THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:05 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. It is good to see everyone here this morning. I would like to begin by welcoming everybody. Thank you for coming out. My name is Robert Black, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee.
Today, the committee is meeting to continue its study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from the witnesses, I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves around the table.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator Klyne: Good morning. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Welcome. Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh from Toronto.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we begin, should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Today, we have only one panel because of some technical difficulties. We welcome, by video conference, from the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec, Catherine Lefebvre, President; and Catherine Lessard, Deputy General Manager. It’s good to have you with us this morning, ladies.
The organization will have five minutes for their opening remarks. When we reach four minutes, I will put my hand up. When two hands are up, it’s time to think about wrapping it up.
With that, I’ll turn it over to the organization. Thank you very much for being here.
[Translation]
Catherine Lefebvre, President, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec: Good afternoon, senators. Thank you for the invitation and for your time. My name is Catherine Lefebvre. I am a vegetable farmer and the President of the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec. The Deputy General Manager of our association, Ms. Catherine Lessard, is with me today. She is an agronomist.
First of all, we are grateful that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has an interest in agricultural soil health. Climate change is causing increased costs and decreased productivity for vegetable producers. It also threatens the food security of our country. Healthy soils can have a positive impact on global warming, thereby improving biodiversity and ultimately increasing yields. The soil is our livelihood; it feeds Canadians and we must take care of it. Therefore, soil health deserves special attention, and w have promising solutions to propose to you in the specific context of vegetable production.
Catherine Lessard, Deputy General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec: Before anything else, we need to make sure that the soils remain available for agriculture. Most of Quebec’s vegetable production takes place in the Montérégie and Lanaudière regions, where the climate and the soils are favourable. These regions, located not far from Montreal, are subjected to much urban pressure. For example, recent projections show a 22% population increase over the next 20 years in the Jardins-de-Napierville regional county municipality and 18% in the Montcalm regional county municipality. These municipalities are two of the main vegetable production areas of the province. Measures to preserve agricultural land are essential to ensure that exceptional soil is not used for other purposes.
Our ability to improve soil health depends on the development of vegetable production knowledge and practices. Although the annual sales of vegetables in Quebec reached $500 million in 2020, which is similar in value to Quebec maple syrup sales — and maple syrup is a jewel of our agriculture — research in the vegetable sector is underfunded in comparison to other sectors. For example, soil health is one of the subjects of the innovative Living Lab — Quebec project, undertaken jointly by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Union des producteurs agricoles, but it does not include the vegetable sector.
The proposed techniques for major crops cannot be used without changes occurring in our sector. Due to the diversity of crops and production models, soil health improvement techniques for vegetable production are less documented, and our producers do not know very well the techniques that are documented.
Much research needs to be done and adequately funded. Quebec vegetable producers are already involved. For example, 14 companies that produce vegetables got together to support the NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Conservation and Restoration of Cultivated Organic Soils. The very fertile black soils are made up almost entirely of organic matter, making them an exceptional growing medium. However, these soils could disappear some day, together with many local crops.
Almost 2 centimetres is lost each year due to wind and to soil breakdown. It may not sound like a lot, but in 50 years, this rich humus will be all gone if the trend continues.
Public funding is essential to meet this challenge, and to improve soil health in general. In this respect, restoring financial support for the AgriScience clusters research projects to 75% would be a step in the right direction. For the time being, only soil health projects focusing on carbon sequestration are eligible for subsidies of more than 50%.
Supporting vegetable growers in adopting new practices that promote soil health is undeniably the best way to see rapid change in our businesses. The current shortage of agronomists with expertise in vegetable production means that farmers are often left to fend for themselves. In our view, funding a network of front line agri-environmental advisors is essential if we are to achieve rapid results.
Finally, the adoption of any new practice involves a financial risk for businesses. Improving soil health is a long-term process, and the first few years of adoption can have a negative impact on yields. We therefore believe that introducing a system of rewards for best soil health practices would also promote their adoption.
In short, healthy soils are essential if vegetable growing is to continue in Quebec. To achieve this objective, we need to protect agricultural land, invest in research and dissemination of results specific to the vegetable sector, provide support from front line advisors and reward the adoption of best practices in a way that mitigates the risk.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Our third witness has joined us. I would like to introduce Benoit Legault, Director General of the Producteurs de grains du Québec. We will now provide you with five minutes to make your presentation, Mr. Legault. When I put my hand up, that means you have about one minute left. Thank you.
