Good morning, Mr. Chair.

First, let me thank you for having invited the Agri-Food Innovation Council to speak on border carbon adjustments. As we always do when asked to appear in front of a parliamentary committee, we invited our members and stakeholders to provide their thoughts and information. It forms the basis of my comments.

Generally, there seems to be consensus that a border carbon adjustment can be a tool to safeguard the competitiveness of Canadian producers. It can also influence foreign exporters to implement solutions to reduce their own GHG emissions.

However, we also heard that the sector has a lot of concerns. Let me list the main ones.

Until there are transparent and internationally accepted metrics, it will be difficult to impose BCAs on agri-food products. BCAs should not be implemented in a unilateral manner but rather through multilateral trade agreements. At a bare minimum, it should be a North American strategy and not just a Canadian one.

BCAs were initially designed to deal with oil, steel and cement. Agri-food is a complex sector that will require very careful review. There are so many inputs and outputs in the sector that BCAs will be difficult to implement.

BCAs will also increase prices in grocery stores, and that will create an inflationary pressure. Canadian consumers already struggling with the prices of food do not look forward to this. Basically, it isn't the time.

BCAs are also seen as a way for industrialized countries to transfer the burden of environmental policies to lower-income countries. This is contrary to the Stockholm declaration's recommendation 103, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Should BCAs be adopted for agri-food products, funds collected should be reinvested to support new technologies and their adoption. The Canadian government should, in fact, provide more support for the adoption of technologies leading to a decrease in GHG emissions and an increase in productivity and competitiveness.

We should also look at reducing “redundancies, gaps and inconsistencies” and support programs “for intellectual property, research and development, and commercialization”, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Science and Research in November 2023. A national strategy to coordinate efforts on agri-food research and innovation would significantly help.

Let me focus on some of those concerns.

The first one, which you've already heard in previous presentations, is that there are no internationally recognized and transparent measurements of GHG emissions for the agri-food sector. In Canada, the number—as mentioned by Mr. Tom Rosser from AAFC during his presentation last week—varies between 8% and 10%. However, it should be noted that Canada's agri-food production is both a source and a sink of GHGs, as noted in a 2021 report from The Simpson Centre for Agricultural and Food Innovation and Public Education.

However, internationally, measurements vary significantly, and the manner in which some of those numbers are collected is not as transparent as in Canada. The lack of internationally agreed-on and verifiable metrics makes it difficult to impose such border carbon adjustments.

During a presentation by the Quebec Produce Growers Association, you heard concerns about measures to prevent certain products that don't meet phytosanitary standards from still entering Canada. You can imagine that it will be difficult to verify exporters' claims about environmental production standards when we don't even have international standards.

There is some strong consensus, at least expressed by our membership and stakeholders in our consultation, that the BCA should not be imposed unilaterally. One of our stakeholders reminded us of the 2023 Bank of Canada report that stated that, in short, there is value in advancing a BCA policy in Canada to prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness. It is imperative, however, that the BCA only be adopted once it has been aligned with major trading partners in order to draw the maximum benefits.

BCAs will increase costs for consumers. I think there would be consensus in most circles that this is probably not the time to introduce measures that will make groceries even more out of reach to Canadian families. If the intent is to turn around and say to Canadians that the introduction of a border carbon adjustment may increase the cost of food but that it is to protect the Canadian agri-food system, from the farm to the food processors, please don't. Invest in further research and the scaling up of existing technologies, and support their adoption. Broaden funding opportunities to be less restrictive and more strategic. This would support the Canadian agri-food sector in its efforts to further decrease its GHG emissions, increase productivity and become even more competitive.

While border carbon adjustments are an option, there is a lot of work to be done before they should be implemented. We would recommend that the government start the work that is needed prior to implementing such border carbon adjustments.

Canada represents 1.5% of the world's total GHG emissions. That's not a high number, but like Mr. Drouin stated in a discussion at a previous meeting, it doesn't mean we can't do more. The question is whether this is the right measure. At this time, and without having addressed the nine issues that I listed earlier, I would say no. There are many other things that can be done that would have a much more positive impact.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.