THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 16, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:01 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, everyone. On the heels of the seventh Canada’s Agriculture Day, it’s great to be meeting as an Agriculture and Forestry Committee today.
I want to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses — both in person and online — and those watching the meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of the committee. Today, the committee is meeting on its continued study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to take a moment to ask our senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klein, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Welcome. Chantal Petitclerc, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Good morning. Victor Oh, senator from Ontario.
Senator C. Deacon: Good morning. It’s great to see you here. Colin Deacon, senator from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Before we begin, should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we’ll work to resolve the issue.
This morning, it’s my pleasure to welcome Martin Caron, President and CEO, Union des producteurs agricoles; Daniel Bernier, Agricultural Research and Policy Advisor — Environment, Union des producteurs agricoles — they are online — and Carolyn Wilson, Director, Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum, who is online as well. And here in person are Brodie Berrigan, Director of Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture; and Mary Robinson, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Before we begin, I want to mention to folks watching and here in the room that Ms. Robinson is retiring from this role in about three or four weeks. I just want to say, Ms. Robinson, that your steadfast commitment and support to the agriculture and agri-food industry over the last number of years has been tremendous. We’re going to miss you; you know that. Many thanks for all you have done, and I will miss you. Thanks, Ms. Robinson, for all you have done.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I will invite Ms. Robinson, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Caron to make their presentations. You each have five minutes for opening remarks. I’ll signal when one minute is remaining. When you see both hands up, that’s about time to wrap it up. With that, Ms. Robinson, the floor is yours.
Mary Robinson, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak today. I think you’ve done a great job of introducing me. I am a producer from Prince Edward Island, and the sixth generation on our farm.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing over 190,000 producers, farmers and farm families across Canada. As the heart of the Canadian agri-food system, generating $134.9 billion of Canada’s GDP, agriculture occupies a large and important part of our economy and our environment. Farmers are the stewards of Canada’s soil resources, which are not only the foundation of our food supply chain, but also a critical tool in climate adaptation and mitigation. As Canada strives to meet its goal of becoming net zero by 2050, there is tremendous potential for agriculture through its capacity to sequester carbon.
According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, agricultural soils went from being a net emitter of 1.2 megatonnes of CO2 per year in 1981, to a net sink, sequestering 4.2 megatonnes of CO2 per year in 2019. A good portion of this success resulted from the increased rate of conservation tillage, which rose from under 10% in 1991, to approximately 60% in 2016.
However, beginning in 2006, Canadian producers, particularly in Eastern Canada, have seen a levelling off, and even a slight decrease in soil organic carbon levels. Among other things, this has been attributed to the gradual decline in the size of beef cattle and dairy herds, which often rely on perennial crops and pasture grazing for feed. The subsequent conversion of perennial to annual cash crops has contributed to lower soil organic carbon levels. This was driven by a reduction in herd sizes in response to BSE, or Mad Cow Disease, in the early 2000s, increased efficiencies in dairy production and unstable cattle prices that saw many producers convert to grains and oilseeds production.
My point here is that factors contributing to lower soil organic matter are the result of multiple forces — economic, social and environmental — and we need to be mindful of this when drawing up recommendations for the government. The truth is that identifying best practices in soil health management is complicated, requiring data sets that integrate soil data, weather data, yield values and other environmental variables with on-farm practices. Research that accounts for all these data points is so important for producers looking to adopt best practices in soil health management.
We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to continue updating and investing in research in these areas — with a lens on soil health management — so that we can capture the tremendous efforts taken by producers today. Looking to further advance these practices, the CFA would also recommend that AAFC invest further in the AgriScience Clusters, supporting industry-led research that accelerates the pace of such innovations.
Turning now to possible federal measures that would support and enhance soil health, we believe that increased engagement, investment in best management practices and research are needed. But first, we need to pause and recognize the efforts of those who pioneered many of the best management practices we support today. Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System will allow producers to generate credits through activities that enhance soil organic carbon. However, because the proposed protocol will only recognize activities that began after 2017, the early adopters — who began these activities prior to 2017 — will not be recognized for their efforts. These producers did the heavy lifting and on-farm experimentation required to develop many of the best management practices that contributed to the increased soil carbon sequestration from 1981 to 2016. While offsets may not acknowledge these early adopters, we do need to acknowledge and support early adopters when creating future programs to identify further best management practices. We must also celebrate these trailblazers to showcase where early adoption of best practices provided meaningful, long-term benefits — not only environmentally, but also as sound business decisions.
When looking to learn from the past, Eastern Canada saw a reduction in soil organic carbon when a shift was made away from perennial crops required for livestock grazing. I raise this point not to suggest that government should be intervening in production decisions — quite the contrary. We must acknowledge that soil health management cannot be considered in isolation. As Canada looks to reduce fuel carbon intensity, reduce emissions and achieve other environmental objectives, the incentives employed will also have consequences for soil organic carbon and soil health.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak on this study. My colleague Mr. Berrigan and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
Carolyn Wilson, Director, Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum: Good morning, everyone, and thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you. My name is Carolyn Wilson. I serve as Director of the Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum. If you’re not familiar, this organization has been around for about 15 years, and our goal is to provide education, leadership training and capacity building for producers between the ages of 18 and 40.
In addition to my role on the Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum, I serve as the President of the New Brunswick Young Farmers’ Forum, and my husband and I own a small farm and abattoir business in the province.
I also spent four years studying soil health and the effects of compost on the health of soils under intensive data production. This topic is really important to me.
A healthy soil is a productive soil. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or FAO, 95% of our food is produced directly or indirectly by soil. A healthy soil is especially critical for our young farming community. Soil is our sustenance. It is only under a healthy, productive soil that we can produce food for our lifetime and, hopefully, for the generations to come.
However, based on some data that we do have, there is concern about the health of our soils, particularly in the eastern part of the country. Federal data, as of 2016, has indicated little change or even a decrease in soil organic carbon levels. Finding ways to support farmers in the implementation of carbon-building practices will be critical in shifting our soil carbon stores, building soil health and mitigating the effects of climate change.
What can be done? As young farmers, we have some ideas of where we can head: Number one would be the support for education and knowledge transfer. Young farmers are keen to learn. According to the 2016 census, farm operators under the age of 40 are reported to have higher levels of post-secondary education, including university. Young farmers are willing to learn, but we need digestible information tailored to our soils and our operations. We need more support for knowledge transfer and training that are related to the benefits and economics of soil health, improving best management practices.
Number two is as follows: Support for the implementation of best management practices, or BMPs, is also critical. According to the 2021 census, only 8.6% of farm operators are under the age of 35. The average age of farmers continues to climb. Additionally, census data suggest that many of these young farmers support their income with off-farm employment. These statistics support what we see on the ground. Young farmers are struggling. Farming is expensive, and carbon-building practices are no exception. Finding financial means to support the ecological services that farmers provide is critical in building soil and sustaining the young farming community.
