Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2018

[Rick White]

The issue with moving to no-till is how do you control the weeds. That was the key technology and the biological piece, when they invented genetically modified canola to be herbicide tolerant initially to Roundup and now there are several others that are being used. That fixed the weed problem, which allowed farmers to go into even the most weedy fields that they had. Typically, in the past, they would have summer fallowed that and just tilled it to keep the weeds down and then gone into it fresh a year after, but they lose a whole year of crop.

It's very difficult to organically go to zero-till because it's difficult to manage the weeds effectively in an organic system.

[Joe Peschisolido]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair]

Now, we'll move over to Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for participating in this exercise. Once again, this afternoon, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am very pleased to hear some good news. There are measures, people regulate themselves, they take the initiative and they care about our environment. This is to your credit and, above all, to that of your members.

Mr. Innes, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that you must also partner in achieving society's environmental goals, such as preserving soil and water health, improving air quality and maintaining biodiversity. I think that's honourable. I want to highlight this mission you have taken upon yourself and congratulate the canola producers.

Now, I would like to understand one thing. Your Keep it Coming 2025 contains some very specific figures and objectives. I see that the verbs used are “we could” and “we want”. Is your position clearer? Do you have mechanisms and measures in place to achieve your targets? Are those targets achievable?

You are saying that you will be able to use 18% less fuel for each bottle of canola. You also said that you wanted to reduce the amount of land required by 40%. You also mentioned that you will eliminate 5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. In addition, you say you plan—which is the same kind of verb—to improve soil and water health by ensuring that 50% of canola production will be under the 4R nutrient stewardship principles by 2025.

So you have intentions and wishes and your members are taking the initiative. However, those are intentions. Is it more specific than that? Does this confirm that you would like to, but are not sure that your members will take part in achieving the objectives?

[Brian Innes]

Thank you very much for your question.

I appreciate the spirit of your comments.

I can give you some background on the goals we, in the canola industry, have had in the past, and our success in achieving those goals.

For example, as an industry we take the targets that we set very seriously. They're ambitious targets, but in the past we have had a very strong record of achieving targets, and we intend to achieve these targets.

For example, when we started to set targets as a canola industry in the early 2000s, it was a rough time for the industry, and we set a target of getting to seven million tonnes of production by 2007. We met seven million tonnes of production, and we asked ourselves where we wanted to be by 2015. We set a target of 15 million tonnes of production by 2015. We actually attained that level two years early, in 2013, and we asked where we were going now. That's when we set our 2025 targets of 26 million tonnes of production, based on 52 bushels per acre, by 2025.

As an industry, we have a record of coming together and including all links of the value chain. We look out into the future and set bold targets, to motivate change within our industry and to motivate change in the environment that we operate in, including the regulations around innovation and the practices that we need to get there.

When we look at the targets that were outlined, it's very much our intention to achieve these targets. We have a plan in place at the Canola Council.

For example, we have professional agronomists working with industry to address important issues.

One of the big issues is sustainability. Others are things like disease, and really transferring knowledge from the science bench to a farmer's field. We, as an industry, voluntarily invest in that through our agronomy and research program. There are many items that line up in the activities that we do to help achieve these targets. We plan on achieving them, and I hope you ask us in 2025 whether we have succeeded.

Thank you.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

In your answer, you said that the past is an indication of the future, that you can be trusted and that your members are responsible enough to protect the environment and put in place the measures to do so. Well done! Keep it up. My thanks to the people in your industry.

Do you think the federal government needs to put in place a carbon tax to force you to be even more stringent? Will the results be better if we impose a carbon tax instead of imposing very strict rules on you to achieve well-defined targets that will allow our country to achieve certain results?

[Brian Innes]

I can't speak to the forecasts of the impacts of a carbon tax, but what I would say is that government regulation has a real benefit, or a negative impact, on our industry. One area I'd highlight where it could be more beneficial is plant breeding innovation. We've heard about GM, but there is also plant breeding innovation coming forward.

In fact, in the fall economic update, there was a piece about enabling better plant breeding innovation regulatory frameworks in Canada. That is a key piece to help our industry adapt to changing climate conditions and adapt plants that sequester more carbon.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

If I understand correctly, for your industry, regulations are probably much more effective than imposing a carbon tax whose impact is unknown, and your experience shows that regulations are effective, allowing you to achieve your targets.

May I interpret your answer in this way?

[Brian Innes]

What I said was that we see some areas of regulation as really necessary. Changing the way we regulate plant breeding innovation is one area that we see as being very helpful for us in the future.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, Kootenay—Columbia, NDP]

Thank you for being here today. I'll start with Mr. Bonnett.

I used to be the regional manager with the ministry of the environment for southeastern British Columbia. I left that job on a Friday and on Monday I started as the regional manager for the East Kootenay conservation program, which was private land conservation. I got to work with a lot of ranchers and farmers and realized how important they were to conservation.

There was a municipal tax of $25 per property that went into conservation. One of the projects we used that money for was to pay ranchers, in essence, to leave marshes and areas that sequestered a lot of carbon alone.

How prominent is that across Canada, and is that a direction we should be going in?

[Ron Bonnett]

It's becoming more prominent. I mentioned the alternative land use services program.

The other thing, though, that has been in place for a number of years is the environmental farm planning process. Each province has different incentives they can provide.

