Agriculture Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing a fantastic job.

My questions are for Mr. Forest. However, I would first like to speak to Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman.

What I'm worried about, actually, is the political landscape and what's happening in Europe, the conversations that politicians are having and the pressure that farmers are putting on their politicians. They talk about “mirror” clauses—here we say “reciprocity” clauses—and CBAM is there. The largest economy, Germany, is actively working and pushing the EU to implement a form of CBAM on ag products.

The issue is always, “How do we measure?” That's where I want to take this conversation. What can Canada do to make sure that, if—and I think it's not a question of if but when—countries get this idea that we will.... We are an exporting country. We export over 50% of what we produce so, obviously, if we're not properly equipped we could put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage because they would be slapped with an import tariff, which farmers down there are asking for, in some way, shape or form, by way of mirror clauses or an import tariff. The whole idea is measurement, so what can Canada do to measure data?

We want farmers to participate in carbon credits. I certainly believe that farmers are capturing carbon. They should be rewarded for that. We know there's a lot of work that's being done in universities in Canada. I know that the University of Saskatchewan is doing some amazing work down there on that—not to give a shout-out to my colleague Mr. Steinley, from Saskatchewan. I heard a previous witness talk about a national dataset. Are those things that you would be in favour of? What else could we do?

[Kyle Larkin]

In the previous panel, Mr. Currie mentioned the data management strategy, and we're certainly in support of that. That's necessary: We don't have the on-the-ground data right now that is influencing government policy. It's a huge challenge when the government is looking to impose policies and regulations onto grain farmers but without clear data that's really influencing that policy.

You asked the question, “How do we measure?” That's a question we ask ourselves all the time as well. In some government datasets they measure carbon sequestration; in others they don't. We certainly measure carbon sequestration. We know that many farmers, especially across the Prairies, have been practising zero till for decades. They've sequestered thousands, if not millions, of tonnes of carbon. It's certainly something that we measure, but we want to see that in government measurements too.

[Troy Sherman]

I fully agree with my colleague here. I think more needs to be done in terms of data collection and having alignment, not just at the national level but at the international level as well, to make sure that we're using the same sources and methodologies to find that common benchmark across the board.

A big way that I think the federal government can play a role is, in particular, in the research side of things. Research is absolutely core to the mandate of the Canola Council of Canada. It's super important for canola farmers, as you can imagine. Many of the levy dollars that are collected go towards research, and so, to the extent that we will look at the next policy framework, for example, that will be coming up in 2028—those discussions are going to be starting very soon about what that could look like—by the end of this current cycle the agriscience cluster program, for example, will have essentially had stagnant funding over the past 15 years. We are, effectively, trying to do a lot more with fewer dollars as a result of inflation and other pressures in the research domain, and so I think that investing where we can in this will be extremely helpful. Having federal dollars go towards us, along with private sector dollars, will be extremely helpful. We need to have a significant investment from the federal government into research to help get the data, which is exactly what you're talking about.

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

Of course, for you on the grain side—and I'm not going to pick which grain is better, just for Mr. Larkin's sake—we often hear that it's hard to measure how much carbon sequestration there is in the grain sector because if it's a wet season it's different, or if it's dry it's different. I know there are great universities that are doing that—and I mentioned the University of Saskatchewan—working on that delta. Once we find that delta I think we'll have a tremendous opportunity for Canada to sell that to the world and say, “Hey, we have a proper measurement.” I know that our farmers are doing an amazing job at it and, if countries choose to go forward, then I think we would be properly equipped. However, you're right; we do need data management.

I am worried about certain companies keeping data from farmers. When we talk about precision farming, there has to be a share of that particular data, especially the aggregated data. I argue that this data belongs to and stays with the farmers, and if that farmer wants to share that data with researchers, then he's allowed. I am cautious about certain companies not wanting to share that particular data or to have that data owned by farmers, but it's certainly something I'm advocating for.

Mr. Forest, in Quebec, we often hear about reciprocity of standards. In Europe, we hear about “mirror clauses”. Farmers are asking for the same thing. How can these two aspects be reconciled in the global agricultural community?

[Pascal Forest]

Thank you for the question.

We've been hearing about reciprocity of standards for decades. How can we measure carbon emissions? We shouldn't repeat the approach used in health inspections, for example, where eight inspectors visit farms and ask the same eight questions. We need reciprocity of standards on a global scale. To play against each other, we need the same rules and the same tools.