Number three is more research. If we implement these BMPs, what progress are we making? Do we have the soil data to back up our efforts? As of now, we are not so sure. Federal data for soil carbon, soil cover and erosion indicators are current to 2016 — but those are only a few of the many indicators of soil health. What about soil biodiversity? What about the fertility? More research is needed to fully evaluate the current status of our soils so that — as farmers — we can accurately measure and report on our progress so it can be shared with our consumers and trade partners.
In conclusion, the health of Canadian soils is critical to young farmers. Through strategic investments in research, farmer education and BMP implementation, we believe soil health can be maintained and improved for generations of farmers to come. Thank you again for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wilson. That was great.
[Translation]
Martin Caron, President and CEO, Union des producteurs agricoles: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I’m Martin Caron, President and CEO of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA. I am also a dairy farmer and field crop producer. Good soil health is essential to the prosperity of our agriculture, which is fundamental to meeting the food needs of a growing population. We tend to forget this in our privileged country, but agriculture is a vital industry.
The status of soil health is especially important to us at the UPA; we are carrying out various initiatives, particularly as a result of collaborative efforts with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, to promote the adoption of better farming practices.
The realities across the country can vary widely depending on soil type and climate. Farming on sandy soil in western Canada is not the same as farming on clay soil in eastern Canada. The issues involved are very different. This needs to be taken into account when developing soil health policies, as solutions that apply from coast to coast to coast are unlikely to be successful.
I would like to mention that the Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment is conducting a vast study at the request of MAPAQ, the Quebec department of agriculture, fisheries and food, to provide an accurate diagnostic of the health of agricultural soils in Quebec. A final report is expected to be released in early March 2023.
Although the situation is not setting off alarm bells, it’s clear that our agricultural soils are under stress from factors that can jeopardize their fertility in the medium or long term. For example, we know that there are problems with erosion and loss of organic matter. There are, however, some solutions being implemented by a growing number of producers. In addition, increasing the organic matter content of agricultural soils removes carbon from the atmosphere and thus helps the fight against climate change.
However, many challenges remain, and the federal government has a role to play in fostering the adoption of best practices in soil conservation. Specialization and the intensification of production have numerous benefits, especially in terms of volumes produced. However, they do present some challenges when it comes to sustainability.
For example, a long rotation involving several types of crops will certainly have many advantages over a rotation involving only two crops, such as corn and soybeans in Quebec. However, in the short term, the profitability of these two crops is more attractive to a farmer who has specialized in growing them. Other crops that can be introduced into the rotation will usually be less lucrative.
The development of green manures and cover crops also has numerous benefits for soil health and the environment. This type of crop is not intended to be harvested. It is an investment in environmental protection and soil health. In the short term, it represents an additional expense for businesses. Accordingly, many practices that provide long-term benefits pose short-term profitability issues. That transition period when revenues are lower, expenses are higher, and the benefits of healthier soils have not yet been reaped is often a barrier to change.
Another constraint is learning how to manage greater complexity on the farm. Adopting and mastering better on-farm practices requires a lot of new knowledge and trial and error experimentation, given that there are no universal solutions that can be applied to all farms. Success requires engaging in experimentation, as well as adjusting practices to each specific situation.
In light of this situation, governments have an important role to play in supporting producers as they go through this transition we all want. The federal government must provide financial support that meets expectations, comparable to that of competitors, to ensure that concrete projects are carried out. Let’s keep in mind that the land is our main working tool and that when we invest in the health of our soils, including in research and innovation, we are really investing in the sustainability of our common food supply.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much to our three witnesses who spoke. We’ll proceed with questions now. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to remind members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning too close to the microphone, or removing your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid sound feedback that could negatively impact our colleagues in the room. As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you will have five minutes for questions and answers. Finally, I want to mention that one witness — Ms. Robinson — will be leaving at 9:45 a.m., so if you have a question and you can switch so someone else can get a question in, please help us if you can.
Senator Simons: Thank you to all the witnesses. I will start with my question for Ms. Robinson.
I had the privilege of attending — on behalf of the committee — the Western Canada Conference on Soil Health & Grazing, specifically regenerative agriculture, in Edmonton, in December. I met a number of farmers there who are pioneers in these techniques, including one who told me, proudly, that he took one thousand acres that had been cultivation for primarily canola and wheat, and returned it to grassland for forage for his herd. But he said there was a real tension between what he wanted to do — which was to return the grassland to as natural a state as possible — and what his sons wanted — which was to plant cash crops.
I also met with another agricultural analyst who talked about the fact that our insurance schemes are set up to backstop people who plant cash crops on marginal land — even if the crops fail, they are covered — but, for ranchers, there is no such insurance or backstop.
I’m wondering if you can talk about that, because you spoke eloquently about the importance of grazing animals to carbon sequestration. How do we strike the right balance so that we set up programs that encourage farmers to grow forage as opposed to cash crops on marginal soil?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question, senator. I understand very well the push-pull between father and sons in that exact situation. We were talking earlier amongst ourselves about the pressures on agriculture land, and how we’re seeing disappearance. I think the decision on how land is managed, or if it’s kept in agriculture, is predominantly made based on the economics of it, as you pointed out.
In our family, we have been very fortunate to be able to turn to a four-year rotation, and our province actually has a mandatory three-year rotation where you can only have a row crop in one of three, or two of five, with a proper management plan.
Your question is about insurance. I’m not that involved in cattle insurance, but I understand that — in Eastern Canada — we do not have the robust kind of cattle insurance that there is in Western Canada. As some of the other witnesses have pointed out in their statements, we need to figure out how we can ensure that our producers are on level playing fields with other countries, and that there is profitability in this transition.
Unfortunately, a lot of it is economics. Most of us in agriculture recognize soil is our resource. We want to make it the best that it can be, but we have to stay in business. That combination of the three legs of the sustainability stool is very real for us. We look to government to figure out how to help us do that. Mr. Berrigan, do you want to add anything?
Brodie Berrigan, Director of Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the question, senator. I don’t have a lot to add other than I think that so much of developing good government policy is getting the right incentives in place. When those incentives are not in place — for example, I know that lack of insurance has been a long-standing irritant in the cattle-producing sector — I think this is something that needs to continue to be discussed so that those incentives are there.
Senator Simons: Ms. Wilson, I met a lot of younger farmers at the conference who talked about the peer pressure that they experience when they are attempting to — sort of — experiment with regenerative agricultural techniques. They talked about wanting to hide their crops from people passing down the highway.
I’m wondering if you could talk about the cultural changes you think have to be made in order to support and encourage young farmers, and young farm leaders, to share their experiences with regenerative agriculture, and to get past the social pressure — or the conformity — of planting the way they always did.