I can describe what we did on our farm. We have a cow-calf livestock farm. We used some of that money to fence off all cattle access to any open water sources. We had a fairly wide flood plain that we fenced them out of. We purchased solar-powered water pumping systems. We actually fenced the property and moved to rotational grazing.

To give you an idea of the change in the carbon footprint, with the same base of land that we started with when we moved from dairy to cow-calf, we're carrying twice as many cattle and producing twice as much beef. At the same time, because we're using rotational grazing, we've reduced the amounts of fertilizer that we're putting on.

It applies to cropland, as well. There are some areas that are not suitable for farming. Looking at conservation-type programs and other ways to encourage some of those wetlands and more fragile areas to be set aside actually does work.

Another interesting thing we found on our farm was that once we had the cattle fenced away from the water sources and the rotational grazing system set up, the rates of gain on our calves went right through the roof, and the risk of disease loss of nursing calves from mothers that had their udders covered in mud just disappeared. Sometimes, a small incentive like that is enough to make a dramatic change.

I know we've been talking a lot about what canola is doing, but you can look at any number of crops or livestock operations. One of the key focuses has been productivity increases and utilizing the land for its best purpose.

Going back to your comment about conservation, there are certain areas of land that likely shouldn't be farmed. Trying to find a way to incent setting them aside is a worthwhile endeavour.

[Wayne Stetski]

This morning I had breakfast with a group called Renewable Industries Canada. I hope to actually see them come as a witness, because it was quite inspiring.

From your perspective, what are some of the agricultural by-products—I'll call them that, rather than waste—that potentially can be part of a biofuel future?

[Ron Bonnett]

If I were looking at a biofuel future, first there are going to be genetically engineered crops that will likely be specifically designed for oil or ethanol production. I think you're going to see some work done on that. The other thing is taking a look at some of the field crop waste. You look at crops that have been harvested—straw, stover; there are a number of those fibres that could be put into a system. I could see a future where farmers might be combining their resources with municipalities, of livestock manure, crop waste, municipal waste, going into methane digesters. Instead of feeding natural gas into the lines, we'd be feeding methane in. There's great potential for some of that, but that's going to take research, development, innovation and partnerships. Like Brian and Rick, I see a very positive future for agriculture in the potential that we can move ahead on some of these.

The other thing is I think we have to take a look at the forestry sector as well and see if there are things we can do, particularly on the biofuels and bioproducts side, to see if there are opportunities to produce more products from renewable resources.

[Wayne Stetski]

When I asked them this morning about what the federal government should do to encourage more renewable, low-carbon fuels, they gave a couple of examples: one, by setting the E standard, which I guess is now at E5 for many gasolines—increasing that would put more low-carbon canola and other products into the fuel—or to do as Quebec did, which is to legislate that municipalities can no longer put any compost in landfills. Now they're using that for energy.

What do you think the role should be of government in trying to encourage a better, low-carbon fuel future?

[Ron Bonnett]

I'll let the canola people talk on the fuel content.

One thing I would say, and I was glad to see it in the fall economic update, is an accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in climate smart investments. I could see livestock barns, greenhouses, other types of agricultural production facilities taking a look at passive solar and other methods to create energy so that they're not using natural gas. There's opportunity there.

I'll let you comment on the fuel standards.

[Rick White]

Yes. Maybe I could just reiterate what I mentioned in my testimony initially.

We're at a 2% federal mandate for renewable content in diesel in particular, and that's why I focus on that, because it's where canola fits. We could do 5% very easily, and we could get a very significant environmental benefit out of it just by doing that. That would just take a federal mandate increase, strategically, from 2% to 5%. In some provinces it's already happening, but at the federal level, if we did it across Canada, it would be even more beneficial. To me that's low-hanging fruit.

[The Chair]

Great. Thank you.

[Brian Innes]

Could I add to that, Chair?

[The Chair]

Briefly, we're over time now.

[Brian Innes]

Very briefly, Canada's actually behind other major jurisdictions in reducing greenhouse gases by including renewable fuel in diesel. Europe has about a 6% to 7% renewable content in diesel. Some places in the United States have as high as 10% and 20%, in places like Minnesota, renewable content in diesel.

[The Chair]

Great. Thank you.

Now we're going to jump over to Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thanks to all of our witnesses.

We've also had the opportunity to hear from Mr. McCann in relation to canola, so I think our committee's getting a fairly good sense of where the canola industry stands in relation to climate. It's very helpful.

I want to ask all three of you something. I hear the request for additional support, particularly from the CFA, as regards innovation to enable different types of biofuels. In the most recent fall economic statement, the government stepped forward with accelerated capital cost allowances, which are a major incentive for any serious investor who has any equipment, machinery, clean technology to bring. Does this measure not answer the call for support for industry that wants to invest?

[Ron Bonnett]

I would say that on the accelerated capital cost allowance, we immediately responded. We thought it was a very good move on government's part to encourage investment. The other part of that, though, is the research and innovation, having the knowledge of the types of things they should be investing in. I think that's maybe where we could look at more coordination, likely, among federal and provincial resources as well as industry resources and taking a whole look at what the key research needs are going forward, looking at things from the window of a carbon footprint or carbon mitigation.

In the past, sometimes we concentrated strictly on the production side and we maybe didn't look at some of those broader ideas on sustainability and carbon. I think that's becoming more of an issue. That whole knowledge in the innovation side is good. The capital cost allowance really does help the investment side.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Innes.