THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 6, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators and colleagues. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses who are with us as well as those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Robert Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m chair of this committee.
This morning, the committee continues its next public meeting on its study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada.
Before we hear from the witnesses, I’d like to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: I’m Paula Simons, senator from Alberta from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Jaffer: I’m Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah, senator from Ontario.
Senator Klyne: Good morning, welcome, Marty Klyne from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Duncan: Good morning and welcome. Pat Duncan, senator from Yukon.
Senator Oh: Good morning, Victor Oh, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here today.
Our witnesses this morning are joining us via video conference. Today we welcome from the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, Jason Lenz, Chair, and Susie Miller, Executive Director. From the Canadian Society of Soil Science, we have Asim Biswas, Chair, and Amanda Diochon, President-Elect. I might point out that Dr. Biswas is joining us from India today, so thank you for making the effort, Dr. Biswas, to join us.
I invite you to make your presentations. We’ll begin with the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops followed by the Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Jason Lenz, Chair, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops: Good morning everyone. Thank you so much for this opportunity to appear before you.
I am a grain and livestock farmer from Bentley, Alberta and the Chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, which we call the CRSC. I am joined this morning by Susie Miller, who is our very capable Executive Director. The CRSC is committed to pursuing opportunities and meeting the challenges of proven sustainability of the production of cereals, oilseeds and pulses in Canada.
Our members include grain-farmer-led organizations, input suppliers, grain exporters, food companies, conservation associations and the entire research community.
You have already received an extensive amount of excellent advice from the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, one of our members, so rather than repeating that, I am going to focus my remarks on what grain farmers told us about soil health and other sustainability topics.
We talked to over 600 grain farmers from across Canada in 2020 and 2021.
First and foremost, they want it recognized that soil health has always been important to farmers and that they have already adopted practices and invested in technology that improve soil health, sequester carbon in the soil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Grain farmers have told us that there are many ways to reach the end goal of soil health; certain practices should not be arbitrarily dismissed as inadequate or a specific practice selected as the only solution.
Grain farmers are proud of the work that they do and want to be recognized as professionals who have the expertise to manage their land sustainably. The ways of reaching the end goal should be based on science, including calculation of costs, benefits and impacts on outcomes, including, perhaps most importantly, the long-term viability of their farms.
To grain farmers, research is critical, not just to identify the best practices that farmers should take but also how to limit the risks of implementing some of those new practices.
Grain farmers see an updated inventory of the state of soil health in Canada as an important tool to identify priority problems and locations to focus on.
They also expressed a belief and understanding that the use of new technologies can provide answers to continued soil health by demonstrating that what may be the best practice today may be replaced by a better one tomorrow.
They also told us that agro-meteorological differences between regions and between farms must be recognized. One size does not fit all is a comment we heard frequently. For example, no-till is a preferred practice that contributes significantly to carbon sequestration and soil health in the Prairies and is well aligned with producers’ financial viability and risk management goals. However, cover crops are not as viable in all areas of the Prairies because there is not always sufficient time after harvesting for a cover crop to germinate and be viable before fall freeze-up, or there may not be sufficient moisture conditions in the southern areas of our country for the cover crop to become established.
Conversely, the use of cover crops for enhancing organic matter soil health and benefit to wildlife is a viable practice in the wetter climates of Eastern Canada and in parts of Manitoba, but no-till can be challenging in those areas.
Grain farmers expressed that they do want to maintain and improve soil health and thus contribute to government greenhouse gas reduction goals and meet the environmental requirements of their customers. However, they see that there may need to be trade-offs among various priorities of the Government of Canada for farms, which include reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the feedstocks for renewable fuels, supporting Canada’s contribution to world food security and the farm sector’s contribution to the economic growth of Canada and its communities. They see that the market does not value the contribution that grain farmers are making to climate solutions through soil health improvements nor consider the investments that farmers have to make to meet market expectations. They worry about the loss of their ability to use the modern farming practices that are helping them improve their soil health, sequester carbon and remain economically viable on their farm operations. Most of all, they want to be an active partner with the government and customers in determining the best way to ensure healthy soils.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I believe the next presentation will be shared between our two representatives from the Canadian Society of Soil Science. We will start with Mr. Biswas.
Asim Biswas, Chair, Canadian Society of Soil Science: Chi-meegwetch for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Canadian Society of Soil Science regarding the status of soil health in Canada.
I am an associate professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Guelph and the President of the Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Amanda Diochon, President-Elect, Canadian Society of Soil Science: I am an associate professor in the Department of Geology at Lakehead University and the President-Elect of the Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Mr. Biswas: Over the last several weeks, you’ve heard from several of our members, including Drs. Van Eerd, Bedard-Haughn, David Lobb, Sean Smukler and Joann Whalen, who shared their expert knowledge and recommendations around soil health in Canada. We would like to draw attention to the very real need to generate awareness and educate the general public on the importance of soil health and soils more generally.
Soils play a critical role in our economy, environment and society. To the public, soils are often synonymous with dirt, a nuisance and an inconvenience. They are anything but. Soils are alive, and soils give life. They provide us with clean water, more than 95% of our food and fibre and harbour vast biodiversity, among other services. We depend on soil, but more specifically, we depend on healthy soils. Soil science is not part of most K-12 curriculums in Canada, and at the post-secondary level, soil science is only part of a limited number of programs.