Ms. Wilson: Thanks for the question, senator. That’s a really good point. There are some farmers doing some really amazing things out there, and being scared to share it is unfortunate.
I think one thing we could do, especially now that some COVID restrictions have been lifted, is bring our young farmers together so that they can have the opportunity to network and share some of these things. I think that would help substantially with this.
I see that as being a challenge — young farmers being concerned about others, but also, as you had asked Ms. Robinson, being concerned within their families. Are they confident to make those choices on their farms? That’s a good question. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. Thank you very much for your opening remarks. My first couple of questions are for Ms. Robinson. You referenced data, and I’m glad to hear you’re talking about that. Data and analytics have become an increasingly important aspect of modern-day farming operations, as we all know.
Your organization is one of the many that has called for the development of a national strategy on soil health. Have you had conversations with federal officials on this topic? If so, what has been the response? Should our soil study recommend the creation of a national strategy for soil health, including a repository for data, storage and managing data and research interests?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne. We are involved in the Sustainable Agriculture Advisory Committee that’s being co-chaired by AAFC and the CFA. Our executive director is the co-chair of that. One of the pillars of that is soil health. That would be one of the ways that we are consulting with the government on how we’re going to address the issue.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. On Tuesday, we heard from federal officials from AAFC and Natural Resources Canada. I had the opportunity to ask them about collecting and synthesizing data related to soil health and soil degradation. They shared with us some of the tools they use, such as the Canadian Soil Information Service, to track and manage data. Has the federal government done a good job of reaching out to farmers to inform them that these types of programs and services exist, and that they can be used to track soil health?
Ms. Robinson: I can’t speak to that directly. I think a lot of the soil information we have exists at the provincial and regional levels, which makes sense because it is so nuanced, and there is such variability within those two components of soil.
As far as reaching out and educating about the availability of this tool, I am not sure, senator. I can do some research and get back to you.
Senator Klyne: That’s great. Thank you. Is there a specific policy response that you would like to see the federal government implement — sooner rather than later — to mitigate the most immediate issues, or concerns, regarding degradation or erosion? If so, what would that policy be?
Ms. Robinson: I’m sorry — you said a specific what?
Senator Klyne: Specifically around degradation or erosion as a policy.
Ms. Robinson: As a policy.
Senator Klyne: Is there a policy they should be implementing sooner than later?
Ms. Robinson: We will be looking at the outcomes of the findings of the Statistical Analysis System, or SAS, in addressing that issue. I apologize; I did not get to cover all of my points in my opening remarks. But we do have some points regarding what we think should be done along the way.
To speak to the question from earlier, one of the things — to talk about the cultural issues — would be education on the 4Rs, in particular. It’s important to increase the level of education and the number of agrologists that understand the 4Rs so that they can disseminate that information and have better uptake in the community — so that we have both young and more advanced farmers understanding and adopting it.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Welcome, witnesses. My question is for Ms. Robinson. During the 2021 annual meeting, the CFA resolved to urge the government to work with provinces and territories to develop additional financial incentive programs focusing on improving soil health, and also increasing organic matter and contents in soil in order to enhance the carbon capture availability and build the capacity to adapt to the changing climate.
From the perspective of Canadian farmers, how important are additional financial incentive programs in managing and improving soil health in Canada?
Ms. Robinson: Anything we can do to increase the adoption of better approaches to building soil organic matter is very important to Canadian producers.
We do see some regulations that — kind of — push us away from being able to do that; I think it would be fair to say it’s young farmers in particular. Here, I’m thinking of Bill C-244, the right to repair, if you’re buying high-tech equipment. For example, on my farm, I just spent $30,000 on a piece of equipment that will allow me to send prescriptions to the field to pull that data back in real time, and to manage what that machine does. I need that in order to adopt some precision agriculture. I had just put a similar piece of rate control in that piece of equipment about 10 years ago, and I spent $20,000 for that one piece of equipment. However, I had to replace it because it had become obsolete, and I had no way to upgrade it. When we look at Bill C-244, the issues of equipment becoming obsolete, and not being supported, as well as the inability of producers to hire third-party tech support, is one of the examples of policy that just doesn’t facilitate adoption of better management practices.
Senator Oh: Do you receive additional financial help from the government?
Ms. Robinson: I did not receive help for that; no.
Senator Oh: Why?
Ms. Robinson: That was just buying new equipment, which we all have to do, and there were no incentives for me to buy that equipment. The bigger point would be to have a better look at Bill C-244 — and allow producers the right to repair their own equipment, or reach outside of the supplier or the manufacturer of that equipment. It would be more affordable for producers to adopt that new technology.
Senator Oh: Anything for you to add on?
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. I absolutely agree with Ms. Robinson; I think support for Bill C-244 is important for producers across Canada. Since that resolution was passed, the government has announced the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, which is a significant investment in agriculture within Canada to support climate solutions and soil health more generally. Of course, we would continue to advocate for additional support through that, including continued investments for, as Ms. Robinson said, our certification, as well as the addition of more certified crop advisers, or CCAs. The CCAs are the lynchpin between federal investments and actual farmers on the ground who can make the changes to adopt those best management practices that will have the impact that we need. The more boots on the ground that we have to provide that support to increase adoption, the better it will be. I would encourage continued investment in that through the On-Farm Climate Action Fund.
Senator Oh: Ms. Robinson, do you think the government is doing enough to help the farmers in your organization regarding soil health in Canada?
Ms. Robinson: There is always room for more.
Senator Oh: Oh, that’s good. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
I’m a believer that agriculture is — and must be — a huge ally in our fight against climate change. There is evidence that it could actually become not just a net neutral industry, but a net negative industry, extracting carbon out of the atmosphere — to the benefit of us all. But I don’t think that can happen without ensuring that farmgate incomes are stabilized or improved through the collective efforts of all regulations, legislation and policies put in place.
My question to all of you is simply this: If the policy objective is not aiming at improving farmgate incomes — right now, farmers are being penalized, and their contributions are not being recognized. Could each of you speak to that? I think we should start with our online witnesses first, and then move to those in the room. I want to make sure we hear from Ms. Robinson, though, before she retires. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes, of course, we need to invest more in research, as Ms. Robinson mentioned earlier. You mentioned that there have been adjustments in terms of research. Before, 70% of research was supported by the federal government. That support has dropped to 50%, even though we know that, with climate change, we have to do more research; consequently there is a shortfall. Raising it to 70% will help producers more.
Canada must remain competitive and productive. Our competitors, the United States, currently invest 1% of their monetary revenues in direct environmental payments. If we do the same thing here, budgets should increase by $650 million. There are already increases planned to achieve this transition. As you mentioned, we’re going to capture carbon at the same time, and everyone wins. There is a transition period during which we must support producers to make this ecological transition a success.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: That’s a really excellent point. Coming from a young farmer’s perspective, the feasibility and the economics of it are absolutely critical. We know young farmers that just can’t make the cut. Providing support for anything — in terms of BMPs and moving forward — is really critical.
