Agriculture Committee on May 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Ms. Jackson.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll go back to our five-minute question period. Ahead we have Mr. Lehoux, but maybe Mr. Epp is going to be ceding a little bit more time.

I'll pass it over to you.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning.

I have a question for Ms. Gowriluk.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states that when the carbon tax reaches its target of $170 per tonne by 2030, it will have little effect on GHG emissions.

First of all, do you agree with this statement by the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

On the other hand, there are two options: either the money is refunded or the carbon tax is removed completely for propane and natural gas. What do you think would be the difference between those two options? What's your point of view on that?

[Erin Gowriluk]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Lehoux.

With respect to the first part of your question, we have to bear in mind that the carbon tax is applied to natural gas and propane used for drying grain. At this point, farmers have no alternative but to use fossil fuels. That's why we continue to support the passage of the private member's Bill C-234. I think there's acknowledgement from this government that the objective intended with that particular policy is not being achieved.

On your second point with respect to developing this rebate program that was established, ultimately the intention of the rebate was to return 100% of the funds collected from Canadian farmers and ranchers back to Canadian farmers and ranchers. What we've seen is that, while all of that money may be going out the door, the rebate is not equitable in terms of its approach to distribution. Some of our directors have quantified what they're going to be getting back in the form of a rebate. In some cases, what they'll be getting back in the form of a rebate is still below 40% of what they ultimately paid in carbon taxes.

I think there's acknowledgement from this government that the tax that's being applied is not fair and that it's not ultimately reaching its intended objective. That's why our sector continues to support the passage of Bill C-234 as the most efficient way to ensure that Canadian grain farmers, who have no alternative but to use natural gas and propane to dry their grain, do so at no additional cost, especially when you consider all of the unprecedented costs that they are currently facing.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Now I'd like to address the issue of nitrogen fertilizer management.

Many improvements have been made and continue to be made today. Are the various federal government support programs adequate or should they be improved?

[Erin Gowriluk]

That's part of what we're going to be looking to do as part of our road map to 2050, which is the initiative that's currently under way with the Grain Growers of Canada. To Ms. Miller's point, we want to ensure that, as a national association, we have an opportunity to have a national conversation and ensure that the programs and funding that Canadian farmers have access to make sense in western Canada just as much as they do in eastern Canada, for example.

It's important that we're having a national conversation to ensure that the right dollars are being directed to the right policies and programs, so that Canadian farmers can take advantage of those.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Gowriluk.

I have a question for Mr. Thompson.

With regard to research and the new trend of incorporating certain food additives, do you think that the federal government is really playing the role it should be playing in supporting companies in terms of production?

[Duane Thompson]

The first step is to get these products licensed. If we get the products licensed and we endorse them and promote them, then business will pick them up and make them available to producers like me. There have been other products in the past that have been things that would have been very advantageous to us, but they just didn't quite fit into the criteria of...whether it be a feed or a pharmaceutical. That's the challenge right now. It's to make sure we have that category. Where government can play such a big role is to make that category and recognize the fact we have an area we can improve on that feed additives can be part of and that can have a really great environmental impact.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Thompson, would you be prepared to recommend to the committee that Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada make the necessary regulatory changes to incorporate this category in order to give it some real meaning?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lehoux, but your time is up.

Mr. Thompson, you can have 10 seconds if you want, but quickly because we have to move on.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Chair, could Mr. Thompson send his answer in writing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes.

If you could write something, Mr. Thompson, we would welcome it.

[Duane Thompson]

Yes, we definitely can provide that. We would make that recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I apologize. It's the nature of the business.

Mr. Drouin, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to apologize to those who are in the room. I was looking forward to seeing you in person, but I had child care issues in the morning and I'm on deck.

To the Grain Growers of Canada, Erin, you've touched on a few points. Because we will be writing a report, when you say that farmers need to be recognized, what do you mean by that?

[Erin Gowriluk]

What I mean by that in terms of recognition is a couple of things. One is the direct contributions they've made in the absence of any regulatory requirement to do that.

