---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 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.

Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. It’s good to see you here. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses, both in person and online, as well as those watching on the worldwide web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m chairing this committee meeting today.

Today, the committee is meeting on its study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from witnesses, I’d like to start out by asking senators around the table to introduce yourselves.

Senator Simons: I’m Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Greenwood: I’m Margo Greenwood from British Columbia. I am here for Senator Deacon, and I am from British Columbia.

Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. I am Sharon Burey from Ontario.

Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome to all our guests. I’m Marty Klyne from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: I am Senator Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Duncan: Good morning. Pat Duncan, senator for Yukon.

Senator Cotter: Good morning. Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.

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 will work to resolve the issue.

Today, we welcome, from the Government of Ontario, Christine Brown, Field Crops Sustainability Specialist, Agriculture Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; and Daniel Saurette, Land Resource Specialist — Soil, Environmental Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

From the Government of Saskatchewan, online, Rick Burton, Deputy Minister of Agriculture. And from the Government of British Columbia, Dieter Geesing, Provincial Soil Specialist, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and Mark Raymond, Executive Director, Extension and Support Services Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I invite you to make your presentations. We will begin with Mr. Burton, followed by Ms. Brown, for five minutes each. Finally, we will hear the shared remarks from Mr. Geesing and Mr. Raymond for seven minutes.

I will signal your time is running out. At one minute my hand will rise, and when both hands come up, you have to wrap it up pretty quick. We’ll leave it at that. With that, Mr. Burton, the floor is yours.

Rick Burton, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Government of Saskatchewan: I have worked in the ministry and with the agriculture industry for the past 35 years. With over 40% of Canada’s total cropland and one third of Canada’s native grass and forage land, soil health is tremendously important in Saskatchewan.

Over the last three decades, our farmers and ranchers have changed the way they farm. The adoption of new tools and technologies has allowed farmers not only to build healthier soils and increase the productivity capacity of their land but also to reduce their net carbon footprint.

As reported in the 2022 National Inventory Report, Saskatchewan producers sequestered almost 13 million tons of carbon in 2020, almost 80% of the total agriculture emissions. Recent research commissioned by the Global Institute for Food Security found that Saskatchewan’s net carbon footprint for canola and wheat production was more than 60% lower than competitive jurisdictions and for dry field peas, it was 95% lower.

Today, I want to focus on two elements driving sustainable agricultural practices and improving soil health in our province: improvements to production systems used in Western Canada and the consistent, continued and timely adoption of the latest technologies and innovations.

First, conservation tillage was invented in Saskatchewan. To date, about 95% of our land seeded to annual crops is done using zero or minimum tillage, a higher percentage than any other province. This is a huge increase from just 36% in 1991. Saskatchewan producers have also adopted a diverse crop rotation, including oilseeds, pulses, cereals, and others. Growing a rotation of crops fertilized with balanced nutrients contributes to producing optimum yields, thereby helping to optimize carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and soil structure. We have seen a substantial increase in nitrogen-fixing pulse acres in our province, increasing from about 400,000 acres in 1990 to between 5 and 6 million acres on an annual basis which has lowered our emissions by 2.1 million tonnes annually.

While more work needs to be done, the adoption of precision agriculture technologies is also improving input efficiency and contributing to improved soil health over time. For example, digital technologies, extensive soil testing, satellite imagery and sectional shutoff controls ensure the right amount of nutrients are placed exactly where they are needed by the crop. Adoption of 4R Nutrient Stewardship ensures our producers are using nutrients as effectively as possible while minimizing emissions.

It’s important to acknowledge that improved soil health and increased crop production are not mutually exclusive. Over the last 30 years, Saskatchewan grain production has increased significantly, from about 22 million tonnes to over 40 million tonnes in 2020. At the same time, the Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project shows that direct seeding and continuous cropping systems have increased soil organic carbon and soil organic matter in Saskatchewan soils by over 20%. The increased soil organic matter in our soils means better nutrients and moisture efficiency, improved soil health and increased ability to sequester carbon, among many other benefits.

Our producers are contributing to soil conservation and management, and they are making substantial contributions to global food security. Yet, federally, producers are not always recognized for these contributions.

The Saskatchewan sustainability story goes beyond cropping to the livestock sector. Livestock producers help maximize marginal land not suitable for crop production while producing high-quality food. Saskatchewan has 20 million acres of native grassland and tame forages for livestock production. Grasslands play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity, water quality, protecting habitat and species at risk and sequestering soil. Evidence shows that more intensive grazing further increases carbon storage. Saskatchewan is, again, leading the charge here, with over 6,400 farmers using rotational grazing practices in 2021.