[Translation]
Benoit Legault, Director General, Producteurs de grains du Québec: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I represent the Producteurs de grains du Québec, as Director General of that organization, which represents 9,500 farmers with a total of around one million hectares of land. They grow around $2 billion worth of grain.
Needless to say, soil health issues are important. Soils are a valuable and fragile asset. We know that a healthy fertile soil provides significant biodiversity and increased availability of nutrients, which improves crop yields and profitability.
However, as you know, the ever-increasing demand for agricultural products over the years and the economic forces at play have had a major impact on business decisions. Obviously, farming practices adopted in such a particular context can put pressure on soil health. For example, repeated passes by machinery are necessary, but they compact the soil and reduce the circulation of air and water. There are also issues related to pesticides and other chemical contaminants that are used to meet the ever-increasing demand and as a consequence of economic forces acting on the agricultural sector.
We also know that, over the last 100 years, North American soils have lost almost half their organic matter, particularly as a result of the transition from perennial crops to annual crops demanded by the market. The need to be competitive and to offer a product at the lowest possible price has had an effect on productivity growth. More yield means more inputs and maximum use of the growth and maturity period. Compaction and erosion are central issues in soil health. Although the situation is not alarming, in our view there is no denying that our agricultural soils are under pressure, and that can jeopardize their fertility in the medium and long term. However, there are technological advances and a growing willingness on the part of the agricultural sector to adopt environmentally friendly farming practices that enable good yields to be obtained while minimizing environmental impact.
Our organization, the Producteurs de grains du Québec, is working to ensure that the necessary resources and knowledge are in place. It is essential to compare best practices and understand their effects on soil conditions. This knowledge enables producers and their advisors to make the right decisions about practices in order to optimize soil productivity, guarantee a sustainable cropping system and remain competitive.
Realities and solutions can vary greatly from one end of the country to the other, in light of the different types of soil and their potential, the different climate conditions, the cultivation possibilities in the regions and asset costs in each region. All this must be taken into account when developing soil health policies.
The Producteurs de grains du Québec believe it is important to have agricultural policies that provide the necessary tools to make investments that will enhance soil health.
Soil health should also be integrated into broader government strategies, particularly at the federal level, such as the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, the more recent Canada’s Climate Plan, or the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, but all these elements must come with reliable long-term funding. Positive financial incentives are vital for building a movement. Analysts have shown that when it comes to funding agri-environmental programs, Canada spends a lot less per unit land area that the European Union or the United States. Canada needs to invest in these new climate and environmental priorities without sacrificing existing support.
As you know, there are two opposing models: the European model, which emphasizes heavy subsidies focusing on specific environmental priorities to the detriment of agronomic performance, and the American model, which promotes sustainable growth. The Producteurs de grains du Québec favour the second model. It is possible to improve agronomic performance to meet food needs while also improving environmental performance. Above all, it is vital not to fall into the trap, as the media has done, of applauding certain aspects of the European model without considering the model as a whole and everything that comes with it.
Unfortunately, the usual reflex is to simply turn to a system of support with cross-compliance. This approach is currently being discussed at the federal level, but we wish to caution that it comes with several pitfalls. We believe it is very difficult to be efficient and offer programs with multiple simultaneous objectives, such as supporting risk management and managing environmental issues. We believe it would be very dangerous to pursue that approach.
Bear in mind that there are risks involved for agricultural producers who change their practices and that climate change is increasing these risks.
Nowadays, public investment in knowledge development, advisory services and rewards for innovative agri-environmental practices is essential. Quebec has taken the first steps in that direction, but we are still nowhere near the giant steps society is hoping for. Furthermore, I want to remind you that agricultural producers are faced with a vast array of new knowledge and a growing need for trial and error periods, since there is no such thing as a universal solution that applies to all farms. In order to succeed, farmers need time to experiment and adapt practices to their own farms.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the agricultural producers’ associations have made a choice to work with governments to tackle this challenge, despite the risks involved for these organizations, but the governments’ budgets are insufficient, unpredictable and short term. This can mean the difference between success and failure. We are the ones who will be associated with this success or failure, without having had full control over the necessary resources. As farmers, we are ready to take that risk, but the government will need to do its part and take a serious, realistic, consistent approach to its investments and policies, in order to objectively stay in line with its objectives and with the expectations of the public and consumers. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from our senators. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask members in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so. This avoids any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind senators that you each have five minutes for your questions, which includes the answer. I will put my hand up when there is one minute left, and we’ll go from there.
We will go to second and third rounds as may be necessary.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: I wanted to try asking my questions in French, but my French is a little weak.
My first question is for Ms. Lefebvre and Ms. Lessard.
