---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, March 9, 2023

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; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).

Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning. It is good to see everyone back. I welcome members of our committee, our witnesses here today in person and online, and those watching on the web as well. My name is Rob Black, a senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee. Today, the committee is meeting to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from witnesses, I will ask senators to introduce themselves.

Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, a senator for Saskatchewan.

Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, a senator for the Yukon.

Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.

Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Petitclerc, and I represent the senatorial division of Grandville, Quebec.

[English]

Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.

Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.

Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.

The Chair: I would like to remind everyone that should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal the chair and/or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.

Today, for our first panel, we welcome, from the Grain Growers of Canada, Erin Gowriluk, Executive Director; and Jocelyn Velestuk, a farmer from Saskatchewan. Welcome. From the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, we are joined by Rebecca Lee, Executive Director; and joining us via video conference from the Hebert Group is Kristjan Hebert, President.

I will invite you to make your presentations. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will signal when one minute is left and when you have 10 seconds remaining. At that point, it is time you wrapped up. I understand Ms. Velestuk will be speaking first. Please go ahead.

Jocelyn Velestuk, Farmer, Grain Growers of Canada: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I farm near Broadview, Saskatchewan. I have a master’s degree in Soil Science from the University of Saskatchewan and operate an independent agronomy consulting business. I am a member of the Expert Advisory Council of the Grain Growers of Canada “Road to 2050” project and sit on the Grain Growers of Canada’s Sustainability Committee. I am also Director of the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission, where I sit on their research committee and serve as Secretary and Treasurer of the Canadian Wheat Research Coalition.

I have a passion for soil science and sustainable agriculture which stems from my education and research in soil science, my experience in environmental consulting and consulting with farmers in the areas of agronomy and soil fertility, in addition to my experience co-managing our family farm business. On our farm, we grow hard red spring wheat, barley, oats, peas, mustard, flax, canola, winter wheat, fall rye, winter triticale, durum, as well as perennial and annual forages for our beef cattle operation.

Soil is the base of grain production, and farmers understand the importance of conserving our soil resource. While soil health can be a subjective term, there has been a lot of research in soil quality; soil chemistry and fertility; soil physics, including soil compaction and bulk density; and soil microbiology, which is important to how organic matter breaks down in the soil to cycle nutrients. All of those aspects of soil science are important research areas to build a better understanding of our soil resource and how to best predict nutrient release and soil processes. Improvements in technology that measure soil organic carbon in the soil can help us analyze more samples in a more efficient way to gain a better understanding of variances of soil organic carbon.

Soils are diverse regionally across Canada and even within a single field, where you can often find different types of soil with different processes and properties. I have gained firsthand knowledge by having the privilege to dig in a wide range of soils and landscapes across Saskatchewan in my research and consulting work. Most soil survey mapping and data collection occurred in the 1980s in the Prairies and have been tabulated into an online mapping platform in Saskatchewan. Specific agricultural areas can build and improve on the soil survey digital maps with improved LiDAR data and other layers of data to get a better understanding of soil properties, such as soil organic carbon, and to help direct sample points for soil fertility measurements in the field. Ground truthing the data is also important to improve these maps.

Farmer-driven adaptation to changing conditions through research and technology development has been a cornerstone of the Canadian grain farming industry. Practices such as direct seeding and no-till/continuous cropping are based largely on keeping the soil in place, which has provided benefits such as better soil tilth; improved moisture conservation through snow catch from standing stubble; and a mulch protecting the soil surface while creating concentrated layers of microbial activity, nutrient release as well as positive soil carbon change.

Long-term studies, such as the Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project, have found that there is still incremental positive carbon change, even 30 years after the switch to no-till/continuous cropping practices, and that the gains occur even deeper in the soil profile than originally thought. Saskatchewan farmers sequester enough carbon in the soil every year to be equivalent to removing 10 million cars from the roads.

This positions Canadian Prairie farmers to continue to lead in soil conservation and soil management, contributing to sustainable grain production for future generations. When I think of my children farming our land, I think of making sure we manage our soils so that they are able to grow crops and be successful in the future of our farm business.

Given the right information through research and extension, as well as new technologies such as the measurement of soil organic carbon and better predicting of soil nutrient release, farmers will continue to adapt and make decisions that will allow for increased improvement of our soil resource while we maintain or increase production from the land we farm.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rebecca Lee, Executive Director, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada: Mr. Chair and member of the committee, good morning.

The 1984 Senate report on soil health entitled Soil at Risk: Canada’s Eroding Future led to huge changes in the understanding of soil health across Canada, most importantly to the adoption rates of no-till and low-till practices on farms across Canada. We appreciate the committee’s and specifically Senator Black’s focus since the beginning of his appointment to this committee on an updated study on soil health.

Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada is humbled to appear during this new Senate study, and we are pleased to provide some suggestions for supporting policy. We represent fruit and vegetable growers across the country involved in the production of over 120 different types of crops on 14,000 farms.

As climate change impacts the globe and issues surrounding food security continue to grow, Canada can and must play an even more important role in feeding the world. Growers are at the forefront of battling climate change and developing innovative practices to improve their sustainability on farm, both as good stewards of the land and as intelligent business practitioners. Growers don’t believe in waste; it simply costs too much. Initiatives such as the Potato Sustainability Alliance, developed by industry 15 years ago, helped by providing research and information to growers on best practices.

Soil health is an important part of the conversation around climate change adaptation and sustainable agricultural practices. While most of the land used for growing food in Canada is privately owned, improved soil management is a public good. Healthy soil also has many non-agricultural benefits that become even more important considering climate change. For instance, healthy soil holds water better, which limits flooding and aids in temperature regulation for our delicate climate.

Canada might look to the U.K. for a model on how to reward producers for this contribution. The U.K. government has worked with farmers to design programs to pay them for actions they take to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way above regulatory requirements. The upfront costs to implement sustainable farming are significant, especially so for horticulture when compared per square metre. The potential for initial yield loss during the transition process represents significant barriers, especially since current inflation conditions have vastly increased the number of farms operating on no or razor-thin margins. As has been said before, we can’t go green if we are in the red.

In the fall of 2022, FVGC conducted a survey among our growers to understand what barriers they were facing to adopting clean agricultural practices, and 67% of respondents said they had to delay plans to implement smart ag practices because they had to reallocate resources. For many growers, making those changes simply is not possible. While the Canadian government does offer support, its support lags well behind the need of Canadian producers and behind our main trading partners. A recent report from RBC showed that U.S. climate funding represents 1.7% of its farm gate receipts, the EU’s climate funding totals 1.8%, while Canada lags at 0.5%.

Canadian growers would benefit from a national soil strategy developed in partnership with producers to explore and research the best ways to manage soil health targets and explore the technological challenges of implementing new methods of measuring soil characteristics and developing advice for growers based on regionality. The government’s support could include assisting farmers with the upfront costs of soil sampling to help establish accurate baselines from which to measure improvement. A national soil data sharing program, with proper consultation with producers regarding data sharing and privacy concerns addressed, could be developed to identify which practices work best in each region.

Canadian growers also need increased extension services to guide that implementation. That is another area where Canada lags far behind our American counterparts. American programs offer support for planning and implementation along with coordination of the various grants and benefits eligible to producers. Canadian growers, on the other hand, must pay for expensive consultants who are not necessarily aware of funding opportunities and able to give the specialized guidance growers need to take best advantage of support programs. They lack support as well during the application process. Wait times are incredibly long, and they often don’t receive feedback or updates.

