Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 712
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.
Affordability is something that we've asked about many times. It has to be affordable for Canadians for them to pursue this. I think Dr. McKitrick brought up the disastrous policies in Ontario that led it to be the largest subnational debtor in the world. It was their electricity policy, subsidization and a bunch of other related issues that really caused these problems.
Dr. McKitrick, I'm concerned about the impacts in terms of affordability on our food costs. You did talk about it driving up costs. Can you speak to that effect?
Ross R. McKitrick
View Ross R. McKitrick Profile
Ross R. McKitrick
2021-06-21 12:00
Yes. That's been a long-standing theme in the economics literature around ethanol and biofuels policy. There's competition with the food supply. The run-up in corn prices in the latter part of the last decade was attributed to an expansion, especially in the United States, of the ethanol mandate. We would expect to see the same kind of effect here in Canada.
When you look at the cost of the biofuels policy, it's fair enough for industry to look at their own production costs and say, “This is how much it costs for us to produce the ethanol.” However, from the economic analysis point of view, we also try to take into account all those second order effects in the economy, including, in this case, the increase in the price of food, because that's also borne by households.
Martin Mallet
View Martin Mallet Profile
Martin Mallet
2021-06-16 17:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon.
Thank you on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen's Union for giving us the opportunity to speak today. Our organization represents over 1,300 independent inshore owner-operator fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
We are grateful that all parties supported changes to the Fisheries Act, protecting owner-operators and fleet separation in legislation with the purpose of keeping Atlantic Canada's public resources in the hands of fishers in their communities, and protecting the inshore fisheries from corporate control and influence.
However, we are still very much at risk of losing our fisheries from other angles.
In recent years, mom-and-pop and family-run and community-based fishing and processing enterprises have been on the international menu to be bought and agglomerated by large corporate interests owned by foreign nationals or out-of-province investors. Whereas locally run enterprises would reinvest most of their business revenues within their community and province of origin, large-scale corporations are interested in profits for shareholders, not sustainable rural communities that depend on a local fishery's resources.
There are more and more examples of foreign ownership takeovers of our marine resources and benefits across Canada. On the east coast, we can cite, for example, Royal Greenland in Newfoundland and Quebec, Thai Union in New Brunswick, Clearwater in Nova Scotia with the recent involvement of the Premium Brands Holdings component and, as was mentioned earlier by Monsieur Cormier, Champlain Investment in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia—and the list goes on.
For today's presentation, I'll use the example of the Champlain Capital company, based out of the U.S., but with an affiliate company, which is the Champlain Financial Corporation out of Montreal, to illustrate the concerns since 2017.
Champlain has taken control of eight processing plants in small rural communities across New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Officially, this investment group has tried to promote the positive impact of this merger for the regions by stating the creation of more opportunities for synergies and reduction of costs, as well as the development of new products.
However, it is also the creation of a monopoly, with the potential of creating an uneven business environment for the remaining local processing plants, potentially driving them out business to remove competition, and opening the door to fix the price of fish for local fishermen. Furthermore, dividends from local businesses that would have generally remained in the communities to the benefit of other supporting businesses and community members now go to out-of-province and international shareholders.
Also, will they shut down some of the less efficient plants in order to improve profits to further consolidate and improve bottom lines? To this question, the answer is “yes”. For example, back in 2020, one of their recently bought plants in eastern New Brunswick burned down and was never rebuilt. Instead, they reinvested in their other processing facilities, thus consolidating and improving company profits at the expense of the community that lost their plant. Most of the 150 plant workers when the plant burned that day lost their jobs—in a small coastal community where the fisheries sector is the main employer.
In closing, our organization supports the need in our industry for appropriate access to capital for continued maintenance and growth of the fishing and processing sectors. However, there is an urgent need, number one, for an effective set of strategies for the monitoring and hedging of foreign national interests in our public marine resources. Maybe a working group of federal and provincial governments, industry and economic, financial and legal experts could be struck to do a thorough study of the situation and develop strategy options to address the issues. Currently, and as stated in the presentation by DFO just before mine, the present DFO and provincial management fisheries structures do not have the tools necessary to address foreign ownership control issues of our Canadian fisheries resources and benefits.
