talking about crop protection products used and the quality of food, but there is also the whole issue of working conditions, which we haven't even talked about.

What's missing? What would you recommend we do better?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

There has to be a level playing field for everyone. Right now, carbon standards vary from country to country, and even from province to province.

In Quebec, we have Agriclimat, a project in which researchers are setting the foundation for measuring carbon consumption or the effects of carbon on our agricultural environments in the province. However, we realize that the more we reduce the carbon footprint, that is, greenhouse gases, the more we have to increase the use of pesticides. Is that really what we want, to use more pesticides to reduce the carbon footprint? In the vegetable sector, the carbon footprint is mainly attributable to the use of machinery. If we have to reduce the use of machinery, whether we like it or not, we have to increase the use of pesticides. We have no other option.

In this equation, we have to ask ourselves some questions. If we don't have the same crop protection products as other countries, are we really able to reduce greenhouse gases?

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

I would also like to share with you an e‑mail I received from a producer just a few days ago. In three short lines, he says that key California companies are currently engaging in unfair competition by directly offering retailers an ultra-competitive offer for organic broccoli and cauliflower. This producer says that, as early as next week, two banner stores will be offering promotions for these basic products purchased at prices that don't even cover production costs in Quebec. Their only option will be to sell at a loss.

This is one example. Every month, I get five to six such cases.

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

What choice does that leave us? If nothing is done, you will eventually disappear. Producers are going to start doing something else. If we impose customs tariffs or try to control that, we will increase costs.

This is not an easy issue to resolve. What do you propose?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

There has to be a level playing field. If a standard is applied here, the equivalent must be found elsewhere. That is the game we are playing right now. In Canada, particularly in Quebec, we always have higher standards than others.

Earlier, you talked about manpower, for example. Here, we have minimum wages and mandatory housing conditions. Regulations from many sources are imposed on producers, but the same is not required for imported products. That's where it doesn't work for us at all.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

I would like to add that if the code of conduct for grocery retailers fulfills its promises, the fees that retailers will have reduced will definitely benefit consumers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Unfortunately, Mr. Perron's time is up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Perron, Ms. Lefebvre and Mr. Léger Bourgoin.

Now we'll go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks to everyone for being here today.

I'm going to start with Dr. Webb. Thank you for your presentation. It was quite illuminating.

I'm trying to figure out how far we are from a carbon border adjustment for agriculture in the world. We hear the EU is bringing in a CBAM, which will be for specific sectors, at least initially. However, all the witnesses we've heard from pointed out how complex it would be to calculate the impact of this on agriculture, or how complex it would be to calculate these adjustments for agriculture.

First of all, have you heard any real talk in your circles that this is on its way? Ms. Murray suggested that we're on that path. Is that what you feel we're doing?

[Dr. Steven Webb]

First, I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you exactly when it's going to come. However, when we think about opportunities and trends from a Canadian perspective.... Again, we have a wonderful track record on the sustainable production of food. We also have an opportunity to look at the potential to reward farmers with new value streams when they're able to sequester carbon. Projects we are directly involved with and other activities taking place—like CANZA, as I mentioned—are all working towards developing protocols that can enable this type of procedure.

The issue is that Canada is doing it, but I do not know where the rest of the world is. Again, to Mr. Barlow's question, where I talked too long in the answer, the point is getting us to an international harmonization. I think that's absolutely key. It's one of the things that are essential. We need to make investments. Canada is not ready to implement this, because we need to make sure we fairly represent our good story at the farm gate.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes. What strikes me is that it sounds like we have, overall, a very good track record in sustainability, from a Canadian perspective. However, that sustainability—I think you mentioned some examples—varies from farm to farm and from ranch to ranch, and in the practices of farmers, in where they are in Canada, in where they are in the climate, and in the soil system. You know, there are so many variables. We want to reward the people doing good things and not hinder them. If we came in with a standard average score for Canada, there wouldn't be any benefit for farmers to exceed it and do better, as some are doing now.

I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how we could put that into a measurement scheme for an initiative like this.

[Dr. Steven Webb]

One thing that I think is important to comment on is how the success Canadian farmers have today is driven by their entrepreneurial and innovation mindset, and by the adoption of technologies. “Does it make sense from a business perspective?” The development of no-till was initially around, “How do I do moisture management and reduce soil erosion to protect my most important investment?” You see the widespread adoption of that technology. At the time it was done, I don't think anybody imagined it was also going to be a big component of capturing carbon.

Again, I think the Canadian system hasn't needed these incentives to get to where we are today. We need to have incentives to develop the reporting structure in order to get into these new markets. We need to have incentives to move to the next level in order to make Canada even better. Again, it's not good enough to stay where we are. We have the opportunity to go even further.