[English]
In this committee, this has been a lot of our focus so far: how we manage crops, like wheat and canola, as well as crop rotation, cover crops, no-till and those sorts of things. Those don’t apply when you are growing fruits and vegetables. Growing strawberries, tomatoes or carrots is very different from growing canola or oats. When you’re looking at techniques to regenerate the soil, apart from planting peas every few years, what can you do to improve soil health when the conventional strategies, like no-till and cover crops, are not available to you?
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: Yes, there are techniques specific to the fruit and vegetable sector, such as crop rotation. That means not growing the same crop in the same fields year after year, because it degrades the soil.
Farmers can also make sure the rotations include crops that help regenerate the soil, such as legumes, or crops that will be dug under to improve soil fertility. Those are things farmers can do.
They can also manage fertilizers more efficiently. There are various methods, but of course — and I believe this was an important part of our presentation — it all depends on the crop. I should note that over 50 different vegetable crops are grown in our province. It also depends on the type of soil being worked. If it’s organic soil or mineral soil, the techniques will be different, and so will the methods that farmers can use.
It’s very hard to generalize for all of our farmers, so I don’t want to get into too much technical detail at this time, but that’s why we’re saying it’s so essential to do research and have tools and information to give to all of our farmers, regardless of what crops they grow or what type of soil they grow them in.
Ms. Lefebvre: In the fruit and vegetable sector, a lot of studies are being done on intercropping, so cover crops aren’t just for field crops.
As Ms. Lessard was saying, further research could help improve the types of cover crops. Many, if not most, fields are planted with cover crops in the fall as well, which is great for boosting soil health. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: This arises from something that Ms. Lessard said. I hadn’t thought about this before, but a lot of vegetable farmers and fruit farmers like to market themselves as being organic, which means they are not using as many fertilizers and other inputs. Is it harder for someone to keep their soil healthy when trying to raise organic vegetables because they cannot replenish with things like nitrogen fertilizer?
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: My answer would be that different techniques are used in conventional farming versus organic farming.
Conventional farmers often employ techniques borrowed from organic farming to improve soil health. You can have very healthy conventional soil producing vegetables that aren’t certified organic.
By implementing good practices, such as intercropping, cover crops, efficient rotations, and efficient fertilizer management, as I was saying, I think it’s perfectly possible for conventional farmers to have healthy soil.
What makes organic farming a challenge for vegetable farmers isn’t so much as fertilization as the management of weeds, insects and other pests.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Thank you to the witnesses for joining us. I have two questions based on what Ms. Lessard and Mr. Legault had said about their areas of responsibility. We have heard that there has been a pattern of decline in soil quality in Central Canada over the last few decades — more generally, the decline in the ability to sequester carbon in the soil, and those kinds of issues. First, I’m interested in the degree to which — in the areas of responsibility that you have — there is a general pattern of that. My second question is somewhat related, although it’s a little different: Given that a lot of the work you do, as well as the farmers with whom you work, is in areas that provide food in close proximity to urban areas, are we seeing losses of agricultural land to urban needs that threaten the work your colleagues do? Perhaps Ms. Lessard can answer first.
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: Regarding the pattern of decline in soil quality, we started seeing it a few years ago. But what we’re seeing more and more is our members adopting good practices. They’re learning more and more about soil health, so they’re increasingly implementing practices that have a positive effect on soil health. I do think we’re seeing the trend improving, after a few years of trying to achieve certain yields with less environmentally friendly methods. To produce vegetables efficiently, farmers need to keep their soil healthy.
As for the loss of green zones, we’re definitely seeing a decline in available land area near urban areas. The urban zone is encroaching on the agricultural zone. This is causing problems in terms of available farmland, the ability to secure land, and surging land prices. That makes it hard to increase fruit and vegetable production. Resource management is also an issue, especially for water. Growing cities located near farmland consume more and more water, which can put them in conflict with our fruit and vegetable farmers, since they need water to irrigate crops. Without water, they can’t grow crops, even in eastern Canada. This is a problem for our sector.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Could I ask Mr. Legault to respond briefly — regarding his area of responsibility — to those two questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: The issues raised regarding urban encroachment on farmland are the same for the grain sector. It’s true that soil quality has been declining for decades. If we look at it from the point of view of organic matter, there has been a major shift away from permanent crops. This is a recent phenomenon here, but it had already occurred in the United States, Ontario and Western Canada. Even so, grain production in Quebec is fairly recent.
