Agriculture Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Katerina Kolemishevska]

Yes. Thank you.

I would just add a point to the discussion that I think is very important. Even with the greenwashing bill, we're not supposed to have claims that are not in line with certain verification processes, whereas as a country we're also struggling with what we actually report. What are the national indicators? What indicators should be taken into consideration? What are we measuring?

I'll take the national inventory report as an example. Every time we're in a discussion with the government and speaking about all the implications and changes our producers have made on the farm, we usually get the response that the national inventory report doesn't necessarily include on-farm practices.

There is a huge gap between what we are reporting, what our methodology nationally is requiring and what we're doing on the farm. There has to be a data management strategy whereby we support the national reporting with on-farm practices and how we report it. This is very important.

Mr. Roy did mention that we need support. We need knowledge-building, skill development and data infrastructure to support producers in how that measurement is being done.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Kolemishevska.

Ms. Grossenbacher, I'd like to hear your comments on that same issues.

[Geneviève Grossenbacher]

Thank you for raising that point.

As you said, there are indeed several disparities. The Royal Bank of Canada has studied differences among the United States, Europe and other countries when it comes to investments in agriculture, climate change, climate resilience and sustainable agriculture. That study found that, to achieve parity with the United States, we would have to invest $2 billion a year over the next five years. This is also one of the recommendations put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the context of budget 2025.

I understand the government's fiscal realities. It has invested a lot, and now we have less money than usual, except that every dollar we invest in agriculture now will pay off.

We're investing that money, but in different ways. For example, payments for crop insurance programs have almost tripled over the last three years. It went from $1.67 billion to about $3.88 billion a year. Under the circumstances, producers need support.

We're not asking for an end to crop insurance programs; we're asking for smart investments in building farmers' climate resilience. As I said, to achieve parity, to level the playing field, we would have to invest $2 billion a year for five years.

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

You say that crop insurance shouldn't be eliminated, but it could be improved, because everyone here agrees that the programs aren't working.

You'll have about 30 seconds to answer my next question, but we can come back to this during my next two-minute turn.

How can we recognize what producers have already done? That's an issue I raise in this committee a lot. I don't want us to suddenly start comparing ourselves to Brazilian farmers whose environmental impact is appalling and atrocious, and then expect the same effort from Canadian producers. How do we do that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Please answer in 30 seconds.

[Geneviève Grossenbacher]

That's a good question.

The government absolutely has to support producers, and one way to support them is to ensure that there's a market for their products. Step one is setting up incentives that make it easier to do the right thing.

I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself well. What I mean is that there are plenty of things the government can do to improve our supply management programs and build climate resilience. It can ensure that producers benefit from these things instead of being disincentivized from doing the right thing.

I may not have explained that very clearly, but we can talk about that later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Cannings, it's over to you for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to everyone for being here this morning. Some are familiar faces from the international trade committee.

I'll start with you, Ms. Grossenbacher. You mentioned the United States, as I think everybody has, for obvious reasons. It's probably one of our big export targets for all of our agriculture. You mentioned that the United States was thinking about some sort of border adjustment mechanism or something like that. Could you maybe expand on that? What might the U.S. be musing about?

[Geneviève Grossenbacher]

Thanks for the question.

I'm not an expert in the trade aspects. Maybe the others can testify on this. All I know is that the United States has been thinking about implementing a carbon border adjustment similar to what the EU has done. It's really in the early stages. It looks like they would implement it in a way that's similar to the EU, focusing only on steel, aluminum, fertilizers and a few other things, not the whole agricultural system.

However, what I was referring to was that for the past few years the U.S. has been investing massively in climate resilience and in building climate resilience on farms. That's where we haven't, and.... Well, no, that's not true; we have, and we are really thankful for the $1.5 billion that has been invested, but we need a lot more. I can't stress that enough. The more we do today to adapt, the less expensive it will be tomorrow.

That's what we hope can be done.

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

You listed a number of practices that farmers have been doing. Some of them are, as you say, no-brainers that most farmers would do anyway.

Perhaps you could get into more detail. If we had a $2-billion uplift over five years, where would that go? Where are the best places for the government to support farmers in the transition—maybe that's not the right word—toward more sustainable farming practices for climate solutions?

[Geneviève Grossenbacher]

Thank you for that question.

We are working to detail that a bit more.

We proposed something for budget 2025 that we hope can be implemented in the fall economic statement. I know we're asking for big money. We have a proposal for $861 million for a year. It goes specifically towards building climate resilience.

What we think is needed is threefold. Again, it's about building what you said are the priorities of the sector, those being technical assistance or knowledge transfer. We think a big portion should go towards that. I can give you the breakdown later. A lot of the money should be for incentives to help farmers adopt the best practices. Then use some money for data measurement at the farm level.

I don't have the full breakdown right now, but I could share that with the committee afterwards. Roughly, it's $861 million for that. It would go a very long way.

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

I'm going to turn to Mr. Roy.

The United States is one of your major export places for pork, along with Japan, as I understand.

Have you been monitoring what the United States has been musing about in this regard, whether it's a border adjustment mechanism or some other way of dealing with the things they've been providing their agriculture sector? Might that impinge on our trade?