It’s estimated that the roughly 14.3 million acres of native grassland in Saskatchewan are storing between 22 and 86 tonnes of carbon per acre. When you combine sequestration for annual crop land sequestration and the sequestration from grasslands, carbon sequestered by Saskatchewan soils largely offsets our agricultural emissions from cropping, livestock and on-farm fuel combined. Yes, on a provincial basis, for many years agriculture in Saskatchewan is net zero from a carbon footprint perspective, but we know that continued emphasis on innovation in the agriculture sector was essential for adapting to the changing global climate. Our farmers and ranchers will continue to focus on improved soil health and sustainability of the agriculture production as we feed the world.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to today’s discussion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Christine Brown, Field Crops Sustainability Specialist, Agriculture Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of Ontario: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to participate in your study on the status of soil health in Canada. We are here representing the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, also known as OMAFRA. I have expertise in nutrient and soil management practices. With me this morning is Daniel Saurette, a land resource specialist who has expertise in soil survey and mapping, soil classification and predictive digital soil mapping.

Healthy soil is at the foundation of every aspect of life, including food security. With respect to soil degradation, Ontario soils, both owned but especially rented, are increasingly vulnerable to erosion, compaction and decreasing soil organic matter levels.

In Ontario, there have been growing interest in improving soils, especially with cover crops, more diverse crop rotations, residue management and organic amendments. Many farmers are passionate about their soil, and the improvements they see. This has been witnessed by OMAFRA’s soil team during soil management workshops and field events delivered since its establishment in 2000.

OMAFRA’s soil and crop specialists have worked directly with farmers and associations such as the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Certified Crop Adviser, the Ontario Soil Network, Innovative Farmers of Ontario and the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, to provide opportunities for hands-on learning. But measuring improvement in soil health takes time.

Current initiatives under the Ontario Agricultural Soil Health and Conservation Strategy focus on four areas of interest: Soil management, soil data and mapping, soil evaluation and monitoring and soil knowledge and innovation. A soil working group comprised of government, conservation authorities, producer organizations and academia was tasked with prioritization of goals and activities outlined in the strategy.

In addition, it was announced just last week that the Ontario government has committed $9.5 million over the next three years to improve soil data mapping and soil evaluation and monitoring and to support key commitments under the soil strategy. The on‑farm applied research and monitoring project and the Ontario Topsoil Sampling Program, among other extension activities, have already demonstrated the impact of management toward healthy soils. For example, the topsoil sampling program included 500 strategically selected farms that were sampled across agricultural soils. The results showed a 1% difference in soil organic matter where forages were a significant part of a rotation.

While there are many steps being taken to improve soil health across Ontario, still a lot needs to be done. There is no common method of measuring and recording on soil health status between governments, conservation authorities and industry. There’s a lot of data being collected, but analyzing and sharing data is difficult when organizations do not have a common format to collect or share data or to use the same methodology. Diversifying how the increasing amount of precision data from all aspects of crop production is collected and shared is important to improve how change is measured provincially, federally and even globally. Tools currently available to the public, such as OMAFRA’s AgMaps, provide access to provincial soil information. But much of that information is based on data collected pre-1960 and requires updating to be more relevant.

Climate change impacts soil health by increasing soil erosion risk from weather events by altering precipitation patterns and increasing average temperatures throughout the year. Fewer livestock producers and a trend toward more annual crops driven by high corn and soybean prices have resulted in fewer forages, pastures, woodlots and wetlands. Longer growing seasons facilitate more insect and disease activity. But they also facility opportunity for diversity in crop rotation and cover crops. OMAFRA’s AgErosion calculator and AgriSuite greenhouse calculation tool and the draft Soil Health Assessment and Planning Tool, or SHAP, identify which practices help in improving soils and potentially reduce emissions. These tools combined with best management practices books, information sheets and soil health videos provide a variety of outreach mechanisms to reach farmers of every generation.

However, changing climate and changing landscapes also require potential change in some of the traditional support that governments both federal and provincial provide. A focus on working with industry to provide a forum for collecting and aggregating data will help with metrics for improvements made and justify dollars spent.

An example of this is 4R Nutrient Stewardship where industry collects data on the number of acres managed using 4R principles.