Another issue we want to bring to the attention of the committee is the issue of land conversion. In British Columbia, Heppell’s Farm, run by the Heppell family who has been farming for over 103 years, is currently being considered by the federal government for disposition, which could see the area developed. Ontario is losing approximately 70 hectares of farmland per day, according to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. According to the FAO, less than 5% of Canada’s land is suitable for arable agriculture, and with climate change that percentage is likely to shift. Canada needs to prioritize agriculture and engage its policy-makers, public, politicians and city planners to end exploitation of the best food land for non-agriculture development.

The growers of Canada need your support to make sure they can continue to grow healthy food for Canadians and for people around the world. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Kristjan Hebert, President, Hebert Group: Good morning, and thanks for the invitation from the committee.

I am a farmer from southeast Saskatchewan, and I like to say I am a recovering accountant. I did my CPA all in agriculture and spent a lot of time on data analysis. What drove me back to wanting to farm was the data and understanding of the business of farming. We run a 30,000-acre farm at Moosomin, Saskatchewan. We grow malt, barley, wheat, yellow peas, sometimes oats, hybrid rye, and really, whatever is best both for economics and the soil at our operation. We live and run our business on the motto “respect the past and grow the future.” I read a quote the other day that I thought hit home for myself and I believe anybody in agriculture and in our nation: Our job as parents is to leave a better world for our kids and to leave better kids for the world.

In our operation, and I believe many operations in Canada, we’ve been practising sustainable practices way before it became the marketing buzzword we’ve seen in the last 24–36 months. I am encouraged by the discussion and the work on a new national soil health study because I do believe it can maximize opportunities for the agriculture industry in Canada.

I would like to tell you a little bit about what we do on our farm. We take great care in doing four-acre grid samples to better understand each quarter section, each section and each area of our farm. Those soil samples lead to more data analytics that allow us to fertilize exactly where the plants are going to need it in order to maximize the output on each individual acre as well as the soil sustainability of each individual acre. However, we know there are a number of farms that are not consistently soil sampling. I read some stats from Olds College this morning that 60% of farms are soil sampling. People have already mentioned that the cost is one of the hindrances. We know that’s an area that we would like to see the soil study look at and where policy could come in. For us, it averages $7.50 an acre. We believe it is the right thing to do, and so we do it, and we believe it financially helps the farm — not only understanding the soil, but helping the financials.

In our mind, that is sustainability. There are many pieces to agriculture sustainability. Obviously, the first is the land and the soil, but the second is the financials. I really enjoyed the line, “It is tough to be green if we are in the red.” The third piece is rural communities. If there is nobody in rural communities, it doesn’t matter what we want to do, because there is nobody to do the work in agriculture. Fourth would be the sustainability of the industry itself.

We know and have data to prove that extensive soil testing is both good for the environment and for our finances. In the long run, it helps us save money because we don’t over-fertilize, and it ensures we put the fertilizer on the correct acres to maximize production. As many of us know, fertilizer has doubled in price over the last year, and there is continued volatility. It is imperative that we don’t use more than we have to.

With our 30 years of soil testing data, we have recently begun sharing that information with the University of Saskatchewan and Dr. Angela Bedard-Haughn, the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Biosciences. She runs an impressive research program out of her lab and is doing incredible work on digital soil mapping. We are excited to be collaborating with her and are confident that this work will demonstrate how our farming practices, including zero till and low till, have had a positive impact on organic matter in the soil at our farm, even on fields that have been under our management for 40-plus years.

As we embark on the soil study, there are a few points we would like to have considered. First, I would like to stress the importance of consistent soil testing across the country being a key part of the soil survey. Obviously, this may mean the sharing of data between farms and ensuring that the results of the study become publicly available. This allows private innovation to flourish. I know of several startups and innovative companies that use soil sensors to measure the moisture and nutrients in the soil. Sharing this information and making it accessible to private industry will allow new ideas, technologies and strategies to come forward. Second, as mentioned, LiDAR is a technology used to measure elevation, and it is an important part of the soil survey. Third, and probably most important, I would like to see the creation of a soil innovation cluster which could mimic the success of the protein industry’s cluster.

The best outcome of this study would be a robust set of public data measuring nutrients, carbon, water and elevation, and then research and development grants will allow for huge strides to be made in the area of soil and agriculture innovation. The worst outcome of this study would be an increase in government regulation, policy and rhetoric. It would be disheartening as a farmer if the results of the study are used to create more barriers and rules for farmers. In fact, I think this study could unleash new opportunities for the agriculture industry and private businesses.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks to our witnesses and your early testimony.

Before proceeding to questions, I want to remind members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earphone when doing so. This will help avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff supporting us in the room.

As with previous practice, I would remind senators that you have five minutes for your questions and answers. We will go through a series of rounds, if needed. We plan to wrap up at 9:55. If we are not through all the questions, I apologize upfront. We would normally start with our deputy chair, who isn’t here. She may be watching us, so Paula, just know that we are thinking of you.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

My question is about Saskatchewan and is probably for Jocelyn. In Saskatchewan, a soil health assessment protocol and scoring function was created for producers and farmers to track soil health status over time. This measures the effect of farm management on soil health status and provides a foundation to develop tools to monitor and adjust management plans. Having a standardized test and system is helpful to improve soil health through clear targets and systems. Are you aware of any other standardized, science-based soil health tests in other provinces?

Ms. Velestuk: Thank you for the question.

I am familiar with the soil nutrient tests, which are the biggest tests for economics related to soil fertility. Farmers can look at them to figure out what fertilizers they can use to add nutrients to their crop.

As for standardized soil testing for soil health, I think it’s really important to keep in mind why we need this information. What is the output of this information? How can we directly apply the output of the information to farmers? I think the soil nutrients test is one of the biggest and most important of the soil tests. We have a soil test that’s been done for years and years that can be improved on.

On my own farm and with my agronomy consulting, I use plant root simulating probes and a modelling program called the Cropcaster by Western Ag, and that predicted soil nutrient release from the soil while it was functioning. There is also soil organic carbon testing, which has been done by combustion in labs. That can be improved on greatly. We need new and different types of tests that can show us more and better data so we can get a better picture of what’s happening in our soils.

Mr. Hebert: I could add a couple of points to basically follow up on Jocelyn.

The one thing I would comment on is that the more we focused on soil in the last 10 years, the less I understand about soil. We have four-foot probes measuring nutrient release and measuring how water is infiltrating the soil and being uptaken into the plant. We did a collaboration last year where we did the full carbon burn-off and bulk density soil tests. The issue with them is that they are pretty deep soil tests, and — especially in our area of Saskatchewan — we have a rock problem. Therefore, doing it becomes a financial burden. I believe we have the science and data behind how to do most of these tests. Where we need innovation is around new technologies in testing and probably the use of algorithms and machine learning in order to create our soil survey maps for the whole country. But that’s the part that really surprised me. As farmers, we’ve done a pretty good job of understanding what the crop is doing above the ground, but the more we understand about soil, the less we understand and the more we can learn from it.

Senator Oh: Earlier, you mentioned you have 30,000 acres of farm. Are they all in operation?

Mr. Hebert: Yes. When I moved home, my dad did 3,000 acres in 2008. We crop just over 30,000 acres now.

Senator Oh: That’s quite a size. Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: My question is to the whole panel. In January, I attended a conference on agriculture and food security. The various panellists emphasized the important role Canada has in ensuring not only domestic but global food security. They highlighted Canada’s capacity to produce food, but they also discussed how we need to increase production in the agricultural sector while also reducing emissions — a tough task, I think. Can you comment on the relationship between soil health, agricultural production and the need to reduce emissions? May I start with you, Ms. Lee?

