Agriculture Committee on March 28th, 2022

[Dr. Thomas Bruulsema, Chief Scientist, Plant Nutrition Canada, Fertilizer Canada]

I think it's important to recognize that the increase in fertilizer use has been commensurate with the increase in crop production, particularly on the Prairies, and in that shift in production, canola now comprises a greater proportion of Canada's crop production.

Also, the total production from the Prairies has increased more than it has in eastern Canada. The nitrous oxide emission coefficient currently used in the national inventory is lower in the Prairies than it is in eastern Canada and, for this reason, nitrous oxide emissions aren't shown to have increased as much as the nitrogen fertilizer use.

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

Thank you.

That all ties in with the current situation the world is facing with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Can you comment on whether a lens on food security should also be applied to any kinds of conditions that we're looking at imposing on the ag sector as it relates to food security and to feeding our Canadian population and—just as important now—other parts of the world, given the strain on food sourcing from another breadbasket?

[Clyde Graham]

Certainly, the situation in Ukraine is a stark reminder of some of the realities of the world we live in and of how food security should never be taken for granted by anyone. Obviously, the loss of grain production in the marketplace because of the war and the sanctions is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

Fertilizer Canada is a hundred per cent behind the goals of the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change, but at the same time, I think there has to be some balancing of the other sustainable development goals that have been set by the United Nations, including a reduction of poverty—

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

Thank you, sir. I do want to get two more questions in.

Very quickly, can you comment on any clarity from Global Affairs on the 35% tariff on fertilizer in motion prior to March 2?

[Clyde Graham]

I don't really have any comment except to say that it applies to all goods coming into Canada.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to get one question to CropLife Canada.

Dr. Taylor, it's good to see you again. Our circles again overlap.

The Canadian government recently announced $50 million to go towards the PMRA and the PMC. It's great news to see that money is going toward our system. I appreciated your comments about innovation being a driver to balance our environmental goals and our production goals.

Can you comment on the new layer of oversight? Will that help this process that's being contemplated? Will that bring balance to speeding innovation when it comes to registering our crop protection products?

[Ian Affleck, Vice-President, Biotechnology, CropLife Canada]

I can take that question. Thank you very much.

As you mentioned, it's great to see an investment in the regulatory structures that enable innovation in Canada, like the PMRA. However, there is concern about how that money is used and how it's invested in the system—whether it's used to make sure we're having timely delivery of innovations to farmers or whether it becomes focused on other elements that are not as directed by science or focused on the delivery of that department's mandate.

There has been quite an overlay of structure there that is focused on transparency and transformation. We have a world-class pesticide regulatory framework. It doesn't require extensive overhaul. It doesn't mean it doesn't require thoughtful review, but as this new transition and transformation agenda moves forward for the PMRA, it is something we are watching very closely and hoping that the money does not get completely used in oversight versus delivery of programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Affleck.

Thank you, Mr. Epp. I gave you a few extra seconds there to get that across the finish line.

Mr. Louis, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for this important testimony.

I'm going to start with Fertilizer Canada, so we'll finish where we left off.

Mr. Graham, you were about to give us your recommendations.

[Clyde Graham]

I'll try to keep them very short.

We are extremely pleased that AAFC and Environment Canada have both been very clear on recognizing the importance of 4R nutrient stewardship to climate change reduction ambitions. We feel that those departments now have to help put those words into action by fully integrating the 4Rs into their programs, policies and international climate diplomacy.

Further, we would recommend that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada increase the focus of future investments on 4R nutrient stewardship. That goes beyond the current $200 million on-farm climate action fund.

We shouldn't limit the tool box that is available to farmers for improving their nitrogen use efficiency and reducing nitrous oxide. We think AAFC needs to expand its future programs to fully explore a wide range of emerging technologies in the 4R tool box, such as enhanced efficiency fertilizers, variable rate application, biostimulants and biologicals, to name a few.

We are also underestimating the power of certified crop advisers, who are the most trusted advisers to farmers, to help farmers adjust to new management practices.

Also, protocols or offset programs need to be a higher priority for N2O.