While the Senate investigates methods to move forward on improving soil health across Canada, we think it’s important not to just understand soil health from continued research, but it is equally important to implement soil health practices, share results and engage early adopters within each sector. Early adopters have changed practices, often without incentives, and have continued the practices because there were economic benefits in addition to the agronomic benefits. Economic evidence like resilient yields due to improved soil health practices will influence other landowners as much or more than research.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today and thank you for your role in helping ensure a productive soil economy for future generations.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mark Raymond, Executive Director, Extension and Support Services Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Government of British Columbia: Good morning, Honourable committee chair Black. Good morning members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. It’s an honour to appear before this committee and provide our testimony for this important study.

My name is Mark Raymond, and I’m here today with my colleague, provincial soil specialist, Dieter Geesing.

I’d like to start by acknowledging that Mr. Geesing and I live and work on the traditional and unceded territory of the Coast Salish people, territory of the Stó:lo peoples, including the Sumas, Matsqui and Leq’á:mel First Nations. We recognize the importance of the First Nation as stewards of our soils for millennia and into the future.

Agriculture is one of the biggest economic drivers here in British Columbia. Although our land base makes up 5% of the total land base in B.C., it is very important to our local rural economies. The recent extreme weather events, whether flooding, wild fires, drought or extreme heat that we’ve experienced in recent years has severely disrupted and, in some cases, devastated our local food production. Provincially, soil health and the resilient food system, have therefore been identified as one of the main priorities of our ministry.

Last June, our minister’s Advisory Group on Regenerative Agriculture and Agritech was formed to provide strategic advice to government on opportunities for innovation, technology, adoption and sustainable practices to create more resilient farms and food systems, with soil health being a key priority of that regenerative agriculture focus.

Through this engagement, the ministry has developed a strategic framework for Regenerative Agriculture and Agritech that lays out the vision, mission, goals and values of where we want to go in the future. The infrastructure’s mission is to accelerate sustainable agricultural through the implementation of regenerative agricultural practices, championing where appropriate tools and agri-tech solutions and fostering knowledge and technology transfer help prepare for, and mitigate, climate change, to ensure a secure food source for British Columbia.

In addition to our own ministerial efforts as a priority that we’re putting forward on soil health, in February of this year the province stood up the Select Standing Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food that is focused on carbon soil sequestration and related technologies. The scope of work is threefold and is to examine and make recommendations with respect to: One, opportunities to increase carbon content in agricultural soils in British Columbia; two, support British Columbia’s agricultural technology sector as they relate to carbon sequestration ratio; three, support incentives for encouraging the use of made in British Columbia agricultural technology innovations to enhance carbon sequestration.

The committee is just in its infancy of formation, but it highlights the level of interest and priority that B.C. is putting on soil health and climate change mitigation at the provincial level.

Since last year, the ministry has intensified our regional extension work, and this year, we’ll be initiating and funding, in collaboration with industry and our academic partners, a wide range of on-farm trials to promote regenerative agricultural practices that are tailored to regional and commodity group needs. Trials range from cover cropping, rotational grazing to low-disturbance tillage, crop biodiversity and agri-forestry practices.

We have been updating and extending our list of best beneficial management practices for incentives for producers and increasing cost shares and caps for practices through our Environmental Farm Plan and Beneficial Management Practices Program.

Soil health is a crucial element in building a resilient food system. However, we recognize that the importance of soil health goes beyond crop production but also affects human health, the health of our livestock, biodiversity and the quality of our water and air. It’s also interesting to note that several relevant programs or extension tools that our ministry offers today have already been in place for many years in one form or another, but the focus on the term soil health is making its way to the forefront.

The beneficial management practices that we’ve promoted are still pertinent today. The programs, of course, have undergone changes and are really at a different level of urgency and focus for our producers.

With that, I’d now like to pass over to my colleague, Dieter Geesing, who will provide a few more comments and words on the status of our work here in B.C.

Dieter Geesing, Provincial Soil Specialist, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Government of British Columbia: Thank you, Mr. Raymond. I would like to reiterate the honour it is for me to provide testimony for your study.

Soil health degradation in B.C. happens differently across our diverse landscapes and climates. Along the coast, for example, prolonged periods of high water tables reduce the time that farmers can work their fields and makes soils more vulnerable to compaction. In the fertile delta of the Fraser River — from the ocean move further upstream to impact irrigation and soil salinity. In rural crops like blueberries, soil erosion is expected to increase as a result of more intense precipitation.

A major concern is the loss of soil organic carbon. A recent study showed a mean annual loss since 0.4% in many parts of the Lower Fraser Valley since 1984. For the rest of B.C., however, we don’t have quantitative data defining the status of soil health partly due to a lack of protocol to assess soil health.

The advisory group that Mr. Raymond mentioned earlier, has developed five recommendations for a provincial soil health strategy.