No longer having a perennial plan created an organic matter issue. Subsequently, intensive practices and farming methods put additional pressure on the soil. The new practices were able to demonstrate a significant slowdown in the decline of organic matter. A recent study was carried out by the IRDA. We lacked a lot of data on soil conditions. It’s the first step to giving ourselves what we need to fully understand the situation.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I want to talk about support from the government, and this question is for any of the witnesses.
What do you believe the federal government should be doing in terms of research and investment in order to improve soil health?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: We consider three areas for action to be a priority. One is the development of knowledge, by investing sufficiently in research to meet the challenges posed by changes in production methods. For example, introducing cover crops in autumn to avoid bare soil and intercropping. This is changing the profile of knowledge needs and action options in the various areas of crop management, pesticide management and fertilization. A lot of data and knowledge still need to be gathered to fully understand the impact of cover crops and intercrops.
One solution is being sidelined: adding biostimulants to farmland to improve its properties. Where organic matter is concerned, biosolids are being portrayed as problematic, but there are sources of organic matter that can be gathered and spread on farmland. There’s a lack of knowledge around products, what we call residual matter that brings a source of carbon into the soil. The other element is support. We need to develop advisory services and support them financially. The labour issue is not limited to the fields. It also applies to advisory services. In Quebec, we have a shortage of advisory services, agronomists and experts. As an organization, we believe that success in soil improvement, yield maintenance and product quality all depend on compensation and incentives to encourage producers to adopt better practices. It’s a must, in our opinion.
Ms. Lessard: We need to do more research. We recently met with people from the Centre de recherche et de développement de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, which specializes in vegetable production. Researchers lack funding; they are the poor cousins of agricultural research. So I’m passing that message on to you. Among the various areas of research, there’s pest management in relation to soil health. Biopesticides or pesticides that are less harmful to the environment would be worthwhile things to look at. My colleague mentioned the importance of support for farms; it’s extremely important to have advisors. I would conclude by saying that investing in research in cooperation with the provinces is really essential.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Lefebvre, do you have anything to add?
[Translation]
Ms. Lefebvre: No, thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for being here; we really appreciate it. I have a question for all the witnesses.
[English]
I understand that horticulture is better than industrial farming since it tends to be more clean, more sustainable and more community-based. However, there’s a serious challenge to food security, as well as the growing global demand for Canadian agricultural products. Is there a tension here, or can smaller farms with sustainable practices meet the challenges of global food insecurity?
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: In the vegetable production sector, there’s a perception that small farms can meet Canadian demand for vegetables. However, the vast majority of vegetables supplied to Canadians come from large farms. We’re talking about several hectares; it’s a totally different reality.
It’s wrong to believe that the majority of vegetables come from small, local, community-oriented farms. We also need to support those large farms that are adopting good soil health practices and working toward more environmentally friendly practices. If we don’t support those large farms, we’ll have a real food security issue. I was talking earlier about irrigation. In Quebec, we’re worried. Access to water will be essential to maintain vegetable production in this country. If we consider the climate issues in California — which also produces an ample portion of our vegetables, especially in winter — we can see that if we don’t resolve the problematic water situation, our food security could be at risk within the next few years.
Ms. Lefebvre: I would add that mid-sized and large firms often have the skilled labour to do the research themselves. This research can then be used for smaller local farms. So it’s a give‑and-take that shouldn’t be overlooked either.
Mr. Legault: I just wanted to quickly mention that the issues we’re talking about are specific to the produce sector. For the grain sector, it takes on a different dimension. Of course, we’re not necessarily in the local markets, because our product has to be processed. We have niche markets for local processed products that have to use local grains as part of their designation. That’s very interesting and it’s a source of additional demand.
However, as my colleague Catherine Lessard said, it’s still marginal in terms of the ability to feed the entire population. It’s something we talk about every day here: the clash between the ability to feed the world and to meet society’s expectations.
I would tell you that I’m very optimistic, because I believe that technology and training will carry us far. The main challenge will be to get people to understand the issues involved in maintaining productivity in the face of societal expectations. What Producteurs de grains du Québec condemns is the lack of government presence in educating people, so it could explain where the science is at and why production systems have reached this point. Organizations like ours need help, because we’re not in the best position to explain all this. We may be in a conflict of interest, since we represent producers. So we’re asking that governments get more involved in raising public awareness of this important issue you’ve raised.
[English]
Senator Klyne: I have a few questions for Mr. Legault. We’ll see how much we can get through on this.
One of your organization’s ongoing programs is the Agrisolutions climat project, which is a partnership with the Union des producteurs agricoles, in collaboration with the Conseil pour le développement de l’agriculture du Québec. Starting in 2022, the program has been providing support to farmers in adopting and implementing beneficial climate and soil management practices. It targets improved nitrogen management and increased adoption of cover crops.