Lastly, as Tom mentioned, there are some issues with the national inventory. We think some work needs to be done to make the national inventory of greenhouse gas more reflective of the current reality on farming in Canada.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

Just last week I had a good discussion with a company in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. Alpine Plant Foods is a manufacturer of seed-placed liquid fertilizers. They were talking about high-quality fertilizers that are put with seeds and sprayed on leaves.

We're talking about increasing investments. Would that include research as well?

What are some of the research ways we can help deliver this nutrition? How can we as a government support that research, working with academia, other levels of government and businesses?

[Clyde Graham]

I think that a lot of the products are coming into the marketplace. Nachurs Alpine is one of our member companies. A lot of members of CropLife are also branching out into the nutrient area to provide enhanced efficiency products. Companies are very good at innovating. Not all of the innovation is in Canada, but it is shared around the world.

Where the Government of Canada can offer some of the most important aspects are, as Ian was saying, in ensuring that the regulatory system is timely, effective and allows for innovative products to come into the market.

We also have a lot of work to do to identify exactly how much can be achieved from the use of these products in terms of reducing nitrous oxide. There needs to be an enhanced research program to evaluate not only new products, but other best management practices to reduce nitrous oxide.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

I would like to turn to CropLife Canada. Dr. Taylor, you mentioned the use of green space. My riding has the Mike Schout Wetlands Preserve. It's a 55-acre naturalization and wetlands restoration project.

You mentioned the importance of maintaining land in its natural state. Can you comment more on the biodiversity advantages, how it produces oxygen and how it sequesters carbon? Are there ways that we can incentivize and reward farmers for maintaining natural states on their farms?

[Dr. Justine Taylor]

I can begin, and then pass it over to Ian if he has any further comments.

First of all, we're not soil experts. I'll pass it over to Tom for any comments on that. What's important for us is that our tools allow for land to be more productive, which then allows for more land to be held in its natural state.

Obviously, those lands in their natural states have an increased ability to support biodiversity right from the soil level all the way up to the birds, insects, etc. There's also an enhanced ability to sequester carbon, as mentioned.

In terms of how we support farmers to be more conscious of those lands on their farms, this is really finding an effective way to assign value to those environmental and social goods that those lands provide.

It's not an easy question, for sure. I'm sure there are many people with more experience who could provide other solutions, but we need to be able to assign value to those lands, so that farmers are not only farming their field crops but also farming their natural spaces.

Ian, do you have anything to add to that?

[Ian Affleck]

I would only add one anecdote.

I grew up on a potato farm in Prince Edward Island. Recently, I was home and the UPEI was doing its scan of the province. Since the turn of the century, it has seen about 30% more forest in P.E.I. than there was earlier in the century. That is because of innovation, mechanization, fertilizer and better varieties, allowing farmers to leave their less productive land to create forests, and doing more with the land they're already farming.

It's putting more land back into green space, because all of these tools working together provide the most efficient agriculture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Affleck, and Mr. Louis.

It was a great round of questioning.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Nault, I really enjoyed your very practical presentation. Again today, we heard from many witnesses about the importance of financially rewarding positive environmental actions and ensuring that these funds are available to businesses.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Jacques Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Certainly, the efforts that farmers must make to undertake and complete a climate transition pose a risk. It involves adopting and adapting a range of practices and investments in order to successfully reduce emissions and increase soil carbon levels. This means that farmers must spend money and make investments.

I believe that part of this risk should be mitigated in some way through direct compensation to farmers who make the transition. This compensation should take into account the farm's results in terms of reductions in emissions and increases in soil organic carbon stocks.

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

I believe that you have answers that may be of interest to us in several areas, so please take the time to respond.

How do we measure this improvement and take into account the trail‑blazers, who have been making efforts for a long time, such as organic producers?

[Jacques Nault]

Thank you for the question.

That's exactly what we're doing with the farmers. We took the time to develop a service. Now over 100 farmers in Quebec are buying this climate transition service, which includes three steps. The first step is to establish the reference scenario, or starting point. We developed a computer system in which we integrated equations from the Holos software and some other models to compensate for Holos' weaknesses.

We designed emissions calculation models. Some witnesses identified certain emissions, including nitrous oxide emissions. We perform these calculations. We then sample the soil down to 30 centimetres and assess the carbon stocks using the technology developed.