Soil is undervalued and misunderstood. That needs to change. We need a national advocate for soil health, similar to Australia.
Ms. Diochon: The Soil Education Committee of the Society was established in 2014 by Dr. Maja Krzic at the University of British Columbia. Maja is a pioneer. She has led the development of resources for secondary school teachers nationally through Soil 4 Youth, and we’ve identified geographic gaps in offerings of introductory soil science courses at the undergraduate level and best practices for soil science education. This work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and was highlighted in Ontario’s Agricultural Soil Health and Conservation Strategy, along with the need for increased awareness and education.
As a society, we recently produced and published a Canadian-focused textbook for use in introductory soil science courses. This resource, entitled Digging Into Canadian Soils: An Introduction to Soil Science, is free for download and use by anyone. It also includes a chapter on soil health. It’s an amazing resource, and I encourage you to check it out.
Soils are incredible and are fundamental to our quality of life. As a country, Canada needs to step up to ensure that our society is educated with a basic understanding of soil science and the value of healthy soils.
Mr. Biswas: In educating our current and future generations on soils and to set future management goals, we must know the status of this natural resource in Canada. Better management is only possible through better measurement, as it leads to an improved information base.
While regional activities have gathered and used information on soils for decision making, missing information at the national scale must be addressed now to secure soils and our future. The need for national-scale activities on the baseline status of our soils and synthesis of that information as a foundation for knowing where we are at, as well as monitoring change, must be addressed now.
An emphasis on the importance of research and recognizing the regional differences must be addressed now as well. The Canadian Digital Soil Mapping Working Group under the Pedology Sub-Committee of the Canadian Society of Soil Science is working with an industry partner to develop a system to access available soil information under the leadership of Drs. Heung, Bedard-Haughn and myself. However, the lack of national-scale harmonized soil information and research is limiting the success of our initiative.
Ms. Diochon: Recognizing the need to come together to generate, share and synthesize research in soil health, Dr. Derek MacKenzie, of the University of Alberta, proposed the Soil Health Working Group at our annual meeting this year. We are meeting next week for the first time. This work is deeply rooted in our desire and commitment individually and as a society to synthesize our knowledge of soil health in Canada. We are motivated to ensure that Canadians have the best information available on land management practices that promote healthy soils, which ultimately benefits the economy, the environment and society.
Gathering, analyzing, interpreting and archiving data on soil health in Canada is no small undertaking. There is a very real need for these types of activities. We need a national soil health institute.
Mr. Biswas: In conclusion, as a country, we need to coordinate our research around soil health and to build awareness about the importance of soil and soil health in the general public.
Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. We’ll proceed with questions. I have a few lined up already. As we carry on, if my colleagues have questions, please let me know. Put your hand up. As has been our previous practice, at this time we’ll give you seven minutes to ask questions and give an answer. At one minute left, I will hold my left hand up. When we get close to the end, I would like to you wrap it up at this point, when both hands come up. We’ll start with our Deputy Chair, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Lenz. Hello from Ottawa. I’ll be flying right over your place later tonight.
You come from the very heartland of Alberta. Probably you know better than anyone how tricky it can be for a national initiative — one that is perceived as being driven from the top down — to succeed with farmers.
Could we get your insight into how we can best position a national strategy, or a national chair, or a national think-tank on soil so that farmers at the ground level buy in and don’t feel like this is something being imposed by a bunch of people in suits in Ottawa, but that this is something where farmers themselves feel part of this important conversation?
Mr. Lenz: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Simons. That’s a very good question. The government has come up with a number of initiatives that farmers need to understand better. There are a number of organizations, including the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, that can provide input to government on the best way to look at the importance of soil health in our country.
As we mentioned, and as you stated, Canada is a very vast nation for sure. There are many regional differences in soil and soil types. In my province of Alberta, I can drive for an hour and probably cross three different types of soil zones.
Farmers are doing a really good job of currently measuring what is in their soil. Farmers are doing soil tests on an annual basis, sometimes even within different zones within a field, to determine the health of their soil. They are measuring the nutrient levels and they are measuring everything, like pH. They are even measuring soil moisture leading into upcoming crops. So there is a definite need for continued research on healthy soil, but as I mentioned, there are organizations like the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops and national farm commodity organization such as Cereals Canada or Pulse Canada that are more than willing to help government with determining the best way to measure our soil health in this country. Thank you.
Senator Simons: You and I are waiting to find out who the new Premier of Alberta is. We’ll know tonight. It’s so difficult right now with things as polarized as they are in this country. I think there are people who have been weaponizing that sense of dislocation between rural and urban. I really want to make sure that whatever we do and whatever we recommend in this committee isn’t perceived as a bunch of pointy-headed pencil pushers from Justin Trudeau’s capital of evil inflicting things on Prairie farmers. I want to make sure that Prairie farmers feel like this is being done with their leadership and not just being done to them.
I don’t know how we break down those political barriers that right now make it very difficult for us to have that kind of public policy conversation.
Susie Miller, Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops: I would like to add something here. What we heard from farmers is that, first of all, they want to be recognized for the contribution they make and not vilified. That tone has to be taken with everything. With that approach, there is much more openness and willingness to listen.
In terms of leaders, we need leaders of all political stripes, farm leaders, to talk about what they have done and how they have done it. The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, for example, has a lot of farm leadership that is very interested in this.
