Agriculture Committee on March 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bernier, I would like to come back to one of the things we discussed earlier, which is the need for decentralization. We hear a lot of talk. Producers fear, among other things, as you just mentioned, that the agricultural sector will provide carbon credits to other, more polluting sectors. They are also afraid that there will be a lot of bureaucracy or standardized programs, which would mean that producers would have to work many hours to fill out forms, to tick the right box to get something. Wouldn't decentralization, as mentioned earlier, be better for them?

Very quickly, could you respond to that?

[Daniel Bernier]

Obviously, we need to minimize the administrative burden. This is perhaps one of the drawbacks of the carbon market, because there are many reporting requirements and audits that need to be done. It's not insurmountable, but it is an example of red tape.

Cumbersome bureaucracy is a problem for farmers. We need to try to simplify the process and change the programs so that they can respond to local needs. We think that compensation is a good solution.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

This money must also be made available to producers when their farms are ready to make investments. Is that right?

[Daniel Bernier]

Precisely.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to hear from Mr. Currie about the organic standard, which we discussed earlier with Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier was telling us that the fact that the revision of this standard was not federally funded was complete nonsense. I imagine you feel the same way.

[Keith Currie]

I'm sorry, but could I get you to clarify that question?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes, of course.

The federal government has announced the end of funding for the organic standard review. We discussed this earlier with Mr. Bernier and he told us that this was complete nonsense, because the responsibility for funding the revision of the standard fell to the federal government. It's a Canada-wide standard that allows for export, among other things.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Currie.

[Keith Currie]

As representatives of all farmers right across this country, we don't prioritize one production standard over another. Certainly organic production is something we are very proud of in this country. I think it should be funded to the fullest where it needs to be, as should all other types of production, especially when it comes to the aspect of green energy or when we're talking about carbon sinks and all things related to climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Currie.

We're going to have to leave it there. My apologies.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Right now we have Mr. MacGregor to finish us off, for two and a half minutes.

It's over to you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Monsieur Bernier, I'll start with you.

I was listening with interest when, in your opening statement, you were talking about the effects of compaction. Through my wife's learning, I've been learning a lot about that and about the anaerobic conditions that result from it, what it does to soil ecology and how it gets rid of all the preferential micro-organisms that you want. For this committee's purposes, could you elaborate a little bit more on what happens to soil ecology when compaction happens and what that, then, forces a farmer to do to rectify the situation?

You mentioned the fact that you bought two tractors with a lighter footprint in the place of one heavier one so that you could reduce the effects of compaction. Perhaps you could expand a little bit more on that. I think you talked about the stress in terms of the availability of capital to allow for that. If you could expand on those subjects, it would be very helpful for our committee.

Thank you.

[Daniel Bernier]

Certainly.

Soil compaction is indeed a significant problem, particularly in Quebec and eastern Canada. In fact, this problem exists wherever the soils are rather clayey and the climate is rather humid. When these two elements are present, the risks of compaction are significant.

The first thing to do is to act preventively by not driving over the soil with heavy machinery. The axle load is very important and you should not exceed the recommended limits. As I mentioned, unfortunately, the size of the machinery used today is constantly increasing to meet the needs of producers to do their work. The weight of the machinery is a real problem.

Soil compaction destructures soils. Because there is less water infiltration, soils are more vulnerable to periods of drought and the root network has more difficulty in spreading throughout the soil to supply itself with mineral elements and hydration. Once the structure is compacted, there is less air circulation in the system and this has a negative impact on biological activity and microbial life. This is a major degradation phenomenon and the whole system starts to function less well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Bernier and Mr. MacGregor.

That ends panel number one. Thank you to our witnesses for your appearance today. Speaking on behalf of the whole committee, thank you for your work in agriculture, and for your testimony today.

Colleagues, we're going to take a three-minute break, and then we're going to go to the second panel.

Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Dr. Justine Taylor, Director, Stewardship and Sustainability, CropLife Canada]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] and science-based so we can continue to advance agricultural sustainability. Regulatory oversight for agriculture is interwoven among many departments, and a whole-of-government approach must be embraced and realized.

Two, incentivize and reward efforts by Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers are world leaders in the adoption of technologies that enable the sequestration of carbon. However, at present those efforts are not being recognized by government policy.