The second point I want to raise is the need for appropriate financial aid programs to support intergenerational transfers of owner-operator fishing licences to new entrants, but also, incentives to support processing sector businesses so that they can remain locally owned and operated. However, even the best programs here will not be able to compete with the deep pockets of international corporations.
Finally, our public fisheries resources must be considered as part of our Canadian national interest and food security priorities. Currently, they are being taken away from Canadians at an alarming rate. This issue has to become a priority for our elected officials and policy makers.
Thank you. I'm looking forward to your questions.
Claire Canet
View Claire Canet Profile
Claire Canet
2021-06-16 17:27
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for hearing the testimony today from the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, which represents 148 lobster fishers.
The coastal communities of the Gaspé depend heavily on the commercial fisheries, including the lobster fishery, for their economic well-being. Lobster fishing represents employment for almost 600 people.
In Quebec, seafood processing plants, which depend on the catch in order to operate, employ 3,500 people. In 2019, commercial fishing in Quebec, which includes fishing by First Nations groups, represents a total value on the wharf of $378 million. Lobster harvesting in the Gaspé represents 24% of that total value.
No less than 80% of that catch in Quebec is exported, with 20% remaining in Canada. However, when we look at the corporate structures, such as Clearwater or Royal Greenland Québec, the percentage of the catch that is exported is clearly greater. For example, Royal Greenland, which owns the processing plant in Matane, makes offers on the wharf to guarantee itself as much of the catch as possible, as Mr. Cormier pointed out earlier. The company exports 95% of the catch to Europe or the United States, leaving only 5% of the seafood products harvested here to feed Quebecers and Canadians.
In 2019 and 2021, Royal Greenland used the techniques that Mr. Cormier mentioned. These are very alarming for the health and vitality of our Canadian processing plants, which provide the fishers with a number of buyers.
In its annual report for 2019, Clearwater emphasized that its main market was export. Indeed, more than 90% of its sales are made abroad. Its strategy is to continue to benefit from its wide range of species, its scope on the world market, and its customer base to generate profitable growth and broaden its sales through new markets and outlets. For example, we can point to its association with Premium Brands in increasing productivity and reducing costs. These are the input costs, of course, meaning the price paid for the catch. This generates higher margins because of the vertical integration of its global supply chain.
Royal Greenland and Clearwater are two examples of foreign companies becoming involved in processing and therefore in the fisheries themselves. This also applies to Canadian companies with a strategy of vertical integration focused overseas. This has a direct impact on Canada's food security, because the amount exported is clearly greater than normal exports by companies that are local and wholly Canadian.
Clearwater and Premium Brands are actually not holders of commercial inshore fishing licences. As we have heard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the DFO, these companies cannot obtain inshore fishing licences. However, Clearwater is now 50% owned by a number of First Nations groups, who themselves own several dozen commercial inshore fishing licences. These are communal licences, so the protection afforded by the new owner-operator regulations does not apply since these licences are communal.
By a twisted logic, communal-commercial fishing licences, both current and future, that commercialize the catch owned by those First Nations groups, do not protect the licence holders. This runs counter to the spirit of the regulations and to the protection of our resource for the benefit of the fishers and of Canadians.
In a situation where access to the fishery by First Nations is increasing in order to allow them to achieve a moderate livelihood, we cannot but see an increase in the number of communal licences. This will result in more control over, and commercial sales of, vulnerable catches. This will be the result unless the DFO ensures that all fishing licences that allow the catch to be sold commercially enjoy the same protection.
To us, it seems fanciful to believe that these companies, such as Clearwater, which are part of a strategy of vertical integration and control over fishery markets, do not see an opportunity in unprotected access to an increasing number of commercial communal fishing licences and in the catches that result.
With the corporatization of the fisheries, without safeguards, we will clearly be seeing an erosion of the scope of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations, which also provide protection to owner‑operators. In addition, an increasing number of commercial fishing licences will be exposed to takeover by a small number of companies.