The first two recommendations are the establishment of a soil health baseline and continuous monitoring of soil health. We are, therefore, forming a soil health working group which will draft a soil health assessment protocol so that we can measure the effective management practices on soil health and soil carbon consistently.

The working group will also establish a protocol to facilitate data sharing between research and projects throughout B.C., including those of the federal Living Laboratories Initiative, which is the third recommendation.

A fourth recommendation has prompted our ministry to develop a multi-year extension program to help producers evaluate changes in soil health and carbon sequestration under regenerative farming practices. This is particularly important for B.C., because their effectiveness will vary widely between our many very different climates.

The final recommendation is for long-term support from all parties, including the federal government. Changes in soil health often take years or decades. Without coordinated and long-term commitment, we will be challenged to evaluate the effectiveness of our programs.

It is, therefore, important that the federal government continue to invest in soil health research and extension. It is also important that those federal initiatives be mandated to coordinate their work with that of our B.C. soil health working group.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony. Mr. Raymond and I are looking forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. I want to say thank you to Mr. Geesing and Mr. Raymond. I know it’s relatively early out there. We can see out the window. You have got your coffee in hand.

We’ll proceed with questions from senators. Before asking and answering questions, I’d like to ask people in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or removing your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.

As has been our previous practice, I’d like to remind each senator that you have — we’re going to increase it this time — eight minutes each. We’ll get through everyone once and see if there’s a second round. We’ll start with the deputy chair.

Senator Simons: I’m so excited to get eight minutes.

Ms. Brown, I want to thank you for your presentation which sums up so much of what we have already heard from witnesses and our frustration with the lack of a protocol to share data.

The data is in so many different places, some of it is outdated. A lot of provinces seem to have relied upon work done in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to understand their soil.

I want to ask representatives from each province: What do we need to do to create an accessible national database or gathering point for all of this information so that we can have a coherent understanding of soil health across the country, so that different jurisdictions can learn from the best practices of each jurisdiction?

I would ask Ms. Brown, Mr. Burton and Mr. Geesing to answer those questions.

Ms. Brown: I’m going to defer that to Daniel.

Daniel Saurette, Land Resource Specialist — Soil, Environmental Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of Ontario: Thank you for the good question. I’ve watched the previous videos and I’ve seen this question come up many times.

A national repository for all of the information that we have on soils in the country is essential. In Ontario, we have been going through our records and making our data digital and putting it into the databases that will soon be available.

Last week the Ontario budget announced an investment for the build of a soil database which will hold that data. The nice thing about that is that it is one example. On a national scale, we do need some sort of a national organization that will take on that task or that responsibility, to then collate the information from the various databases that already exist or are being built across the country.

That means in terms of the database structure, the type of information that’s being collected, harmonizing the way that information is being collected and stored; that has to do with all aspects of data management. There’s an opportunity for that to happen at the national level. Whether that happens within an organization or a department at the federal level, or in a different institute, is another discussion point to have in terms of where that data needs to reside in the end.

Senator Simons: Mr. Burton?

Mr. Burton: Yes. Thank you, senator, for the great question. Some of what I’ll say has already been answered.

It’s important not only to think about reporting on a national basis, but also to continue to invest in innovation so that we understand not only what practices are being done, and what the impact of those practices are, but what are other practices that can be adopted and new beneficial management practices that will increase soil health over time.

There’s some great work being done at the University of Saskatchewan, I’m sure in universities across the country on this. Yes, a national network and benchmark would be a good start, but you have to do something with that data. Taking it to the next level of research and what practices also has an impact.

Then there’s also a big question of how producers can be incentivized or compensated? How do you monetize the good work and the progress that’s being made?

There was a comment by a previous presenter that talked about a soil innovation cluster similar to the Protein Industries Innovation Superclusters that are in Saskatchewan.

There’s great work being done at the Global Institute for Food Security in Saskatchewan and the University of Saskatchewan, College of Agriculture and Bioresources; Crop Development Centre; and Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence. I think that would be a great place to start that cluster and to have them network across the country.

Senator Simons: Thank you. Mr. Geesing?

Mr. Geesing: Thank you for this great question.

This is a discussion on the national level that we also had within the province. I don’t want to repeat what’s been said before. It’s all true.

Mr. Saurette will remember that we reached out on a formal level. This informal communication needs to be formalized; we continuously communicate between those entities. We should not stop at just collecting data. We also need to have people who actually analyze the data and take it to the next level. What then?

If you get the data, this data needs to be maintained and analyzed. We need to draw conclusions. Collecting it is one thing, but working with the data is another thing.