If you’re looking to put together some sort of advisory group, have farmers on it. Farmers from across the country can help. These are the messages we have heard when we talk about sustainability. First and foremost, recognize they are experts and recognize they are doing a good job. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I have a question for our other two witnesses. You have both spoken very eloquently about the need for national leadership — some kind of a national soil advocate or national advisory council. This is a theme that has come up again and again when we have heard from witnesses in the last few weeks.
What do you think is standing in the way of this? What are the obstacles that have to be overcome to make this happen?
Mr. Biswas: I can start. I think there are different barriers, particularly when we just heard about the regional differences. In some of the cases, regional differences are being recognized and practised well by the farmers.
The problem is that when you are trying to understand a national strategy at a national scale, what strategy should be done? What are the priorities of a particular region that are still missing? What makes that not happen?
We believe that there are some in between — You can undertake a strategy here, as Susie Miller mentioned, like representation of farmers in soil health. They are doing well; we can make that one transparent and recognize they are doing a good practice. That is at the regional scale. Then you can build from the different regions to a national strategy.
I think there are some fundamental developmental strategies. While we can join together, there are huge regional differences. We want to join together to come up with a national strategy that recognizes each region’s problems but takes that “think local; act global” view. That’s probably the way to think about a national-scale strategy. If we want to build, we really need to think about all the issues happening in different parts of the country.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Marwah: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
My question is for Mr. Lenz. You very eloquently said there are trade-offs that always have to be made between what we need to do and the priorities of the Government of Canada. You mentioned a few: reduced greenhouse gas emissions, food security, climate solutions and investment in our farmers. In life, as you know, there are always trade-offs.
If we try to resolve this and move forward, would you care to comment on what would be the top two or three trade-offs and any approaches you would recommend going forward? How do we go around attacking this?
Mr. Lenz: Thanks for the question, Senator Marwah. Yes, I did identify those trade-offs. I think the most important one is that government has to recognize the good work Canadian farmers have done in the past when it comes to sequestering carbon in the soil and what we are already doing and invested in as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To me, that’s the very top of the trade-offs. We keep hearing from farmers, and they are saying, “Well, are they recognizing what we have done already, what we have done over the last 10 to 20 years?” There has been a huge investment in technology in accomplishing some of those goals.
The other trade-off is that there also needs to be some certainty that all of Canada will continue to contribute to world food security. Certainly, when we look at what has been going on in Ukraine over the past year, there has been a significant focus on where we are with world food security. Who is going to continue to supply not only Canada but the rest of the world with safe and secure food?
Canada’s grain, oilseed and pulse producers are known around the world for producing the highest quality of those commodities. It’s because of the growing conditions and soil that we have and the environment that we do our farming in. So those are the main ones that I can bring up.
If I was to pick the top three, they would be further recognition of agriculture, the stability of our agricultural sector and contributing to the economic growth of Canada and the communities that we live in. You know that here in Alberta there is a lot of focus on oil and gas, but agriculture across the Prairies and across our country really is the stable year-after-year economic driver for this country. Farmers need to be recognized. Even though we are only a small percentage of the population, we’re doing a tremendous job in growing and maintaining the economic power that Canada can be. Thank you.
Senator Marwah: I have a follow-up question that is directed to all the witnesses. Are there any other jurisdictions, besides Canada, that you can point to where you can say that this jurisdiction or country has really managed this transition, as you call it? Because greenhouse gas is global. Has anybody managed this transition exceedingly well that you can say is a model of success?
Ms. Miller: I could respond to that question. I think that nobody has done it yet, and there are different approaches. We are focused, of course, on the agriculture sector, specifically, but not exclusively, on grains. We see Australia spending a lot of time on things like measurement and how things are doing. Of course, Australia is a high-risk environment for agriculture and has been made even more so with climate change. That is an example we would suggest you take a look at.
The European Union, on the other hand, has come up with arbitrary solutions that may not be applicable across the board. We prefer an engagement process that works with all aspects of society, including academics, farmers, et cetera. Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you. Any other suggestions by any of the other witnesses?
Mr. Biswas: I think I will add a quick point here. Of course, different countries are doing things in different ways, and there is no complete success story yet. However, in terms of the soil health study, the French community — the academics and the researchers around the country — are collecting information. So again, in terms of developing the strategy and understanding that trade-off, we need to know where we are at.
In terms of information generation and gathering, understanding the status of the soil and soil health in any country or region is definitely a priority for moving forward. That means that if we want to understand that trade-off, we need to understand what is happening — what the farm status is — and if you want to do a provincial change, how much of that change would happen. That would lead us to a better trade-off on understanding, if we accept a practice, how much that trade off can come up, so we have that information. This is why working at all levels, with all stakeholders — academics, researchers and farmers — could help. Farmers are actually doing it, so they play a major role there. Canadian society, which is a combination of academic researchers, students and the community, could play a role in developing that connection and trying to bring people together.
Senator Marwah: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Thank you, chair, and welcome to our guests. My first question is for the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops. In your remarks, you stated that farmers have already adopted practices to improve or restore soil health, and we’re well aware of that. I want to underscore one comment you made, just to make sure that we all heard it, which is that reaching the end goal should be based on science. I couldn’t agree more. Many practices and uses of technology and innovation have been employed, and I just have a question about where you feel we are with regard to carbon storage through an agricultural lens.