The corporatization of fisheries through vertical integration and private investment serves only to pay dividends to a few shareholders— individuals, families or foreign governments, as in the case of Royal Greenland—rather than having the profits pass to coastal communities as the priority.
Without anyone noticing—
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Tansi. Boozhoo. Good morning and hello.
First I want to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from my office here in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, in the city of Winnipeg, the homeland of the Métis nation and Treaty 1 territory.
This committee meeting comes at a time when our nation is grieving. The remains of the 215 children buried at the Kamloops Indian residential school sent shockwaves through our country. It has reignited a very important conversation and brought it back to the national consciousness.
I want to be very clear, reconciliation and the lives and well-being of indigenous peoples never stray from my mind. This is my focus and motivation as a minister and member of Parliament.
I am a proud citizen of the Métis Nation. I am honoured to live in and represent the constituency of Saint Boniface–Saint Vital. Louis Riel, who was born in Saint-Boniface and was laid to rest there, was never granted the same privilege that I am being granted. Louis Riel was democratically elected as a member of Parliament for the constituency of Provencher, not on one or two occasions but on three occasions, yet he was never allowed to rightfully take his seat in the House.
The opportunities that I have been granted are some that my ancestors would never have believed possible. I work every day with this knowledge; it drives and motivates my work.
As Minister of Northern Affairs, I strive to listen to northerners to ensure that their needs and priorities drive my department's work. A year and a half ago, when I was appointed minister, I stated that decisions for the north would no longer be made in Ottawa boardrooms. My team and I remain committed to that vision. We work for the north and with the north. That's why the Arctic and northern policy framework is so important to our combined work together.
The investments my department is seeking through supplementary estimates (A) are driven by this approach, focusing on the responses to COVID-19, as well as housing and infrastructure needs. The pandemic has highlighted what people have known for far too long, which is that indigenous peoples and northern communities have been underserved. Further, we have recently been reminded of the consequences of colonialism for indigenous peoples and communities.
We know that in Canada's north, food prices can be significantly higher than in the rest of Canada. Additional factors, such as geographic isolation, make northerners particularly at risk for food insecurity. This vulnerability has only been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, our government provided an additional $25 million to Nutrition North Canada to increase subsidy rates on nutritious food and essential hygiene items. Our government also introduced the harvesters support grant, which was co-developed with Inuit partners to help with costs related to hunting and harvesting, and to create greater access to traditional country foods. Building on this, and to address the ongoing concerns, the estimates in front of you provide $20 million in funding to maintain Nutrition North Canada measures introduced in April 2020.
These supplementary estimates also provide $50 million in 2021-22 for the Governments of Northwest Territories and Nunavut. There is $25 million each to respond to their short-term critical housing needs. I view these as down payments on the housing situation in the north. The need is clear and we are committed to closing the unacceptable gap that exists in the north. These amounts are intended to address immediate and pressing housing needs this year.
We recognize that more investment is required. From budget 2021, northerners will also benefit from the $2.5 billion in new funding through the national housing strategy, delivered by CMHC across Canada, and the $4.3 billion in new funding in distinctions-based indigenous infrastructure, which can include housing.
Mr. Chair, as I stated before, reconciliation is always at the forefront of my mind as minister. I'm working toward a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples, including through the Inuit-Crown partnership committee, that respects constitutionally guaranteed rights and is based on collaboration and co-operation.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity to meet with you virtually today.
I welcome your questions.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for Dr. Jaccard, a fellow British Columbian. I'm up in northern B.C. right now.
We certainly like renewables and biofuels, but are concerned about some of the implications of that. I was on the agriculture committee for four years prior to this committee, and some of the effects of some of those food crops being turned into fuel crops....
What do you say to the potential upward pressure of growing renewable fuels as opposed to [Inaudible—Editor] and its effects on food prices?