The other aspect I want to emphasize is this data also needs to be made available to growers. The growers need to know how does my work and my practices actually impact my soil.

I heard a great comment that growers are proud of what they do. Our growers are very proud of what they do. Soil health is at the forefront for them.

We need to make sure when we make recommendations, we can make them with confidence; that is working toward the goal that the grower wants to achieve. The grower himself or herself needs to be sure their decisions are actually aligned with the goals of soil health.

Senator Simons: This is a quick question for Mr. Geesing. You’ve raised an issue that none of our witnesses have raised before, which is about the salinity of soil.

Last week’s testimony was about arsenic and mercury levels in soil in the Far North. I don’t think any witnesses have talked about the impact saltwater.

Can you tell us more about the impact of saline levels?

Mr. Geesing: We teamed up with the Delta Farmer Institute with regard to the anecdotal observation that the window of irrigation becomes smaller and smaller because the salt levels of the water moving up from the Fraser Valley seems to be shorter and shorter, where in summertime the water from the Fraser River lessens but the tides are still pretty high.

We commissioned a study that modelled and we showed this window toward the end of summer becomes smaller and smaller, especially in the time when we need the water most. The existing irrigation systems can’t store enough water to actually provide enough water, low-salt water, for most of those farmers in these areas — I don’t have the exact number — in a few decades. Of course, this is a major concern, as irrigation is one of the tools we need to improve our productivity.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much.

Senator Klyne: The first question I would like to ask is with regard to the Saskatchewan government. I’m quite delighted that Saskatchewan is the first Prairie government to testify before us for this study. Your opening remarks were a great source of Saskatchewan pride for me, so thank you very much.

We have heard many times about the collection, storage and research of soil samples, as well as sharing of the findings and recommendations around this. I’m not going to focus on that in this question, but what I want to focus on is this: Saskatchewan has a great deal of arable land that is in production. As soils differ from region to region, so does soil productivity. Saskatchewan is no different. I recall that there are five major soil zones in Saskatchewan.

Could you please tell this committee about the soil health of those five major soil zones, what opportunities and challenges they present, if there is anything that requires collaboration at different levels of government and how the federal government might play a role?

Mr. Burton: Thank you, Senator Klyne, for the question and comments. No doubt, soil zones differ and the experience is different across the country in terms of their ability to have healthier soils.

What we have seen through the Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project that I mentioned — I can get a copy; I’m sure you’ve heard about it as well — is that some of our soils in the southwest, in the brown soil zone, have actually seen the biggest gains through this period of time as we’ve moved to continuous cropping and an integrated cropping system. Just because there may be poorer soils to start with doesn’t mean they can’t be improved and actually improved quicker.

I’m a little out of my league when we get into the soil science area, but I know there is a difference. There is a difference even within the soil zone and within fields, as you’ve heard from other witnesses. Farmers need to analyze and collect that information so that they can get the right amount of fertilizer and nutrients in the right spots in their fields. It takes extensive soil testing to ensure you are doing that.

We’re working with the Global Institute for Food Security and with the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Agriculture and Bioresources. You had Dr. Bedard-Haughn come and speak to this committee. She’s doing some great work. She’s gathering real-time, farm-level data and using intensive soil data so that, over time, she can help determine what those practices are. She is also using artificial intelligence and machine learning to expand that so we can learn more as we go to areas that don’t have the same intensive data collection. We need to do more work there, and that’s one thing we’re investing in.

Senator Klyne: Thank you.

To the Government of British Columbia: You have definitely experienced some extreme critical weather events and wildfires, which are devastating and disruptive. You mentioned a strategic advisory committee for recovery and growth. What levels of government are engaged in that, and is there industry engagement? Has something been identified that’s lacking or is there something that the federal government can be responding with?

You’re aware that we did a report on the flooding. I’m wondering what the rebuild is on this. Are you doing anything differently with regard to the recovery and rebuild there?

Mr. Raymond: We referenced two different committees. One is our select standing committee. This standing committee is made up of Members of the Legislative Assembly, or MLAs, throughout the province. It is in its infancy. They met last week to put together their terms of reference. It is at that political level, but it does have representatives and MLAs throughout the province.

We also referenced our Minister’s Advisory Group on Regenerative Agriculture and Agritech. This advisory committee is made up of three components: there is an Indigenous lens in terms of Indigenous advice coming in; there is engagement with our BC Agriculture Council, which represents our primary agricultural commodity associations across B.C.; and there is a more mixed group that has representatives from academia, industry and agri-tech. We have three separate sets of stakeholders feeding into the advisory committee.