Mr. Lenz: Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne, and certainly farmers recognize the importance of science, and that has led to the adoption of many of our practices.
Regarding carbon storage, I think the practice that we always focus on foremost when we’re talking about carbon is the practice of no-till farming, to reduce passes across our farms and fields every year to maintain that carbon in the soil.
Year after year, farmers are planting different types of crops that lead to improved soil health. They increase the storage of carbon in our soils, and that in itself is very important for not only long-term plant growth, but also the long-term sustainability of our farms.
Carbon storage is yet another thing that farmers need to be recognized for what they’ve done over the last 20 years. No-till has been around for just about as long as I’ve been farming, and that’s 30 years, and there is a recognition that that is a beneficial management practice.
Senator Klyne: Among the number of practices — and you just mentioned no-till cultivation and minimum passes — permanent cover and shelterbelts can also help improve or restore soil health, to name a few of them. We’ve heard regarding those best practices for soil restoration and improvements that approximately 50% of farmers are considered outliers who are not embracing these practices. How do we get them to engage, and do you share the idea that 50% are outliers that aren’t embracing these practices?
Ms. Miller: When we had our discussions with farmers in the last two years, one of the things they talked about is that they don’t have enough information on the risks. For example, if you talk about the utilization of barriers, whether they be trees, shelterbelts or bush, there is a perception — and I’ve talked to scientists, and they have confirmed it — that, in fact, it will take moisture away from the crop itself in dry soils.
The research that has been done has been excellent, but we need to focus on field-scale, farmer-scale and farmer-adoption opportunities that will allow farmers to take the risk without having to pay for it.
If you look at the adoption of no-till, it happened over time because it made sense, and not because somebody told them to do it, but because they could see it from farm to farm. Real farms and real farmers have more impact on further adoption of these practices than a research farm or a university, so we need to integrate that into our approach.
Senator Klyne: That’s a very good answer, and I appreciate that. Largely what I’m hearing is those that may be hesitating or late adopters, if they had a business case — and back to the idea about things being based on science — that probably can be modelled somewhere on a research farm to demonstrate some of the benefits, that’s when they may want to start to embrace that if they can see increased yields and increased bottom lines if you will. Thank you for that.
It’s a good segue to my next question for the Canadian Society of Soil Science. As Senator Simons mentioned, the lack of data sets or research and being able to collect, synthesize and share this information to improve strategies is a recurring theme. But Ms. Diochon, to my recollection, is the first to relate the coming together of a national assembly, and it sounds as if it’s in its very early stages of forming — I hope there’s not too much storming before we get to the norming — you’re probably not advanced enough yet to say you have a charter and a work plan, and you know how you’re going to engage people at a national level. I hope that there’s an aim to get to a summit conference that brings together the senior levels of government.
As we know, there are many regional differences. How will you get engagement at a national level? I know that you’ll probably start with an assembly of some sort that brings together industry experts, people in the fields who can actually tell you what it’s like in the trenches and a wide spectrum of academia. Do you think you will ultimately get to a summit conference, and where do you feel the provinces and territories are on this now? Do some have soil strategies and do some not?
Ms. Diochon: Thank you very much, Senator Klyne. In terms of engagement at a national level, you’re correct that we’re at very early stages. In our meeting next week, we’ll be making that work plan, but our members are all across the country. I would say we lack representation at more northern latitudes, but we all recognize that there is a lot diversity in terms of soil types and in management practices across the country, but it gives us an opportunity to come together. As you said, the plan would be to engage with government partners, and some provinces, like Ontario, for example, do have a soil health strategy.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much to all of you. I found your presentations interesting, and I’ve got a lot to think about. I have a question for you, Ms. Miller. When you said that farmers are vilified, can you expand on that? What do you mean? Just so you know, I’m an egg farmer and a chicken farmer, so I want to understand better, and then I’ll have another question for you.
Ms. Miller: They expressed to us that’s how they feel when the public talks about greenhouse gas emissions. It comes up quite often that agriculture is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters and the largest consumer of water, so they feel there’s a perception among the public and among government that they are not doing the right thing. They feel attacked to a certain extent. They recognize the issue and they want to contribute, but they want to start from what they’re doing right and then move on to how it can be improved, rather than starting with what they’re doing wrong.
Senator Jaffer: I’m going to come back to you, but I want to ask a question of Mr. Biswas. You were talking about having a national chair, or whatever we would call it. Are you trying to say that you need somebody to focus on this issue nationally? I imagine you mean government. If I’m wrong, tell me. Do you want somebody to direct farmers, and others, to focus on issues of soil?
Mr. Biswas: Yes. First, we’re looking at something initiated by the government; we are trying to come up with a leader, champion or advocate — whatever we call it — who could actually help us connect the dots.
We hear about farmers doing good practice, but somebody else is coming and starting with another question that farmers are not very happy with. That’s how the communications gap is being created. With the research data, at what point are they going to implement it? Farmers are hesitant to take that research into their practice. There is somewhat of a gap in connecting the dots. A national leader, advocate or champion, could help us — someone who would understand and would talk to different stakeholders together and try to help us connect those dots.
I think a national leader or a champion would be able to bring a common language. That initiative from the government would be more appropriate and could help us with that gap.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Biswas, when you say those things, “something from the government” — and, I’m going to wear my farmer’s hat — I get nervous. As soon as you say “government,” then we have more forms to fill out and more expenses. It’s more work than help from a farmer’s point of view.