Mark Jaccard
View Mark Jaccard Profile
Mark Jaccard
2021-06-07 12:09
My point, similar to what I mentioned before, is that when we look at studies that suggest a significant upward movement on food prices, these studies are more of what I call all or nothing, a dramatic movement into biofuels to replace all liquid uses of fossil fuel derived hydrocarbons.
Those are not the studies I'm looking at. Those are not the kinds of outcomes I was talking about in my remarks. I was talking more about something like 20%—
View Bob Zimmer Profile
CPC (BC)
Doctor, I'm sorry, but time is tight.
A Bloomberg article from May 20, 2021, entitled “Green-Fuel Push Stirs Food Inflation Fears in Rebound From Virus”, states:
Soaring demand for crops has once again raised the question of whether nations should really depend on ethanol and renewable diesel to save the planet from global warming. Corn, soybeans, palm oil and sugar, which are increasingly processed into biofuels worldwide, are part of a staggering commodities rally that’s making everything from animal feed and noodles to taco shells and chocolate more expensive, putting central bankers worldwide in a tough spot between fighting inflation and seeking to stimulate battered economies.
How do you speak to that?
Mark Jaccard
View Mark Jaccard Profile
Mark Jaccard
2021-06-07 12:11
It is the same answer.
As I said in my opening comments, I've seen studies like that for 25 years. If you look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we run scenarios, and look at food pricing when we don't take an extreme case like the quote you were just using from Bloomberg.
What food costs is a serious question. I don't believe, therefore, that biofuels will solve climate, as I think your quote kind of said it would rely on them. It'll be more like in significant niches. We've been talking about the trucking industry, and that's where we're seeing it happen without those kinds of effects.
Melanie Sonnenberg
View Melanie Sonnenberg Profile
Melanie Sonnenberg
2021-05-31 15:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of our members across the country, we want to take this opportunity to address the honourable members today. Again, we express our appreciation for this opportunity.
The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation is comprised of member organizations representing more than 14,000 independent owner-operator enterprises that harvest most of Canada's lobster, crab, wild salmon, shrimp and groundfish. With 43,000 crew members across the country, independent owner-operator fleets make up the single largest private employer in most Canadian coastal communities. Combined, our harvesters spend more than 20 million hours on the water per year. Together, we produce over five billion meals and $3 billion in landed value, generating over $7 billion throughout the value chain .
Canada's fisheries bring great value to our coastal communities. This extends far beyond their economic value. Fisheries connect us to our oceans and define the economic, social and cultural fabric of our country's coastal communities. On top of this, local fisheries feed millions of Canadians, protecting our collective food security.
COVID-19 has reminded us of the importance of protecting our domestic food supply. As the stewards of Canada's coastal communities, our members have profound concerns about the corporatization of the fishery, particularly by vertically integrated and multinational corporations and especially from foreign countries. We thank the committee for its attention to this critically important issue.
The simple message is the following. Our public resources are at risk of being swallowed up by foreign owners driven by one thing and one thing only, securing our wild fisheries production for their profit. Access to the fishery by these vertically integrated and foreign multinationals threatens our coastal communities whose livelihoods depend on the economic vibrancy of the fishery.
Take for example Royal Greenland, the fishing company wholly owned by the Government of Greenland and Denmark. Royal Greenland's operations in Canada illustrate the severity of the threats posed by corporatization of the fishery. Keith Sullivan will speak to this as well, I'm sure, but this is a really good case in point. Royal Greenland has nine production units in Canada. They do not support the owner-operator fishery. They explicitly promote full vertical integration, a business model not permitted in the Canadian inshore fishery.
Royal Greenland bought into the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in 2016. By 2020, the year after their shareholders made record profits of over $52 million Canadian, they were the largest processor in the province. They recently purchased the second- and fourth-largest processing companies in the province. They also continue to secure considerable financial stakes in the province through several smaller companies.
Royal Greenland's arrival in Newfoundland drastically accelerated the pace of foreign corporate consolidation. They now have significantly more capital than any other local processing company. This aggressive business model of control and purchase completely stifles local competition.