When it comes to flooding, specifically for the Fraser Valley, we have many levels of government — federal, provincial, municipal, as well as First Nations — engaged in putting together a plan of what that looks like. Yesterday we had a meeting in my office with about 30 City of Abbotsford staff to further refine those plans and how we’re going to build back better. The ministry is putting forward programming that looks at the types of crops that are being grown there to see if there is commodity switching that can allow for more resiliency for some of those producers. Perhaps blueberries might not do best in some of those high-risk flood zones. There are many pieces to the recovery side of things — whether that is our provincial diking systems or right down to the producer level — that we’re trying to look at.

Senator Cotter: Thank you to all the witnesses who have come to speak with us today and engage in our conversation. It is much appreciated.

I will focus and limit my questions and discussion to the conversation with you, Mr. Burton. Thank you so much for joining us. If I could extend the early morning appreciation to you as well. Senator Black has clearly lost track of the time in Saskatchewan. As a deputy minister from a farming family, this is probably the middle of your day already, Mr. Burton. It is nice to see you again. There aren’t many people with whom I might have overlapped in working with the Saskatchewan government. I know you’ve been a captive of Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Agriculture for 30-some years. It is great that you can participate in our inquiry here.

I have four questions. Maybe I could ask all of them and you could offer a response to whichever ones seem to be helpful.

As a preliminary observation, we’ve had a number of Saskatchewan farmers and innovators offer impressive advice. We’re hoping that the broader that occurs across the Prairies, in particular, the better for soil health and for agriculture and agri‑food generally.

My first question flows from what Senator Klyne asked, which was about the relationship with the University of Saskatchewan. As you noted, some of the innovation that has occurred, particularly in Prairie farming, is grounded in research that occurred there. I spoke with Alanna Koch a number of years ago when she was your predecessor. There were a number of partnerships and investments that your department was making in research and innovation. I would be interested in knowing the degree to which that continues to happen.

Building on some of the dialogue around information, databases and the like, you would know, as we do, that agriculture is a joint jurisdiction between federal, provincial and territorial governments. It seems like the natural expectation of people is that those governments would work together on questions about gathering data and either financing or supporting the consolidation of data and information in consistent ways that can then benefit not only the kinds of people who are on the phone but also farmers, ranchers, and others, in the field. I would be interested in the degree to which that is happening or whether you agree that is in Ottawa’s portfolio of responsibility.

The third is we have heard that in years when grain prices and other food crops are high, it puts a lot of pressure on grasslands and people converting grasslands to more formal forms of agriculture. Is that the case in Saskatchewan? Is that a challenge or an opportunity from both your perspective and that of the Government of Saskatchewan?

Lastly, I appreciated the advice about the idea of a soil innovation cluster. That’s a new and interesting thought for us to consider. I’m interested as well in the degree to which you see challenges ahead for Saskatchewan agriculture driven by whatever forces, including climate change. That’s kind of a potpourri of questions, but I would benefit from your thoughts on them. Thank you.

Mr. Burton: Thanks for the questions, Senator Cotter. It’s great to see you again. I appreciate your comments.

With respect to research, Saskatchewan is investing more than $35 million annually in agriculture research and innovation. About $6.4 million of that is directly impacting soil health and research into soil health. An additional $22 million is indirectly supporting soil health through breeding and other related activities.

We’re doing a lot in this area. We fund a variety of programs and research chairs specifically focused on soil health and fertility research. We also are home to several world-class institutions that we help support that I talked about already, for example, the Global Institute for Food Security, the Crop Development Centre and the Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence.

The other thing we do in our province is we have demonstration farms. Through the ADOPT, otherwise known as Agriculture Demonstration of Practices and Technologies, and our Agriculture-Applied Research Management sites, or Agri‑ARM — we have eight across the province — we are helping to get that innovation and that research in the hands of producers quickly through these innovation networks and technology transfer networks. I appreciate an opportunity to talk about that.

With regard to information, databases and sharing, you’re absolutely right. Producers, our clients, and the taxpayers, expect the two levels of government to work together. We are committed to do that. Yes, we need to do more work, quite frankly, on the databases and connecting them, as was outlined already.

In Saskatchewan, and I think in provinces and territories in general, at times feel like we are another stakeholder and not a partner. To really make progress, we need to be seen as a partner with the senior level of government when we’re doing these things. I am happy to see that continue to advance, but there’s more work to be done.

Regarding grain prices increasing and your comment on livestock and forage acres, absolutely. That’s always a challenge. It’s an opportunity as well. We have seen an increase in cattle prices, for instance, in Western Canada, but we also know that they’re being squeezed on the input side. Drought and other costs have driven up the cost of production on the cattle side. The incentive or the opportunity maybe to move some of those grasslands into crop production is there.

