Evidence of meeting #29 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean Caron  Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
Émile Boisseau-Bouvier  Climate Policy Analyst, Équiterre
Glenn Wright  Farmer and Professional Engineer, National Farmers Union
Dave Carey  Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance
Scott Ross  Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance
Jasmin Guénette  Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Josée Harrison
Benoit Legault  General Manager, Producteurs de grains du Québec
Taylor Brown  Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Legault, I would like to allow you to finish your last sentence quickly.

5:10 p.m.

General Manager, Producteurs de grains du Québec

Benoit Legault

Thank you.

I was just going to say that today, propane pricing is a $4,000 to $5,000 cost, but by 2030, it will be $16,000 to $17,000.

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

All right, thank you.

Mr. Legault, the last time we looked at a similar bill, we looked further into the issue of grain drying. After exploring the subject, we realized that there was no viable alternative in the short term.

Is it the same for heating buildings or, on the contrary, are we closer to finding alternatives in this area?

5:10 p.m.

General Manager, Producteurs de grains du Québec

Benoit Legault

I will speak about my sector. The issue of heating buildings is perhaps less important in our case than it is for livestock buildings. The buildings used for grain production are hangars. Of course, the conversion is probably easier. Heating the buildings is certainly not the biggest burden for grain farms.

The challenge with buildings, in the case of grain production and drying, is that you have a high energy requirement in a short period of time. We are talking about electricity, for example. One day, it may be possible to dry grain with electricity, but we are still far from this technology. Even then, the electrical system will have to provide access to the necessary electricity. In many parts of Quebec, we don't even have access to three-phase electricity. We are talking about a very large electrical load or energy load that only propane and natural gas can currently provide.

So, technologically, we're not yet able to dry grain in any way other than using the fuels.

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I would like to hear from Mr. Carey and Mr. Ross on the same issue.

In the short term, there is no alternative for grain drying, but do you think a viable alternative will be found more quickly for heating buildings?

5:10 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Dave Carey

I can start.

I think that when we look at heating or cooling buildings, we need to be very clear that those would be livestock buildings and greenhouses. There's no intention, I think, in this legislation to consider housing costs or the heating and cooling of homes.

Infrastructure has to take into account that Canada's a very big country. In many provinces, we simply do not have alternatives to natural gas or propane. Electrification does work, but even most homes are still heated by natural gas and propane. I think we are still some distance away from having an economically viable, scalable alternative to natural gas and propane that would work across Canada as a whole, and this is federal legislation that we're discussing.

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Ross?

5:10 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Scott Ross

I would just add that with regard to some of the technologies that were cited in the last panel, this is not an either/or proposition. The intent of this bill, and the value of it, is that it provides working capital to the farmers to invest in the available technologies in their operations and employ them, recognizing, as Dave said, that the fundamental technology there is not a viable, scalable alternative. It supports continuous improvement while recognizing limitations in the market.

October 3rd, 2022 / 5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Guénette, upon examining the issue, we realize that there are no viable alternatives in the short term. However, there could be innovation and research.

You said earlier that you wanted an exemption rather than a reimbursement, because reimbursements are partial and complex to obtain, most of the time. Indeed, we know how much paperwork there is when dealing with the government, whether it's the Canadian government or someone else. I say this without judgment.

How do we maintain the message that we need to reduce the ecological footprint? The idea of pricing pollution is an important and promising one. How do we keep the message alive?

Would a sunset clause be a viable compromise?

5:10 p.m.

Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Jasmin Guénette

I will respond. If my colleague Ms. Brown then wants to add something, I will invite her to do so.

First, we support the idea of a sunset clause. We have suggested a sunset after 10 years, if that will help get Bill C‑234 passed and help our farmers. We must find a way to help them deal with the skyrocketing costs they are currently facing, whether for fertilizer, energy or inputs of all kinds.

As far as environmental habits go, I have to say that farmers are some of the biggest environmentalists you can find. These are people who make their living working the land. My own grandfather was a farmer. I can tell you that farmers are still people who take care of their land. It is by empowering our farmers to invest in new technologies, whether it is to improve their facilities or to make any other environmentally beneficial changes, that we will really help them to further reduce their environmental footprint. As I said in my testimony...

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Mr. Perron's time is now up.

Thank you, Mr. Guénette and Mr. Perron.

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

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses.

Mr. Carey and Mr. Ross, I think I'll start with you.

We, of course, are talking a lot about Bill C-234, but I also want to look at the parent statute, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act that it is seeking to amend. I was present in the 42nd Parliament when that statute became law. It was part of a budget implementation act.

When the Liberal government drafted that bill, they took the time to include definitions of qualifying farm fuel, of eligible farming activities and of eligible farming machinery. Why do you think they took the time to include those provisions in the parent statute?

