Agriculture Committee on April 4th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the thirteenth meeting of the House of Commons agriculture, agri-food and food security standing committee.

I want to start with a few reminders for the witnesses. I'm sure our members are well aware of some of these things.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. Neither screenshots nor photos of the screen are permitted. For members participating in person, keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately. We will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before resuming proceedings.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled, as normal, through the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. All comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

We are beginning our second panel on the environment study. We have two witnesses with us today. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of the environmental contributions of agriculture.

I would like to welcome the witnesses for our first panel today. Our first witness via video conference is Dr. Angela Bedard-Haughn. She is dean and professor at the College of Agriculture and Bio-Resources at the University of Saskatchewan.

Welcome, Doctor. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Our second witness is Dr. Jean Caron, agronomist, professor, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada industrial research chair in conservation and restoration of cultivated organic soils, Université Laval, soil sciences and agri-food engineering department.

That is a very big title, Dr. Caron Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us.

You will each have up to five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions by each political party. I will signal to you when there is one minute left, so if you don't mind, just keep an eye on your screen. When you see this yellow card, that means you have one minute left. After that, unfortunately I will have to cut you off, but hopefully you'll get the end of your remarks in through the questions.

Ms. Bedard-Haughn, I will now invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, please. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Angela Bedard-Haughn, Dean and Professor, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone.

I speak to you from Treaty No. 6 territory, the traditional homeland of the Métis in the centre of the prairie provinces.

A bit about myself: I grew up in rural Saskatchewan and did my first two degrees here before moving to Davis, California, for my Ph.D. I returned to the University of Saskatchewan as a professor of soil science and eventually started as dean of agriculture and bioresources in summer 2020.

My comments today regarding the environmental contribution of agriculture come from all of these perspectives: as a dean whose college transcends any perceived boundary between environment and agriculture; as a farm kid; and as a soil scientist whose research has always focused on the interplay between soils and the environment.

To talk about agriculture's carbon footprint and the role that soils play in the fight against climate change, we must talk about the Prairies, which are home to 81% of Canada's farmland.

As we know, soil performs many ecosystem services, only one of which is supporting plant growth. Soil plays a crucial role in global water and nutrient cycles, in particular carbon and nitrogen cycles, which are essential for plant growth but problematic when mismanaged.

Here on the Prairies we celebrate the no-till success story, a widespread change in management that served to drastically reduce erosion, conserve water and nutrients and increase carbon storage. The high rate of adoption was driven by producers, including producer-run organizations like the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association, which also has one of the best long-term carbon monitoring studies with benchmark measurements back to 1996. They can provide really important learnings about best practices and challenges in carbon monitoring approaches.

Their prairie soil carbon balance study found that spatial variability can be very high in both the short range within a few metres, and long-range across climate gradients from semi-arid to subhumid. Furthermore, the time-related or temporal variability of soil processes can be very high due to management practices and things like multi-year droughts which lead to crop failure. When we add in consideration of greenhouse gases, the spatial-temporal variability is exponentially greater, and understanding what drives carbon dynamics, both the quantity and persistence of carbon stored, is essential for us to account for that variability.

That said, please don't let my discussion of variability alarm you. Soil management can be and in many areas already is part of the solution to climate change. But we need to be sure we have the resources and tools available to meaningfully quantify carbon sequestration, which brings me to my first key point for this group.

My first key point for the group today is that implementing policy based on soil carbon levels will require rigorous measurement and monitoring standards that recognize these sources of spatial and temporal variability. There are a couple of more things to keep in mind about variability. First, it's a challenge everywhere, not just for the Prairies, as B.C., Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes all face similar challenges. Second, the best practices for increasing soil carbon will also vary widely across the country. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. What works for the St. Lawrence Lowland is not necessarily appropriate for the Alberta plains.