Mr. Lenz and Ms. Miller, what do you think about a national body? Maybe I’m mistaken, but I feel like every time the government is involved, it just means that we have to fill out more forms and there’s more expense, rather than real help from the government. The burden is on the farmer to do all the work.
Mr. Lenz: That’s an excellent question. When you’re talking about national organizations that are there to help farmers, they’re there to help government understand what farmers are doing. I think that’s where the real benefit for a national organization focused on soil can be. It goes back to your previous question as well as Senator Klyne’s question.
Ms. Miller also stated that farmers do feel vilified. I think it’s really just a lack of understanding of what is happening at the field scale across Canada, whether you’re a vegetable farmer in Southern Ontario or a wheat farmer, like myself, on the Prairies. I encourage all my relatives, and everyone that I work with through national organizations, to come visit my farm and to come see what I’m actually doing on my farm as far as measuring what is in the soil to produce those healthy crops.
There was mention of water management. Water is obviously so important in the production of crops and vegetables. People don’t realize how efficient the irrigation districts are in Southern Alberta, for example, as far as their pumps and their measurements of water usage. Those are the things that government doesn’t see necessarily from Ottawa or from their home. They need to get out and talk to farmers. Farmers are more than willing to show people what they’re doing on their farms. A national organization that has farmer influence, a farmer membership, that can work with government and other associations, is very important in helping everyone understand each other.
Senator Jaffer: I wanted to ask you a question, Mr. Biswas. As a committee, we understand that soil health is vital not only in combatting climate change but also in maintaining our food systems. According to you, how much is the government aware of how important soil health is? From your research, from your work, what have you found? I often believe the farmers know what their soil condition is, but how much is the government itself aware?
I’m not against the national body, but what I’m against is top-down again for the farmer to do all the work.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, could you ask that question again in the second round? Your seven minutes is up. We’ll make sure you have time to ask that question again.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for appearing before us today.
What policy mechanisms would encourage farmers to sequester carbon in agricultural soils? How rapidly can carbon be absorbed by soil? What is the best method for doing so?
Ms. Miller: Thank you for the questions. I can start with this and leave the more scientific explanation to the scientists.
In terms of carbon sequestration, as Jason identified, there are two practices that significantly contribute or have contributed. One is the preservation of grasslands, which is more on the cattle side, the livestock side; the second one is no-till.
Using government data, we’re finding that over time, because no-till has been adopted over a period of years, the amount of carbon sequestered each year is declining. We cannot expect a significant amount of more carbon in that soil because it’s reached its limit. It’s reached its physical capacity or will reach its physical capacity.
I think there’s another area that is not looked at, namely, the soils that are not farmed. There’s a lot of farmland that is not farmed land on a farm operation, whether it is around a house, along the field lines, a wetland, et cetera. There’s limited consideration in public policy of farmer contribution to carbon sequestration through those parcels of land. There are no incentives and maybe disincentives for farmers to retain that. Retaining what we have needs to be as important as increasing what we don’t have.
Mr. Biswas: I think I can add a scientific explanation on that. As Ms. Miller said sequestration is slowing down; of course, that will happen because soil has a certain capacity that it can store. When we actually adopted a zero-till practice, it increased the soil carbon. The rate of carbon sequestration is higher at the beginning and then it slows down.
Another thing we must recognize is that the moment we disturb that land again, that carbon may come out to the atmosphere. We need to continue that good practice and maintain that land, and not only agricultural pieces of land but, as Ms. Miller said, there are other areas as well, which could be a significant percentage of the whole farm area of a farm operation. The whole farm area may not be under agricultural practice but could showcase a huge potential to sequester a lot more carbon in it.
You want to provide recognition not only of the agricultural practices but also the other parcels of land on the farm that are continuing to sequester carbon and putting it back into the soil. We need to recognize that, and we need to possibly reward these practices in a different way. Recognizing and rewarding good practices promotes those practices so they continue and keep going for a longer time.
Agricultural soil has a huge potential to store carbon, but unless we do it well for a longer time, it could be actually be — because if we do five-year, ten-year no-till practice, the moment we cultivate, there is an opening to the air, and the carbon and carbon dioxide come up again in a much faster rate than the rate it was stored.
We need to do that good practice, and we need to recognize and reward good practice going forward.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
The Chair: My questions are directed at all our witnesses. First I’d like to hear from Dr. Biswas about soil mapping.
The farm I grew up on, we have a document that speaks to the soil mapping of the farm, but it’s dated 1954. Those profiles and the map of the soil itself, do they change over time, and is there a need to update those soil maps across Canada, or are they still valid?
Mr. Biswas: I would just start with a quick analogy. When you go to a doctor, the doctor runs through different tests before giving us a description of what can be done. If the blood test was done six months ago, and if you go back to the doctor and ask for a recommendation, the doctor will not do it. The doctor will send us for the test again to see the status right on the date or around the date the doctor specified.
Why should it not be the same way for the soil? It changes, as the climate is changing; there’s a natural process of change, and then we have an anthropogenic change. The moment we manage our land, the way we are growing our crops, everything is happening and changes over time. That needs to be captured. If we hold on to that, that is huge information. If in 1954 we have developed a map and tried to see what the status is of that carbon or the soil right now, then we can see there’s a two-point change or three points of information; that could help us and tell us how we’re moving forward. Are we doing well? Are we not doing well such that we should be changing our practices and taking a different approach? I think it needs that updating, and that updated information will actually help us to move forward in developing strategy and managing it well.