Ms. Lee: The relationship between soil health?

Senator Jaffer: Soil health, agricultural production and the need to reduce emissions. If you are not ready, we can go to someone else.

Ms. Lee: Yes. I will think about it.

Ms. Velestuk: I can take that on.

I’ve been working with my own farm and other farms for many years now, so I get to see the nutrients and how they flux with different years. We’ve been through floods and droughts. We’ve been through weather conditions that are short season, long growing seasons and early frost. We see from the soil results that nitrogen will go up and down, and the nutrient release from the mineralization of the organic matter will change in time as well as from year to year.

Some years, if we have had a very large production of a crop, my analysis of the soil shows that there is not a lot of nitrogen left because that crop took that up. Maybe we had a lot of rain that washed the nitrogen down because nitrate is movable with water. Therefore, my recommendation for the following growing season with a moist soil in the fall might be quite high nitrogen numbers. For example, I will throw out a number of 150 pounds of nitrogen, maybe, for the next crop of wheat.

But in the past couple of years, we’ve been through a drought with dry soil conditions in the fall and higher fertilizer prices as well. Farmers are wondering how to plan for next year with the dry soil. My recommendations went down considerably because there is more available nitrogen in the soil. My average recommendations, say, in the past couple of years would be closer to that 90 to 100 pounds.

When we follow what the soil is doing and the soil processes and we measure, with myself as an agronomist coaching the farmers along with these decisions, telling them why we would make the decision and encouraging them to trust the soil analysis, we maximize production while making sure we only add the nutrients the plants need and that it is economically efficient. We want to make sure we get the maximum economic yield and not necessarily the maximum yield on our farms because we are still businesses.

Mr. Hebert: I would mimic a lot of Jocelyn’s comments, too.

I will use canola as an example because I think it is one of Canada’s commodity success stories. If I were to take you for a ride on our combine on a 640-acre field, you would see my yield monitor go from as low as 20 to 22 bushels an acre to as high as 80, 90 or 100 bushels an acre as we go across that field. There are a number of factors. Organic matter is one of the main ones, but elevation is another as well as the soil health, the type of soil and how much rainfall it got. But the other one, too, is this: As a farmer, am I handcuffing the best parts of my field to grow the best yields? Because it really is math. Fertilizer is simply calories for plants. They need a certain number of calories in order to maximize output. Canola is pretty easy math. It’s about three pounds of nitrogen for every bushel of canola, so if there are areas on my field that can grow 100-plus bushels, I am likely not giving those areas enough fertilizer.

To tie that back to soil health, I would direct the senators, if you have a chance, to read the study, “4 per 1000.” It’s out of France. It really explains how organic matter can be one of the major solvers of climate change worldwide.

Ms. Lee: I have some generalities. I’m not a soil scientist, so I can’t get into those details. There is definitely a link between soil health and agriculture production — that goes without saying. The trick is to be able to not only produce at current levels but hopefully increase, as you mentioned. I think it is even more critical considering we have an aging farmer population, and the next generation doesn’t necessarily see that we have the enabling conditions to continue. We’re losing farmland not only because of development but also because of a lack of ability or interest in that. That’s something else that needs to be considered. There’s an urgency there.

Regarding emissions, we still need to decide how we’re going to measure it. For that next step in your question, some research needs to be done before we can answer that part.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to the steering committee for such fabulous witnesses.

“We can’t go green if we’re in the red.” That is an important line. We need to implement change in ways that manage on-farm risk and farm-gate revenue. That’s just a starting point.

I really love the description of the sustainable and regenerative farming practices that you are delivering today. What we’ve heard too often from officials here in Ottawa is that all the benefits have been achieved with no-till, and it’s very frustrating for me that they’re not seeing what you’re seeing on the ground. One of the concerns I have is that we don’t have horizontality in Ottawa. There are all these silos that are not communicating well to each other — Agriculture and Agri-Food with ECCC with ISED — to make sure we’re innovating to manage the risks on farms and improve farm-gate revenue.

Can you help me with advice that will help us to cut through the challenge we have with the officials here in Ottawa who are not seeing what we’re hearing as being the science and the practice? Therefore, we’re not elevating our programs to a level that manage those very real risks. How can we break through there? What is your advice to us? What would you like to hear us say to break through? I will start with Ms. Velestuk.

Ms. Velestuk: Thank you.

This is something I’ve pondered a lot in my mind. Having a background in environment and soil science, and having a great love for business management and for the family farm — it’s bringing all of those together. Like you said, it’s bringing all of those components into sustainability.

I’ve seen a soil that we’ve rented and tried to improve. It had been severely eroded, so we’ve had to implement practices. One of the biggest practices is no-till, and I think we cannot downplay that ever because it’s not necessarily a business-as-usual practice around the world. I think we need to maintain that. We are leaders because we are doing practices like that, and we still get incremental gains from all of those practices and any new technologies we add on. If no-till/continuous cropping was one of the biggest revolutions in Prairie agriculture and grain production, maybe we’re not looking for a great big revolution again. Maybe we’re looking for incremental gains to add onto that to keep on making those differences. It’s really important to acknowledge that conservation agriculture and direct seeding and no-till are cornerstones, and we need to include them as parts of measuring our carbon gains in our soil over time, because we will just add on that. If there is a value to carbon and farmers know that, farmers will keep adding to that.

Mr. Hebert: I got a question very similar to yours when I spoke at the FTP meetings this summer.

The first point that I pushed back on to the federal agriculture minister and the provincial agriculture ministers was that I’ve never been so excited about agriculture in my entire life. Neither has my father. The biggest risk I have right now is the federal and provincial agriculture ministers not getting this right. So I’m glad you asked the question.

The first thing is we need to do is change the tone of our story to Canadian agriculture being the solution that people want to have with climate. Don’t look at it as a negative; we’re actually the solution. We’re one of the biggest carbon sinks in the nation, behind the forestry industry.

Second, let’s incentivize the leaders to continue to lead. When we are talking about baselines and who will be allowed to do additionality, et cetera, incentivize the leaders to lead. Yes, they might have adopted zero-till 20 years ago, but they’re still seeing incremental changes and they’re adopting incremental practices that continue to improve. Let’s incentivize the rest of the group with practice incentives to get to the point where the leaders are. You can’t disincentivize the leaders to quit leading. We’re trying to grow leaders in this country.

The third point would be — I agree — to streamline the communication between the agriculture shop and the environment shop. We’ll leave that part up to you.

All I can say is that, as farmers, we’ve never been more excited about agriculture, and we truly believe that we are the best in the world at growing and selling commodities. Do you want us to grow and sell carbon? You’re welcome; we’re already doing it. Just let us sell it.

Ms. Lee: One way of doing that is to try to get buy-in from the cabinet and the politicians about agri-food as a policy priority. You have to start looking at everything — all the policies — through the lens of agriculture. Education is how to get there, especially with those politicians living and working in urban settings. Have a day a year where they are required to visit a farm to see how things work. We could help with that.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.

Senator Cotter: Thank you to the witnesses for the inspiring presentations.

Mr. Hebert, if you weren’t able to observe Senator Deacon as you were responding, your answers got him as excited as you and your father are, I think.