Royal Greenland also operates a plant in Quebec. Their plant in Matane produces 45 tonnes per day of prawns and snow crab, only 5% of which stays in Canada. The remainder goes to Europe. In 2019 and 2021, Royal Greenland's Matane plant offered extremely high landing prices to snow crab fishermen to cut supply to local Quebec- and New Brunswick-owned plants.
Royal Greenland is not only swallowing up local processors and producers; their shareholders are also reaping all the benefits from our fisheries, leaving only a small fraction of their food supply and economic value for Canadians.
The corporatization of the fishery has several far-reaching, long-term consequences. It puts at risk our collective food security and increases prices to the end Canadian consumer. It takes corporate profits out of local communities and puts them in the hands of corporate shareholders. It jeopardizes the future of independent, locally owned factories, which can prevent independent fish harvesters from negotiating a fair landing price. Finally, it undermines the owner-operator principle, which is the backbone of Canada's coastal communities.
Our coastal communities have the potential to be resilient, sustainable and prosperous drivers of coastal economic and cultural wealth for generations to come. We must do everything we can to protect this public resource which, critically, also ensures that we are never cut off from our own domestic food supply. Fisheries access must remain in the hands of our harvesters and our coastal communities. Our fishing licences must only [Technical difficulty—Editor] be granted.
The federation supports a competitive market environment, but we must ensure that control of these precious public resources remains in Canadian hands for generations to come. We need to ensure fair and equitable opportunities for our future generations of fish harvesters, the new entrants in the industry.
As such, we support the collaborative development of clear regulations to limit foreign ownership and corporate control of our fisheries. This could include reducing the threshold for foreign acquisitions under the Investment Canada Act and the implementation of regulations requiring transparency of corporate agreements signed with respect to fishing licences.
We will forward a more expanded written response with some case studies for your review as we have such a short time and we want to be able to use it for questions, Mr. Chair. I'll close by saying again that we're appreciative of the opportunity and we're looking forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
View Neil Ellis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Neil Ellis Profile
2021-05-27 16:44
In Canada's north, food prices can be significantly higher than what the rest of the country pays. Additional factors such as isolation and socio-economic challenges make northerners particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. This vulnerability has been shown by the COVID-19 pandemic.
What has been proposed in the main estimates to help beat this problem?
Chris Forbes
View Chris Forbes Profile
Chris Forbes
2021-05-27 16:44
Thanks for the question.
The main estimates themselves don't have anything specific for the north. I would point out that we have done a few things over the last year in particular, through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, through the local food infrastructure fund and the emergency food security fund that we provided, including, in October 2020, $30 million for Indigenous Services Canada to support local food security as part of its indigenous community support fund.
We also, as part of last year's programming, had a surplus food rescue program. Three of the nine projects we had under that program were redirecting surplus food to indigenous communities in the Prairies, in Nova Scotia and also in Nunavut.
There's ongoing programming in our ministry, and of course, then, Mr. Ellis, there are programs through Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, and indeed ESDC, on support for communities for poverty reduction.
Sonia Strobel
View Sonia Strobel Profile
Sonia Strobel
2021-05-26 17:31
Thank you so much for having me.
As you said, my name is Sonia Strobel. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Skipper Otto. We're Canada's first community-supported fishery and one of the first in the world. We're based on Coast Salish territory here in Vancouver, B.C.
I married into a fishing family 20 years ago. Honestly, I was horrified to witness the struggles of my father-in-law, Otto, and my husband Sean and other small-scale harvesters. They face risks and uncertainties that no one would tolerate in any other livelihood. At the end of the day, a lot of them just hope to break even. They're barely paying themselves minimum wage.
At the same time, Canadians can scarcely access domestic seafood. Canada exports 90% of its catch, and 80% of what Canadians can buy in restaurants and in retail shops is imported, often from shady sources that support environmental destruction and human rights abuses in unregulated international waters, yet demand for local producer-direct seafood continues to skyrocket.