Three, promote and defend Canadian sustainability. We would like to see the Government of Canada promote the sustainability success story of Canadian farmers on the world stage and ensure that it is recognized in all international forums and negotiations.

Four, support exports. We ask the government to better use international mechanisms and institutions to ensure science-based, predictable and transparent trade rules for agriculture. We are currently at risk of non-science-based decisions in export markets impacting the adoption of innovation in Canada and jeopardizing our progress on sustainability.

[Pursuant to a motion adopted by the committee on March 31, 2022, the speaking notes of Dr. Justine Taylor have been appended to the Evidence for this meeting. See appendix—Remarks by Dr. Justine Taylor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Dr. Taylor.

We're now going to move to Mr. Graham, for five minutes.

Mr. Graham.

[Clyde Graham, Executive Vice-President, Fertilizer Canada]

Good morning, everyone. I just want to note that Tom Bruulsema is an eminent soil scientist and if you have any more technically oriented questions regarding nitrous oxide or soil health, I would invite you to ask Tom.

Fertilizer is an economic driver, contributing $24 billion annually and employing over 76,000 workers in the Canadian economy. We export to over 75 countries, contributing to agricultural economy industries around the globe. We help feed the world. In fact, without fertilizer, on a global basis, food production would be cut in half. Our 4R nutrient stewardship program helps farmers increase their sustainable productivity, demonstrating that there is a solution that supports both the economy and the environment.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the 4R nutrient stewardship program emphasizes applying the right source of fertilizer at the right rate at the right time and in the right place. This allows farmers to optimize their fertilizer use to sustain yields while minimizing loss of nutrients to the environment. In particular, today we're talking about nitrous oxide, so 4R does significantly reduce the conversion of nitrogen fertilizer in the soil to nitrous oxide, which is an important greenhouse gas.

4R nutrient stewardship balances farmer, industry and government roles to improve on-farm economics, crop productivity and fertilizer efficiency while benefiting the environment. This isn't new for Fertilizer Canada. We have been working with partners in industry, academia and government, and educating, promoting and helping farmers implement the 4R program for over 15 years. As of 2022, over six million acres have been verified under 4R management in Canada with millions more acres following best management practices. I would note too that the canola industry and the Government of Saskatchewan have both set very ambitious goals for increasing adoption of 4R nutrient stewardship in their areas.

Today, 4R nutrient stewardship is globally recognized and translated into many languages and is as applicable to a large western Canadian farm as it is to a West African smallholder operation.

The world's population is estimated to grow by approximately two billion people by 2050. Global agricultural production will need to increase by 50% from 2005 to feed all these new people. Geopolitical turmoil around the world, most recently with the war in Ukraine, adds to the strain on our food supply. Fertilizer plays an important role in providing food security around the world and providing Canadians with affordable, nutritious food. Farmers rely on nitrogen-based fertilizers to increase the amount of food they grow, putting food on dinner tables across Canada and beyond.

Overall, fertilizer consumption in Canada has increased over the past two decades as farmers have utilized fertilizer to increase their yields in Canada. These higher yields have been obtained while maintaining high levels of nutrient use efficiency. Higher yields are necessary to meet the growing global demand for Canadian crops, which is endorsed by the federal government's target of $75 billion in agri-food exports by 2025.

Canada has also set ambitious fertilizer emission reduction targets for nitrous oxide for 2030 and to meet these targets, we believe that 4R nutrient stewardship is essential. We were very pleased to see formal recognition by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada of 4R nutrient stewardship as an innovative solution to support greenhouse gas reductions and enhance food production in the discussion paper on its emissions reduction initiative released in March.

This is an urgent matter. There are only eight growing seasons left until the 2030 harvest is complete. We must work together to accelerate uptake in the program among Canadian farmers. Reaching this 30% target requires the government to work closely and urgently with the agricultural community to increase the use of 4Rs. With 4R nutrient stewardship at the centre of the federal fertilizer emissions reduction strategy, farmers can continue to grow more food, increase exports, raise farm incomes and improve food security at home and abroad.

I wanted to note that we are also very pleased by the broad consultation process the government has announced because really, although this issue is often associated with the fertilizer industry, it is really about farmers and their livelihoods.

