Agriculture Committee on May 9th, 2022

[Dr. Judith Nyiraneza]

Thank you.

P.E.I. has been the first site to initiate this integrated approach to agriculture innovation. With this new approach, we have growers and scientists working together to identify the research priorities in the agro-environment. They identify the research priorities and also discuss together the way to address their issues. P.E.I. partners, who are scientists and growers, have identified that the main issues for us are declining soil and water quality.

A good aspect of this initiative is that it's user-centric, so we are following the growers' expertise to make sure that the beneficial management practices we're using are not only scientifically sound but also practically sound. We are taking into account the knowledge from the growers and what they have been testing in the past, and we are sharing ownership in agriculture innovation. We feel equally responsible for the results and the impact of the management practices we are testing.

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

Thank you, Doctor.

Perhaps I can direct my question to Dr. Comeau.

This past weekend, I spent time with environmentalists and farmers in my riding, in Wilmot. We were planting trees in a wetland, the Mike Schout Wetlands Preserve. I had a number of good conversations with farmers who want to do their part and see if they can do some land use practices and convert some land.

Dr. Comeau, can you explain some of the benefits of those wetlands for carbon storage and how at a local level farmers can get involved and do their part and be recognized for it?

[Dr. Louis-Pierre Comeau]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

Across Canada, wetlands are where most of the carbon is being stored. It's important to protect the wetlands and to refurbish them to make them safe so that they can continue to store carbon and potentially increase carbon storage.

In many cases, planting trees that are natural for those environments is very beneficial. There are programs that should start soon or are planned to start, which Dr. Gilles Saindon could discuss, that could include financing for tree planting in riparian areas.

We are currently working on a road map for different BMPs, and this would be one of the BMPs that could be implemented that would be beneficial for a different aspect of the environment and also beneficial for carbon storage and increased carbon sequestration.

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

Thank you.

In the six minutes, I wanted to ask questions about artificial intelligence and half a dozen more, but it will have to wait.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Louis.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to participate in today's meeting. I'm impressed with the amount of knowledge we have access to this morning because of them.

Mr. Saindon, correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that the on-farm climate action fund has a lot of rules, so producers have to fill out paperwork and forms. It's a good program, but would it be possible to consider something more decentralized that puts the decision-making power in the hands of the producers who actually work on their land?

In your view, is it realistic to do it this way, to go through a process to assess submitted practices and reward them financially, which could sustain them in the long term?

I don't know who could answer this question. Perhaps Mr. Saindon could.

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

I believe I can answer the question.

Thank you for the question.

This gives me an opportunity to clarify something about the on-farm climate action fund, which totals $200 million. The department announced a few weeks ago that 12 agencies will be in charge of receiving applications from agricultural producers, which will make it easier to decide how to allocate the funds. This will be done not by the department, but by these 12 agencies.

I believe that somewhat answers the question.

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

In your opinion, will the amount of money invested in the program be sufficient for a number of years or should we invest more?

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

The funds announced are for the first three years. As I mentioned earlier, there was an increase in the 2022 budget. Another $470 million was allocated to the program. At this time, the terms are not known, but the funds will be used to cover additional years.

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

Thank you.

I would now like to return to the Canadian Organic Standard.

We're trying to help producers be more environmentally efficient. At the same time, the government announced that it would no longer fund the review of the Canadian Organic Standards. It wasn't a huge amount of money. Personally, I'm having a hard time understanding this decision.

Don't you think we should be funding this review, especially since it's a federal standard that allows our producers to secure their certification and the international market in terms of exports?

Don't you think we should be giving more encouragement to our organic producers, who already have to pay to be certified?

It seems to me that handling the review of this standard is the least the federal government could do.

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, we are doing some research in organic agriculture, but we're not really part of the decisions or processes around funding standards. I believe that is part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate.

Therefore, I'm not really aware of the fact that the funding may have been reduced or changed. We're not really in a position to directly answer that question.

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

We have several soil and carbon capture experts here with us. I'm not sure who would be best suited to answer the next question.

Mr. Barlow addressed the feed additive 3‑nitrooxypropanol, or 3‑NOP. Here, 3‑NOP is considered medicine, but elsewhere it's considered part of feed. I'm not a scientist and I don't want to question that, but I do want to better understand the process, given that it can greatly improve performance with respect to gas emissions.

As a side note, could one of the witnesses give us an order of magnitude as to the effect that leaving soils in permanent pasture can have?

Since we began our study, we've heard a lot of praise for pastures as being extraordinary carbon sinks, but we were also told that we might need to reduce livestock farming. Mr. Barlow pointed out the contradiction earlier.

How do we know which version offers the best solution?

I'm willing to believe either version. We're going to need meat. If we stop producing meat, we're going to have to import it. I see a problem there.

I don't know who would be able to talk to us about this briefly.

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

I will turn the floor over to Dr. Gregorich, our carbon storage expert.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Unfortunately, time is up.

If you have 15 seconds, you can try to answer. If not, Mr. Perron will have to wait until next time. In fact, let's just wait. Mr. Perron will have to do it next time. He'll get three or four rounds.

We're going to go to Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to our witnesses. We are presented as a committee with an incredible wealth of knowledge today.