My second key point is that we're hearing a lot right now about managing soils to optimize soil health through approaches like regenerative agriculture. But as we think about agriculture and the environment, we also need to find a way to reward those who have been doing the right thing for a while, incentivize continued best practices to be sure that the carbon they have already accumulated stays sequestered, and not simply focus on new carbon accumulation from 2005.

Here in the west, no till has resulted in tremendous improvements in soil health since its widespread adoption in the 1980s and 1990s, but early adopters were part of the solution decades before we set an arbitrary baseline of 2005. How can we reward those early adopters, as well as encourage late adopters to get on board?

My third and final point is there are many creative minds looking for the next great carbon-saving environmental solution, but as we brainstorm, let's not lose sight of the trade-offs. One example that comes to mind is proposals that involve the removal of crop residue from fields to produce energy. This would serve to reduce the amount of carbon returned to the soil and ultimately result in a net loss of soil carbon as carbon dioxide. We need to think about agriculture as a system.

Henry Janzen from Ag Canada most eloquently described the soil as a conduit for the soil energy captured through photosynthesis. If we lose sight of the full cycle we run the risk of undoing past benefits or worse.

In closing, Prairies researchers and our farmers are already part of the climate change solution and are willing and able to do more, but we need the right tools to track our progress, the recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for a country like Canada, and the policy to support meaningful action, including recognition of what’s already been done. Together we can and will dig deeper and explore new ways forward.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Ms. Bedard-Haughn. I appreciate your testimony.

We will now go to Mr. Caron, who has five minutes.

[Dr. Jean Caron, Agronomist, Professor, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Chair in Conservation and Restoration of Cultivated Organic Soils, Université Laval, Soil Science and Agrifood Engineering Department, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before your committee this morning.

I am a professor at Université Laval. I've worked on soil structure in Quebec, Ontario and throughout North America, which has given me a bird's-eye view of soil health based on observations that have been made.

I was very pleased to be asked to provide an expert opinion and to hear that a Senate committee was going to look at soil health. In fact, I've submitted a document in English and French that summarizes the three points I will be addressing this morning.

I've been in the field for 36 years. Throughout my career, I've observed certain things about the soil health situation.

First, the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the work the House of Commons is undertaking today will play a critical role, because the soil health issue is largely underestimated by the general public.

The problem is not new. In 1984, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, chaired by Senator Herb Sparrow at the time, addressed the issue of soil health and put forward significant points for change.

In the 1990s, soil health became a priority issue. In fact, a number of programs were established with encouraging results.

Then, in the early 2000s, we gradually abandoned the efforts that had been initiated, owing to a lack of public and private support.

The soil health issue still exists, however. Over the years, the problem has gone unnoticed because we have conducted very little structured, organized monitoring. In addition, we have no program to compile soil health statistics, much like Statistics Canada does to track the health of Canadians.

A network of soil test plots was set up in the 1990s to monitor soil from 1990 to 2005. The project was gradually abandoned, such that we're now missing some critical information.

As Ms. Bedard‑Haughn mentioned earlier, changes have been successful out west, especially the transition to reduced tillage and carbon storage. However, things are slightly different in eastern Canada. We're seeing soils get more compact, crops are being rotated less and less, and soils are losing organic matter. As a result, the soil degradation issue continues to grow, and this is going to have significant long-term consequences on soil health.

That brings me to my second point: By 2050, we will need to achieve gains in productivity for our soils, whose health is deteriorating in general.

The major barriers are the costs associated with crop rotation and the price of commodities such as corn and soybean, which is primarily controlled by an external exchange. We have very little control over that. Therefore, the lack of financial incentives and the financial pressures on prices are causing the gradual disappearance of crop rotation, which has negative repercussions on biodiversity, the accumulation of organic matter and soil compaction.

The third major point that concerns us is greenhouse gas emissions. There's no question that soils act as carbon sinks. Carbon storage could help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, we must understand that if soils become more and more compacted, we will end up with some nitrogen, the most commonly used fertilizer, that denitrifies and is lost to the environment, contributing to global warming. The main source of nitrous oxide in Canada is N₂O, which mainly comes from nitrogen fertilizers applied to agricultural land.