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. As we know, farmers are price takers. We continue to see prices downloaded onto farmers. I’m thinking, in particular, of the carbon tax, where we have no alternative. It’s not like taxing us is going to force a big change in behaviour. I look at policies like that, as well as Bill C-244, and other things, as we talk about profitability.
I agree 100% with Mr. Caron that more research is needed. When we look back to 20 years ago, we had much more extension services; we had better funding models, provincially and federally; and we had a better ability to deliver information and education — not only to new farmers, but also to existing farmers — via new strategies and new practices. I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of this is driven by farmgate receipts. When we look at our competitors, we need to ensure that we’re doing something comparable. If not, we will see a continual evaporation of agriculture land.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. I would like to follow up on research: We heard from AAFC officials on Tuesday. There was pride in the fact that — over the last 40 years — we have moved to more of a no-till approach based on research. We don’t have 40 years. Our farmers don’t have 40 years. My question is around pace. The application of knowledge we already have is a problem, and when we’re developing new knowledge, we don’t have a good transmission — we have a good research engine that needs more fuel, but we have no transmission of converting that into action.
Could you speak to the need for pace in terms of regulatory reform and federal reform as it relates to helping farmers make this move?
Ms. Robinson: You are making my mind explode, Senator Deacon, because I think of all the challenges, and all of the things where we need to raise the bar in order to pick up the pace. I think about labour; we all know about the implications of labour and agriculture. We think of it more as people in the field, but we have to think of the entire spectrum. We need more scientists. We need people developing this cutting-edge technology. We need people that are transitioning it all the way through the farm supply chain.
The Chair: You have got an answer.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for Mr. Caron; if I have time, I will have a second question.
This study focuses on the role of the federal government. What might be the role of consumers, if any? What I understand from what you’re saying is that there’s a lot of pressure on farmers to do more and better and to do their part. On the other hand, Canadians are consumers who demand maximum production, with competitive prices and perfect agri-food products. Is there a place for consumer awareness and education? Does it make a difference? Does it matter?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. Consumers, the public and citizens are important in this process so that they understand what we are doing.
Often, we see that when we invest in agriculture, people see it as an expense. On the contrary, it’s an investment in the larder and in the autonomy that we give ourselves as a population to have local products. Often, all this is managed with societal agreements. One of the first things Canadian citizens can do is buy Canadian products. That’s the first thing you can do to support the economy.
On the other hand, the federal government must also educate the population and conclude agreements with the provinces. When I talk about education, I’m talking about young people, who need to understand that processed products and all the agricultural ecosystems are what allow farms to thrive across Canada in all rural regions.
The economic aspect is also very important. In rural areas, without agriculture, there will be no economic development and schools will close. This ecosystem and the producers set up the whole system of collective marketing and supply management, and so on. You have to be able to communicate all this and make people understand the importance and breadth of the commitment. This requires more support for businesses — especially for young people starting up a business — and it is very important to support them. Organic production must also be supported. In Quebec and Canada, there has been an increase in demand for organic products, but we must be able to support it.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much. Do I still have time to ask another question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: I’m going to ask you a question, Ms. Robinson.
We talked a lot about the importance of research, and Mr. Caron was telling us that we need to continue to invest in research and in data.
Besides all the things we should be doing and all the things we should be doing better, do we communicate this information well and efficiently? If someone in British Columbia has done excellent research that yields important and effective results, does everyone know about it? Is the transfer of information done well across Canada?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. For clarity, when you say, “are we sharing,” do you mean within the government?
Senator Petitclerc: No. I’m thinking about the people on the ground. If someone has good results, good data or good research, are we efficient in sharing — across the country — what the best practices and the best results are?
Ms. Robinson: We have a few bodies that do that work. Some of them are government, who are pretty good at sharing information across the country, and some of them are private — there is a monetary component to that. Unfortunately, we have moved more toward the private, so that drives that a bit more. I say “unfortunately,” but maybe I shouldn’t say that because private business does a great job of research.
Twenty years ago, we had a lot of extension services, a lot of research and a lot of data that was available and free to producers. Free data, sometimes, isn’t worth as much as data that private business has developed. I think we can do more as far as disseminating data, but, generally speaking, I think government does a good job of sharing across the country, and people who can afford to subscribe to private data benefit from that.
Senator Cotter: I have so many questions, but I know, Ms. Robinson, that your time is short, so perhaps I can ask you one large question.
Each session that we have on this topic, I become more convinced of the astronomical significance of agriculture — and its connection to soil health — for our country. Senator Simons likes to repeat a weak little comment I made at the beginning, which was “I came to doubt and stayed to pray.” I’ll go for another literary observation in a moment.
It appears to me that despite your efforts, the efforts of all of you on the panel, the efforts of the chair, the voice of significance for producer prosperity, climate health, food security and the role in the future of the Canadian economy hasn’t — I was reminded, actually, as you were speaking, of the line from the song about Vincent van Gogh:
They would not listen, they’re not listening still
Perhaps they never will
What more can we do to get this message out to Canadians about the incredible power of this component of our economy, and the role that you and your colleagues play in the future of the country?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you, senator. All of you are asking such incredibly important and explosive questions.
When I think of that question, I think of agriculture in the classroom, of 4-H and of everything that we do. I think about how we can educate consumers to help them understand. I think of how it’s so unfortunate that we have an amazing Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Marie-Claude Bibeau — I feel that she does not have a strong enough voice within her system. I wish that we saw better dovetailing and recognition of just how important primary agriculture is in driving everything up to our $135 billion in GDP, and how soil is the absolute base of that.
As to how we increase the voice of significance, what we did at the CFA during COVID was we undertook the largest project of our history, and it was called Food for Thought. We privately funded that. It was a two-pronged campaign where we had both the public and government-facing component in order to try to drive policy that was going to better things for agriculture. We realize that the opportunity of this exists within urban Canada, in our opinion, and that included educating urban people.
COVID put it in our lap because we saw food shortages, and, suddenly, there was a light shone on how vulnerable our food system was — and a bit of a realization that milk doesn’t come from a shelf. You mean it does come from cows? It’s that connection. It’s funny and laughable, but, unfortunately, it’s also a big part of the problem. As you said, you came to doubt and you stayed to pray. I think everyone would feel the same way if they got a better understanding of just how important the foundation of our food system is.
Senator Cotter: Thank you. We need this discussion on prime-time TV.
The Chair: I have a quick question. You have heard the questions around data and sharing across the country. Is there a role for the CFA and your provincial member organizations to work with stakeholders in their provinces to better share data around soil health going forward? Is there a role for the CFA there?