From the data that you have gathered so far, can you share with us the findings pertaining to how improved nitrogen management and increased adoption of cover crops impact soil conservation? And if you have a perspective on no-till or minimum till, I’d like to hear that as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: Yes, you did a very good job describing our involvement in the federal Agrisolutions climat program, which targets cover crops and nitrogen management in corn production. I should add that it’s just one aspect of our involvement. We’re also involved in provincial programs to improve soil health. More and more agricultural organizations are being called on to act as a link between producers and the government to improve practices. This is increasingly common, but not easy to manage in a context of labour shortages.
At the moment, it’s hard to say how much cover crops improve various facets of soil quality, because we’re talking about organic matter. Soil quality is much more than that; it’s also a question of fertility and balance between different microorganisms.
The program will need to be maintained for at least two years to gather enough data. That’s another challenge because you have to be careful. We’re talking about awareness programs here, not necessarily research programs. That’s what I often tell Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and our partners at the Union des producteurs agricoles. They need to be careful with this data, because it’s intended more to raise awareness of good practices than to generate new knowledge. A distinction must be drawn between the program’s objectives.
You mentioned minimum work. As I said at the beginning of my presentation, there are differences between Western and Eastern Canada. Quebec grows a lot of corn and soy. So there are compaction issues due to a later harvest. What’s more, the type of soil in Quebec means we can’t go for more drastic direct seeding. It’s probably a little harder to do here than in Western Canada, which has different soil, climate and crops.
However, there has been a great leap forward over the last 10 years in minimizing the weight of equipment and the aggressiveness of the tillage passes. Surface and deep tillage have been greatly reduced, but there are still a lot of heavy soils in Quebec. Climate change has brought back some machinery we left behind, because we’re facing new issues.
I’d like to remind you that everything evolves and every year brings a surprise. In Quebec, we can’t necessarily rely strictly on zero tillage. It’s much more complex, and that reality should be adapted to each farm.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here this morning. My question is for Mr. Legault and it concerns the same thing Senator Klyne asked about. I’m trying to understand the mechanism and operation of programs and projects like Agrisolutions climat. How is it all structured?
There are a number of partners, including Producteurs de grains du Québec and other Canadian organizations. Who actually decides on the projects? For example, are you involved in the decision-making process at the outset, or are the projects presented to you, and then you coordinate them? I’m trying to get an idea of how it’s all organized.
Mr. Legault: If I may, I can go quickly. Actually, these programs often come with streams, and we have to work with a project proposal that fits into these broad streams. Cover crops and nitrogen management were among the major streams proposed, because these are the issues of the day in terms of soil health. So we submitted a project with the Union des producteurs agricoles. The project was approved. Obviously, our mandate is to manage and coordinate the project. The government funds and monitors what we do to meet the conditions and objectives. At the end of the year, a final report must be produced. Receipts and expenses are tracked. It’s all very well monitored from an administrative standpoint, and on that level, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada works well with farmers.
As an agricultural organization, we don’t have all the resources and we have to work with something called agri‑environmental advisory clubs. These clubs are formed by farmers working with a number of agronomists whose services are partly financed by federal and provincial funds.
These agronomists support the farmers. They also find farmers to go ahead with the various projects. They set up the plots as well as operations to support farmers. For example, in cover crops, a green manure seed must be applied at the end of the harvest. We have to follow up and make sure it’s done and done well. Data is also collected — the agronomists from the advisory clubs collect the data. We supervise and follow up with the farmers as an agricultural organization and with the agronomists from the advisory clubs.
Senator Petitclerc: You talked about agronomists and you mentioned them a little earlier too; as I understand it, Quebec’s sustainable agriculture plan called for putting 75 additional agronomists and engineers in the field to support farmers.
I read what Martin Caron said somewhere:
The agronomists we have are busy filling out paperwork on the administrative side and aren’t in our fields with us.
How important is it — perhaps from a soil health perspective — to have access to those 75 agronomists, and for them to be working in the field, not filling out paperwork?
Mr. Legault: The data you’re talking about refers mostly to MAPAQ. If I understand correctly, they wanted to free these agronomists up so they could be more active in the field, but in fact, the mission of agronomists at MAPAQ is more focused on second-level services. They provide some first-level service to farmers, but normally their role is to offer services and precisely to support the agronomists we were talking about, who come from the advisory clubs in Quebec.