They need to be recognized, too, during that time and going forward, for the fact that they know what's best on their farm in terms of the practices that will and will not work, what they can do in western Canada versus eastern Canada. They want to be a part of the conversation in terms of developing the policies and programs because they are prepared to do more. They have a very clear track record—and I think that's why we talk about recognition of what they've done—of significant improvements in this space. They want to be part of that conversation going forward because they have a very good sense of what's going to make sense on their individual operations.

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

We could assume that quantifying that recognition would be a goal. How would we quantify that recognition right now?

Mr. Thompson, you've touched on a few points. Obviously, we don't want to send government auditors on the farm to, say, take soil samples and carbon samples and say you've reduced your carbon by x amount. Are you aware of other technologies that are being developed so that we can reduce the red tape on farmers but provide that recognition?

[Duane Thompson]

As Fawn mentioned—and I'll let her comment on that—briefly, yes, there are products. One that was attempted to get registered a while back was a product that would make grazing legumes, which cause bloat, safe. The more vegetation we can grow, the more carbon we're sequestrating, but if producers are worried about grazing vegetation that harms the animals, then they're not going to do it. However, we have an opportunity there.

Fawn, maybe you could comment on the other product, please.

[Fawn Jackson]

What I would say is that, while we can work on the really fine details, I think we really need to work at the big puzzle pieces. For us, we're losing grasslands at a rate that is having huge implications. Our thought is to come up with a land-use plan to figure out how to turn that trend around. We know the first tool we could do is balance the business risk management programs. Then we can think about term easements, we could think about perennial forage programs and we could think about other tools, but I think we really have to think on a big scale if we're going to reach our 2030 goal, which is to keep grasslands in grasslands.

If I'm being honest, that's the goal we have the most challenge with and we need the most help from government on.

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

Land use planning, as you know, is all dealt with at the provincial level. Are the provinces engaged on that? Are you having more success with certain provinces than other provinces? The land use planning is all done provincially, but what role would you see the federal government playing there?

[Fawn Jackson]

Yes, and I think we really need all the different stakeholders at the table, because how different policies interact actually drives those land use changes. When we have a federal policy on biofuels, for example, what is the implication of that? If we have sectors that don't have equal access to BRM or production-neutral BRM, then what are the implications there? Our ask is to get all of those different stakeholders at the table, because, as you've very rightly indicated, the provinces have a really big role in this.

We talk a lot about grassland conversion, but we need to really look at it from an agriculture loss perspective. We lost 1.4 million acres of agricultural land as of the last census. These are serious problems when we're thinking of environmental deliverables and world food security right now.

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

That's great. Thank you.

I'm out of time in about 10 seconds, but I want to say thanks to all the witnesses. I know that your sector has played a vital role. We do have some differences and we are working on those differences. We have a lot more that unites us than divides us, and I know that your sector continues to do a great job.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

We'll go now to Mr. Perron.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you agree, Ms. Gowriluk, we'll finish the discussion from earlier.

Could you quickly give us your views on the necessary decentralization and on the fact that the money should be made available to producers?

[Erin Gowriluk]

Certainly I think we would support that vision, as reflected in our commitment to the road to 2050. This road map that we're looking to develop has been done before.

It would look very similar in its approach to the one that was developed by farmers in the United Kingdom. That is, it would provide concrete recommendations that are developed by farmers to provide government with clear direction on, first, where greater potential exists—where Canadian farmers know they can do more—and, second, what some of the barriers are to uptake. For example, why don't we see more western Canadian farmers practising cover cropping? What can we do to incentivize that practice? Is there greater investment in research required, for example?

Providing government with that direction in terms of where funds, policies and programs should be directed is the intention of the road map, ultimately, as is having farmers at the centre of that conversation.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jackson, you talked about the preservation of pastures and the loss of farmland. Do you think that if we could find a way to measure the ecological performance of land, we would have to go to each piece of land and measure it separately? Still keeping the case‑by‑case approach, we could perhaps establish the agricultural performance in terms of carbon emissions for a given soil type or region.

I'd like your opinion on this.