Ms. Robinson: It’s probably not for the CFA, Mr. Chair — I would suggest it’s our provincial organizations. I’m well aware of what the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture has done in this regard, and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS, has done some great work. Provincially, we hear governments saying how important it is to have those provincial federations strong and robust, and I think it would be great to see more funding flow through to those organizations so that they can undertake this work — and they can come together with a single voice to the government as they lobby for change in policy that will impact soil health.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you to our witnesses for coming. I’m a new senator, so this is new to me. I am energized by working with these colleagues, and understanding the vast importance of agriculture — not only to the Canadian economy, but also to the health of our children. I’m pediatrician by training, so food insecurity is a huge issue for me.
I want to return to some of the issues that we heard from some of our speakers prior to this — it’s related to the transfer of knowledge, which is something that many of you spoke about. We have the same problem in medicine and health care with transferring knowledge to where it can be implemented. Could any of you — or all of you — speak to how this knowledge can be better transferred? How can it be more inclusive in the sense of involving small, young and medium-sized farms, as well as farmers who are young, Indigenous, Black or from other racialized groups? How can we transfer this knowledge? How can we spread this knowledge, and get the funding that is required for this to improve? Thank you.
Ms. Wilson: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, the knowledge transfer and the education are really critical. Speaking as a young farmer, you are starting out and you may be trying what your parents did, or you picked up a few things if you went to agriculture college. To echo some of the points that Ms. Robinson brought up — in terms of supporting our agrologists that we have in place — there are provincial agrologists, and, in New Brunswick, we have some non-profit groups that do some agrology work through the government. Supporting those people is critical in helping our new farmers — or maybe our producers that are more tentative — step out there and attend regional meetings, conferences or what have you.
There is work to do. I can’t really speak to what would be the best method, but finding ways to get farmers together, and talking about these things, is also really good and has many benefits.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. The living laboratories are one of these factors. This is one of the tools that we were able to use recently with the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, through the budgets that were set up. In fact, this has allowed Indigenous people to be part of the project.
This way of doing things makes it possible to mobilize researchers, advisers and producers and move towards a common goal. Even people from the community were there to support the producers by giving money to contribute to their efforts. This concept is often managed by organizations, as Ms. Robinson mentioned. You have to be able to bring this down to the level of producer organizations, because there is no better person to persuade a producer to change their practices than another producer. The database and benchmarking are important in terms of indicators.
[English]
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. I think it’s a really good one. We have talked about data, and data is an important part of this conversation. Step one is we need the data. We need the information, and we need to continue investing in research.
The second step is, as you said, we need to share that information. It’s not enough to just collect it, and then we have it — where we keep it in the government, or wherever, but we’re not sharing it with the people who actually need it. So not only do we need to collect it, but we need to share it and make it digestible for Canadians so that they can understand it, and they can actually implement it.
In terms of that knowledge transfer, there are a few things: We need to support farmers sharing information with other farmers. It’s not always on the government. It’s not always the government’s responsibility. There are good examples, like the Ontario Soil Network, which is a group of farmers, here in Ontario, who have taken it upon themselves to test different best management practices on the farm — and then they share it with other farmers in Ontario, through webcasts and different types of events; they also have blogs and all kinds of different information sharing. I think that’s good, but it’s not just about that. Farmers need to see themselves, as you have said — all ethnicities, races and genders across Canada — so it doesn’t always look like such a homogenized group, which it’s not. It’s very diverse and increasingly more diverse.
Senator Simons: I have a question for Ms. Wilson which is related to soil, but sort of sideways. You said that you and your husband own an abattoir. One of the things I have written and thought about a lot, being from Alberta, is the concentration in our beef-packing industry. We have two really big packing plants in Alberta that are doing almost all of the beef packing for the whole country, and there’s a smaller one in Guelph. I imagine that creates real challenges for beef producers outside of the Prairie West.
If we’re trying to encourage more people to maintain herds, what is the role of small, provincially regulated abattoirs in diversifying access — specifically, maybe, for the beef producers who are price takers and not getting very high prices at the moment, whereas consumers are paying an incredibly high price for beef at the moment. What do you think is the role of the network of smaller provincial abattoirs in providing a backstop for beef producers and also an option for consumers?
Ms. Wilson: Thanks for your question. Yes, we have a very small abattoir. We have only three employees. This is the sort of consumer that we service: local farmers looking for another option. The small, local abattoirs are a huge part in making this system work, especially if we’re looking to move some of our land back to grazing, as well as increase our herds, especially in Eastern Canada.
I think a challenge for the small abattoirs is the red tape: the amount of paperwork that comes along with owning a small business like this. You are dealing with a food product, so that’s understandable in terms of the inspection and the licensing, but there are a lot of roadblocks. We purchased an existing abattoir, so we made it work.
Speaking from my experience, I know of a young fellow looking to build his own, and the cost of building even a small abattoir is such that the numbers don’t work; the bank won’t give him money. In New Brunswick, we have some great programs to help either younger people or older people build abattoirs, but I think more could be done. I’m not sure what more would be, but 100% small abattoirs — and smaller sorts of processing for vegetables. Could we bring small vegetable producers together to act as a co-op to sell? I think it’s not restricted to meat. I think there are a lot of opportunities there that we’re not tapping into.
Senator Simons: Mr. Caron and Mr. Berrigan, we heard from witnesses earlier this week about the whole issue of early adopters, and how all the incentive programs leave the early adopters feeling left behind. They were the ones, as Ms. Robinson said, who took the risk, who put their own capital in, who experimented — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not so successfully at first — and now they see their neighbours, who were laggards and who were procrastinating, receiving all kinds of incentives to adopt without the risk that they ran first.
How do we set up a program that recognizes the importance of those pioneers who broke trail for everyone else, and not just reward the people who didn’t take the risk?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. I will let Mr. Bernier answer it.
Daniel Bernier, Agricultural Research and Policy Advisor — Environment, Union des producteurs agricoles: The question is a good one. It is true that there are pioneering farmers who are investing and taking risks, particularly with regard to carbon. Some have been sequestering carbon in the soil for a very long time, but the current system of incentives and recognition does not necessarily take that into account.
A formula should be found to recognize these efforts, because these people certainly have an important role to play in changing agricultural practices. The formula has yet to be found. There are certainly incentives that could be devised to reward these people.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Berrigan: Senator, it’s an excellent question. I do not have a good answer for you. The government made a decision. They drew a line in the sand in, I think, January 2017. Anything before that was not going to be recognized, and anything after that will be. I understand that you need to draw a line somewhere, and that measurement is a difficult thing, but I think — going back to my very first comment — incentives are so key. What message does that send? What incentive are you putting in place when you’re not recognizing the efforts of those early adopters? I share your frustration is the best answer I could provide.
