Evidence of meeting #134 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was use.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
I'm just trying to think.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Do you think that was the right decision, right now, to exempt on-farm use of fuel?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
Yes. I do. Again, this is an industry where I think governments, both federal and provincial, do need to tread very carefully. We have a sector where, again, margins are low and they are susceptible to international competition. The last thing we want to see is a reduction in wheat grown because of this, let's say, and those international sales taken up by countries like Kazakhstan that have a much higher carbon footprint. That would both reduce our output but also increase greenhouse gas emissions across the world because you're taking away a low-carbon producer and replacing it with a high-carbon producer.
4:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
Mr. Warawa, we're back to you for six minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Thank you.
I was looking at the Smart Prosperity Institute website. I just wanted to see what they said about the carbon tax. They've said the same.
Is their headquarters in Ottawa?
4:30 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
That's correct.
November 27th, 2018 / 4:30 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
They're not in British Columbia. They're headquartered in Ottawa, and they're praising the B.C. carbon tax, which is 112%.
I live in British Columbia, and I can tell you first-hand that this is not what British Columbians sense. It's an extremely high cost of living, so it is having an impact. Emissions are going up. Canada will not meet its Paris targets in 2020. That's the perspective of people who are under that burden.
I'm thinking of the importance of the agricultural sectors in Canada. I'm thinking of the testimony I heard that Canada is a world leader. We're the model that the rest of the world is following in many sectors and in many ways.
I'm thinking of the production of aluminum. The cleanest place in the world to have aluminum manufactured is in Canada. In Canada, there are two tonnes of GHG for every one tonne of aluminum; in China, it's eleven.
Where should the aluminum be made, if we truly look at the issue of climate change as a global crisis? Where is the best place to make the aluminum? Well, it's Canada. If we produce more aluminum in Canada, then our GHGs go up, making it more difficult to reach the targets.
Now I'm going to go into your sectors.
Where is the best place to grow food? It's in Canada. In your testimony, you said the cleanest place in the world to grow grains and food is Canada.
I'm thinking of testimony that I heard from the aviation industry. They've reduced their emissions. I think it was 30% below 2005 levels already. All the major airlines in Canada are asking why should they have to pay a carbon tax when they've already achieved and exceeded the Paris targets. They will continue to improve, but this is a burden that they've said to me is unfair.
I hope you understand my perspective. Yes, we have to do better globally. If Canada is one of the world leaders, are you suggesting that we cut back on our production or should we expand our production if we're the cleanest model in the world? Should we cut back, stay static, and just get cleaner, or actually produce more?
That's my question.
4:30 p.m.
Prof. Mike Moffatt
We should produce more, but we should produce more through innovation.
I don't accept this idea that this necessarily has to be at a cost to each other. Again, if we look at the agricultural industry across Canada, our output has increased, but our greenhouse gas emissions have been dropping 0.9% per year, every year, since 1990. We can continue to achieve that performance—and better performance—through the use of innovative technologies, both creating those technologies in Canada but also better adoption of the technologies that already exist. In things like fertilizer use, we've seen that when you're able to do that, you see a cost reduction of $29 to $71 per acre. That money goes into the pockets of farmers.
I agree that this should not come at the reduction of production. What we should be trying to accomplish is getting more value per acre. We can do that through the use of new technologies and through government helping industry with those technologies. That will achieve better economic and better environmental performance.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You still have over a minute.
Do you have a question?
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
We're going to Mr. Amos next.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate how we're bringing up the issue of carbon pricing once again in this discussion at our committee. I think it's a pervasive topic, and the sooner we get our minds wrapped around how important pollution pricing is, the better.
I appreciated Mr. Moffatt's remarks, which could leave no one with any doubt that your opinion is it's a necessary but insufficient measure. It's one of a suite of initiatives. Thank you for clarifying that. I know your economic expertise from Western precedes you, and that's not just the opinion from Smart Prosperity, as I understand it, but yours also as an academic at Western.
We've heard from the Grain Growers of Canada that they are concerned about the applicability of the fuel charge on fuels that would be used to dry crops. We're talking about situations of flooding, wet weather at inopportune times, where the farmers have no choice. I know there are grain growers in the Pontiac who consider this an important issue.
Could you comment on how expensive a proposition it would be to provide the coverage or provide that exemption, if you would, to those farmers for those fuels? I'm not clear on the cost associated with that fuel usage, and the full extent of it across Canada.
Perhaps you could comment on that, Ms. Miller.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
I can't give you the exact amount. It varies by location time. For the individual producer it can mean a significant amount. I think that's what Grain Growers was getting at.
On a regular basis, grain dryers are used sparingly, but some years, and this would be one, where it was either harvest them with a higher moisture content than ideal or not harvest them at all....
It is cyclical and it is region specific. For that reason, it has a significant impact at various times.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you.
Could you please go a bit further and let us know what particular regions are more vulnerable to these cyclical needs?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
This year it would be Ontario and Alberta because the snow came before the harvest was completed.
It does move around. I don't think any region is exempt from the risk.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Okay. Thank you.
I believe my colleague has a few other questions so I will pass my time to Mr. Bossio.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Thank you both once again.
I know some of the larger farms in my community use the zero till method. They talk about the Swiss cheese impact on the soil of that happening, and it becoming a sponge, essentially, because there are dry spots in some of the areas. They are saying their crops are growing much better.
What crops do not suit a zero till method?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
I have heard anecdotally from talking to farmers in Saskatchewan that corn is much more challenging because there's so much trash left on the surface it's hard to see below it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm surprised because one of the largest crops they have is corn.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
Again, I said anecdotally.
We don't cover them, but potatoes and vegetables don't fit that.
It's combined with regions in some areas. For example, where it is very wet, and you have crops like canola that are more susceptible to disease, tilling will reduce the risk. It's individual situations like that.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
You were saying the smaller farms. This is Ontario, so in Ontario 1,300 acres is one farm I'm talking about. That's not a big farm in Saskatchewan. You were saying the size of the farm also seems to be an indicator. This may not be a viable method for a smaller farm.
Do you have a sense of what size is the optimal level to do it on?
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
No, but I do know that in Ontario, for example, there are a lot of farms around 200 acres. You would never get that out in the Prairies. It doesn't take a 10,000-acre farm, but it might take a farm of 500 to 1,000 acres.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I know you're seeing many new technologies that are coming out. Looking at farm management systems, we had enterprise management systems that were all the rage, and now they've actually gone to the farm level, where from their office on the farm they see every aspect of production, especially now with drones and other soil management practices or technologies that are being developed.
Can you give us a sense of where you see that going? We know Canada is leading the way when it comes to zero till and some other practices, but are we leading on the technology side?