The Chair: That’s a national initiative, or do we need to convince each province to do it?
Mr. Biswas: It has to be done at all levels. One national strategy coming down from the top, I don’t know how it may work out, but activity has to be done at the ground level. We need that information together; it has to be done in a synchronized and harmonized way.
Even today, if we look at one county in Southern Ontario and another county, the maps are different. When you try to match that map, the joining line, you can see, is completely different. The way the maps were made is different, the scale is different and the time they were made is different.
To develop a strategy and practices from a national level and implement them on a smaller and regional scale, whether it’s a province or county level, we would need to develop and update that map so it is easy to come back to a national map that could help us make decisions moving forward as a country.
The Chair: Thank you.
Dr. Diochon, your working group, I know it’s in its early days. Are you confident you’ll be able to pull together national harmonized soil information with the group you’ve got?
Ms. Diochon: I think that with our group, we absolutely can, at least, take those initial steps. Each of us have home provinces and are working with government agencies. We’re working with producer groups in Ontario. Asim is at Guelph. They have a strong partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I have a project with Grain Farmers of Ontario. A lot of our members do have these connections. We’re working with provincial and federal agencies and producer groups. A lot of us have connections in place and are doing work on farm. I think we have good bones there to, at least, get the process going.
Like anybody working at an organization, it really helps to have resources available to help support that work, even from the administrative and coordination side to make sure there’s continuity to move things forward. However, I absolutely feel that we have many of the significant players at the table — players that have connections with producer groups and representatives in government that can move this forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lenz and Ms. Miller. If we consider this meeting and previous committee meetings as sort of an introduction into the issue, and if you were developing our work plan, what areas should we delve into further to spend some quality time looking at specific issues?
In my second round, I’ll ask our friends from the Canadian Society of Soil Science the same question.
Mr. Lenz: Thank you for the question, Senator Black. I’ll start us off.
I think one area that we haven’t talked about very much today when we are discussing soil health is how farmers across this country are continuously looking to improve their soil. We’ve talked a lot about carbon here this morning. However, I think that improved organic matter is such an important part of soil composition. It really helps to retain moisture. It certainly helps bacteria that are living in our soil to perform the duties that we need them to. It varies so much across our province, all of our provinces.
Farmers know the importance of soil organic matter and building that organic matter up. That is something that needs a little bit more focus, from my point of view. I’m fortunate. Where I farm, we have quite high organic matter, up in the 8 to 10% range, so it’s very healthy, productive soil.
In regard to your question about building a national soil map, to me that seems like a very, very tall task. When you look at the size of our country, a lot of our provinces are the same size as countries in Europe, so that kind of puts it into scale how big a task that is going to be.
Ms. Miller: To follow up shortly from Jason’s comment, I think one area is definitely measurement, but there are other ways.
From information we have from Statistics Canada, 70% of farmers test their soil at least once every five years. Is there a way to harness that information in such a way that it can complement the work that government is doing? These are from private organizations, but can we facilitate that in a way so farmers don’t feel threatened, but we have that body of knowledge to help us?
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: Mr. Lenz, be careful what you wish for, because now I’m going to come visit your farm, assuming that was an invitation. I won’t come this weekend, but I would love to come visit your farm.
I’m curious to know, when you’re growing sustainable crops, how does that look different than the way other people might be farming? What sustainable crops are you growing, and what does that sustainable crop practice mean for the soil health and the maintenance of the soil health on the land that you farm?
Mr. Lenz: Thank you for the question, senator, and you’re not the first member of government that I’ve invited to my farm. It’s definitely an open-door policy here. I know Senator Black was in Alberta fairly recently, and I think I extended him an invitation, but maybe next time.
Sustainability on my farm is not much different than many farms across Canada, and it really does have a long-term focus, not a short-term focus. Part of that sustainability is in the variety of crops that I grow.
I grow four different types of crops on our farm in rotation, because that’s what is best not only for the soil but also for those crop types. It’s much more of a long-term focus than looking at just that next year. I’m looking at three to five years down the road to preserve the sustainability, both economically and environmentally, on my farm.
Most farmers are doing this. That’s why we are doing our soil tests. We need to know what is in the ground to be very efficient with the fertilizers we’re using and with all of our crop inputs.
Quite often, my wife tells me that I pay more attention to what I’m feeding my crops than what I’m feeding myself. That’s very true. I’m very much looking at the long-term sustainability of my farm on all those three different pillars: economic, environmental and social.
Senator Simons: What are the four crops you rotate?
Mr. Lenz: Our farm is quite typical here in Alberta. I grow malt barley, canola, wheat and fava beans.
Senator Simons: Then the fava beans, like all legumes, help to re-fertilize the soil. I’m not putting it accurately, but you know what I mean. It’s the bean cycle that —
Mr. Lenz: Yes, like most pulse crops, they regenerate nitrogen back into the soil.
Senator Simons: My next question is a more philosophical one, I guess. In Canada, national resources are the purview of the individual provinces. The federal government regulates water and air because they cross provincial boundaries, but traditionally, we have allowed the provinces to regulate the natural resources that are within provincial borders.