Senator Klyne: I have a question for Ms. Wilson. Young farmers have many things they need to consider when running a farm. I’m being mindful that running a farm operation can be very consuming with many priorities that require attention. Is soil health a priority for young farmers?
Ms. Wilson: Thank you for your question. I would hesitate to speak for all young farmers. With my background in soil health, it is a priority for me personally. It would probably depend on the farmer. Soil — and the idea of having a productive soil — would 100% be a priority for young farmers. I think some farmers may be still learning about the idea of soil health and what soil health is.
I’m not sure if that answers your question. There is definitely more of a need to educate farmers — young farmers — about soil health, but soil is 100% a priority. The idea of soil health might be something that could use a little more education.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. I was going to ask if there are any specific tools or processes that they are using. Instead I’ll ask this: In the interests of good soil and productive soil, would they be interested in some initiatives in that regard? Do you see that being led by them, or should the government play a role in helping young farmers learn about soil health and productive soil?
Ms. Wilson: Those are excellent questions. I think there is a lot of room for different avenues to approach this education. Individuals and young farmers are going to have their best ways of learning and coming into new practices. Something, in my experience, that has worked really well is — my brother also farms, and he has been working with one of the local provincial agrologists on some new programs that they have for soil testing and aspects like that. That has been a great avenue for him to learn more about soil health and the importance of soil fertility.
There is also an avenue for bringing our farmers together to talk about these things. I think that networking is something that we’re missing — the sharing of our practices and our ideas. It would be huge to have the opportunity to have those conversations. We’re coming out of COVID — I don’t want to put blame there, but I think we are missing that connection with others, so I think there is room there.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Mr. Bernier or Mr. Caron, Quebec covers a vast geographic area ranging from Montreal all the way up to the northern regions of the province. Have your members reported any concerns regarding the state of — or the condition of — soil health depending on the region they farm in?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. Yes, this has been discussed. We have submitted requests to the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that we have an assessment, an overview. Moreover, we have some tools that allow us to go further. More specifically, we’re talking about making a carbon neutral assessment. In Quebec, we are starting to have tools that allow us to see a little further. With the clay soils we have in Quebec, the soil compaction factor has to be considered; more research is needed on that aspect.
Senator Petitclerc: Mr. Berrigan, do you want to add to the information from earlier about the effectiveness and knowledge of successful practices and good research across Canada?
[English]
I think you had something to add to that.
Mr. Berrigan: I alluded earlier that there are organizations up and running. I know of at least one in Ontario that has farmers sharing information with other farmers. Increasingly, that is an important vehicle to encourage the adoption of best management practices. A farmer will have much more interest in what another farmer will say — about what is working on their farm — than what a level of government will say about should — or shouldn’t — be happening on their farm. The sharing of best management practices from farmer to farmer is a really successful model.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron and Mr. Bernier, I would like to talk about pesticides. Our purpose here is not at all to demonize pesticides. When we look at Canada’s record in terms of use, quantity, supervision and restrictions compared to other countries, especially Europe, I get the impression that we still have work to do. Do we still have work to do in terms of supervision, quantity and restrictions? What are the reasons why some European countries, for example, seem to perform better than we do? How can we support our farmers in this process? Are we doing it well? Should we be doing it better?
Mr. Caron: Thank you for the question. I will start and Mr. Bernier can complete my answer, if he wishes.
From the outset, it should be mentioned that we have tools, whether in Quebec or in Canada. We have environmental and health risk indicators. We are the first players in the field of pesticides. We are seen in a positive light on the international scene in this area. We want to use this tool and develop it further, in particular to show that we use pesticides that are less risky for the environment.
It would be beneficial to promote this tool to pass on more knowledge to producers. Organic production has increased and biopesticides are used; there is also management to be done there. This is research and innovation, and this is really where we’re headed. I spoke earlier about doing a carbon balance. When we do a carbon balance, there are other important indicators, such as the use of pesticides. Our farms form an ecosystem. We cannot say that we are going one way or the other, and we have to look at the situation as a whole and know the impacts for everyone. Mr. Bernier, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Bernier: I might add that although I cannot speak for all of Canada, I can tell you that we are fairly regulated in Quebec. We have standards, but improvements can always be made. What we’re trying to do with pesticides is to apply as little as possible. Our practices compare favourably with what is done in the rest of the world.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again to our witnesses. I reach back in my memory to when I collected soil samples in the early 1970s with my cousin watching me to ensure I did a good, random sampling of the field, not just in one corner. I think about how — even on rented land — he valued soil health. That’s 50 years ago.
I’m troubled by the fact that we’re not applying the knowledge we know through our policies and regulations. We’re not applying the net new knowledge we have gained. I have commercialized research in several sectors; I have a sense of how hard it is. I do think there is an extreme naivety in Ottawa as to the challenges associated with scaling knowledge across an industry. Policies must harness vested interest and solve big problems for those who want to use the knowledge, or you have to reward them for good practices.
I’ve been getting a sense throughout this meeting, but I want to get a good sense of how well we solve big problems and reward good practices. Clearly, we’re not doing that well at all — in regulation and policy — in this country as it relates to soil health, as well as improving farmgate income and sequestering carbon in this industry. Perhaps each of you could speak to my reminiscence of the last 50 years, and how little progress we have made.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll start where you began. In regard to soil sampling and ensuring you’re capturing the whole field — to return to an earlier point — precision agriculture is a big part of the solution when it comes to protecting and preserving our soil resources in Canada. Precision agriculture technology can do things like variable rate and nitrogen application to make sure you’re not overspraying a field — all kinds of things. It’s really amazing what they can do. But we need to make sure that the right incentives are in place to adopt these technologies. I am going on a bit of a tangent here, but I think it’s important.
Going back to Bill C-244, and the right to repair machinery, farmers need the incentive to continue to adopt precision agriculture technology. If they do not have that incentive because they are not able to repair it — when they have that small weather window to fix their machinery — then it acts as a disincentive toward the adoption of that technology and, ultimately, soil health.
In terms of your broader question about how we can collectively solve this problem, it’s a complicated problem. You have provincial and federal jurisdiction issues. It’s also regionally based. Mr. Caron alluded to that earlier — we are dealing with different soil-related challenges in different parts of the country.
I don’t have an answer for your question because it is such a complex question, but continuing to collect the data, as I said earlier, to share that information, and to support farmers in sharing that information with other farmers, is a big part of the solution.