I would like to build on that line of discussion in a moment, but in this context and picking up on Dr. Lee’s conversation about agriculture and agri-food, it is said and thought to be a pillar of the Canadian economy going forward. It’s easy to say, though, and you need to build programs, policies and supports behind it to take advantage of Mr. Hebert’s enthusiasm and the wide range of knowledge and opportunity that exists here. In the course of your answer to my question, if any of you want to comment on whether you see the rubber not quite hitting the road on that kind of opportunity …

Ms. Velestuk, I want to ask about the work you and your colleagues are doing and the degree to which, as far as you can judge, it is fairly broadly based in terms of practices across the Prairies. Is it still hit and miss? Are there still a lot of late adopters in the strategies and approaches you bring to farming?

Ms. Velestuk: I would say there is still — and Kristjan alluded to this earlier — growth in the numbers of farmers doing soil testing and analysis. I think there needs to be more people working with farmers on their soil management, soil planning and soil fertility planning, coaching farmers along with that. I think that’s important in having the discussions around the table and that piece of knowledge to add to that. If a farmer is handed a page that says, “This is your soil test, and this is what you should add,” they’re wondering why. Farmers are asking questions, and there needs to be someone to look at the history of the field and what happened last year, and then they can build on that. That’s really important moving forward with the soil analysis part of it and also making sure that we match as best as we can the plant uptake to the soil fertilizer that’s added. We can come a lot further with that in growing our knowledge of that in the industry and having more farmers do soil testing.

Senator Cotter: Is there the expertise out there that you have that can benefit people in terms of tens of thousands of farms?

Ms. Velestuk: There are a lot of agronomists coming out of the universities, and there are more jobs than there are people. We can grow so much more in the ag sector, and we always need more people trained. That is definitely a place of growth.

Senator Cotter: I heard from Mr. Hebert that there are various risks to progress here. Can you offer your perspective on that? What risks are there, and what opportunities are not being taken up to make this really more viable than it is now for farmers?

Ms. Velestuk: I think the biggest risk for farmers is saying, “Okay, well if I put my money” — and it’s usually a per-acre amount — “how do I know that it’s right? How do I know that I’m getting value?” There are so many different businesses selling so many different things to farmers that they’re always questioning. So it’s a matter of still proving the value of that soil analysis and the soil test. That’s where the adviser comes in.

As well, it’s important to look at the risk in terms of there’s a lot of talk around other regenerative ag practices. There are certain risks to different practices as well. We’ve tried intercropping, cover-cropping and those types of practices on our farm. They come with a huge risk, and they come with not necessarily a lot of science behind them. That’s important, as well, in developing policy.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: My question is similar to Senator Cotter’s. When we listened to the witnesses talk about testing, measuring and sampling, it all sounded quite advanced. You addressed the issue of barriers and access, but I’m going to move slightly away from that.

We’ve heard from previous witnesses that there is some resistance to change. Are you seeing any resistance from farmers when it comes to measuring, testing and doing things in a very scientific way, or on the contrary, is it just a matter of resources? Who would like to go first?

[English]

Ms. Lee: Growers are constantly innovating and always looking for ways to improve and reduce their costs and be good stewards of the land. If there is resistance to change, I think I would want to delve a little bit more into why that might be there. I earlier mentioned some points regarding the right supports for it. If it costs too much to do it, then that’s going to be a barrier. Some of the programs that are in existence right now offer solutions, but they’re not very agile; they are too slow and they don’t keep up with the speed of business. By the time they might get approval, if they do, the grower may have already moved on to something else, so they have to start the whole process over again. It’s being in tune with the speed of business but also seeing what those barriers might be and what would be the best enabling policy, perhaps, or support to change that.

Mr. Hebert: My one concern that we need to make sure the federal government and the Senate look at is that a lot of these measures of change are always measured by farm. I believe that people on this panel’s definition of a farm is slightly different than that in the survey that AFC does that says we have 161,000 farms, et cetera, but 16,000 farms are producing 70% of the revenue. If you’re going to measure change and a farm that has $10,000 of revenue doesn’t do the practice and that’s a negative and they’re unwilling to change, it causes some skew in your survey results.

I would say most progressive farms that are running the farm like a business — so there is enough income for a husband, wife and one or two employees to be working on that farm — are very willing to adapt and change. In fact, they do it a lot of times before any policy comes into place because it’s better for their land and it’s better for their financials.

Especially in Western Canada where it’s broad acre farming, acres create sustainability in climate change and environment, not farms. When we measure things like that, in Western Canada, acres matter more than individual farms. When you look at the vegetable growers, they have an immense amount of revenue on a per-acre basis.

I sometimes think we have to evaluate our definition of a “farm” versus a “hobby” and how that skews our results.

Ms. Velestuk: I have one more comment: Land ownership comes into play as well. A lot of farmers will rent a lot of land, and there might be a different thought process around managing that land because maybe there’s only a one-year lease on that land, so you’re managing for that one year. If you own land, you’re managing that land for your kids and your grandkids, however far into the future. If you rent land, though, you don’t know how long you will have it, so maybe there is a different thought around how to manage that and different barriers to adopting different practices on that land immediately.

Senator Klyne: Thank you to the witnesses for your very energetic responses. This has been quite fruitful for us.

Something Mr. Hebert said incites me to want to ask Ms. Gowriluk a question. You previously noted that Canada lags behind other countries, such as the United States, in terms of availability of conservation programs that can reward farmers who protect ecologically sensitive land and farmable wetlands. Can you tell us some of the models that could be adopted to work for Canadian farmers? Are there specific examples or stories that you can share of successes in those other countries?

Ms. Gowriluk: Is that intended for my colleague, Dr. Lee?

Ms. Lee: I didn’t mention wetlands, so I’m not sure.

Senator Klyne: Well, let’s stroke “wetlands” off, then.

Ms. Lee: I was quoting a study by RBC, if that’s what you’re referring to. It’s more the supports provided for the farms rather than the actual programs that I’m quoting, so I’m not sure if that would help you.

Senator Klyne: Sure. It’s something that Mr. Hebert mentioned. We’re not necessarily compensating or recognizing some of the innovation. I’m wondering if you have examples of other countries in terms of what’s working and what could be applied here in Canada.

Ms. Lee: I would have to get back to you on other countries, but in Canada, Ducks Unlimited has a lot of projects in the Prairies with grasslands where they are providing a system whereby the farmer gets paid, basically, for ecological services. There are a number of examples, but I would have to come back to you with them.

Senator Klyne: That would be great. Send it to our clerk.

Mr. Hebert, I share your interest in this whole idea of data, analysis and synthesizing that data. You mentioned soil testing, LiDAR, elevations and an innovation cluster. Recognizing that soils change jurisdiction by jurisdiction — and I guess you would be looking at this from a provincial basis — even within the province of Saskatchewan, there would be differences. When you start doing the soil testing and sharing data, I assume that it would be applicable to various jurisdictions wanting to share the data, because it’s different jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Also, if we adopted a model like that, you could do it province by province, although there’s still going to be differences within provinces. It seems to me that the federal government should be leading something like that with or through the provincial ministers and maybe setting up a national strategy but also a repository for the data, as well as the research and synthesization of some of that.

When I start thinking more about what you said, each province needs to chime in here, but it could be one of those things that’s so big that the federal government won’t do it alone and the provinces can’t do it alone. Or should we just focus primarily on provinces and the ag ministers of each province to maybe see if they can be inspired to set up something around this soil testing and taking all the information in from LiDAR testing and results and create those innovation clusters by province? Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Hebert: As you said, it’s probably like organizing cats. I think you’re right: There’s lots of variation. It all came out of the survey we’re doing with the U of S. We started with a section, and now we’re doing 30,000 acres. I would have a lot better answers for you in about three weeks. I do agree that province by province would be a good start. The computer Watson for H&R Block does more tax returns than any human does anymore. There has to be a minimum base of data that we can get into the machine learning and A.I. world to help speed up this process.

Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to the witnesses for your presentations.

I represent the Yukon, not traditionally a farming area in most people’s minds. However, we do have — pardon the pun — a growing agriculture industry and sector, thanks in part to climate change and thanks also to some excellent soil near Dawson City.

Mr. Hebert was speaking of a number of philosophical statements. How can I help you today as a public servant? I’ve heard you need support. I’ve heard there is soil sampling and testing. Senator Klyne mentioned province by province, and that should be province and territory, Senator Klyne, respectfully. If you could ask our committee to include one specific recommendation regarding soil sampling, what would that be, regarding soil health in Canada with a whole-of-Canada approach? What recommendation should we be making to the Government of Canada? What is your wish list?

Ms. Velestuk: That’s an excellent question.

The biggest thing is continuing with the mapping. I think it is very important to build on the soil survey that AFC undertook a very long time ago in conjunction with the universities, and ground truthing all the data and gathering more data is a very expensive, time-consuming process. A lot of help can be given there. Working together with the universities and experts on this will be really important.

The other thing would be to encourage more adoption of soil sampling and encourage more innovation in learning more about our soils. My big thing is I that want everyone to know more about their soils, whether it’s someone who is gardening or a farmer. If you know more about your soil, then you can know better how to manage it. If we can provide more information, more guidance and some coaching with this, I think that is one of the best things for our soil sustainability.

Senator Duncan: Sharing the information. Thank you.

Ms. Lee: I would go back to the recommendations I read out at the beginning. I’ll leave the exact characteristics one has to look at, but certainly soil organic matter is extremely important as well because that gives us an idea of life in the soil, which is very important for a sustainable production system. Data sharing and protocols that are the same for soil sampling across the country would be very important. I’m assuming they exist, but is there any way of comparing and making sure that labs are analyzing in the same way?

Mr. Hebert: The only thing I would add to that is that I’m 100% on the organic matter thing. It’s the base of everything, and it’s what sequesters carbon. I would really urge, as we go through this, that we’re trying to build a national theory with regional strategies. The soil protocol can be the same across the nation, but remember that from what we figure out from the soil, each region has to have a different strategy to hit what we hope to hit in sustainable goals. Cover crops are an absolute must in Brazil, and they might be well needed in Ontario, but I have three feet of snow and eight feet of frost right now, so it’s a little bit tough to have a cover crop growing in February and March in Saskatchewan.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, we don’t have time for a second round. Senators Deacon, Jaffer, Klyne and I have questions for which we’ll ask for written responses. Feel free to send written answers to the clerk at your discretion within the next couple of weeks.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our fabulous witnesses today.

I want to build on incentivizing the leaders to continue to lead. I think about the differences, and you just spoke about this, Mr. Hebert. The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef has a different strategy needed than vegetable farmers, crop farmers and grain farmers. We need strategies to help Ottawa create a robust carbon market that rewards the leaders and the followers and starts to maximize the potential for sequestering carbon to buy us time in decarbonizing our economy. If you have specific ideas about how to get a robust carbon market in place, we have to help the federal government to do that, because right now I don’t think the officials are on the right track at all. Thanks.

Senator Jaffer: I will follow up with what Senator Duncan. I want to ask you, Ms. Velestuk, about knowledge exchange, which is something you touched on. Is knowledge exchange on best soil practices being undertaken among organizations such as yours? Within the provinces and territories, across the country, is there a knowledge exchange?

Senator Klyne: This would be a question for Ms. Lee. According to your survey results, 73% of crop growers have had to delay buying equipment that could support improving environmental practices simply because they can’t afford to invest in the equipment. I assume, then, that you’ve had discussions with Farm Credit Canada and there was no financing programs there that were attractive, or with dealer financing. It leads me to think about the Government of Canada. They provide electric vehicle credits so we can get to net zero quicker. Are there any discussions with the federal government — anyone can answer this and I would appreciate it if all three answered — that are considering credits for buying equipment that would contribute to achieving net zero results?

The Chair: My question would be directed to Mr. Hebert. You’ve talked about global theory and regional strategy approach. I would like for you to build on that a little bit for our better understanding. I think I have an idea, but if you could, that would be great. I know you’ve done some work there.

With that, colleagues, I want to say thanks very much to our witnesses, Ms. Gowriluk, Ms. Velestuk, Dr. Lee and Mr. Hebert, for your participation today. You’ve seen how excited this group gets when they get good answers and when they’re hearing things that they’re hoping to hear. Thank you for your input. It is very much appreciated.

Colleagues, for our second panel, we welcome, from the Canola Council of Canada, Curtis Rempel, Vice-President of Crop Production and Innovation. It is good to see you this morning, Dr. Rempel. Also, from Pulse Canada, we have Denis Tremorin, Director of Sustainability.

I’ll invite you to make your presentations. We’ll begin with Dr. Rempel followed by Mr. Tremorin. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will signal when one minute is left and when it is pretty well time to wrap up. That will be after five minutes. We will proceed after that to questions and carry on from there. Dr. Rempel, take it away.

Curtis Rempel, Vice-President of Crop Production and Innovation, Canola Council of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators of the committee, for having me here today as part of your study on the status of soil health in Canada. I am the Vice-President of Crop Production and Innovation with the Canola Council of Canada. I am also an adjunct professor with the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba.

Soil health has a personal meaning for me. There is a native tall grass prairie reserve near our family farm, and my father thought that perhaps a benchmark of soil health for our farm could be a soil that had the same physico-chemical characteristics as the native prairie soil but with suitable productivity to provide enough food for 150 people per acre. He was not the only farmer in the area to express that notion. Clearly, farmers across Canada have been looking to adopt innovations and practices that lead to a healthy soil, as this is the long-term viability of the farm.

Soil is a farmer’s greatest asset, and to build our soil to something that is healthier than pre-farming is a lofty but perhaps attainable goal. We believe we can do this, but to do so, we need a definition of soil health and soil characteristics that we want to track and improve, measurement tools that allow on-farm and aggregate benchmarking, and innovation and research leading to best management practices that may be prairie-specific.

Before I address these, I would like to highlight how healthy our soils in western Canada currently are relative to many ecoregions of the planet. Much of this can be attributed to regenerative practices that started approximately 40 years ago with the introduction of conservation tillage. Senator Sparrow’s 1984 study drove innovation. Conservation tillage practises reversed catastrophic soil decline by halting topsoil loss due to wind and water erosion and initiated the process of organic matter restoration and a biodiverse soil microbiome. Canadian farmers have been early adopters of innovation, including precision ag tools. This has translated into profitability, largely from improving soil health. The canola plant itself has a large, deep taproot that also contributes significantly to soil health.

Moving forward, it would be useful to settle on a definition of soil health that captures the Canadian experience, our agro-ecosystems and our innovative spirit. At the very least, a definition of soil health could include repeatability. Year over year, the soil is able to support the demands of a high-yielding plant, high biodiversity and a sink for carbon.

The next order would be to settle on a set of criteria that a healthy soil has or should strive to be. This should account for different soil ecozones and then benchmark these attributes. This allows for farmers to frame management decisions and determine which management practices will continuously improve soil health on their farm. Armed with these, farmers can make improvements and adopt innovations that make real differences. Without these, our policies and best intentions are without guidance or direction.