The issue you’re talking about is just within the ministry itself. In fact, the question is whether agronomists should come from the ministry, or whether the ministry should provide the tools to further expand and develop the advisory clubs and give them more resources. Right now, the advisory clubs tell us that they are lacking resources and turning down projects and initiatives.
[English]
The Chair: It’s the chair’s prerogative. Would the agronomist in the room — Ms. Lessard — like to make a comment or two? Again, it can be very short.
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: I absolutely agree; we need many more agronomists in the field. Farmers need a lot of support to change their practices. Without that, we won’t see any real change in agri-environmental agriculture.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. This is so interesting. I’ve listened to my colleagues, and I’m going to ask for a little bit more data in terms of who the farmers are in Quebec. If you have this data, I would ask all of you to let this committee know. Do you have any disaggregated data on who our farmers are — for example, women, racialized communities, Indigenous communities and equity-seeking groups? That’s the first part of it. Are there targeted funding programs for these groups?
[Translation]
Ms. Lefebvre: I will let Ms. Lessard share the data with you, but there are targeted programs for the various communities, yes. I will let Ms. Lessard tell you about the data.
Ms. Lessard: For Quebec’s approximately 2,000 farmers, we have no specific data on indigenous or minority farmers.
However, I believe we must surely have some data, but there are not many of them. Some of our members are from diverse backgrounds. It’s important to mention that most produce farmers are small-scale producers. We recently published data showing that around 68% of produce farmers work with less than 5 hectares. Among those small-scale producers, some must certainly come from diverse backgrounds.
Mr. Legault: Grain production is fairly recent. Because these are specialized operations with the fairly high asset levels, we’re mainly seeing transfers between relatives. I’d say that there hasn’t been much room for visible minorities in grain production, given the economic stakes associated with the size of investments required. It will always be an issue to have succession outside the current families, who have to bestow a fair amount of the assets as gifts so that their children can survive on the farm.
I have no data about this, but as someone just said, the federal programs ask for that information. As this was raised when we were talking about the Agrisolutions climat program, we have to provide customer information. This is the kind of data I could provide to the committee, because we conducted a small survey of people who applied for support under the Agrisolutions climat program, where we had to identify people from minority or indigenous backgrounds. I could pass that information on to you.
[English]
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for those responses. Ms. Lessard and Mr. Legault, do you think it is part of your mandate to collect this data, or should it be?
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: In our case, we don’t have access to the federal data that would permit us to aggregate the data. We would have to conduct a survey of all produce farmers. That said, we sometimes have difficulty reaching our members because we don’t have a mandatory association in the produce sector. However, with our around 300 members, we could do that and have them provide information when they are renewing their registration.
Mr. Legault: Quickly, it’s not something we do for grain production. We could do it, but because we have a relatively small number of indigenous and minority members, it would be a challenge to identify them. I can tell you that, in any event, when we do these surveys people tend not to respond. Therefore we’re often wondering how representative these surveys are. Incidentally, the survey I can send you, which is about the Agrisolutions climat program, should be taken with a grain of salt given that it may not be representative of the reality of things.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question that, perhaps, the two organizations can answer. I understand that the Quebec Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation has developed a 10-year project, known as the 2020–2030 Sustainable Agriculture Plan, which notes that 85% of farms should have soil organic matter of 4% or more. I understand that the number of farms might currently be around 75%.
What are you seeing in the way of moving that number up? Where are we at in that 10-year plan? How do you see it unfolding? In February, we heard from the CEO of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec that the timeline of 10 years is very short. Do you agree? Is it possible? Is it a pipe dream?
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: I would first say that, in the vegetable sector, we lack the data to be able to follow this evolution, have an opinion on it and position ourselves on the feasibility in our sector.
In Quebec, many crops are grown in organic soils. Organic soil has an extremely high organic matter content. It depends on how you look at the data and which ones you take into account. Now, our growers are clearly committed to increasing organic matter in soils. The Sustainable Agriculture Plan is on the right track, and there’s good collaboration with the associations. We’ve set up best practice showcases that enable us to transfer that knowledge to a number of companies and promote best practices. We’re working on this with our members. I’m going to hammer home the same message: Better funding for projects specific to vegetable production and better support for companies would help us make faster progress. We’re moving in the right direction.
Mr. Legault: In the grain sector, we are well aware that this goal will be difficult to achieve. The first step is knowledge. Not only do we need to have a good understanding of where we are now in terms of organic matter in different types of business and different regions, but we also need to understand how organic matter is the only — and the first — element we need to look at.