Senator C. Deacon: If we don’t harness vested interest with farmers, and solve their big problems and reward their best practices through regulation and policy, we won’t make much progress — is that fair?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes, of course. I think that’s fair.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Everyone is in favour of virtue, but the fact remains that, for the farm operator, the greatest concern is profitability. So we have an economic challenge ahead of us. The changes and the complexity of the systems that agricultural producers are asked to put in place are huge. As we said, there is a real challenge for short-term profitability. That’s where the state needs to step in to support this transition.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: To be fair, I don’t think it’s good to rely on the good interests of farmers to serve society. We have to help them do that. Is that true for younger farmers as well?
Ms. Wilson: That’s definitely true.
Senator Cotter: Initially, I wanted to ask a question about young farmers. I’m thinking about this, in particular, from the perspective of Saskatchewan. You made the observation about the challenge of young farmers getting into and staying in the farming business.
Farms are getting larger. The capital investment is enormous. Occasional interventions — by the government — to try to constrain that have generally been unsuccessful and, in some cases, denounced, even by farming communities. Are there options, mechanisms or roles that governments can play without too much disrupting market forces on that front?
While I’m at it, I will ask my second question, which really flowed from some remarks by Ms. Robinson. She identified that, particularly in some jurisdictions, carbon sequestration was declining, but my understanding from some earlier witnesses is that in the West — where there have been continuing processes of annual crops and the like — carbon sequestration has been noticeably significant.
Mr. Berrigan, can you speak to my question about young farmers first?
Ms. Wilson: Thank you for your question — it’s tough striking that balance between what help and encouragement we can provide, and whether we can still be competitive.
Any help would be better than leaving it to the wills that be. Different provinces are doing some really interesting things. In New Brunswick, our federation of agriculture — the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick — has been putting on some really good programs to help young farmers become involved with mentors, and connected to existing farmers that may be looking to pass things on and move forward. I think there is room there.
I really can’t speak to what that would look like, but we can’t ignore the story of the age of farmers and the challenges that I hear from young farmers. This issue is too important not to do so.
Senator Cotter: One of the things you identified was younger, better-educated farmers who are more progressive and maybe more open to new ideas. Is there access to capital for people to get into the farming business, from your perspective, as one potential barrier?
Ms. Wilson: I think that’s a huge challenge. For some, maybe it’s possible — but, in general, it’s not possible for many, I would say. I can’t speak for everyone, but, in my experience, that is one of the major challenges.
Senator Cotter: Thanks, Ms. Wilson.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. Our understanding of the data flown from AAFC is that a couple of things have happened: First, it’s about when you start counting. I think you’re absolutely right that there has been tremendous progress, particularly in Western Canada over the last 20 or 30 years, in the amount of sequestration that is happening in our soils — as a result of increasing adoption of conservation tillage practices, such as no-till and strip tilling, as well as increased summer fallow, which is where they leave a field untouched basically.
In Eastern Canada — where there has been adoption of many of those same best practices — there are other competing trends which are countervailing and pulling us down a bit in Eastern Canada. As Ms. Robinson alluded to, we have dramatically reduced herd sizes in Eastern Canada as a result of BSE, or Mad Cow Disease. Dairy farmers have also become much more efficient at producing more milk with fewer cows, so they need less acreage to support that herd. We have also seen increasing — and more stable — prices on a lot of cash crops. It’s simply more profitable to farm corn and soy beans in eastern Ontario.
Senator Simons: I want to follow up on what Mr. Berrigan said. I was a journalist in Edmonton at the beginning of the BSE crisis. I’m perplexed to hear that is still a factor in eastern herds since there was no BSE, that I can recall, found in cattle from the East, and the problem has resolved itself with stringent new feed standards. All the Asian markets have opened back up to Canadian beef. Why do you think that BSE is still a factor in Eastern Canada? I’m perplexed by that.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. From my understanding, it’s not necessarily that there is a presence of BSE; that’s not the issue. It was simply that the reduction in stocks was so dramatic when this hit in 2006. It was a 22% reduction — 3 million head of cattle — when this happened, which dramatically reduced the amount of pasture that one needed to have accessible for feed for those cattle. The reduction, combined with very unstable cattle markets and cattle prices internationally, has been acting as a disincentive for a lot of local cash cow operators from investing in increasing their herd. There is a huge lead time associated with it because of how long it takes to increase your herd. It’s simply a carry-over from the massive reduction in the early 2000s that has restricted the size of the herd, from what I understand.
Senator Simons: I’m very surprised by that because there were herd reductions in Alberta, absolutely, but no one ever found a cow with prion disease in Eastern Canada. I wouldn’t have thought the eastern herds would be affected at all. It’s interesting to hear you say that. I’m surprised.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks again to our witnesses. This is a very important meeting, in my estimation.
Ms. Wilson, I would like to focus on the challenge that so many of our farmers have my hair colour, but we’re not getting the same intergenerational transfers as we once did — despite Bill C-208 being passed.
I worry about younger folks. Our next generation of farmers came from farm families in the past. I worry that we’re not creating the circumstances where enough are wanting to take over. My goodness, it has to be a very tough industry to enter into if you didn’t grow up in it, because so much of the knowledge and skills are passed down. Child labour was certainly a thing on the farm in the family I grew up in; you would learn from a very young age.
I want to speak to that challenge, and really think about it, and the increasing opportunity that there is in farming and agriculture if we take a different approach to managing our regulations and our policies in order to incentivize farmers to become the cutting-edge appliers of best practices that they have to be — and we recognize that in them, and we reward and reduce the risks accordingly.
Can you speak about the challenges we have been talking about in this meeting in the context of recruiting the next generation of farmers, with haste, because of the need for them — so that we can eat?
Ms. Wilson: Thanks for your question. We’re definitely at a very interesting point. We are going to need some of our young people who have been growing up in urban areas. We’re going to need them to be our farmers. I don’t know what the exact solution is, but I think about Agriculture in the Classroom as having a really important role.
We need to be changing the perception of farmers in our children and youth. Some of the initiatives that Agriculture in the Classroom is doing include bringing young farmers into high schools or elementary schools — where the students are able to see that face, and think, “This could be me. It’s not just my grandfather, my uncle or what have you.” I think it’s about changing the perception. We are gaining ground in doing that. That definitely has a role — education is so critical.
In New Brunswick, we finally have an agriculture course that is going to be offered in high schools. Up until this point, we really haven’t. We need that to be a priority — getting our young people educated about the reality of agriculture and the opportunities in agriculture.
Senator Burey: Thank you, again, so much to our witnesses. I’m learning a lot, which is great. I have a few questions for Mr. Caron and Mr. Berrigan.
We have the same problem in health care, I have to tell you — it’s a system-wide problem. I go back to the knowledge translation, and making sure that people know what is out there. I heard a number of programs mentioned, but what I heard from previous witnesses is that they didn’t know about the existence of these programs, and they didn’t know how to get the funding.
Mr. Berrigan, is there a role for the government in ensuring that you have a dashboard or a data set for those programs in order to widely distribute those programs, whether it is through the producers or various organizations, to ensure that — of course, I always have an equity lens — people of diverse communities get to know that?