Continuing to build a healthy soil requires research and innovation. The Canola Council of Canada tabled a value chain innovation strategy in 2022. This strategy stresses the importance of research on soil health, including looking at root-soil interactions to increase carbon sequestration, improving water and nitrogen use efficiency, reducing emissions, promoting soil biodiversity, enhancing deficiency fertilizers and reducing nitrogen fertilizer by developing free-living nitrogen fixation.

Agronomic practices are also important for advancing soil health. The Canola Council is committed to increasing adoption of 4R nutrient management practices to steward fertilizer products and improve soil health while providing the best economic outcomes for farmers.

In closing, farmers both contribute to and are recipients of a healthy soil. A healthy soil is a gift that keeps on giving. Farmers are innovators, and they are always ready to improve. It is in their DNA. Farmers have already made significant contributions to the health of Canadian soils, making them some of the healthiest in the world. They want to protect the soil, which is their greatest asset.

There are many unique paths to improving soil health. If our goal is to improve soil health, farmers need a definition, benchmarking tools and a science-based measurement to apply to their unique environments. They need research to develop tools and practices proven to work on their farms in their regions. Farmers own this, but we need to work with scientists and policy makers to get it right.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear today. I will be pleased to answer questions.

Denis Tremorin, Director, Sustainability, Pulse Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here this morning to discuss a topic very important to Canada’s pulse industry.

For the last 10 years, I have served as Pulse Canada’s director of sustainability. In addition, soil health has been a topic near and dear to my heart. I have a master’s degree in soil science from the University of Manitoba, and the intersection of soil, agriculture and the environment has been a passion of mine ever since. In my previous job, I was an environmental specialist with a large pork production company in Manitoba. The first thing we ever did in that job was to always start with soil sampling. That’s how you knew what your next steps were. You started with that baseline of soil and soil sampling.

As an introduction, Pulse Canada is the national association representing growers, processors and traders of Canadian pulse crops, namely peas, lentils, chickpeas, dry beans and fava beans. Canada is the largest producer of peas and lentils in the word and the world’s largest exporter of pulses overall. We send 85% of what we grow to over 120 markets. We are responsible for $6.3 billion in economic output and over 25,000 Canadian jobs.

Soil is the lifeblood of Canada’s agriculture industry. Our past, current and future successes are dependent on healthy, functional soil that gives farmers certainty that the crops they sow can flourish with proper management. Recognizing the importance of soil health, Canadian farmers have made vast improvements to soil health over the past 40 years. In Western Canada specifically, the adoption of reduced tillage and continuous cropping has improved soil health to a great degree while also improving the productivity and resilience of these cropping systems. These practices improved soil health by enabling the increase in soil organic matter and also reduce soil erosion in a substantial way. The days of major wind erosion events, like the dirty 30s over vast areas of the Prairies, is now over, and while tillage is still utilized in some areas of the Prairies, the intensity of that tillage has decreased, with the same effect as reducing the risk of soil erosion and enabling an increase in soil organic matter.

The end result is that farms in Western Canada have soils that are more functional than they were in the past. Soils with increased organic matter retain more moisture during drought years and allow for improved internal drainage during wet years. Soils with increased organic matter also retain and cycle plant nutrients more effectively, which provides critical nutrition for growing crops and also reduces losses of nutrients to the environment. Farmers in Western Canada are achieving higher yields than they ever have, and this is partly a reflection of the health of the soils in which these crops are growing. The same cannot be said in parts of Europe, for example, where yields have plateaued or are declining in tandem with a decrease in soil health in organic matter.

A number of cropping system changes and technology adoption has enabled farmers to adopt continuous farming and reduced tillage. Changes in seeding technology, improvements in in-crop herbicide options for farmers and the adoption of new crop genetics with herbicide resistance were all important practices that were broadly adopted by Prairie farmers. In addition, the adoption of diverse crop rotations in Western Canada enabled farmers to adopt reduced and zero tillage and continuous cropping. A diverse crop rotation allowed Prairie farmers to manage weeds, crop diseases and pests, as well as crop residue. No-till and continuous cropping are simply not possible if a farmer produces the same crop year after year.

Pulses in Western Canada have been a key part of that diversification story. Researchers at AFC and Canadian universities were able to show decades ago that pulses were a good fit in Western Canadian cropping systems and could enable farmers to move to continuous cropping in a semi-arid environment where soil moisture and rainfall were the biggest risks. In addition, pulses help farmers maintain soil organic matter while the nitrogen fixation aspect of pulses provides a major benefit to farmers by reducing their expenses on nitrogen fertilizer. Pulses have played an important role in providing an economic and agronomic incentive for farmers to diversify their rotations, and acres of pulse crops in Canada have moved from virtually zero in the 1980s to roughly 8 million acres in 2021.

The expansion of pulse acres is having a major benefit on soil health and also a massive impact on improving environmental health. A recently released study commissioned by Pulse Canada shows that pulse crops in Canada reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 million tons of carbon annually. Further, with a realistic growth scenario, pulse crops have the ability to remove an addition 1.4 million tons of carbon from our environment.

These cropping systems changes were not adopted due to a change in regulations or taxes. They were adopted because they made economic and practical sense. This spirit continues today and can be leveraged by additional government investment. This committee’s work and recommendations will be an important point of reference for the government as it looks to ensure Canadian soil health continues to improve, leading to growth in production and overall sustainability of Canada’s agriculture industry.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you to both our witnesses. We will now proceed with questions.

As I said before, five minutes for questions and answers. At one minute, I will put my hand up. We will move to second round if we can. We want to be wrapping up at 10:40 as we do have some other business to attend to, and we have a hard stop and have to be out of here at 11 for another committee coming in.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses for being here.

I have a question for Dr. Rempel. Thank you for your longtime service and research on canola. The Canola Council of Canada’s 2025 production goals are very important but quite ambitious. Do you believe that this objective can be achieved by canola growers within this kind of time frame?

Mr. Rempel: Thank you very much for the question.

We do. We are cautiously optimistic that we can achieve our 2025 production goals. We think that there are a number of innovations that are coming online. Some are due to disease resistance, pest resistance and also pod shatter technology and other innovations that will allow us to achieve this goal by 2025. We are cautiously optimistic, but there is more research and innovation that will be needed to keep advancing productivity.

One of the big productivity areas would be in the brown soil zones of the Prairies, formerly known as Palliser’s Triangle. That was surveyed and the conclusion was “not fit for man nor beast,” yet it has been a significant region for crop production in the past. Canola production is sort of just becoming established for the most part in that region, again thanks to improvements and innovation. A lot of it is around soil and soil moisture retention. We see those areas becoming more and more productive, and that will help us reach our yield targets as well.

Senator Oh: To which markets in the world do we now export our canola? We are having some problems with China. What other new markets are being developed?

Mr. Rempel: There are our continued tried and true markets — Japan, the United States and Mexico. Europe is becoming more important again, and then Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, a lot of the ASEAN sector is becoming a large buyer. The biodiesel space, the renewable fuels and renewable jet fuel, et cetera, will make the United States and Europe much more important buyers, as well as domestic use.

Senator Oh: Do we still export to China?

Mr. Rempel: Yes, China continues to be an incredibly important trading partner for Canada.

Senator Oh: Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both of you for being here.