This reference scenario, or starting point, helps us determine the soil situation on the farm at the outset. We provide a transition plan, a series of practices that the farmer could adopt or adapt to improve the situation. I should say that none of this works unless a buyer at the other end acknowledges that this constitutes a real improvement.

One witness said earlier that it was difficult for small farms, and that it was complicated, expensive, and so on. Personally, I take exception to that. We've managed, as a small company, to develop a methodology. We're currently having it certified according to the ISO standard. This methodology is being recognized by major North American processors. Our computer system performs the carbon accounting, but we don't charge the farmers any extra for this service. We establish their starting point and we support them in their transition.

By generating reductions and already having a buyer ready to acknowledge them, the farmers making the improvements can fairly easily understand how they'll make gains. That isn't to say that the entire burden of this transition falls on them. I think that they should receive government support.

Regarding your other question, we've already seen success. Of the 100 farms that we've worked with, about five of them successfully made their climate transition. Their emissions are extremely low, no matter how you measure them, either in tons of CO2 equivalent per hectare or in kilos of CO2 per litre of milk. They've managed to increase organic matter levels to 2% to 3% above what we would normally expect to find, for example, in Montérégie‑Est or Montérégie‑Ouest.

It's relatively easy for us to see the difference, because we have a huge database of 6,000 clients. We have soil tests from 6,000 farms. We can see, on a regional level, organic matter averages. We can see that these five farms stand out. These five farms successfully made the climate transition. At this point, it's harder for them to keep improving because they're already very advanced. In some ways, a fairness and ethics issue arises. They started 20 years ago, without any incentives. They challenged the dominant model. They were able to integrate practices and achieve economic success in their transition.

We can compensate these farms in two ways. The first is to use a generic baseline for comparison purposes. Since these farms are already ahead, an equation would help compare their current performance with the generic performance of their region or industry. The second is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Perron, your time is up.

However, you can continue this discussion in the second round of questions.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start my question with Fertilizer Canada. A lot of the discussion that we've had has been about the 4R stewardship principles—and those have been great—and containing our NO2 emissions on farm. I think if we're going to have a fulsome picture of the agricultural landscape in Canada, we also need to go a bit further upstream.

What I would like to know from you is this. When it comes to fertilizer production and the emissions associated with that, can you tell the committee a bit about what the trend lines have been like in terms of fertilizer production and the greenhouse gas emissions from that, or anything that would be useful in the context of this study for the committee to hear from you on that?

[Clyde Graham]

Our industry association represents manufacturers of nitrogen fertilizer across Alberta, through to all the provinces, through to Ontario, and then the significant potash mining activities in Saskatchewan.

Increasing the efficiency of our operations has been an important activity going back decades.

Our critical fuel for running the nitrogen manufacturing process and also for mining and processing potash as fertilizers is natural gas, a very clean fuel. Over the years our industry has tended to reduce its emissions intensity—so how much natural gas it takes to produce a tonne of nitrogen fertilizer or potash.

We've had a very positive working relationship with Environment and Climate Change Canada over the years. We've worked intensely with them on the limitations there are in reducing our emissions more aggressively, which are largely based on the chemistry of our processes and the available technology.

Certainly we are working to develop pathways to having greener production, but as I said, there are some limits in our ability to do that given current technology.

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

Thanks, Mr. Graham.

I just want to get in another quick question with you as well.

This is the first day of our study, and we have been focused a lot on emissions, but I also want to talk about water quality, because that's also an important part of this study.

What can you tell us about the efforts you've made with respect to water quality. We know that runoff, in the past, has been pretty devastating to aquatic bodies of water, and there are major efforts to clean up some of our major lakes within Canada. Those water bodies can suffer from eutrophication, excessive algae growth.

Can you tell us anything about the trend lines over the last number of decades? I know that the 4Rs play a big part of that, but is there anything else you can tell us on that in the next minute?

[Clyde Graham]

Maybe I would defer to Tom on that, but you're right that the 4Rs do improve the efficiency and reduce loss of all the nutrients, including phosphate, which is a driver of algal blooms.

Tom.