The theme of my question is on soil biology. I'm not sure who would best be able to take this question. Building into my question, we know that in the soil, under healthy conditions, there's an incredibly complex relationship between various micro-organisms and the plant itself. They involve protozoa, bacteria, fungi and nematodes. When those are all in balance, we have a system that allows a plant to prosper and to be very productive.

What I want to know is, from AAFC's perspective, what is the current state of federally funded research into soil biology specifically, and what promising pathways do you see as a result of that research?

[Dr. Mervin St. Luce]

I will attempt to answer these questions.

Soil biology is very important for soil health and nutrient cycling. You mentioned some of the specific biological components. They basically help plants to grow, capture nutrients and hold water.

As part of the soil health research, we're currently focusing a lot on soil biology. A lot of efforts have been placed in genomics, as well in finding out specific biological components that are critical to the agroecosystem for resilience and sustainability.

This research is not done on its own. It's part of the entire soil health effort, which is made up of the biological component, the physical component and the chemical aspects of soil. Not all of the efforts are going to be placed in soil biology, but in recent years, more effort has been placed because of new technology that has been developed to be able to better understand and identify various beneficial micro-organisms in the soil.

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

Thank you for that. That leads me to my next question.

Mr. Barlow mentioned that the federal government has a fertilizer reduction plan of 30%. There are organizations down in the United States—I'll name one, the Soil Food Web—whose focus on trying to achieve a harmonious balance in soil biology has allowed farmers to both increase their yields and reduce their fertilizer inputs. Those input costs are a huge part of a farmer's bottom line.

If the federal government has this ambitious plan to reduce fertilizer inputs by 30% by the year 2030, and we're already seeing research showing promising benefits to this effect, is AAFC going to devote more resources to this kind of research to help to meet that goal by 2030?

[Dr. Mervin St. Luce]

I can't speak on this point about AAFC's decision on increasing funding or not funding specific areas, but I can say that this is a very important area of research. We know that healthy soils have healthy and diverse microbial populations. They also assist in nutrient cycling.

In terms of adding nutrients to the soil, whether through inorganic fertilizers or organic materials, we depend a lot on the microbial population, diversity and action. A lot of the nutrients that plants take up come from the soil.

It is an important area, but I can't speak on the specific funding from AAFC at this point.

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

Thank you.

I realize the discussion document on the fertilizer reduction target is available for comment until June 3 of this year, so it's early days. However, there are smaller farms that are really trying to trail-blaze in this area.

We're all fearful of an “Ottawa knows best” approach, but there are farmers who are doing this and leading the way. What recommendations can our committee make to the federal government for how we best support those farmers who are already showing us a path with both reduced inputs and greater yields?

This is the crux of the matter, because climate change is such a huge existential threat to us. How can we best support those small farms that are actually leading the way right here and right now?

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

I'll say a few words on this in terms of the previous question on investment. It's an area of priority where we will see some increase in investment. The perfect example would be our next generation of living labs. As they are expanding across the country, they will have that element and component in mind when starting this new research, and that will be part of our effort.

I'd also like to add that it would be an opportunity for some of the farmers that have been mentioned here. The small farmers all probably have an opportunity to work through these living labs, promoting a new way of doing business. That would be quite a good starting point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. Thank you, Mr. Saindon.

Now we have Mr. Epp for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today. I appreciate the amount of expertise that we have access to.

Dr. Saindon, I appreciate that you mentioned in your opening comments that your department's focused on novel practices and technologies.

I recently met with representatives from the fruit and vegetable sector. They're concerned with the eroded capacity of the pest management centre as a result of flat budgets and inflation, which supposedly reduced the number of projects they're able to do. As I understand or as I'm told, there's a $9-million budget, mostly from CAP funding, meaning the five-year cyclical round of funding. They're calling for more permanent funding mechanisms.

Over the past five years, has the number of projects that have been funded been reduced because of the factors of inflation and an erosion in funding? Particularly in the fruit and vegetable sector, this kind of research that feeds into the adoption of newer or novel practices and technologies that have a more benign environmental footprint is critical to the industry and to the success of that sector, particularly as they compete with a much larger industry further south.

I'm wondering if you can comment on that interaction between the amount of research being done and the funding levels.

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

Mr. Chair, again, I'd like to thank the member for the question. I'd like to answer it in two ways.

One is that the pesticide minor use program at AAFC has two components. One is to look at new chemistries, replacement chemistries, and look at the option to use them in Canada. That's usually done through what we call the “label extension” of an existing pesticide, whereby we just expand it to more crops. For that, we have an intake of projects on an annual basis. It varies from 30 to 40 projects a year. There is obviously quite a bit of pressure to handle some of these things. At times, the delays are due to the fact that when we do field research, there is always a climatic component. It's always more complex and takes more time to gather all the data needed, so that puts some pressure.

In terms of developing alternative pesticide management practices, I think the department has just received additional funding of $7 million to deploy new research in these particular fields. We just started a group of 25 new research projects at the beginning of last month on these exact aspects. We have this new research. We have lots of confidence that it will add to a lot of opportunity for alternatives to be developed and deployed with the producers.

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

I'm sorry to interrupt. Is that $7 million permanent funding?

[Dr. Gilles Saindon]

No, it's part of an announcement that was made. It's funding for two years. We started the project this year and will continue it next year.