Agriculture Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[Dr. Tristan Skolrud]

It's inadequate in the agricultural sector, which is my prime area of expertise. I'll leave the discussion of remaining sectors to my colleagues.

In the agricultural sector, one thing I mentioned in my opening remarks is that the vast majority of agricultural emissions are not covered by the current greenhouse gas pricing plan.

It's difficult because there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in the agricultural sector that simply will not be taken because there's no incentive to do it. Most of the big GHG savings on the farm are not going to come from changes to fuel use. They're going to come from changes to manure management and fertilizer changes.

Right now, under the current plan, we do not have an incentive to make sufficient reductions in those areas.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

Our Canadian farmers are leaders in innovation. We've seen it time and time again in this committee.

How long do you believe it will take for us to fully implement non-fossil fuel technology?

[Dr. Tristan Skolrud]

I don't think that is in the cards. I don't think agriculture is going to exist with non-fossil fuel technology, because I would certainly include nitrogen fertilizer in that category, due to how it's created through natural gas.

I think the best you could hope for, if your goal was to eventually get to net zero—as the Canadian government has stated—is to get nitrous oxide emissions in line with the rate that's suggested by the social costs of carbon.

Agriculture is not going to get to a place, in the near future, where no fossil fuels are used.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

I'll go over to you, Mr. Lewis, with the same question.

With your experience with farmers, what can we do to help provide a more eased transition for farmers?

[Todd Lewis]

Do you mean transition to not using fossil fuels?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Yes.

[Todd Lewis]

Research and development and putting money towards improving existing technologies and new technologies.... Farmers are early adopters of technology and always have been, so as they become available and if they make practical sense, farmers will use those practices.

As for what the professor said, it's difficult to envision how to replace a 600-horsepower tractor with an electric motor under current conditions. It will be a number of years before we get there.

Agriculture is wide and varied across this country. There are many opportunities to lower our fossil fuel use. Research and technology are going to be a big part of that.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

The professor mentioned incentives and that those are definitely needed for farmers. Do you have any ideas or anything you can share with this committee so we can help with that?

[Todd Lewis]

With regard to the previous question, if it makes sense economically, farmers will pursue it. At the same time, it has to be a balancing act. You can't have things over-regulated. The money needs to stay in farmers' pockets so they can make those choices to improve their technology.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You have about one minute left, Mrs. Valdez.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you. I'm good.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Now we go to Ms. Larouche for six minutes, please.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today and testifying about the many challenges facing the agricultural community today.

Mr. Gray, in doing some research on your work, I saw that one of the things you've been looking at is innovation in agricultural infrastructure. Are you aware of viable alternatives to propane for grain drying? I heard you talk a little bit about that, and I'd like to hear more.

[Richard Gray]

The available technologies are actually on a continuum, and it depends very much on the crops grown, the moisture content of the grain, and the harvest conditions in each year. If the grain is slightly over-moist, aeration is a very good way to condition that grain and bring it into line with moisture requirements. Grain aeration requires far less energy than propane drying would. That tends to be what we employ on our farm.

If the moisture content is higher, that's where additional natural gas is required. I think that's the particular issue for crops like corn, which are taken off later in the season.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Can you tell us more about the technologies being developed to avoid fossil fuels in this process?

[Richard Gray]

A good example in the case of heating is the use of heat pumps and electrically driven heat pumps, which may be solar collectors in combination with heat pumps. They may reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of heating systems.

In the area of grain drying, I don't think we've really explored all the ways in which you can put drier air into grain other than just heating it—condensers and other things. Again, that's up to the technology experts to develop. Some of that will come as it becomes apparent that we need to find more greenhouse gas-efficient technologies.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much for your testimony before the committee today, Mr. Gray.

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Annau, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in your opinion and from what you're hearing from your members, do you know if the carbon tax exemption is as important for grain drying as for heating and cooling farm buildings?

[Todd Lewis]

I would say they're equally important if you need to dry your grain. Remember, it's not something people are doing just because. It's to save that grain. If it's not at the proper moisture content, it will spoil, and it will become unsellable. You'll have all kinds of problems during storage and when trying to move that grain later in the year. It's the same thing when it's -40° out and you're trying to heat your chicken barn. There's no choice. You have to have the thermostat turned up to protect your livestock. For practical purposes, both are very important.

In the instance of grain drying, it's one of our biggest climate mitigation practices. When we have extended periods of wet weather in the fall or late fall, it's one of the few practical solutions we have that has really developed over the years. It has saved millions and millions of bushels and literally billions of dollars to the Canadian economy to have that technology used by producers.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understand that we would also need time for all that. Until alternatives to fossil fuels are introduced, what would be the optimal duration of the carbon tax exemption? There's a lot of talk about a 10‑year period for the limitation clause. Given that pollution must have a price, would that be an appropriate length of time?

[Todd Lewis]

It's a moving target. If a sunset clause is something that could be used to recognize when new technology is available....

I'll use the example of grain drying. The burning of straw to dry grain sounds like a practical solution, but in a lot of western Canada, for instance, where a lot of the grain drying is done, we don't bale straw. I've never had a baler on my farm. You'd be looking at buying new equipment and putting up straw in a dry year, hopefully, to have it sitting there for a potentially wet year the next year, or two or three years down the road, when you use your grain dryer.

It just isn't a practical solution, and that's an example. As technology improves, there will be other things that come. Maybe we'll all be using pellets some day to dry our grain, but that technology doesn't exist right now and the infrastructure isn't there for it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

For the reasons you mentioned, and to give ourselves time to see things evolve or even to acquire new technologies, does this 10‑year period seem appropriate or not?

[Todd Lewis]

I would say it's appropriate. As I say, it's going to be a moving target. If 10 years is enough...or maybe we'll have new technology in five. A lot of things can move at a very quick pace.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Thank you very much, Ms. Larouche.

Mr. Masse, you have six minutes, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be here.

Mr. Skolrud, I just want to make sure I have your position correct. You're concerned about a bill like this because it could act as a disincentive for innovation. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly?

[Dr. Tristan Skolrud]

Yes. That's the cost that I identified.