APAS continues fight against carbon tax

Jun 12, 2020

The federal government recently downplayed the cost of carbon tax for producers

Staff Writer

Farms.com

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) staff are speaking up against the federal government’s latest move in the carbon tax discussion.

Recently, Marie-Claude Bibeau, the federal minister of agriculture and agri-food, told reporters the carbon tax on grain-drying bills tax is not significant enough to necessitate a tax exemption for farmers.

However, some Saskatchewan producers were hit hard last fall with a wet harvest, which meant they needed to dry their grain.

“We have members who dried every single bushel of their grain last year. Every single bushel that came off the field had to go through a grain dryer,” said Todd Lewis, president of APAS.

So, the carbon tax compounded already high natural gas bills. This spring, crops that remained unharvest had to go through the grain dryer too, said Lewis.

The carbon tax “is not an insignificant cost, especially when you put it against the net farm income numbers,” Lewis told Farms.com.

If a producer has a $10,000 carbon tax bill and $1 million in expenses, the carbon tax only is 1 per cent of expenses, said Lewis.

While “it could be argued that (figure is) insignificant, we're a low-margin industry, especially on the grain side. So, the net farm income from that $1 million of expenses might be $100,000. If you compare that $10,000 against the $100,000 net farm income, you get 10 per cent,” he said. The carbon tax comes directly off the farmer’s net income and it can’t be passed on.

And Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s calculation of a producer’s average cost for the carbon tax doesn’t accurately reflect individual circumstances, said Lewis.

“It'd be like averaging grain drying across the entire population of Canada. There are people who don't dry grain. So, averaging (the cost) doesn't make any sense,” he said.

APAS staff will continue their lobbying efforts and their research into the actual cost of carbon tax for producers.

“We need to see some relief for a primary industry like agriculture and be treated like other primary industries in this country. It’s recognized that other parts of our economy have no way of passing the carbon tax along and they don't pay that tax,” he said. The carbon tax is “having a huge impact on our producers.”

Christian Horz/iStock/Getty Images Plus photo

Video: Dicamba Returns for Georgia Farmers: What the New EPA Ruling Means for Cotton Growers

After being unavailable in 2024 due to registration issues, dicamba products are returning for Georgia farmers this growing season — but under strict new conditions.

In this report from Tifton, Extension Weed Specialist Stanley Culpepper explains the updated EPA ruling, including new application limits, mandatory training requirements, and the need for a restricted use pesticide license. Among the key changes: a cap of two ½-pound applications per year and the required use of an approved volatility reduction agent with every application.

For Georgia cotton producers, the ruling is significant. According to Taylor Sills with the Georgia Cotton Commission, the vast majority of cotton planted in the state carries the dicamba-tolerant trait — meaning farmers had been paying for technology they couldn’t use.

While environmental groups have expressed concerns over spray drift, Georgia growers have reduced off-target pesticide movement by more than 91% over the past decade. Still, this two-year registration period will come with increased scrutiny, making stewardship and compliance more important than ever.