Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[Serge Buy]

We need programs that match our ambitions. Earlier, Ms. Valdez talked about small pilot projects that are being put in place. These pilot projects could be extended to other farms and other regions, but they would require a lot more money than what is being proposed right now.

First of all, more research is needed on certain technologies that exist elsewhere, but that haven't necessarily been proven feasible in a country as cold and as big as Canada. So more research is needed to get to proof of concept.

There also needs to be more support for farmers who want to implement these types of technologies. In other words, we need to support not only bit corporate farms, but also small farmers and family farms.

Finally, we must ensure that farmers have the capacity to understand these new technologies. That means giving them the support and training they need. Let's take the example of a 70‑ or 75‑year‑old farmer who gets a big bill because of the price of carbon. If someone comes along and tells him that he'll have to install solar panels on his farm to improve things, he may laugh a little and send the person home. Having someone explain and train would be a better way to go.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

There are still several chicken and egg producers in my region. As we know, buildings need to have heating systems. Heat pumps could indeed be a solution, but they are very expensive.

Do you think this can be implemented in a practical way, while remaining price competitive? Price remains the most important issue.

[Serge Buy]

I wonder about that. There are several possible technologies, including biomass, but it will take time before these costly technologies allow our farmers to remain competitive. Opening up international markets is good, but we need to give our farmers the opportunity to be competitive as well.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I liked your comment about the distance required to travel from one farm to another. Canada is, indeed, often compared to the Netherlands, but the size of the territories to be covered isn't the same.

It's true that it will take at least 10 years before we have technologies that can be applied and transferred concretely to businesses. Do you think it’s realistic or utopian to think we can get there?

[Serge Buy]

I think 10 years is too short. We're telling you 10 years because we hope to have at least that long to move forward. Some of the technologies won't be in place for a few more years. Not only will the technologies not be in place, but the ability to transfer them anywhere within this great country is also a challenge.

We're talking about technologies that we want to implement over the next 10 years to heat buildings, for example, when we're not even able to provide high-speed Internet access to our producers across the country. For I don't know how many years now, people have been saying that it'll be done next year.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you for raising this point, which is really very important. I've been hearing for a long time in my region that we will have access to Internet and cellular network services everywhere, but it's not even close to happening. There's still a long way to go.

We need to provide additional time through Bill C‑234. Should it be 10 years, but provide for a reassessment?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lehoux.

I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Now, Mr. Turnbull, go ahead for six minutes please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here today. I'll start with Mr. Green.

Mr. Green, I take it from your position and your opening remarks that you would probably agree with the sentiment, which I would share, that the price on pollution increases the rate at which all industries both develop and adopt new clean-tech innovations. Would you say that's true?

[Tom L. Green]

The price on pollution does create an incentive to accelerate technological development and to adopt it more quickly.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Will farmers change more quickly with the price signal?

[Tom L. Green]

I believe that would be the case.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay. Everything we've heard to date in this study revolves around one fundamental premise I keep hearing, which is that there are no commercially viable solutions for grain drying or for heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses. Is that true from your perspective, Mr. Green?

[Tom L. Green]

Well, the thing is that as you put a price on pollution, things that are not financially viable today become financially viable, because you've just changed the incentives. So over time, increasingly, technology becomes viable. That's why we put a price on pollution.

I appreciate that the government has made sure to recycle all the money captured from a price on pollution in the farming sector by giving back to farms in a way that doesn't ruin that incentive.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I agree.

I've done a bit of research. Twelve years ago, Canadian Biomass had 16 examples of grain-drying technology that were all scalable. You could argue they're not commercially viable if you wanted, but I don't hear anyone mentioning any of these. There are also several examples in Canada of companies—and my colleague mentioned one of them—that are providing commercially viable solutions here in Canada.

Is it not true that there's actually grain-drying technology that's been around for at least 12 years and yet it hasn't been adopted by the industry?

Mr. Buy, do you want to comment on that? Why is the industry not adopting the grain-drying technology that was here and documented 12 years ago?

[Serge Buy]

I'd love to comment, Mr. Turnbull, but I would respectfully strongly disagree with you on the scalability of those technologies. We did actually mention in our brief on the previous legislation the wonderful technologies such as biomass and others, but they're simply not scalable at this time.

Mr. Green's comment is that if you tax them and make it more expensive to operate, they will have to go to those technologies. They need to exist first. The technologies may exist as concepts, but you need to be able to scale them throughout the country, and we're simply not there, sir.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Buy, I have examples in my riding of greenhouses and barns that are being heated and cooled with solar, geothermal and air-source heat pumps, which are the same things I can do in my home. I have many examples in my riding of homes that are doing the same thing, so what's the difference? How can you actually sit there and tell us that there is no viable technology when I have examples in my riding?

[Serge Buy]

I have good examples in the region I live in, which is the riding of one of your colleagues here around the table. Some of those technologies are there. They're not scalable.

There are a couple of things here. There's the cost for the first investment. Is the technology manufactured at a scale that will enable all the producers to be there? It's not. Is it viable in various regions of the country? Is it viable in northern Ontario as much as it is in southern Ontario? Those are the issues that—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't mean to interrupt. I appreciate your response.

I understand the way business works, in that there's an upfront capital cost to adopting any new technology, but the technology exists. It's there, so wouldn't it be better for the government to help farmers make the transition? Keep the price signal and rebate, but actually help farmers finance the transition to the new technology. Since we have it already, we can help those companies scale up, which is exactly what the price on pollution is designed for in the first place.

[Serge Buy]

Mr. Turnbull, we don't fully disagree on one thing. You said the government should be supporting farmers to invest in those technologies. Absolutely, hallelujah, that's great, but should it tax them to do so? That's a different philosophical way of seeing things. If you penalize people long enough and hard enough, will they make changes? I believe that if you actually help people make the right choices, they will make the right choices.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Can you not do both, Mr. Buy? Can you not maintain a price signal, which creates the incentive to change—because industries have proven they're not going to change on their own to adopt the new technologies, which have that upfront cost—and also help them adopt those new technologies? That seems really rational.

Mr. Green, I'll go to you. Isn't that really what you're saying in the heart of your argument?

[Tom L. Green]

That's precisely my argument. You create the price signal, and you support farmers. You help the technology scale, and then we see transition.

There's a real risk in the proposal being debated here that we remove the price signal for 10 years, or something like that, and suddenly there's a big increase or, as you said, the sector doesn't transition fast enough.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Thanks, Mr. Turnbull. That is your time.

Mr. Perron, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us. The discussion is very interesting.

In your opening remarks, Mr. Buy, you mentioned a document you wanted to send to the committee. Before I get into that, I'd like to know if you have any quick comments to make on that.