We started Skipper Otto to help take some of the uncertainty out of fishing and to address Canadian food insecurity. Our membership model provides frozen seafood directly from fishing families to consumers across Canada. We do lots of other things to de-risk fishing, but since this is what's core to the issue today, that's where I'll focus my remarks.
Freezing seafood allows harvesters to hold on to their product and find their own fair markets rather than being forced to sell to live buyers and export markets that won't set a price until long after they've taken the product. Monopolization and collusion are commonplace in this industry. Right now, we're two weeks into the spot prawn season. Folks selling into the live markets have already delivered the bulk of this year's catch, but they still haven't been told a price, let alone been paid a penny.
Not only is allowing the freezing of seafood like spot prawns, at sea a social justice issue; it's also critical to improving other issues like food security, tackling climate change and addressing seafood fraud. Our model allows members to enjoy sustainable seafood year-round anywhere in the country. It's shipped using low-carbon methods, and each piece of seafood shows exactly who caught it, when, where and how.
This committee has heard testimony from many harvesters about the impact of selling frozen-at-sea spot prawn tails domestically compared to selling to live markets. Last year, that meant that harvesters who tailed, tubbed and froze their prawns at sea sold them for 300% more than they received from selling them to the live buyer.
Skipper Otto supports 34 fishing families, like Joel Collier here, throughout the B.C. coast, as well as in two remote communities in Nunavut. These families provide a year's worth of seafood directly to over 7,000 families across the country. You heard from many of them through our petitions on this topic.
Our members are passionate about supporting Canadian fishing families. They do that by buying fishermen-direct frozen seafood. This spot prawn issue hits them personally, and they're not going to let it drop.
In Canada, shrimp and prawns are by far the most consumed species of seafood. Globally, some five billion pounds of shrimp and prawns are produced each year. Where does most of that come from?
The global shrimp and prawn trade is the most notorious for environmental destruction and human rights abuses. Most of the frozen shrimp you can get in Canadian grocery stores is in some way connected to human trafficking, slavery and deforestation of mangroves in southeast Asia. How wonderful, then, that we have this incredibly clean, well-managed, ethically harvested product as an alternative for consumers in Canada to displace some of that dirty product.
However, this reinterpretation of the regulation about spot prawn tubbing undoes all of that. It takes from fishing families one of the most profitable fisheries they have in a industry that's desperately difficult to make money in. Once again it puts the control and profits back into the hands of big foreign-owned export companies. It takes a sustainable, clean and ethical product out of the hands of Canadians and makes more space for slave-caught shrimp on Canadian shelves. For what? The DFO has not provided a single plausible reason for this decision. Of course, we all support strong conservation measures, but it has not been demonstrated that this is in any way a conservation issue.
Of course, we all want to put an end to IUU fishing and harvesting, but placing the burden of that on all harvesters is unjust and irrational. If a small group of harvesters and processors are violating regulations, then C and P—conservation and protection—already has the tools in place to focus the enforcement of the regulations without upending the entire industry. Their job is to enforce regulations made by arms-length lawmakers, not to reinvent the laws to make enforcement easier.
Please help me to tell our 7,000 member families across the country that this is solved. They are all eagerly awaiting the update on this issue, not just for this year but for the future as well.
In conclusion, I submit the following recommendations: one, that you give certainty to harvesters that tailing, tubbing and freezing prawns at sea will remain legal; and two, that you ensure that our local prawn harvest is protected for Canadian harvesters and consumers, not for the benefit of foreign corporations and investors.
Candace Laing
View Candace Laing Profile
Candace Laing
2021-05-13 15:37
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the invitation to appear.
My name is Candace Laing, and I am Nutrien's vice-president of sustainability and stakeholder relations, coming to you today from Saskatoon. I would like to acknowledge I'm coming to you from Treaty 6 territory and the traditional homeland of the Métis.
As a bit of background for anyone who is less familiar with our company, which is just a little over three years old, Nutrien was created through a merger of equals between Agrium and the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, previously two of Canada's leading agriculture and mining companies. Together, as Nutrien, we've become the world's largest provider of crop inputs and services. Our business spans operating segments including our retail division, known as Nutrien Ag Solutions, and the manufacturing and mining of potash, nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers.