My first question is to you, Mr. Tremorin. As you know, Canada is one of the largest producers of pulses and a major exporter. It is also expected that the demand for pulses will increase as the demand for plant production increases with changing diets. How can we have this increased production while also having sustainability?

Mr. Tremorin: That’s a very good question, Senator Jaffer.

Our member organizations in Canada, like Alberta Pulse Growers and Saskatchewan, have stated goals around trying to ensure that we can have pulses that can be grown in rotation on every acre. We feel, as an association, that pulses enable the sustainability of cropping systems across Canada. There are some regions of Canada where there are not a lot of pulses being grown. A lot of our focus for our member associations and ourselves is to look at research in terms of crop adaptation, crop breeding and especially genetic resistance to plant disease so that we can grow pulses in some of these areas.

In particular, there are some root diseases for peas and lentils that we need crop breeding to help us resolve. A major effort for our industry is to focus attention on that issue from a public and private breeding perspective. We are also looking at how we can grow crops like fava bean, which seem suited to the northern Prairie regions, which are wetter and cool. We can grow peas in the Yukon. It has some of the shortest growing seasons that you can imagine, so they are adapted well to our cool conditions. We need to look at the broad spectrum of crops and where they can fit and where they can help the rotations in each specific area.

Senator Jaffer: Mr. Rempel, I’m old enough to remember when canola was first growing and all the anxiety and also the enthusiasm about it. When you talk to canola growers, they are always feeling that to better improve carbon, soil and water health, the financial implications are tremendous. Where should the burden be? Should it be on the farmer? On the government? Because that’s the challenge, right? You always ask farmers to do more — sustainability, improved soil health — but what recommendations do you think we should be making in our report to assist canola farmers?

Mr. Rempel: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. That is a great question, too.

I’m going to take a little bit of a cop-out in that I don’t think that the burden is on one or the other; it’s a partnership. If you think about canola in itself, as an innovative crop, it was a public-private partnership that brought it into production and realization in Canada. For all of the economic returns, that public-private partnership has been tremendous.

Again, it is a public-private partnership. We have a rich private sector in the industry in Canada. We have farmers who are really interested in adopting innovation, and it has been the lifeblood of our industry. It is finding that balance of what the public sector can do. Some of that is taking away some of the risk of production and probably thinking about ways that we can work together as farmers, citizens and government to ameliorate some of the risks associated with potential climate change and thinking our way through as to how we can support each other around managing through that and building resiliency to climate change. I think that would be the best place to begin.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses, Dr. Rempel and Mr. Tremorin.

Our job is to try to show a path for change to help us all get better. I believe there is a global opportunity for Canada to lead in the establishment of technology, standards and competitive markets for farmers to have their soil carbon valued and to then spread that around the world. The world needs that solution if we are going to sequester the carbon that’s being produced elsewhere. I worry right now that there is a command-and-control approach being taken from a public policy standpoint that is not incentivizing innovative market creations, technologies and new standards. We’re not being leaders. We may end up being followers and price-takers on this as well. Can you help us understand what we should focus on in order to create those markets and opportunities and go beyond the farms to enable farms to be really successful in adopting these really important practices?

Mr. Tremorin: We’ve been starting to investigate the potential of carbon offsets from a market perspective that can apply to soil, organic carbon and different practices that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They haven’t been shown to produce much fruit in the marketplace in the agricultural context. Carbon offset markets are dominated by the energy and forestry sectors. There are a few economic reasons for that.

What we are starting to see shifting is the concept of carbon insetting. The concept of insetting is that the credit of carbon itself follows the commodity that the producer is already in the market for. Producers are already marketing a commodity; that’s their bread and butter. An offset system is a different marketplace that they have to investigate. It is foreign to them as a business operator. The insetting system is embedded into what they do already, so that is something we’re looking at more closely in terms of developing insetting systems. There has been some activity already in Canada to start to look at that system.

The policies and the concepts of insetting are just being developed as we speak in international bodies, but I think it is something that the agricultural industry and even government need to start to take a look at. We need to be at the table to be able to influence how it can benefit our production systems in the best ways.

Mr. Rempel: As Denis said, the inset market is starting to develop very rapidly. It is important to food companies, biofuel companies, et cetera.

One of our perspectives for our value chain at canola is just making sure that the carbon that farmers sequester is being valued effectively, benchmarked appropriately, et cetera. Realistically, if you are just looking at carbon capture to 24 centimetres deep in the soil, which is some of the European reporting, that doesn’t do anything to really account for all of the carbon that is sequestered in Canadian soils. It is much deeper than that. Do we have the tools, the benchmarking and the metrics that really allow for robust carbon measure on the farm? Then, do we have research that supports ways of increasing that carbon pool on the farm, while increasing productivity? They are not mutually exclusive. Yield intensification means, by definition, more carbon sequestration.

Senator Klyne: Welcome, guests.

I have a question for Dr. Rempel. I want to go back to the reference of the 2025 target to sequester 5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year by planting more canola bushels per acre. There are three parts to this. Maybe I will just ask the questions, and you can provide answers.

How many more acres, as a percentage or absolute number, will it take to plant to reach that target?

Could this lead to intense crop production, which could lead to increased custom harvesting? My question around the custom harvesting is this: Intense harvesting that happens with the contracting and custom harvesting can lead to maybe not the highest potential we could expect of carbon sequestration. Is that a concern?

Also, with the demand that will be put on canola crops, particularly what we know is a demand but going to increase further about biodiesel or biofuels, with regard to food security, has anybody put any directions or guidelines forward as to how much of the canola production needs to go to the table and how much to go to biodiesel or biofuels?

Those are my three questions.

Mr. Rempel: The first question, in terms of increased production, goes back to our 26 million metric tonnes. There will probably be even more demand with the changing biofuel regulations.

Our approach has not been to increase acres; it has been more yield per acre. Our previous strategies were always around growing production acres because of the profitability and the economic returns to the farm. Now we’re about yield intensification, which is producing more per acre. Acres fluctuate between 19 to 22 million per year, based on the rotation sequences that farmers are growing. With the exception of the brown soil zone, which I talked about earlier, there is room for acre expansion there, but for the most part, we have hit peak acres. It is now about more yield per acre. Yield intensification is a precursor to carbon sequestration. There is a lot of carbon tied up in the canola seed, both the oil and protein, as well as the root and the stem. But the more seed and oil you produce, the more carbon you effectively sequester. That’s part of the story.

The second part of the question is tied to the first part of the question, and that is that I think a lot of scientists on the planet would say that, yes, yield intensification is probably one of the biggest ways we will sequester more carbon. At the same time, if we’re driving toward yield intensification, are we not going to introduce more pests and more diseases, et cetera? The goal of production research is to optimize that carbon sequestration while reducing our environmental footprint and production constraints.

I didn’t get to your third question, but I’ll send something.

Senator Cotter: I would like to start, Professor Rempel, with Senator Klyne’s third question and invite you to answer it.

My background is law, and when we talk about legal research, most people shy away. In the agriculture sector, one of the great triangulations that has happened in our country is the partnerships among the farming and ranching community, on the one hand, other private sector engagements, government engagement and the universities. The role that university agriculture departments have provided to open up ideas and provide the research has been spectacular. I would be interested about the degree to which you see that needing to be further stimulated and further resourced so that all these sectors can benefit. Maybe first answer Senator Klyne’s question.

