Agriculture Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Wright, I'll go over to you. I noticed you're a self-proclaimed environmentalist. In your bio on the NFU website, you talk about how you have integrated renewable energy on the farm. If I'm not mistaken, you farm 750 acres in Saskatoon.

Could you tell us a bit about whether you have any experience of integrating renewable energy projects on farm? Can you speak to those solutions, please?

[Glenn Wright]

Yes, absolutely.

I would say that the issues associated with grain drying and building heating are two separate things, with technology at different states of readiness. We know how to heat and insulate buildings in a manner that reduces emissions significantly, and I've demonstrated that personally by retrofitting our farmhouse and reducing the energy consumption there by 83%. We made the decision to disconnect from our fossil fuel gas connection.

What farmers really need, though, is assistance to retrofit their barns and improvements to the building codes to require high-performance insulation and ventilation with heat recovery. The technology is ready now, but it is not normalized for livestock facilities. It is probably only becoming mainstream in residential and commercial construction as we speak.

With respect to grain drying, though, the technology is in a state of maturing. We can provide a heat source with heat pumps, but the problem is that grain drying is an intermittent need and it takes a very high energy demand. If we were to decarbonize the electrical grid, I see it being very possible to use a heat pump to provide that heat source to supplement the air as you're drying your grain. It's just a matter of the technology needing to mature.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you very much.

Just in view of time, I'll try to sneak one more question in there.

Mr. Wright, you talked about a sunset clause being important. In terms of the technology being at different stages, would you say, given the innovation and where the grain drying sector is at in terms of adoption, that a sunset clause would be longer term or shorter term within that area, as compared to heating and cooling a building? I think this is being demonstrated across Canada as homeowners retrofit their homes with air source heat pumps and solar panels, etc., through the Canada greener homes grant program.

Could you speak to the different timelines?

[Glenn Wright]

Yes, I think that's an excellent point. It would probably make sense to have different timelines for each of these, should there be an exemption. I would actually think it makes sense to look at it on a five-year basis. Probably the heating of buildings may need a shorter sunset period, if a sunset period is required at all; and grain drying is going to come later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Thank you, Mr. Wright. That's time.

Mr. Perron, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Boisseau‑Bouvier, you said earlier that we need to keep a strong price signal to encourage the transition. We all agree with that. However, when it comes to grain drying, several witnesses said during the study of Bill C‑206 that we don't have economically viable alternatives at this time.

Are you aware of any economically viable alternatives to propane, especially for grain drying?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Thank you for the question.

There are opportunities in electricity and biomass, for example, but these are technologies that are in the maturation stage right now, as Mr. Wright just said.

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

When you say we need to help farmers make the transition, I agree with you too, but wouldn't it be reasonable to allow some time for adjustment?

For example, you will recall that Bill C‑206 included a time limit provision.

What is your opinion on this issue?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

If there was a mistake when the first bill on carbon pricing was drafted, it shouldn't be corrected by making another mistake by adding these exemptions that continue to favour fossil fuels. As I've said repeatedly, Canada is committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Right now, it is October 3, 2022. The year 2023 is coming up very quickly. For the sake of consistency, I find it difficult to see how the Canadian government could implement Bill C-234 while maintaining the promises it has been making since 2009.

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

We don't seem to be on track to meet the commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies; we're somewhere else. We're talking about tax credits for large corporations. That's something else.

Here, we're talking about producers who would end up paying the tax on propane to dry grain. That would drive up the cost of grain because there are no short‑term alternatives.

I understand your point of view, and we have the same objective. However, could there be a compromise? I'm throwing the question out there.

Do you know if there are alternatives for building heating as well?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Yes. I've named some, just as Mr. Wright did.

The ways of heating buildings, whether agricultural or residential, are very similar. Right now, there are several mature technologies that can decarbonize building heating and cooling, such as electricity or high‑efficiency heat pumps. There is also the possibility of revising building code provisions to avoid heating or cooling the outdoors. These are all mature technologies that are ready to be implemented. They just need to be promoted.

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

Do you think the government should support producers in the transition and perhaps give them time to implement it in the next five years, for example?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

I believe that the government must encourage these alternatives. To do so, it must provide financial incentives. We were talking about the price signal. We need a negative price signal for negative solutions, which in this case are fossil fuels, and a positive price signal for renewable solutions that promote energy efficiency.

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

Thank you, Mr. Boisseau‑Bouvier.

Mr. Wright, do you think there are other solutions that can be put in place quickly for building heating and grain drying?

[Glenn Wright]

Certainly with respect to heating buildings, there are technologies ready to go.

With respect to grain drying, it really depends on how much drying you need to do. If the grain is simply tough, we already have options. There are many passive options that people should be using. These are grain air tubes that go in grain silos. Natural aeration with supplemental passive solar heating is a good option, I think. It's actually what I tried to use in the harvest from hell of 2019.