Though our company has grown—we now span 13 countries and three continents—our operations in Canada remain extensive. We have six potash mines in Saskatchewan, four nitrogen manufacturing facilities in Alberta, and nearly 300 ag retail outlets, primarily across western Canada. This is in addition to two corporate offices in Calgary and Saskatoon.
Our purpose as a company is to grow our world from the ground up. With nearly 10 billion people expected by 2050, we have a big challenge in front of us. Feeding this growing population without increasing land use and while tackling climate change is one of our biggest challenges and greatest opportunities. The future of agriculture depends on industry leaders, partners and governments taking concrete actions to support sustainable farming practices. Last month at Nutrien, we launched our feeding the future plan. This includes commitments to help reduce our carbon footprint. We see these commitments as critical in driving the next shift in agriculture. We've set out to decrease emissions directly related to our operations, while supporting growers with our products and services so they can store more carbon in their soil and reduce emissions with better nutrient management.
Some of our commitments, set to be achieved by 2030, include enabling growers to adopt sustainable agriculture on 75 million acres globally; a comprehensive carbon program that empowers growers to accelerate climate-smart agriculture and soil carbon sequestration, where growers are rewarded for their efforts through the generation of carbon credits and assets; and at least a 30% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of product produced, while we're also pursuing the transition to low-carbon fertilizers.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] speak to the emissions-reduction and sequestration opportunity in crop production, and what Nutrien is doing to accelerate the nature-based climate solutions from agriculture and reward growers for those efforts.
This growing season we are piloting our carbon program. We targeted 100,000 acres in North America, 20,000 acres of which were in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Interest from growers has been extremely encouraging and exceeds our target for acres applied. We are now executing our pilots on 200,000 acres across North America, 45,000 acres of which are in Canada.
The carbon program empowers growers to accelerate climate-smart agriculture and soil carbon sequestration. At Nutrien we work directly with our growers to build customized crop plans that reduce their carbon footprint. We assist in verifying carbon performance, and currently we are paying growers directly for their participation, anticipating we need to be ready to support [Technical difficulty—Editor] in a compliance or voluntary offset market.
Nutrien's long-term goal is to put learning from these pilots to work and scale the program globally to build real, lasting change and impacts. A significant component of our pilots includes troubleshooting existing offset protocols and their barriers to adoption. The nitrous oxide emissions reduction protocol, or NERP, in Alberta's carbon compliance framework is world leading, yet it has not been transacted on in 10 years due, in part, to the significant administrative burden and relatively low return on investment for growers.
Early findings from our pilots have shown us two things. First is the value of digital tools. They capture and create credible evidence, making it easier for growers to measure their carbon reduction progress. Digital [Technical difficulty—Editor] when most offset protocols, like NERP, were first developed. Embedding them, as we are, with existing and new protocols will make carbon credits more accessible to growers.
Second, we have learned that protocols must be stackable. Our pilots stack soil organic carbon and nitrogen management protocols to deliver the highest emissions reductions. Stacking protocols makes economic sense for the grower, who may not see enough value and return in a single protocol in order to invest in the practice changes.
We are in regular communication with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on our findings, as well as with provincial governments. The NERP has not been prioritized for development in our federal offset program, but at Nutrien we are hopeful that learnings from our pilots will accelerate this.
Adopting the NERP will also help the federal government achieve its goal of reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% by 2030. Let me be clear: Reducing N2O emissions by 30% is extremely ambitious and perhaps even unachievable without compromising crop yields and thereby threatening global food security and our position as a global leader in agriculture. However, we believe that by creating a value in carbon assets from agriculture, we can make significant progress. More to the point, we can help Canada tap into the significant opportunity in agriculture to deliver on our nationally determined contributions.
In summary, our recommendations to the committee are as follows.
Number one, partner and work with us. Enable Nutrien’s carbon program by helping create a suite of stackable, accessible agricultural protocols within the federal offset system that combine both nitrogen management and carbon sequestration.
