Good morning, Mr. Chair and everyone around the table there.

I speak to you today from Treaty No. 6 territory, the traditional homeland of the Métis and the centre of the Canadian prairies.

I grew up on a mixed farm in north-central Saskatchewan, and I did my first two degrees here at the University of Saskatchewan before moving to California for my Ph.D. I returned to the University of Saskatchewan as a professor of soil science in 2006. Since 2020, I have been serving as the dean of the College of Agriculture and Bioresources.

The prospect of border carbon adjustments in agriculture and food does seem to be relatively far off, which is a good thing because I would argue that we—and, in this sense, I'm using the global “we”, Canada included—are not ready in this space. I do think that we need to tread very carefully because we are potentially messing with global food security at a time when political unrest and protectionism are adding uncertainty to an already very complex global market.

To follow on Ms. Tothova's testimony, I think one of the first things this group needs to be thinking about is why border carbon adjustments are supposedly being developed. A lot of that underlying idea is to incentivize good behaviour that will further reduce global greenhouse gas emissions or, at a minimum, to put in place pricing mechanisms that require high emitters to pay. This is good in theory, but do we know at this point if these levers will actually work when it comes to food, when it comes to a basic human necessity? In short, I would argue “not yet”.

One of our senior researchers from the University of Saskatchewan in the agricultural and resource economics department, Dr. Richard Gray, is currently in Uppsala. He's working on an economic model of the world vegetable market to determine whether border carbon adjustment policies are effective or ineffective in preventing higher prices and global deforestation. Those results are in progress and should be out early next year, in 2025.

He's also looking at the potential effect of full net ecosystem exchange on carbon accounting, both domestically and globally. What this means is accounting that takes into consideration the carbon that is actually sequestered in some of these commodities that we produce, the carbon that is sequestered in grains, pulses and oilseeds, which is subsequently exported and consumed elsewhere and which is currently not incorporated.

I would argue that, before we go too far down the border carbon adjustment path, we need to make sure that we have all the data we need from experts like Dr. Gray and others who are looking at the net effects of border carbon adjustment on various markets and countries before heading down this path.

Even without the socio-economic analyses yet in hand, there are other pieces that we need to take care of here at home before moving forward with border carbon adjustment in agriculture and food.

As this committee has heard previously from Dr. Steve Webb and others, we do have data that supports Canadian agriculture as a world leader in terms of our low carbon intensity in the production of crops such as canola, wheat, peas and lentils. Perhaps this is a reason that we should be embracing the notion of border carbon adjustment. With Canada's relatively strong track record for sustainable production, we should, in theory, be beneficiaries of such a policy.

If we do implement border carbon adjustment, we also need to be sure that Canada first recognizes the value of our own practices so that any export rebates are appropriate and so that our projects are not subjected to unjust import targets in other countries because we are not giving adequate credit where due to producers and systems. If we don't appropriately value our own sustainability practices, why would we expect other countries to do so?

To do this, to get where we need to go, we do need to implement an appropriate MRV—measurement reporting and verification—framework to ensure that credit flows where credit is due. As Ms. Tothova was speaking, I was thinking about the variability not only around the world—a huge variability when we think about trying to develop a carbon footprint for different agricultural commodities—but also across Canada or even within individual provinces. Many farmers are indeed already doing incredible work on sustainability, while others still have room for improvement.

If we move towards border carbon adjustment, how do we leverage any import charges to reward sustainable practices? Equally importantly, how do we ensure that farmers who have been farming sustainably for years—those early adopters—reap the benefits of something like the border carbon adjustments, while still simultaneously encouraging them to be early adopters of new emerging technologies that we're working on?

Unfortunately, at this point, MRV—measurement, reporting and verification—in agriculture is very difficult, so coming up with that footprint is very difficult due to a high degree of variability across fields and across regions over time. This variability is associated with all aspects of measuring carbon intensity in a natural system.

This doesn't mean the challenges are insurmountable, but it does mean that we need to continue investing in the research that will help us overcome these challenges, and we need to invest in the data management frameworks that will allow us to integrate the research and come up with tools that can reduce the risk of measurement and verification error.

It's been said to this committee before that the ideal will be a harmonized approach with our major global trading partners. We need to be aligned as best we can to ensure this doesn't take us down a path to even greater trade protectionism. Yes, of course, we need to be paying attention to what's happening in the EU, the U.S. and Australia on this issue, but, at the same time, we do need to get our own house in order and get clarity on how we'll recognize our regional and sub-regional variation in sustainable management practices.

There are four main focus areas that I think we need to look at. The first is research that empowers our farmers and our producers to continue improving their sustainability, with a focus on solutions that are win-win, regardless of carbon pricing and carbon taxing. These are solutions that reduce input costs, enhance yield and improve soil health. Here in the prairies, this is why we saw widespread adoption of no-till and conservation tillage. It just made sense from all of those perspectives.

The second focus needs to be on developing baseline data sets and harmonized measurement reporting and verification protocols that enable regionally appropriate measures of carbon intensity.

Third, we need to ensure that carbon taxation and credit schemes are science-based and evidence-based, and that we understand how border carbon adjustment will affect various sectors within our overarching agriculture and food sector. This includes any risk of additional trade barriers for Canada, given that we are such an export-dependent country and already vulnerable to protectionism and trade tariffs.

Finally, I think it's important that we can use our learning to lead a better way forward for global agriculture. From a position of strength, backed by science, we can show other countries how to improve their sustainability. If border carbon adjustment does move into agriculture and food systems, we want to be sure that we are proactive versus reactive.

Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.