Through some of the funding under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership Program, we’re putting in place beneficial management practices, to help assist with the seeding of new forage acres and renewal of forage acres. Furthermore, we’re putting in some incentives to help keep those new acres in forage. Naturally, we can’t provide incentive on all the new acres, but we can provide some incentive to help it stay there for a while. There’s lots we can do, but we’re always looking for ways to do more.

Rotational grazing is taking off in Saskatchewan. More use of rotational grazing across our native Prairies and our tame forages increases the production capacity of those, increases nutrient cycling and makes a better economic system for our cattle producers. We can provide incentives and support there as well.

Regarding challenges ahead, yes, having access to all the tools in the toolbox is always going to be a challenge. This is an integrated system, and you need access to all of the tools. You can’t start pulling tools away from producers without having a replacement to help deal with integrated pests, nutrient management and those types of things.

Senator Petitclerc: I have a few shorter questions, but also a few regarding data. We’ve been coming back to it at almost every meeting. This time I believe it is you, Mr. Raymond or Mr. Geesing, who talked in your opening remarks about the importance of an appropriate baseline. If that’s the case, I want to hear from you about looking forward to where we want to go, and looking now to what we need to have in terms of being able to do our best when it comes to soil health and practices.

How important is it to have that proper baseline of data and information and build from it? What are the challenges and obstacles to building that? I would like to have an answer from the representatives of different provinces as well.

Mr. Geesing: Yes. Thank you, senator. I think I’ll start on this.

The importance of the baseline is that currently— and I’m specifically here for B.C. — we have limited data on soil health where we actually quantify where we are currently. If you want to see where we are going, we need to see those changes. If we measure next year, or in three years, we wouldn’t know whether we improved.

An improvement or a deterioration needs two points to measure: now and in the future. It’s like a line where you don’t know if you are decreasing or increasing; you can’t tell. We need to know where we are first. That’s very important. We need both research with very detailed, good data and the quantitative mass of data to see where we are moving province-wide.

In addition, farming practices are the result not only of the soil but also of the commodity. We have more than 200 commodities. The way that we practise and farm will be almost surgical. We know the impact of different farming practices will be different depending on the commodity. We will make sure that all the permutations of soils, climate and for — we have the data to see what we are doing is actually helping. We can anticipate that certain practices that are generally good for soil may be not as good or maybe even counterproductive in a different setting or commodity. This is important data to have.

This needs to be concurrent with what we are doing. We need to do it; we have to act. However, concurrently, we need to ensure that we collect the data so that in a reverse scenario we can say, “Stop. This isn’t going to where we want to go.” Or we learn and say, “Oh yes, that is a good thing. We need to make sure this practice adopted more.” This is a very complex approach that needs a lot of hands on deck, a lot of funds and coordinated and long-term commitment.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. To follow up, would that be also applied to the importance of having mapping? I’m not sure about B.C., but with the mapping of a province it is only part of the territory or province that is properly mapped. Is that an issue?

Mr. Geesing: It does. I referred to a previous comment. Our maps are also outdated in a certain way. They date from 1960, 1970, at best 1980s, and climate change has changed that. Again, even the best soil mapping can’t replace soil management on site. We can go only to a certain detail. Typically, the current soil maps generalize. They work with algorithms that generalize, but we need to be more specific.

It doesn’t tell us how that soil responds to management practices. Soil mapping is one of the important tools that needs to be done, but concurrent with other measures we need to do. We also need to do that permanently. Soil maps don’t, for example, typically map things like pH and the ones we have, at most, texture. For example, we don’t have any soil maps of carbon. There are several levels of soil maps. We need to make sure that this is concurrent work. We cannot wait until the soil maps are done. We also need to act right now and then measure that site specifically.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.

I’m not sure if other witnesses would like to answer that or have something to add. I’m looking at you, Mr. Saurette.

Mr. Saurette: Yes, of course. I’ll echo some of the comments from Mr. Geesing on establishing a baseline.

We often get the question: Are we improving soil health? My question back is always: Well, we don’t have a baseline to compare against. We need to build that baseline of information now so that in the future we can look back and say are we improving or not?

There was some incredible work done in the mid-1980s to early 1990s after the Sparrow report. There was an investment in soil survey, mapping and collecting baseline information.

There are some areas where we have some decent information but, again, they’re limited. We talked about the limitations of the soil maps and how a lot of the soil maps are pre-1960.