In recent years, partly because of a growing soil compaction problem, we've seen a gradual increase in the amounts of nitrogen applied regularly. Therefore, nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture are likely to increase, especially if we don't keep an eye on compaction issues.

Therefore, I feel it's important to introduce incentives in agri-environmental advisory clubs to help them quantify ecosystem services provided. This will deliver a clearer picture and restore benchmark sites, monitoring statistics and the state of soil health, much like what they do to monitor the health of Canadians.

Lastly, I feel it's important that we finally reward those who have adopted good practices in the past that are helping us to accelerate the transition to more sustainable agriculture. This will also help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture more carbon.

Once again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my perspective.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Thank you very much for your testimony as well.

We will now move to the questions, starting with the Conservative Party and, I believe, Mr. Lehoux for six minutes.

Go ahead, please. The floor is yours.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this morning.

Mr. Caron, as the previous speaker also mentioned, there are some pretty significant differences, particularly between the land in eastern and western Canada. Soil compaction is perhaps the most glaring issue in Quebec and Ontario. You mentioned it a number of times.

You mentioned providing incentives to advisory groups and reinitiating studies abandoned in the early 2000s.

What would you recommend specifically in this regard, Mr. Caron?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

The laboratories have been dismantled and we need to do more. Last week, we surveyed farmers as part of a study we're doing. They aren't fully aware of the environmental and productivity gains they could make if they adopted better practices. One reason for that is they don't put enough financial resources into this type of monitoring.

We do a lot of that type of monitoring at the university, not for commercial purposes but as part of projects. It can easily cost $250‑$300 per hectare. However, surveys show that, because they underestimate the long-term gains which are very hard to see, farmers think it would be impossible to spend more than $15‑$20 per hectare on monitoring. This results in widespread underinvestment.

Incentives are already available through a number of programs. I don't know the programs in Western Canada. I can say that in Quebec, support is available to consulting firms so that we can get a clearer picture and conduct better monitoring. It's not just the farmers themselves who can do it.

However, and I'm referring to my second point, farmers have adopted soil improvement practices—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You're getting ahead of me, Mr. Caron. That was part of my second question.

You say that the incentives are already out there. The problem is that farmers aren't familiar with these new work methods?

What would be the best approach to showing them these new methods so that they can take advantage of these programs?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

I spoke a great deal about the importance of transfer mechanisms. In many cases, the most effective way to do it is to get testimonials by producers from model farms that have adopted these new methods. Of course, it's done in cooperation with research teams who provide real, on‑the‑ground data confirming that these changes work.

When transfer or compensation programs that quantify ecosystem services provided are introduced, they should reward not only gains in productivity, but also contribution to biodiversity, carbon storage and reduced use of pesticides, which in turn improves water quality. They should reward those who have been applying these methods for several years as much as those who are planning to do it gradually.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

With respect to nitrous oxide emissions, you pointed out that compacting was a really major factor. However, you said that there was a significant difference between western and eastern Canada.

Do you have any recommendations for the committee on this whole issue?

Has this gap between western and eastern Canada been measured? Do we know why eastern Canada is lagging so far behind?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

It hasn't been measured very consistently, and that's the problem. More monitoring should be done to assess long-term productivity losses associated with soil erosion. There haven't been enough studies on the subject. Some were done in the 1980s, but they need to be updated.

