Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[Serge Buy]

We received an invitation on Wednesday for the following Monday. It's difficult, if not impossible, to produce a document in both official languages in that time frame to allow members to prepare before the meeting. We tried. We prepared a document and sent it to the committee. I must say that the clerk is fantastic and plays a very helpful role, but she contacted us and said that the document couldn't be translated in time. So we said we'd take care of the translation ourselves and pay for it. The clerk told us that, even if we had it translated, the document submitted to the committee would have to undergo a language check, which wouldn't be done in time anyway. So my only choice was to personally send a document to the members of the committee.

I think things could be organized a little better. If witnesses were given more time, documents could be translated more in advance.

Those are just my thoughts.

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

Thank you. The comment is noted.

I'd like to come back to some questions I've asked several times today. There have been some very interesting thoughts about the balance between support and taxation. However, I didn't really get any answers to my questions. Is an exemption for building heating as necessary as for grain drying? Are there more alternatives for building heating than for grain drying?

[Serge Buy]

The exemption is needed in both cases. Yes, there are probably more options for heating buildings than for drying grain, since drying requires a lot of energy in a short period of time. That said, the exemption is needed in both cases.

Why should an exemption be sought? On one side of the table, the government is saying that it doesn't trust producers and the industry and that it's going to tax them to force them to make changes. I'd like to point out that farmers have made a lot of changes voluntarily in recent years. They don't need to hear a member sitting at this table say that they'll be taxed to ensure they make changes. They're doing it on their own.

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

If a bill such as this one is passed, which would include a time limitation clause, would it be necessary for the duration to be the same for heating buildings as for drying grain?

[Serge Buy]

I'm going to tell you the same thing as the other witnesses. You won't like it, but that's okay. I think it should be 10 years. Why? Because I can't give another time frame. I think it would be a good thing if, after 10 years, we could reassess the situation.

No one believes that all the problems will be solved in 10 years and that all of a sudden everyone will be adopting new technologies across the country. I might be surprised, and I'd be happy to be, believe me, but that's probably not going to happen.

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

I understand, but global warming is going to accelerate in those 10 years. We're seeing it right now. That's why we're asking you about the concept of time. We still need to act quickly.

In terms of solutions that exist and have been explored, to your knowledge, is the industry investing heavily in research and development? Of course, it'll require government support. We agree on that, we've already talked about it, and you know what I think, but what about the industry?

[Serge Buy]

Quickly, Mr. Perron, I would say that a great deal of research is being done. There are even industries and entrepreneurs involved who want to make changes in this area. So I'm optimistic that there can be changes.

It's important to know that every producer is trying to do the right thing on every level, and I think we can continue in that direction.

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

Thank you, Mr. Buy.

Mr. Green, I'll turn to you before I run out of time.

I understand your point of view that we need to accelerate change with an incentive. Everybody talks about a rebate. However, all the witnesses from the agricultural sector that we hear from here tell us that they get a 13% to 20% rebate.

Couldn't we have a middle ground, where we would grant a time‑limited exemption, while at the same time providing adequate support and investing heavily in research and development to find alternatives in that same time frame?

What do you think about that?

[Tom L. Green]

There's no way that all farmers receive a refund of only 13% or 15%. Since all the revenue from carbon pricing is redistributed to the sector, why is it that 85% of the revenue disappears? I don't understand that. Some of the calculations presented by other witnesses don't seem very reliable to me.

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

Do you think the limitation clause should be 10 years or 5 years, for example?

[Tom L. Green]

Actually, I don't think Bill C‑234 should be passed. If the committee decided otherwise, another option would be to decrease the exemption by 10% each year. That way, there wouldn't be a shock at the end of the time frame. As an economist, I would prefer that. That said, I don't think this bill is the way to go.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now we have Mr. Johns for six minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you to our witnesses for their important testimony.

It's nice to see you again, Mr. Buy. I've worked with you on various issues, as well. I appreciate your hard work.

The committee has been hearing that the advancements in technology that would allow farmers to dry their grain without the use of propane and natural gases are likely about a decade away from being readily available and economically viable.