5:15 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Dave Carey

I don't want to speculate as to what the government's thinking was, but I think they wanted to be sufficiently broad while appropriately narrow. I think the biggest confusion that we had at that time—or now—is that only gasoline and diesel were included, as opposed to natural gas and propane.

5:15 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Scott Ross

All I would add is that when we look at the intention behind this bill, I view Bill C-234 as a natural sort of tidying up of that parent statute and what was intended in the first place.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Yes, basically, I think there was an understanding there that for those particular fuel sources there were no viable alternatives and that farmers do require a lot of diesel to power their tractors. I know there's promising technology being developed, but currently, for the horsepower that needs to be generated, there are no viable alternatives.

I want to turn to the current state of technology for grain drying in particular. We've heard a lot of talk about the BTUs that are necessary and the problems that may exist with using biomass, for example.

Farmers are an innovative bunch. We have many people who are out there actively working to overcome the challenges. Have you heard from your members on what some of the promising technologies might be 10 years from now, and maybe how the federal government can step in to try and encourage that development?

5:15 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Dave Carey

When it comes to grain drying, in my day job our 43,000 canola farmers would love it if they could use electricity. It would be a cheaper alternative. I think what Scott alluded to is that we're certainly not opposed to the transition to more energy-efficient fuels on farms, or renewable fuels.

Electrification is a massive discussion and a massive undertaking. It certainly speaks to discussion in the earlier round on what powers that electrification. We're talking about the infrastructure across Canada. We are a huge country that swings from -40° to plus 35° from winter to summer.

There certainly are more energy-efficient tools that we're interested in. Farmers are currently struggling with the capital to invest in technologies that exist now. If they need to find the capital to invest in the next wave of technologies.... They need the working capital on farms so that they're economically sustainable.

We're certainly not here to say that we don't want to help see that transition. That transition will take time. In the meantime, we have a lot of food to grow here in Canada.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Absolutely. High fuel costs certainly are a driver. If you can find a way to employ a different energy source, that's a great thing.

What are some of the biggest transitions away from fossil fuels that farmers have made over the last 10 years on their own? Are there any success stories that you've witnessed?

5:20 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Scott Ross

Generally speaking, it's the adoption of precision agricultural technologies and massive progress in the number of times tractors and combines are passing over fields. It's the reduction in fuel use we've seen by precision agricultural technology. The no-till technology to reduce the time equipment is spending in the field has been the most significant.

When it comes to livestock operations, I think there's been a continual evolution in the adoption of heat exchangers. Solar technologies and others are employed in many instances to support what is still the absolute requirement, which is fossil fuel heating and cooling as the core constituent of that. I think we continue to see new technologies being employed.

5:20 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Dave Carey

The key is that there's no silver bullet here. Farmers need to have all of the tools possible to deploy on a farm.

In the early 1990s there was about 7% no-till or low-till in the Prairies. Now we're up to the high 60s. That was because of the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops. We look at biotechnology and gene editing as part of it. There are food additives for the cattle industry to reduce methane emissions. There's no one thing that's going to be that silver bullet, but we need that innovation and farmers continuing to invest in their operations. To do that, it helps if we have money left on the table at the end of the day.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

It's more like silver buckshot.

5:20 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

This is my final question.

I live in British Columbia, so this conversation that we're having is not going to really impact me, but I am curious. B.C. is not known as a major grain producer, but we do have the Peace region. I think there are roughly 380,000 acres in grain production up in the Peace region.

Bill C-206 made it to the doorstep of the Senate in the previous Parliament. If Bill C-234 goes the distance and we see this actual change to the federal legislation, what's your understanding of how that will impact provinces that don't fall under the federal...? Will it have some spinoff effects in B.C.?

5:20 p.m.

Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance

Scott Ross

I think the intention behind it is to demonstrate the benefits of a provision like this. The provinces ideally would be looking at what's working and what's helping to incent the adoption of technologies.

As Dave has just alluded to, there's very much a recognition that farmers having the working capital they need to invest in these kinds of technologies is really going to be critical for our ability to reduce our environmental footprint. Our expectation and hope would be that those provinces that are not in the backstop jurisdictions will look at what's working federally and employ similar provisions in their respective pricing regimes.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kody Blois

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Mr. Carey and Mr. Ross.

We now turn to Mr. Lehoux.

Mr. Lehoux, I believe you're going to share your time with Mr. Falk, right?

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will indeed be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Falk.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Mr. Legault.

Some witnesses from the previous panel told us that electricity could be an interesting avenue for drying grain. Of course, we understand that a three-phase network is needed to achieve energy efficiency.

Your association represents 9,500 Quebec producers. How many of them would have access to the electrical devices needed to dry grain? Has this research been done by the Producteurs de grains du Québec?