How do we resolve this issue? I don't have the solution this morning.

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

I agree with you. Sending inspectors to farms doesn't work.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Richard Cannings]

We’re at time, Mr. Drouin. Thank you.

Ms. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. I was glued to my chair listening to the answers given to questions. I think that all the witnesses came to the same conclusion. We heard constant references to competitiveness, profitability and the multilateral approach. The word “caution” came up repeatedly too. Mr. Legault, I haven't forgotten you. We also heard about inputs, obviously, and our dependence on the international market and particularly the American market, of course. Above all, I'm hearing that we must be careful and that we aren't ready.

Mr. Forest, I would like to hear more from you. You spoke about caution and, at the same time, fear for the future. You said that the situation will be increasingly difficult for us. Meanwhile, on the other side of the border, the Americans will take over the market share. We won't be making any economic gains. We'll be hurting our own economy. You're basically saying that you want to do the right thing, like everyone else, but that you need the tools to show that you're doing the right thing. Can you provide some more tangible examples of how you see the situation?

What about the farmers' perspective? You also talked about going out into the field. This lies at the heart of my commitment. We work for the people. What do farmers, who often don't have the platform to speak out, have to say? What are their concerns? We don't want people to leave either. What would they need to take part in the parade, without necessarily leading the way?

I know that I asked you many questions at the same time. However, we're talking about the United States, farmers and all sorts of things that can get intertwined. Could you feed us some more information on this matter, no pun intended?

[Pascal Forest]

Thank you for your questions.

I'll do my best to answer the eight questions that you just asked me.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

As you know, you can always send us additional information after the meeting. This applies to all the witnesses. We'll take a look at it later.

[Pascal Forest]

Okay.

You rightly pointed out that farmers in Quebec and in every province are excellent producers. They have the same goal. They want to make a good living from whatever they grow. This includes grain, canola and vegetables. The objective is still the same. They want to compete on a level playing field. Mr. Drouin asked me the same question, so I'll repeat the same answer. We want the same support. Research is also key, because it will help us move forward. Many questions are being asked today, and we don't have all the answers.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

That would be the basic idea. We currently don't even have the necessary data. I've heard this a number of times. Mr. Larkin spoke about it, and so did Mr. Sherman. We urgently need evidence‑based data, because we want to look to the future.

[Pascal Forest]

We need to base our calculations on this. What will we refer to when answering everyone's questions here this morning? We need to know this before we start the process.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The multilateral approach is another key factor. It would be impossible to proceed unilaterally by establishing border adjustment measures. Everyone seems to say so. We hear about reciprocity of standards. I heard it described as two sides of the same coin. I couldn't agree more.

In terms of the United States specifically, you outlined a hypothetical scenario. What's your perspective? How many years would it take to become a reality? I know that many factors are outside our control, of course.

[Pascal Forest]

The United States responds much more quickly to needs. We saw this during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Issues arose and immediate assistance was provided. It was almost automatic. Here, there's often a delay of a year or two.

As I said in another testimony, farming is done in real time. The same must apply to the requests that we receive and the assistance that we need. There can't always be delays. American farmers have received $20 billion, whereas here we've received nothing so far. There's already quite a gap. This gives you a good idea of what it will take to help us.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

There's also the response time. The government could respond quite quickly. It costs money, but we want to preserve our agricultural sector. This could be done quite quickly.

We aren't immune to a crisis. You spoke about Russia and Ukraine. We aren't immune to conflict either.

[Pascal Forest]

Exactly. The government must be really up to speed and ready to respond quickly. We need significant measures that will help us take action when we have answers to these questions about the method for valuing carbon and other issues. It's vital to act quickly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The insecurity is already there.

[Pascal Forest]

Clearly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

The insecurity isn't related to these measures. It's already there.

[Pascal Forest]

Exactly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Since the response isn't quick enough, we must do something, in the meantime.

[Pascal Forest]

Exactly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

We need to address issues such as how quickly the support is provided. You talked about a two‑year delay. Support could be provided in real time, as you said. Otherwise, why can't we make forecasts, then obtain data and still have the money to take action and hold multilateral discussions? As you said, we can't resolve this situation on our own.

[Pascal Forest]

Indeed.