I’m curious to know — and perhaps this is a question for Professor Biswas or Ms. Diochon — if you think that makes it harder to have some kind of national body to look at soil at a governmental level. If you’re doing it at an academic level, you don’t have those kinds of constitutional entanglements.
Ms. Miller: If I could respond to your question —
Senator Simons: Sure, go ahead.
Ms. Miller: I think it’s an excellent question. With agriculture, we’re dealing in a field that has split federal-provincial jurisdiction in just about everything we do. It is a different way of working, but it’s not a worse way of working. In fact, given that we have both national and provincial entities at the table, it comes out to a richer result. I don’t think it prohibits anything. It changes the way we do things.
Thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. Biswas: Thank you, Ms. Miller. My suggestion was going that way as well, because, of course, in the academic community it is much easier — It is not prohibitive. Air and water go across boundaries, but soil doesn’t form based on a political boundary. Soil forms naturally. It’s coming from the same natural parent material. The climate and water are affecting the soil, so soil development and the soil coming up today are not bound by the political or administrative boundary. It is forming across the country.
So there could be some issue in terms of managing, but I think we need to have that information across the board to get better decision making as a country.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Mr. Chair, I do have a question for the Canadian Society of Soil Science. Before I get to that, Ms. Miller had referred to Statistics Canada and the collection of soil samples. That it was a bit of a question. I was just wondering if Ms. Diochon had a follow-up on that to offer.
Ms. Diochon: Do you mean in terms of incorporating results from on-farm work?
Senator Klyne: Ms. Miller had related that the farmers are, on a regular basis, doing soil samples and this comes through Statistics Canada. How can that be collected, synthesized and shared to help improve strategies?
Ms. Diochon: I personally love the idea because farmers are collecting data on their soils. In terms of how that could be submitted, some online repository could be developed where farmers could self-report.
Am I on the right track in terms of responding to your question?
Senator Klyne: I think so.
Ms. Diochon: I just wanted to make sure. In a way, that protects their identities and privacy — I guess that is where I’m going — maybe they could put in some kind of GPS or geographic coordinate, and we would be able to track it over time. That would be a really amazing resource.
In many cases, when farmers are sending their soils into the lab, they are collected using a set protocol, often by a certified crop advisor or somebody making nutrient-management recommendations, so there is some standardization in how the samples are collected across the fields. Speaking from personal experience in Ontario, the samples are typically submitted to accredited laboratories. I think that would be an amazing way to get more information from producers in terms of what they are doing on farm. From the farmers’ perspectives, it would require some information. However, if their privacy were protected, hopefully they would be willing to participate, and we would definitely be able to see more broad strokes beyond the research farm.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for that. I’ll let you two take that off-line.
I referred to what you’re proposing as a “national assembly.” I want to go back to that. I want you to think about the end in mind. Certainly, I recognize there is some duality of federal-provincial jurisdiction, but what is the end in mind, the scope and the objectives of this undertaking? Is it to tackle the idea that there is no national level of research being collected, synthesized and shared to help improve strategies? Is that kind of the end goal here?
Ms. Diochon: I would say it is to address some of those regional differences. We have a good idea of what soil health is. We can define it. How we measure it and what we should be measuring is going to differ across the country because we have these very different soils. We have very different management systems — as you have heard and as we heard about today — so I think it’s to capture those differences. It’s about how we can move forward in a constructive way. I’ll turn it over to Asim.
Mr. Biswas: Yes, I think that synthesis means we want to understand across the country, but the regional differences and regional management could help us better strategize for the future as well. This is what I mean by collection and synthesis. Then we communicate all that to address regional differences and regional adoption of practices. As Mr. Lenz mentioned, a one-hour drive can have three different soil types — absolutely right. Every soil is different, just like every human being’s health or body is different. Every soil is different. It should be managed differently. We need to understand the differences.
On a national scale, of course, we need to understand across the board, with the same vision; however, we also need to understand what is going on at that local scale. That will absolutely be necessary in terms of moving forward. That’s what we meant by synthesis and communication.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Jaffer: I don’t really remember what my question was, so I’m going to start again. I didn’t have it written down.
Mr. Biswas, I’m really interested in what you said about a national organization. I imagine you’re saying it’s led by the government. First of all, what exactly were you thinking of?
Mr. Biswas: It’s not a government organization that will dictate the whole process. This is what we not meant.
This is an organization, a person or a body who could help us communicate. We to see from the top what is going on across the country. This is what we mean by the national scale, somebody could take a step back. Across the country, in different regions, in different provinces, what are the challenges? How should they be addressed? Taking a view across the country, with the climate, soil, different availability of water and other information, how could that information could lead to the management? Sitting in that one space and working in one region could be difficult. It is not that a body will dictate what you should do, but that body could actually help us communicate. It could advocate what could be done, but not tell, because all the practices are done at the grassroots level by the farmers, and they are doing the best practices.
I know the moment we say that somebody should come and tell them, this is not possible because they are the best protectors of their land. They know best about their land. In this situation, we want to understand the regional scale, but there could be a body who could hear from everybody and try to connect the dots. It’s not to dictate. This is what I meant by the synthesis and communication at the national scale. An advocate, champion or leader could do that. This is the difference I just wanted to make clear to you: it is not somebody who will tell you that you should do that or you are supposed to do that; it is understanding what is going on and helping to synthesize at the national scale to better strategize. That could happen, but we require resources to have that person or champion or a group like that. This is what I meant.