Mr. Buy, can you talk about your views on the implementation of the sunset clause for this exemption? For instance, after a 10-year period, the statute would revert back to the language that currently exists.

[Serge Buy]

I would say that if this is a requirement to get the law passed, then absolutely, put the sunset clause in. We'll all agree to it and we'll talk to you in 10 years. Absolutely.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I asked the previous witnesses about advancements in technology. I know Mr. MacGregor asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada about emerging technologies. Natasha Kim, the ADM at AAFC, said the government has invested $1.5 billion “to help farmers reduce their carbon emissions through sustainable practices and technologies.” When asked specifically about new technologies for grain drying, she referred to business risk management programs.

What innovative developments are on the horizon for the grain-drying industry, and how long will they take to come to market?

[Serge Buy]

You've heard from previous witnesses that you're looking at 10 years. I would agree with them. The Grain Growers of Canada and the Grain Farmers of Ontario were here earlier today. I would agree with their statements on that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Turnbull was very passionate. I support his passion. Obviously, we have a climate emergency. I just got in from B.C. and I literally couldn't breathe. There are smoky skies in the middle of October. I've never seen anything like it in the history of our province. It's really scary. We need to move rapidly.

At the same time, the government likes to talk big about the investments they're making. Are the investments they're making enough?

I come from a forestry area. I'll give you an example. We had the ADM there from Western Economic Diversification and we were talking about programs to improve our forest sector and lower emissions. They were oversubscribed tenfold for the amount of money that was available. In terms of the movement, it's incremental.

Maybe you can speak about what's needed from government if we're going to do this.

[Serge Buy]

This is why I stated in my initial comments, sir, that the government has developed good programs and started good processes but more needs to be done to support the objectives that we want. Indeed, signing agreements internationally is not sufficient; ensuring that we have the technology and the support necessary to implement them is essential.

The climate emergency is absolutely there and nobody is taking it lightly—none of the farmers, nobody in my organization, not me. If you look at my office, you will not see any paper printed, unlike some other witnesses behind me, because we don't print papers in our office in order to limit our carbon footprint on different things. We take the steps that we can. We don't need to be taxed to take them. I listed a whole bunch of measures that farmers have taken proactively. We're doing what we can, sir.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate that and I appreciate your being kind to the government, but they need to do more. What does that look like? I'm trying to get a picture of what that looks like.

As well, I want to hear from my friend from the David Suzuki Foundation. What investments would he like to see to support farmers to achieve the goals that he's talking about? Maybe I'll start with him and then go back to you, Mr. Buy.

[Tom L. Green]

The key point is that we, first of all, need to create incentives for technology to be adopted, and that's what a price on pollution across the economy is supposed to do, rather than carving out sector-by-sector emissions and then we don't have these various things. I think the committee is well placed to help the government design better programs to stress the scale of the investments that are needed. This is a problem we're facing across the economy and there are lots of people working on this issue and lots of federal funding starting to roll out.

It's hard to give a 10-second or 20-second answer on exactly what's needed.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'll give you an extra 60 seconds and you can elaborate a little more.

[Tom L. Green]

For instance, electrification is one of the big opportunities that we see to support fuel switching. We recently put out a study, as I mentioned, that looks at what kinds of investments are needed across Canada to clean up our electricity supply, and then we need to make sure that electricity supply is available to Canadian farmers. The amounts that would need to be invested are very substantial. I'd be happy to comment more on that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Buy, you have 30 seconds left here.

[Serge Buy]

I'd love to reply on that.

It's nice to say that with electrification everything will be fine, but the fact of the matter.... Let's take Nova Scotia. I know the regular chair, Mr. Blois, is from Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, electricity is produced through coal plants, so that's already an issue. After that, the network is not sufficient to ensure that you can suddenly have big grain dryers attached to that—not that there's a huge amount of grain drying in Nova Scotia, but there are certain things on that.

To throw out blanket statements about creating an incentive.... An incentive to me is not a tax; a tax is a punishment. It is a penalty. If you want to create incentives, pay farmers to adopt new technologies, enable them, support them, fund them. That's the view that I'm trying to say. Let's try to approach this in a positive manner, rather than a negative manner by taxing.