There’s the whole issue of the presence of micro-organisms and of a certain imbalance in the soil that needs to be studied at the same time. The research institute I mentioned earlier submitted a report recently to explain that the issue is currently not really one of soil health, but of climate reality. They have observed that the problems we’re experiencing in terms of soil health or current yields stem much more from climatic conditions than from soil quality. There’s a lack of knowledge that needs to be addressed before we set ourselves such precise objectives that aren’t important to us. We’re aiming more for indicators of improved farming practices than first level indicators. It’s more about trying to achieve a particular profile for the whole. We don’t think this is necessarily the best way to set objectives.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are proceeding to the second round now. We will limit questions and answers to four minutes each.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: My question is for Mr. Legault. I’m from Alberta. I understand very well the issues concerning the federal and provincial governments. Agriculture is a sector where responsibility is shared by the provinces and Ottawa.
[English]
It makes it difficult sometimes because it is hard to know what is a federal responsibility and what is a provincial responsibility. In Alberta, as in Quebec, we are not always very comfortable when we feel that the federal government is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. This is an issue that you raised in your opening comments, Mr. Legault.
With the wisdom of being someone who is Québécois, how do you think we, as a Senate committee, should deal with the question of what is federal and what is provincial? What could we do to help those things work better together in terms of advocating for soil health and gathering data around soil health?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: I would approach your question from a different angle. Instead of talking about what one should do in relation to the other, I’d approach your question from the angle of complementarity. Basically, it needs to be determined who should do what, and who’s best placed to lead a particular initiative or activity. I don’t know enough about the public service to know who has the best expertise and the most resources to invest. There’s a tradition, in Canadian partnership, of investing in proportions of 60% and 40%. Should it be that way? I won’t take a position on that.
As someone from an agricultural organization, I am concerned about the fact that funds that are put forward.... Perhaps it’s precisely that these pitfalls are avoided with the Canadian partnership, where everything is done in a complementary fashion. I think this aspect reassures us. It confirms that governments are talking to each other. They prepare strategies together; it’s a shared jurisdiction.
I won’t venture to say who should do what. The partnership approach between the federal and provincial governments is based on good faith. It’s not perfect. There is a sustainable production strategy proposed by the Minister of Agriculture. This strategy and its funding need to be discussed. The discussion on the partnership is not over. I would say that it’s not as important to know who’s doing what as it is to make sure there’s sufficient funding. Federal and provincial funding initiatives are often lauded. We can’t say that these investments aren’t appreciated, but we still think they’re insufficient. We’re taking small steps, but if we want to make giant strides, the federal and provincial governments will have to invest much larger sums to achieve our goals.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I was recently reading an article in the La Presse daily newspaper that talked about record pesticide sales in Quebec. Of course, it also talked about pesticides used by citizens; I’m well aware of that. However, part of the article said that, even in agriculture, we’re still far from the targets. In Quebec, even though we’ve adopted a target to reduce the quantities applied to fields by 15% by 2030, agricultural pesticide sales remain stable.
Does this exist in your sector specifically? What is being done to help you reach these targets? Do governments set targets and then tell you to deliver? If they support you, is that enough? Are we doing it right? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this situation.
Ms. Lessard: Yes, there’s been a lot of talk about this in La Presse. I’d like not to correct the record, but to provide a little education on the annual use of pesticides. When it comes to pesticides, it’s extremely important to look at the long term. Variations in pesticides from one year to the next are extremely biased and don’t give us much information. Why is this? Because pesticide sales depend on the kind of agricultural year we’re having. If it’s a year with a major insect invasion, for example, regardless of whether or not we try to adopt better practices to reduce pesticide use, we’re bound to use more. The same goes for fungal diseases. Looking at data for just one year is not a good approach in the pesticide use sector.
We’re trying to use fewer and fewer pesticides in the vegetable sector. There’s another little issue: If we look at the quantities of pesticides, I think the right indicator to take into account is the risk associated with the pesticides used. The report shows an increase in the use of biopesticides as opposed to synthetic pesticides. We see this as a great step forward. We’re using the same quantity of pesticides, but they’re less dangerous for both the environment and human health. We don’t seem to be making progress, but we nonetheless are. When we look at pesticides, it would be more useful to look at these indicators.
How can governments help us? By giving us the tools to reduce these risks to both the environment and health. In my opinion, what is currently being done by governments is insufficient. More research is needed to develop new, less hazardous pesticides and speed up their approval.
The approval of a pesticide on the market can take up to four years. That’s an extremely long period at a time when we need new tools to combat pests — and we have more and more of them. I’ll stop here, but I could go on and on.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you; that was very enlightening.