Mr. Rempel: With respect to the food versus fuel, I think the debate happened many years ago and continues to happen. What’s the appropriate balance or mix of vegetable oils going to fuel and what goes to the table. Right now, in our awareness, there is no formal policy. I’m not aware of the United States government, Mexico or the EU saying that they’re going to need 35% that stays with the food industry and the remainder with the biofuel sector. Right now, it’s sort of like carbon inset. It’s a fluid and evolving marketplace. It’s the demand. The dollar is going to pull the commodity in the direction it needs to go right now. You’re certainly seeing that in terms of commodity pricing right now. That’s why yield intensification becomes important so that we do have production that allows us to be food sustainable and food secure as well as energy secure. I think there is a lot of pressure right now on yield intensification while improving our environmental footprint.

I hope that is my segue into your question in terms of the role of public-private partnerships in achieving that. If you think back on the history of canola, it was Baldur Stefansson, Keith Downey, Ag Canada and the University of Manitoba and private industry. Then people forget all of the public sector work that went into establishing the food. How do you deep fry with it? How shelf stable is it? How much antioxidant does it have? What are the health benefits? Think of Bruce Holub, et cetera, doing all that pioneering work on the impact on cholesterol.

I think if we look forward, private-public partnerships in Canada are going to be the most important thing we can do to keep building this innovation platform. The universities are ready. Ag Canada has spectacular researchers. The private sector puts in money, but I do think we need some public sector stimulus in the right places to make sure that we can achieve all of the challenges we’re going to face with respect to climate change, food versus fuel, et cetera.

Senator Duncan: Thank you to our panel of witnesses. I appreciate your whole-of-Canada approach.

Dr. Rempel, I heard you saying what we need. I also heard you mention public-private partnerships several times in your presentation. That is music to many of my colleagues’ ears.

Perhaps you’ll want to answer this in writing. As it pertains specifically to soil health and the subject of this study, what recommendation would you have for the committee in terms of perhaps a public-private partnership model? What do you need? What would be your recommendation regarding soil health for this committee? You may wish to respond in writing in the interest of time.

Mr. Rempel: I will definitely share some written thoughts as well because I write better than I speak. It’s probably the academic in me. I’ll take that opportunity.

In terms of a public-private partnership, I talked a little bit about that in terms of what the criteria are for a healthy soil. It’s tied to the living component, all of the earthworms, Collembola, the millions of bacteria, fungi, et cetera. Then there is the inner or non-living components of sand sealed clay and all of the things that come together to hold the living.

From my perspective, the real public good is understanding. We won’t get private research because it’s sort of too fundamental to commercialize, in some respects, understanding how we exploit all the biodiversity in the soil that currently exists, how we build that biodiversity and how we exploit that biodiversity so that we can remove some of our reliance on synthetic fertilizer, as well as other crop inputs like pesticides. I think that soil microbiome is the answer.

We’re starting to see some of the environmental DNA and research tools, this EDNA concept, starting to emerge as well. I think that by looking at some of the new genomics and proteomics tools, universities are starting to be well equipped in terms of the equipment needed to handle this robust research.

The other piece I should comment on is that it’s going to take a network. No one institution or university is going to be able to do this. It is going to take everyone from P.E.I. to British Columbia to Yukon putting their hands together and picking what they’re good at in terms of their specialties at the universities and using a pan-Canadian approach.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you so much for being here.

I was reading earlier about a project at the University of Saskatchewan on rotation crops, pulses and canola. I’m thinking maybe it’s good to ask this question. Of course, I’d be happy to hear about the project. I’m reading things on optimizing yields and nitrogen fixation. If we can go a bit bigger, I’m curious to know about that project, if you have information about it, but also about how dynamic we are in this country in terms of these types of projects. Should we be more dynamic? Who takes the lead? Is it always the universities? Is it industry? How good are we at using what we get from those projects and sharing it? That’s four questions in one.

Mr. Tremorin: When it comes to rotations with pulses and canola, there’s been research for decades now looking at that rotation from different ecological regions of Western Canada, and it has been proven the rotations work. We’re actually working with the Canola Council and Cereals Canada to continue to look at that rotational aspect, especially in the light of the OFCAF contributions from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to try to find where we need solutions in that rotation in terms of the practices that we have in common amongst the three crops that we grow in rotation.

How dynamic is the research in this space? It’s heavily weighted within the academic community at the universities. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been contributing to this as well. I think the dynamic part comes in where we as industry help to provide guidance in terms of especially what farmers need from their perspective. Where can we get the most ROI from our investments from a public and private perspective? We’re focusing on that ourselves. We have members that don’t have large research budgets. We want to make sure we’re targeting that as effectively as we can. It’s the responsibility of government to do the same thing. We are always encouraged to come to Ottawa to ensure we can provide that perspective.

Mr. Rempel: I have one point on who takes the lead. I would very much advocate that the farmer takes the lead in this. We spend a lot of time engaged with public researchers and the private sector, but we really look to farmers in terms of the gaps are for research needs. They’re really good at identifying and articulating them. Then we can frame them up into actionable projects that we can tackle with our research institutions and the private sector. With farmers taking the lead, you’re going to get a great return on research investment.

Senator Petitclerc: If we have a project that’s working well — some type of rotation — and then we want to encourage implementation, do we do enough to help the farmers to move in that direction?

Mr. Rempel: A lot of the researchers are really good at helping with knowledge and technology transfer. We have a really good cadre of agronomists across Western Canada to translate research into knowledge. We’re always looking at new ways of doing that. Social media sometimes clouds it and sometimes makes it easier, so there’s navigating your way through that as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your answers. That was the end of round one. I will ask the senators on this second round to ask their questions, and the witnesses will get answers back in writing through the clerk. That will allow us to get the questions asked and meet our timeline.

Senator C. Deacon: Thanks again to our excellent witnesses, Dr. Rempel and Mr. Tremorin.

Carbon insetting — I’m back on this committee again, so I might have missed that in earlier testimony. We need to learn more about that. Could you follow up with more information? I’m very excited to learn more about that and to hear your guidance in that regard.

I’m really focused on how we get government to catalyze versus control — catalyze and support — the value-added ecosystems around our agricultural producers to take this knowledge and help our agricultural producers benefit from this opportunity and then potentially capture the global opportunity there is here for Canada to lead. This is in the context of one of the points Mr. Hebert made earlier: We have to make sure we’re incentivizing our early leaders in this area as well as our followers. It’s finding that balance.

If you can help us with that with any follow-up information, I personally would be very grateful, and I think some of my colleagues would be too. Thank you.

Senator Klyne: The question would be for Dr. Rempel. If I have time, I will also ask Mr. Tremorin a question.

As I understand it, going back to canola, we now know how to take or extract the protein out of that and then send what remains off for crushing. Does that change the dynamics of anything with regard to your target or cause you to think about other things?

I am a big fan of pulse crops, and I think we have one of the largest exporters in Saskatchewan, AGT. Do those require any special considerations — the intense pulse crops we’re growing in Saskatchewan — when it comes to soil conservation, and are there any particular programs that are being followed?

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for agreeing to written answers so we can keep our time.

Dr. Rempel and Mr. Tremorin, I would like to thank you for your participation today. You can see my colleagues are excited about the questions they have asked you. Thanks for your assistance with our study.

I would also like to thank committee members for your active participation. I also like to take a moment and thank the folks around the room who help us, whether they be translation, interpretation, managing the television system, the attendants, our pages — lots of folks who make sure we can work here. I want to say thanks very much to them, including our analysts and our clerk.

Colleagues, our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, at 6:30, when we will continue to hear from witnesses on the soil health study. Is it agreed to suspend this public portion to move into a very short in camera session?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(The committee continued in camera.)