Another problem is that tractors are getting bigger all the time. Because there are fewer and fewer farm workers, we tend to use bigger vehicles with over three tonnes load per wheel, which leads to greater and greater soil compaction. That's put us in a downward spiral where heavier tractors are causing more compaction and fertilizers don't work as well.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

We understand, Mr. Caron, but what solutions can be applied on the ground? The labour problem isn't going to get any better. The size of tractors and the load carried by each wheel are important factors, but how can we improve productivity? What solutions would you recommend?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

We need to reduce the size of equipment and accelerate automation. That way, smaller independent units will be able to move around the field and better assess soil quality prior to tilling. Of course, we're talking about long-term measurement. Results are expected on a 5‑ to 10‑year scale, but the way of the future is truly automation. It will allow for small units able to do more localized work and interventions—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Caron and Mr. Lehoux.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for filling in. It was a tough time getting out of Halifax this morning.

We're going to move now to Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses. It's really encouraging to hear the work that's being done in academia on these very important issues.

Dr. Bedard-Haughn, I think you're amazing an academician. I love the fact that you're a farm kid from Saskatchewan. It really roots you in the practicalities of a lot of this as well. I realized you did research on soil, but I must admit that until today I didn't really know that pedology was all about soil. Thank you for that.

I have a question for you. Right now, Saskatchewan is the second largest emitter. I also realize it's one of the largest agriculture producers, so it makes sense. There's a lot of potential to decrease emissions in Saskatchewan.

We know that soils play a role as a carbon sink. We've heard from previous witnesses, from you and from Dr. Caron that measuring and trying to track the carbon content is a real challenge. You've added to that today by talking about the spatial and temporal variability, which concerns me even more.

Do you have any specific ideas on how we can address this? We did hear from prior witnesses who said our measurement systems are outdated and outmoded and that we don't have good data. Of course we know how important data is in solving a problem.

Do you have specifics? How might the federal government be able to help with this very challenging issue?

[Dr. Angela Bedard-Haughn]

Thank you. That's an excellent question and one that we are certainly grappling with as a discipline. When I think about how we can best address this challenge, there are a few key components I would speak to.

The first is with respect to having some clear standards in place. As an example, when we talk about measuring soil carbon, we want to make sure that we have a clear understanding of how we can standardize those measurements across a region. Right now, I do a study. Dr. Caron does a study, and maybe one of our colleagues in Alberta does a study. We need to make sure those are comparable to each other in terms of how we are doing them and the methodologies we use and that there is that standardization.

A second piece is to be able to actually collect that data. It's a little bit like crowdsourcing our results. One approach would be to go out to do a widespread sampling of absolutely everything, but you would need to take into account that spatial and temporal variability and the temporal piece. It's not like we could do this all in the space of a month across the whole country. There would be temporal variability as we moved through that. It's thinking about how we can consolidate some of this data together. We have more and more technology now, computational techniques that allow us to work with large datasets. That type of work is also essential.

A third piece, and I know a number of my colleagues work in this space, is coming up with methodologies that allow us to do more rapid assessments. There are new spectroscopic techniques constantly emerging and being tested. I'm probably approached every month by companies wanting us to collaborate with them on a new technology they're developing. The key there relies on being able to link it back to some of that high-quality in situ data to start with, so having a proper soil database so you can build what we refer to as a spectroscopic library. There again, with the spectroscopic library, if we're going to use some of these new techniques, you need regionally specific databases. The one that works here in Saskatoon would look different from what would work best around Winnipeg. If we're going to move to some of these new techniques we're hearing about, we need to be able to build all of this data together.

There are projects getting rolling in that space. I think one of roles the federal government can play in this is finding ways for regions to work more effectively together. You have the benefit of that bird's eye view that looks across the country, so creating opportunities for us to transcend some of those boundaries and work more effectively together, and in particular, through some of those opportunities to consolidate data and practices. It's prioritizing that.

Sometimes when you submit a grant, it doesn't look particularly exciting, for example, to be measuring carbon after carbon in a sample, but it is through the building of that database and the organization of that important data that we're able to identify some of those larger patterns. Being able to link that as well with some of the key management data is where we're going to find those great learnings. As an example, when we think about that prairie soil carbon balance study I referred to earlier, one of the challenges they had was in between measurement periods. They would go back every few years, and if the land had changed hands in between sampling dates, there might be a loss of some of that management history data, whether it's the cropping rotations or if there was a disease outbreak or something else happened in that field that might have affected the results.