Second, ensure that any policies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions use the carrot and not the stick. We need policy support to help us scale climate solutions while we maintain productivity and enhance grower resilience.
We have an opportunity to give credit to Canadian producers, who are already among the most sustainable in the world.
With that, I'd like to thank members of Parliament for their time today, and I am pleased to answer any questions.
Serge Buy
View Serge Buy Profile
Serge Buy
2021-05-04 16:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for inviting me again to appear in front of your committee. The last time I presented was in February. There was a snowstorm, and I think I reflected on the challenges of the Internet in rural regions. I am proud to say that we've had an upgrade in our region, so I should be fine on my Internet today. As well, there is no snow.
When I appeared the last time, it was to discuss processing capacity. I note that your report has come out, and I would really like to congratulate the committee on a great report that came out, with substantial recommendations. My hope is that the government will reach out to stakeholders in order to discuss implementation—stakeholders such as us.
That would be great to see, but I'm here to discuss Bill C-206, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to mention first that the intent of the draft legislation is to extend the exemption on the carbon tax to some farming operations that use propane and natural gas. As you know, reducing GHG emissions is a priority. It's a priority for Canada. It is a priority for farmers. However, when there are no viable options, farmers shouldn't be penalized for doing what they do best: feeding Canadians and contributing to our economy.
We are certainly supportive of this legislation, and we are supportive for the following reasons.
At this point, there are no viable options that are scalable to serve the whole sector. While there are some new technologies, they still need to be researched, especially in terms of how they adapt to our particular conditions in Canada.
The scalability of those new technologies is also an issue. We're simply not there yet, and we must be realistic that we will not be able to scale up those new technologies in the near future.
We've researched the issue, Mr. Chair. We've consulted our members, and there was an almost unanimous response from our members on this issue. Increasing the costs for farmers will lead to some abandoning agriculture, and this will have a negative impact on our jobs, on the trade balance and also on our food security, an issue that we should really consider specifically.
The AIC recently held a webinar on agrifood and climate change. It included international experts such as Dr. Ould-Dada, deputy director at the UN food and agriculture organization; Dr. Ringler, who is with the International Food Policy Research Institute; and Dr. Sally Rockey, a long-time senior civil servant in the U.S. and now executive director of the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research.
They all agreed with the following statement: It is important to consider food security when implementing measures to reduce GHG emissions in agriculture, and sustained investments in research and innovation are essential to support reductions in GHG emissions in agriculture and adaptation to climate change.
We certainly agree with those two statements from our experts, and we believe that the committee should reflect on those and pass [Technical difficulty—Editor]. However, we also believe that the exemption should go to other types of farming.
The exemption right now is limited to some types of farming, and we believe that it is not fair to penalize other types of farmers, such as farmers who have barns and need heat for animals. It's not fair for them to be left aside. There are other types of farmers who also do important work and provide Canada and Canadians with an important service that is required, and we believe that they should also be considered in and supported through this legislation.
As well, Mr. Chair, we believe that the measure should be permanent. This was a topic of some discussion within our council, but ultimately the great majority of our members who responded to the survey indicated that it was important to extend the protection on a permanent basis.
The rationale for this is simple. Farmers make significant investments in material and equipment. For them to have a temporary measure will increase concerns and affect their ability to plan financially and get new machinery. As no machinery and no technology is scalable at this point to enable them, in a viable manner, to have other sources of fuel, such as clean and renewable fuel, we believe that the measure should be permanent to give them certainty—and I stress the word certainty—that there will be no changes in the near future.
Mr. Chair, there are greener alternatives, and there are various alternatives such as gasification systems, low-temperature pyrolysis, anaerobic digesters and battery-based equipment. There certainly are different alternatives, but there are several factors that work against those alternatives. I mentioned that they're often not viable. The price is simply too high and the price to scale them is not feasible.
We also have to remember that our farmers compete internationally against the U.S., Russia, Brazil and other countries. We have to be careful on that—
Results: 1 - 15 of 712 | Page: 1 of 48

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data