It's when you have damp grain and when you have these very extreme conditions that you need a high-energy supplementary heat source to dry grain and dry it quickly. That might be a little bit slower to come. It really needs decarbonization of the grid and assistance for farmers to increase the power supplies to their bin yards.

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

Since the transition is difficult, would it be reasonable to include a sunset clause that would give producers a buffer period to adjust, without erasing the price signal from the carbon tax?

[Glenn Wright]

There's a delicate balance to be struck here. When you have an exemption, it can take away the price signal that encourages people to act.

With respect to grain drying, I've already made comments that it would be appropriate to have a sunset clause that is perhaps reviewed after five years.

With respect to heating of buildings, though, I do think we already have much of the technology ready to go. What farmers need is assistance to make a capital investment.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing today.

I'll start with Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier.

We are spending a lot of time talking about the bill before us, which is Bill C-234, but I want to talk about the parent act.

The statute that this bill is amending is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. When that bill was originally drafted and duly passed by the Parliament of Canada in 2018, I believe, it already included definitions of a qualifying farm fuel, an eligible farming activity and eligible farming machinery.

You've been talking about how it's wrong and that Bill C-234 is heading in the wrong direction because it's sending the wrong message. Do you have an opinion on the original exemptions for farming activities that were included in the parent statute?

What is your opinion on the fact that farmers can buy diesel for their tractors and not have to pay a surcharge on it because there is no viable alternative? Do you have an opinion on the provisions that are already in the parent statute?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Thank you for the question.

This is another case where the federal government is going to have to align financial incentives with climate goals and build on innovation and the development of new technologies to ensure their timely availability for our Canadian producers and farmers. This is another case where the trade balance will have to be restored so that our farmers who care about the environment and live for the environment can make choices that are consistent with their own values.

With respect to the exemptions you mentioned, it would be entirely appropriate for the committee and Parliament to look at ways to promote and develop alternatives, for example for tractors.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Wright, I'd like to turn my next question to you.

In my time on the agriculture committee—it's been four and a half years now—I hear repeatedly from farmers themselves who say that they are on the front line of climate change.

You've already referenced the harvest from hell of 2019. Look at what happened to my province of British Columbia last year. Months apart, we had wildfires and then devastating floods, which basically cut off the port of Vancouver from the rest of the country.

I'd like you to add to this conversation by setting the table about the inflationary impacts of climate change. This is the crossroads we're at right now. It's not only trying to deal with some relief for farmers; we also need to talk about the broader costs that are being incurred as a result of climate change.

Perhaps you could spend maybe a minute setting that up for the committee.

[Glenn Wright]

Yes. Thank you. I'll do my best.

It's so overwhelming, when you think about it. I mean, farmers depend on the weather, particularly where I'm from in the Prairies. Without irrigation, we really depend on adequate moisture to water our animals and to grow our crops and to protect us from fire. We've had such dry conditions since that harvest from hell. We've been threatened with grass fires. The high winds and dry conditions can make it downright scary to live where we are. My heart goes out to the people of B.C. and what they faced last year, certainly.

There's no doubt in my mind that change is only accelerating for us with respect to our environmental conditions. Some of that is largely driven by human activity. If we don't recognize that what we're doing has consequences, then I'm afraid we're not going to have time to react. It behooves us to make changes right now, not only to adapt but also to mitigate and stop making the problem worse. I think that's why these changes are so urgently needed.

I would say to your former question about the price signal with respect to diesel fuel for tractors that there is a benefit for all sectors to have pricing signals. The trouble with tractors right now is that we don't have an alternative, but you cannot impact what you're not tracking, so as you exempt people from any pricing signals, it prevents us from tracking it. That takes away the motivation to create those technology solutions that we desperately need.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments on the sunset clause. That's certainly what our committee explored when we reported Bill C-206 back to the House in the previous Parliament.

You have already talked about the state of technology. We know that it's developing, and we certainly heard from a number of witnesses in the previous Parliament that it is not yet commercially viable.

There's a new addition to this bill in “property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure, including those used for raising or housing livestock”. I understand that you may think a sunset clause on that might be viable, but what do you think about the current language of it? Do you think it's open to too much interpretation in the number of buildings that could qualify?

[Glenn Wright]

Thank you for asking me that question. I do think the language is perhaps a little bit too vague. I would suggest perhaps striking those two words, “including those”, so that it is only focused on buildings for housing livestock. I don't believe that residential and shop buildings on farms need to have an exemption, because we know already how to heat those buildings more efficiently with the passive house standards for residential homes. I turned my gas off in 2008 and retrofitted my home many years ago. I reduced the energy by 83%.

It's possible now. We need to incentivize farmers to make those changes. Removing the pricing, though, would actually be a step in the wrong direction for buildings other than just the livestock handling facilities. Striking those two words to tighten up the language would be a good amendment.