[English]
Senator Klyne: My first question is for Mr. Legault. In 2015, the Producteurs de grains du Québec unveiled the results of the environmental and socio-economic analysis of the grain production life cycle in Quebec, which made it possible to measure the impact of each production step on the overall footprint of the sector. I find this very interesting. From this analysis, the QMP produced a checklist for good management practices, which includes guidance on soil and biodiversity management. What has been the effect on the function of farming operations among your membership following the publication of this analysis? Were they able to increase production, decrease their environmental waste and improve soil health?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: First of all, I’d like to congratulate you on reading this lengthy report. I should point out, however, that this tool was intended more as an exercise in understanding the situation in 2015 in terms of issues related to the environmental footprint. There was even a social component to this approach in the life-cycle analysis. It’s a practice that has been established across all Quebec sectors: trying to measure and understand the life cycle of grain production.
I don’t think it’s necessarily life cycle analysis that can have an impact. As you’ve seen, it’s still a fairly cumbersome document. We’ve produced some informative sheets to help producers understand the situation. All the tools that were mentioned earlier for the grain and vegetable sectors were designed to provide further food for thought and improve our support tools and methods for producers. This was aimed much more at improving initiatives and identifying objectives to be achieved than at directly influencing grain producers’ practices.
It’s an information tool that should be renewed at least every three years, since agriculture evolves rapidly. It’s an interesting tool, but it should be updated more regularly.
[English]
Senator Klyne: I want to follow up on the 2020–2030 Sustainable Agriculture Plan. There was an incentive for encouraging growers to adopt this program. How effective was that in getting them to engage around the best practices of that plan? What proportion of your membership is participating as a direct result of that program or incentive? Were there early adopters, and are there outliers not yet participating?
[Translation]
Mr. Legault: There are some initiatives that are less relevant to the vegetable sector, which sometimes criticizes us for it. There are three components to SAP programs. I think one of the two Catherines talked about this. The first components is research. A research network has been set up to develop and update new knowledge. This represents an investment of $25 million or $30 million. This network brings together hundreds of researchers, notably with the aim of identifying areas for improvement in the various aspects of soil health.
The second components is support, which includes transfer projects. Agricultural organizations have been targeted to serve as demonstration and support windows for producers. We’re talking about $30 million here.
The third component is compensation, which originally cost $70 million and is now up to $85 million. This component is very interesting. There’s good participation. We’re talking about compensation here, so there are financial incentives. On the whole, the money has been used. These practices need to be implemented. There was a concrete result because, in order to obtain the funds, these practices had to be put in place. As I said earlier, these are significant amounts, but they’re still a long way from what’s needed to make giant strides in compensation.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Are any of your producer members engaged in mixed farming with livestock or dairy? Either or both of you can answer.
[Translation]
Ms. Lessard: Yes, there is such a thing. Often, these are smaller, less specialized companies that do more local farming. We can see, for example, producers who do poultry farming with vegetable production, or dairy production with vegetables. This is quite common; it exists. When it comes to larger vegetable producers, however, they are more specialized and there are fewer cases of diversified crops or agricultural activities.
Mr. Legault: In the grain sector, companies are diversified. There are small companies specializing in grain, large ones specializing in grain, small ones with grain and livestock, large ones with livestock and grain. However, production is becoming increasingly specialized. I would say that 75% of sales are made by farms that mainly produce grain. We have more and more specialized farms.
I like what you said, as it touched on something we talk about a lot, which is regenerative agriculture, which involves more livestock. Once again, we discussed the issues and the demand. There are contradictory societal expectations. People want less meat and dairy products, but they want more land used for hay and more perennial plants. We have to deal with this contradiction in Quebec right now.
[English]
The Chair: To our witnesses, Mr. Legault, Ms. Lefebvre and Ms. Lessard, thank you very much for your participation today. You can tell by the questions — and the need to ask more questions — that my colleagues and I are interested in what you have to say, and we appreciate your participation.
If you have feedback with respect to your participation in the committee, don’t hesitate to send it to our committee clerk. Anything to make our committee meetings better is always good.
Colleagues, I also want to thank the folks who support us each and every day. I would like to thank the committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions. I would also like to take a moment to thank all the staff who support the work of this committee: the interpreters, the debates team transcribing this meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technician, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD, our page, our clerk and our analyst.
Colleagues, the next meeting on Tuesday night will be cancelled, so we will not be meeting on Tuesday night. Our meeting will be next Thursday, if all things go according to plan.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that we will continue in camera for a short discussion regarding a draft report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)