There are a few specific recommendations we'd like to make to support—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Graham, I apologize. I gave you few seconds past five minutes, but I know that you will have the chance to reiterate those recommendations when the questions come up.

We'll now continue with Mr. Nault.

Mr. Nault, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jacques Nault, Vice-President, Agronomy, Logiag Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me.

It is important that I tell you who I am, about the company I represent and what we do.

I am the founder, owner and vice-president, Agronomy, of Logiag, which has been providing agri-environmental services since 1999. We develop our own technologies, our own software. About 6,000 farmers are now using our agri-environmental services. Most of them are in Quebec, but there are 500 or 600 farmers in the Maritimes and another 150 or 200 in the United States.

My presentation is different from the ones I heard this morning. We are practitioners of climate transition. We started looking at it in 2019. We developed laser technology to do soil testing and we won the Indigo Carbon Challenge from Indigo Ag in 2021, which was last year. We have demonstrated our ability to measure the organic carbon or organic carbon stocks that are in soils. In addition, we have started to set up a climate transition support service.

I'd like to describe it to you in the following way.

We work with farmers, for whom we make the reference scenario, that is, the current emissions and carbon stocks that are currently in their soil. We guide them and present them with climate transition scenarios, such as adopting certain practices and transforming their business to decrease emissions and increase carbon stocks.

At the other extreme, the tonnes of carbon generated by farmers need to be valued by a potential buyer. So I've been looking at agri-food processors. I believe that the carbon reductions from the farm should stay within the agri-food system. We have one of the largest food processors in North America right now that is interested in the reduction that our farmers are making. They're looking at it with the goal of using it to offset their entire agri-food chain.

In between, we have developed an accounting methodology and a carbon accounting system that facilitates data collection, calculations made from scientific models, and tracking changes in soil carbon emissions and stocks.

Let me give you a very concrete example, as I only have two minutes left. On a typical dairy farm, half of the emissions come from the animals, while the other half comes from the fields.

In the field, there are two main sources of emissions: nitrogen and the use of fossil fuels for tillage—propane used to dry grain, for example. In the barn, there is methane, which is generated from the digestion of fibre by animals.

On the field side, to reduce emissions and increase carbon, you need to increase the stocks of organic matter in the soil. This is the crux of the matter; a 1% increase in organic carbon over 30 centimetres will remove 150 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.

On the animal side, it essentially boils down to promoting their health and increasing their longevity, which almost automatically translates into lower greenhouse gas emissions.

This concludes my presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Nault.

We will now have our question period.

Mr. Epp, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for your excellent testimony.

I'd like to begin with Fertilizer Canada. The 30% target in greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer applications mirrors a similar target announced by the EU. Can you comment a bit about the science around the base that we're starting from? Can we assume that here in Canada we're starting from the same base that the EU is basing their targets on?

[Clyde Graham]

Okay, and maybe Tom Bruulsema can help me out.

I think the difference is that the EU program is focused on reducing fertilizer use, whereas it's now clear that the federal government here in Canada is focused on reducing nitrous oxide emissions when you apply nitrogen fertilizer.

I would say that European agriculture is quite different from North American agriculture. We tend to be more efficient in our production. There probably is more room to reduce fertilizer use in Europe without affecting yields, whereas I think our North American farmers are highly efficient in fertilizer use, and it is hard to see us reducing fertilizer use in North America without negatively impacting yields, particularly if we want to grow our agribusiness economy.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I want to pick up on that point. One of the reports that's come out from the government is that fertilizer use has increased by 71% from 2005 to 2019. Can you comment on a couple of areas? Is that actual fertilizer application? Or is that fertilizer storage?

In that same report, it documents that the emissions have gone up by only 64%. I assume that alludes to an increased efficiency. Can you comment on that, please?

Let me add one more thought. My other understanding is that there's also been a massive change in crop mix, which is feeding that.

[Clyde Graham]

I'll make a couple of quick comments.

One is that farmers are growing higher-yielding varieties of crops that require more intense fertilization. Canola, for example, is a good example of a very profitable crop for farmers. It's very important food and animal source of nutrition, but it does require a lot of fertilizer.

I'll leave it at that.

Tom, did you have anything you wanted to add?