The next tie-in to that is the funding programs that are available. We heard from witnesses that they didn’t know that any of these programs existed, or that they could not access them due to various barriers.
My final question is about tracking the metrics of who gets access to these programs. I think Mr. Caron alluded to some of those programs, such as the Living Laboratories Initiative and farmgate for Indigenous groups and producer organizations. Are you tracking these metrics? Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Thanks for the question. For the first question, I would tell you that the tools... I may not have mentioned it earlier, but in Quebec, we are starting to have caravans called Caravane Santé des sols. They travel to the regions and invite producers to collaborate. This is also linked to the living laboratories that are there. There is something really interesting going on there, and we can do even more.
I mentioned earlier that the federal government should be working more with provincial organizations, such as agricultural producer organizations. I strongly believe in this, because it creates a communication link. I think it’s a way to make sure our people are aware of programs and incentives.
In terms of monitoring, by the same token, organizations are accountable, and that’s what allows us to have indicators and benchmarks for the next few years, to know what the trend is, and to determine if there can be an increase in all of that. There is one factor that I would like to emphasize, because it has not been talked about much yet, but we must not forget that we are currently in an inflationary system, with rising interest rates.
So, soil health is important to agricultural producers. However, the economic and financial impact of current inflation is huge for our businesses. Supporting producers and farms in these circumstances is very important. I am thinking particularly of young people, who are in an even more difficult situation, as their debt load is much higher.
We have seen an increase in the number of farms. In Quebec, we had not seen an increase since the 1940s. This year, the number has increased to about 460 farms. We can see that there is a craze, but we need risk management programs to support well-established businesses.
[English]
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator; it’s a good one. Regarding the first question, whether the government is doing a good job of raising awareness, and getting the information out there about the programs and funding that’s available to farmers — I think they are doing a pretty good job. But it’s a challenging environment because programs change constantly, right? There is always new funding; it’s often being rebranded. It’s difficult for producers — at the farmgate level — to keep track of the different funding streams and eligibility. It’s conversations happening on different planes, which is a bit of a challenge. That’s where, I think, a lot of the provincial and local producer associations, all the way down to your agrologists and certified crop advisers — I know they are more focused on the agronomy, or the soil health side of it — have a role to support farmers in translating a lot of the information coming out. There’s always room for improvement.
In regard to the tracking and the data, I know the government collects what they would call gender-based analysis data on all programming. It’s not just about gender — it’s also about age, demographic, ethnicity, everything. They should have this information. I hope they are using it to design and adapt their programs to reach all of the various corners of our community that need access to this funding. It does exist.
Senator Burey: Could we get some of those metrics? Is there a way for us to get that?
Mr. Berrigan: That’s a good question. I would put that question to the Government of Canada — to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
The Chair: Senator Burey, you asked that question on Tuesday night, didn’t you?
Senator Burey: Yes, I did.
The Chair: We’ll see what we get.
Senator C. Deacon: I keep going back to the issue of the early adopters, in effect, being penalized because we’re rewarding the latecomers to the party. I think there is an opportunity here to reward farmers — because there is no permanence of soil carbons, right; it’s a constant change — for the net level of carbon in their soils. As that net grows and remains, they are being rewarded. Effectively, that would reward those who came to the party early, and not disincentivize those who are coming late. What are your thoughts on that?
I’m befuddled that our policy-makers could think that the approach they have taken is an effective one to achieve the goal that we all have. If we could start with Mr. Berrigan, but I would really like to hear from all our witnesses in that regard.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. I think that’s a good proposal. Frankly, I would love to have a conversation with the government about how — and why — they made the conclusion of where to draw the line in the sand regarding where to start recognizing some of the best management practices that are leading toward increased sequestration.
Senator C. Deacon: It seemed to be a real gap in thinking based on the practice of reality, didn’t it?
Mr. Berrigan: I’m sure a number of options were considered. I would like to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation to understand how they landed on it. I’m sure there are reasons, but we could give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think there is a role here for private industry and new technology to come into play when measuring on-farm emissions directly — so that we don’t fall into this discussion around averaging it out over the entire country where, as Mr. Caron alluded to earlier, we have such regional differences. It’s such a nuanced story. Every farm is different. From what I understand, this technology does exist. It would be great if we could find a way to support the adoption of this technology on farms so that each farmer has the information they need regarding how they are doing on emissions reduction more generally.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: To answer the question specifically, I would say to you that there may be a way to do this. We could use a compliance declaration. This is a practice that exists in Quebec, but that could be used at the federal level. The producer declares how long he has been carrying out sequestration activities or other work that has been beneficial. This is a declaration. Then the advisers can validate the farm’s work. There are ways of simplifying things and recognizing those pioneers who have really contributed. I think of the organic producers, who have done a lot of work on this.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: To extend it to the cattle industry and grasslands, I look at sustainable beef, as well as the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, and the fact that they are maintaining lands that have a long history of carbon sequestration. When those lands get turned over to canola farming, that carbon is then released. Many people look at beef as a negative — based, I think, on misinformation. We look at a beef cow, and the cut-down of the Brazilian rainforest as being the same as one on Western grasslands being maintained — and they are not at all the same.
How do we make sure that we are addressing that in our policies, and then helping to better educate? I think the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is doing a great job in that regard, but we need to do more. Could each of you speak to that for a bit?
Mr. Berrigan: That’s an excellent question. There is this perceived contradiction. Part of it is spreading that story about all of the various ways that Canadian cattle producers are approaching this in a more sustainable way, including new technologies and feed additives that reduce methane emissions as part of that production system. It is a complicated one and, seemingly, a bit contradictory at times, but I think that tremendous leaps and bounds have been made in that sector, in particular, and there is more to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: I would add two things. With regard to cattle, we often talk about the methane created as a result of manure. Every time we work the soil, we release nitric oxide. This substance is much more damaging than methane. So we need more information and education on this, and we need an ecosystem. If we want our organic farmers to run their farms, we need manure; it’s a cycle. We need to add more value to our animal production, whether it’s beef or dairy.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, there are no more questions, so I do want to thank Mr. Caron, Mr. Bernier, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Berrigan. Please pass along our thanks to Ms. Robinson as well. Thank you very much for your participation today. Your assistance with this study is very much appreciated, and it will take us a long way. I would like to thank our committee members for their active participation and the, always, thoughtful questions. I really appreciate it.
I want to also thank the folks that are around the room: our translators, our interpreters and those that are working to make sure that people can see us on the World Wide Web, as well as our page, broadcasting team, et cetera. Thanks very much.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, at 6:30 p.m., where we will continue to hear from witnesses on the committee’s soil health study. We will now go in camera for a short time.
(The committee continued in camera.)