[René Roy]

Yes, we have monitored it.

At the moment, the much larger concern we have is over non-tariff trade barriers related to animal welfare, such as Proposition 12. Now questions related to BCAs or these kinds of measures have started. Since we have a large access to this market, we are working with our counterparts in the United States, the pork producers. We want to make sure there is alignment before there is implementation of such rules. Otherwise, it creates so much disruption. The translation of environmental measures must be clear before we start the process. Otherwise, we will get into a lot of friction in the trade.

As we propose, it's very important to make sure we have a clear guideline. We should establish standards before we establish such measures.

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

Okay.

I'll turn now to Ms. Kolemishevska.

You talked about data. Ms. Grossenbacher was talking about data in terms of reporting what farmers are doing back to the government, and vice versa.

Can you elaborate on that? What sorts of supports would you like to see to make that data collection easier and more effective?

[Katerina Kolemishevska]

That's no problem.

First, it will be about identifying some of the common indicators across the industry. We know we have different industries and sectors. However, if we identify commonalities within best management practices, we can list many of them. They can be part of those indicators on data measurement and collection.

Another important aspect that was also mentioned by colleagues is the fact that we need best management practices. One of the best management practices or tools that are often missed can be applied for all producers. It is not mentioned much within Canada, nor has much research been done. That is precision agriculture. Precision agriculture helps a lot. The EU has been very strong with precision agriculture. It's expensive, but it works. It provides you with data. It provides you with cost efficiency. It helps everybody.

I think investing in research to see how precision agriculture in particular can support producers across the agriculture sector can benefit everybody, including the research societies. We have research studies that are focusing on what type of music animals like. That's lovely. I love it. However, is that a priority for everybody? I don't think it is. I think there are other, very important aspects we should focus on that will help the provincial governments and the federal government regarding how to communicate data and how it goes up to the national level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're going to have to leave it at that.

Mr. Cannings, you get an extra 40 seconds, so I expect to be on your Christmas card list this year. The chair has been generous.

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow. I think you're going to lead it off in the second round.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, thanks. I'm going to split my time with Mr. Lehoux.

Mr. Roy, you brought up a question I didn't have time for in my first round. Really quickly, the Global Institute for Food Security did an incredible study last year highlighting the efficiency of Canadian agriculture compared to other jurisdictions.

Bill C-59, the greenwashing bill, would prevent Canadian agriculture from talking about the incredible achievements that we've made. If we're talking about a carbon border adjustment or these types of policies, how would this legislation impact your ability to talk about what you're doing in your industry, and meet some of these potential guidelines if you aren't able to actually talk about what your achievements have been in your industry?

Mr. Harvey, I don't know if you want to add to that, but I'll start with Mr. Roy.

[René Roy]

Yes, for us it's a concern. I've discussed it with some of my colleagues in the agricultural sector, and we were so concerned about this bill that some of us have changed or just removed all the good things we were doing, that we were presenting on our website, because it is a concern too that some people will raise a flag and say there is a problem here and we will be sued in court.

There is a real impact for us to be able to communicate the good things we are doing. As has been mentioned, we are in the leading class regarding sustainability, but we want to be against a standard that does not even exist, the one of greenwashing, which is so large and so unclear that it creates a problem.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Lehoux, go ahead.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

I would also like Mr. Harvey to answer that same question.

[Michael Harvey]

I might pay a little more attention to this issue than the average person, but our organization does not have an official opinion on the matter.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Roy, in your conclusion, you made four recommendations. The third had to do with global trade harmonization. I think we're in favour of that, or at least I am.

As we know, Canada exports about 70% of its products, but imports are still around 40%. How can we harmonize the rules, from a trade standpoint, to ensure that the 40% of products we import meet requirements equivalent to those we ask Canadian producers to comply with?

[René Roy]

As an entrepreneur, the first thing I would suggest is to not add rules that are impossible to comply with.

Then, we have to make sure that international trade respects what we're doing. We know there have been problems with certain Asian countries. There has to be communication before these rules come into force. The rules of the game must be known in advance and in place for all international players, otherwise we'll come out on the losing end.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

In other words, one, we need better harmonization with our foreign partners, and two, we have to make sure people on the ground know what's going on before more rules are brought in. I think that's a very important element. In many cases, new rules are brought in, but no one on the ground knows what's going on. We all know that, in agriculture, it takes some time for measures to actually be implemented.

Let's talk about risks. You touched on that and mentioned some pretty serious issues we've had in the past with some of our Asian trading partners. How can we keep these disputes to a minimum?

We saw what happened when Canada banned Chinese-made electric vehicles. China immediately retaliated by banning Canadian canola.

This situation is going to be difficult to manage. What are your thoughts on that?

[René Roy]

The political aspect of it may be more difficult to contain and control.

That said, I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the Canada-Europe trade agreement, which is supposed to be science-based. However, when that agreement comes into force, the rules will be asymmetrical, or Europe will decide to impose other rules that aren't science-based.

If we agree on science-based rules, they have to apply to everyone, not just one side.