That's what we need to be able to fully address this. Data management, while it might not sound particularly interesting, is absolutely essential to really get at some of these underlying questions.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

That's great. Thank you very much.

I agree. I think the data management is very important for understanding what the problem is and what progress we're making.

One other—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Ms. Taylor Roy, I apologize. We're at about six minutes and 10 seconds. I tried to give you notice. We had great testimony.

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Perron.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us. It's very interesting, because our two witnesses complement one another.

Mr. Caron, spatial and temporal variability are used to measure soil quality and conditions. I heard that, due to humidity levels, it's harder to store carbon in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario.

How will we ever come up with a standard unit of measurement?

We will have to start with a solid, indisputable base so that we don't penalize those who have already been doing things right. I was very pleased to hear both witnesses mention it this morning. We have to be able to work with that for a long time. I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

[Dr. Jean Caron]

That's a very good question.

Agriculture in the east and agriculture in the west are very different, because of the very different climates and because of the different types of soils. It is obviously very difficult to have a uniform criterion.

As Ms. Bedard‑Haughn made very clear, these parameters need to be regionalized, because the types of production environments are very different from one another, so the targets need to be adapted regionally to reflect this reality.

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

Is this regionalization already well designed?

Do you have a clear idea of what it might be?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

I can't comment on the value, because I'm not a carbon expert.

Soils in eastern Canada, so in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, are worked under very wet conditions. This is also the case for soils in British Columbia's Fraser Valley. In general, soils in the east become much more sensitive to compaction than soils in the west, where there are greater water deficits.

A soil health study, based on a sample of 470 profiles, has just been conducted in Quebec. It clearly shows that the problem of compaction has increased. About 60% of the soil is affected by compaction. I don't think the numbers are as high in western Canada. It's really a problem in eastern Canada. However, organic matter levels are generally higher in eastern Canada because the climatic environment is more conducive to biomass production. So the link is not direct. The decline in organic matter in the east at some level is not as critical as it may be in the west. There are really significant differences there.

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

Okay.

You put a lot of emphasis on the compaction issue. Mr. Lehoux asked you about this earlier. You mentioned that the size of the machinery should be reduced. Are there other things that can be done to encourage that?

You are appearing before a committee of the Government of Canada. What recommendation would you make to the government to improve the situation?

[Dr. Jean Caron]

As Dr. Bedard‑Haughn mentioned earlier, better monitoring and access to databases are needed. That can be problematic. It's very difficult to negotiate that, because private data, particularly on farms, are not consistent. In addition, they can also be subject to significant financial interests and even put the health of a business at risk. A neighbour or another company could learn about a company's financial situation because of certain parameters that could be revealing. We have a lot of problems with the use of available business data, so we need to have access to independent data sets and monitoring programs. These programs were put in place in the 1990s, including the establishment of benchmark plots. I think we should continue to support them.

I know that the federal government supports national programs, including those related to Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada researchers and through various research funding programs. However, in terms of monitoring soil health, it was limited to certain indices. I emphasize soil compaction, but that isn't the only problem. There is also the loss of biodiversity, pesticide contamination, loss of organic matter and erosion, to name a few. There are a number of issues, and they've all been raised before.

As for the future of future generations, the most serious issue, which isn't addressed here, is the famous conservation policies for the production area, that is to say the laws and regulations on agricultural zoning. It's all well and good to try to reduce the deterioration of soil health, but we must understand that there is also a deterioration in the production area. Globally, only 2.5% of Quebec's land is cultivated. In Ontario, it's 5%. If we want to guarantee our food self‑sufficiency, we can only produce our food on limited areas that cannot be significantly expanded. This issue also threatens the food self‑sufficiency of Canadians and the future of the nation.