As a national society, academics get together to understand the problem and try to see what is going on. In many cases, we are resource-limited. We cannot move ahead and try to do a lot of things. So this is where funding and resources will help lead that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. I don’t want to belabour it, but maybe we are thinking differently on that. I’ll come back to my question. How much awareness do you think the government has when it comes to soil health, national or provincial?
Mr. Biswas: I believe there is limited information because a protector of the land, a farmer, still knows their land better. When we try to communicate — every farm operation is an industry and an organization — often that communication is not happening. In many cases, sitting on the backstage, I think there is a limited understanding, and that should be improved. Communication came up in the discussion this morning. Talking to the farmer, they know best about their land. They have been doing good practices. I think there is still a limited understanding, or there is a gap in understanding. That needs to be improved moving forward.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Marwah: I have a financial question, and it is addressed to all the witnesses. As we continue to manage the various trade-offs, as Mr. Lenz says, are there any incentives that are currently provided to the sector to encourage them to make the investments that are needed? Are there any others that you would recommend that the government should consider?
Ms. Miller: Thank you for your question. I think from our analysis, what we have seen is that it is limited.
It isn’t necessarily incentives that work. I had an opportunity to talk to all the millers from the eastern United States and Canada. We were talking about the adoption of no-till. They said, “How did you do that? What did the government do?” I said, “Actually, the government didn’t do anything.” It was adopted because it made sense.
One of the things, in terms of being able to measure the impacts is to look at how much it will add to farm revenue and how much it will take away. Without that knowledge, putting instruments in place, what we have heard is that the instruments that are currently there — There are some instruments in place. There is the alternative land-use services. They are looking at nature-based solutions. However, one cannot make a long-term commitment without knowing and understanding how it is going to impact on the full operation.
So it’s a good idea to provide funding, but it has to be based on reality and on what will make a difference to that farmer’s decision. So some time spent on looking at farm decision-making approaches and working with farm groups that are working on this would be extremely helpful before introducing a wide-scale program. Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you. I agree that any decisions or any incentives must be based on science, but surely, we must have some idea, even today, that this is what you invest in: These are the better outcomes that you would get, one or two or three years down the road. Is there nothing that we can put in place that encourages the industry or the sector to accelerate these investments that are needed?
Mr. Lenz: Further to Ms. Miller’s comments, before the government introduces programs, they need to work more directly with farmers and our farm organizations in their development. Recent programs have come out that are very limited in scope with regard to regionality of how they can provide some incentive to farmers.
I keep coming back to cover crops. Yes, we all have a good understanding of what cover crops can provide to the soil and to the farm operation, but in my jurisdiction, where I farm, cover crops are not viable because they need to get seeded in the fall after harvest. Quite often in more northern areas of our country, there is not time to get that cover crop planted and established before the snow flies or the soil gets too cold for it to germinate and establish. I think there needs to be more engagement by government, and in particular, the agricultural and food departments of our government, to have more encouragement and direction provided by farmers in the development of these programs.
Senator Marwah: Mr. Biswas and Ms. Diochon, any suggestions from your side, that you have seen in your work?
Mr. Biswas: I was about to add a comment. As Mr. Lenz mentioned, he has been practising no-till for 30 years, as long as he has been practising farming. At that time there was no incentive, but farmers wanted to adopt that and slowly that adoption happened because they were doing it to save their soil, to do it for their soil’s good.
Now, as we move forward, we need to recognize those practices. Of course, a funding policy, monetary recognition and other things could help, but at the same time, as Ms. Miller previously mentioned, which I like, we should start with what is good and what could be better practices, not with what is wrong. That recognition could be some of the funding moving forward. We could recognize the good practices and provide help to continue doing them.
Senator Marwah: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have one last question. We have no other questions on the list or questioners on the list. So for Drs. Biswas and Diochon, if we consider this and previous meetings and this group getting a sense of the issue, what areas should we delve into deeper and spend more quality time with during committee meetings and with witnesses? What areas would you say we should look at?
Mr. Biswas: Talking about the previous meeting and this meeting, one of the important aspects would be, as we mentioned in our presentation, education about the soil health. At the same time, we need to understand the status of the soil. Unless we know what it is, we cannot take the decision moving forward. So, if you would like to add it, education and information. I think Ms. Diochon might add something.
Ms. Diochon: Yes, I would say education, as Mr. Biswas mentioned. We care about soils and soil health in this session. Farmers care about soils and soil health. However, getting the general public to really care, and getting students and the up-and-coming generation to really think about soil and the important role that soil and healthy soils play in creating a really prosperous environment, economy and society, is another thing. With a changing climate, soils are going to play an increasingly important role.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Lenz, Ms. Miller, Dr. Biswas and Dr. Diochon, thank you very much for your presentations and your testimony today. We can certainly feel and hear your passion for the issue and the subject. Your assistance as we move forward in this study is very much appreciated. I want to thank our committee members, my colleagues, for your active participation again today and your thoughtful questions. Again, I want to say thanks to the folks that support us behind the scenes. We really can’t do what we do without your help as well.
Unless there is anything else for the good of this committee — we won’t be meeting next week — our next meeting is planned for Tuesday, October 18, at 6:30, when we will continue to hear from expert witnesses on this study. As there is no other business, colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)