In Ontario, we’ve been fortunate. We have started on some work on baselining soil health. Christine mentioned the topsoil sampling program that started in 2019. So far we have sampled 500 farms across the province. We’re building a baseline to try to understand what soil health looks like across our agricultural soils.

Another thing to consider is the scale at which we measure these things. There is the field scale and then there are the regional scale, provincial scale and national scale. We need different types of information to understand and look at soil health at all of those various scales.

For example, at a field scale, we have a program called ONFARM, which is the On-Farm Applied Research and Monitoring program which looks at paired sites where you have BMPs, or best management practices, applied on one side of the field and not on the other. Then we compare soil health metrics across there.

Provincially, we have the topsoil sampling program.

Mr. Geesing is right. Right now we do not have soil maps that show you soil carbon across the landscape, or pH. You have heard testimony from Dr. Heung at Dalhousie University. We collaborate on digital soil mapping. The digital soil mapping is going to allow us to provide better information on individual soil properties across the landscape which the traditional soil maps from the 1980s and 1990s were not able to do. We have advances in technology that allow us to do these things now.

Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your expertise. I’m learning and learning and learning, and it’s fun.

As part of this study, we’ve had many witnesses. I was able to read the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada report of 2016 which highlighted soil health conditions, and that they had improved across most of Canada, partly because of these best management practices, et cetera.

However, in Ontario, that study revealed that Ontario was the one that was not keeping up with the pack, that’s what I’m going to say, and that it reported a very high erosion risk in much of Ontario — I’m going to speak to my Prairie colleagues there — while indicating a very low soil erosion risk in the Prairie provinces.

My question is, first of all, is this true? Is Ontario lagging?

Ms. Brown: There is significant soil erosion. I can’t say whether it is increasing or decreasing, because I think it’s site‑specific.

There are some factors that come into the increase in erosion in areas, intense rain storms. We sometimes get more rain now in early spring during that February to March period, along with snow melt. We sometimes get several inches in a very short period of time, or a large volume of rain in a short period of time. Even some of the best management practices don’t help toward that.

Where we get more gentle rains, we tend to see — if you’ve got cover crops, if you have got cereal rye — over winter, we see big improvements in the amount of soil that doesn’t get to the watercourses. Intense storms are one thing.

The other thing that we see is as fence rows get removed, as fields and equipment gets bigger, there tends to be bigger areas, bigger slopes where that water has a chance to move more soil. Decreasing soil organic matters in some fields will make a difference in that aggregate stability. The soil isn’t capable of staying in its place.

There are a number of different factors that contribute to soil erosion. I wouldn’t say that it’s increased everywhere. It is site‑specific in different regions.

Senator Burey: Overall, for Ontario, are we going in the right direction?

Ms. Brown: We’re going in the right direction, yes. We’re focusing on areas where that erosion is the highest.

Have we solved the problem completely? No. That will be difficult until we figure out how to slow the impact of those intense storms.

Senator Burey: Go ahead, Mr. Saurette.

Mr. Saurette: If I can also add a comment. That report also shows — in the second part of the soil erosion section — that Ontario has an inherently higher risk of soil erosion.

It also shows in the second part of that section that the overall erosion has not increased over time. We are doing a good job of managing that erosion, despite the fact that there’s been a lot of conversion from perennial systems to annual crops. Annual cropping systems are more susceptible to erosion because they have more exposed soil.

The best management practices that are being used in those systems are helping mitigate erosion as well. That speaks well to the adoption of best management practices that prevent erosion, which also, coincidentally, are best management practices that improve soil health and how well they are actually working at mitigating erosion on the landscape as well.

More implementation of those BMPs is key to further reducing or mitigating our risk of erosion.

Senator Burey: Following up on that, are you funding those with an equity lens and making sure that farmers across the diverse spectrum of our wonderful province and country are able to access that? Following up, do you have any metrics that would show that the funding for these programs is being done on an equitable basis?

Ms. Brown: There have been a lot of funding opportunities for those kinds of practices, for conservation tillage, modifying equipment, no-till and strip tillage more recently, because that gives you the compromise of leaving residue and still having the strips in place for planting crops.

The funding for these best management practices has been available to farmers all over the province through the Environmental Farm Plan, then after that through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or CAP, and now probably through the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or SCAP, and through programs like the Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program.

Those programs are making cost share with farmers. It’s run through the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. It is available to any farm. They have to take the environmental farm plan, and then they can apply.

There is always a need for more funding, because there are more farmers who want to apply for those funds than there are funds. It is equitable across the province.

Senator Burey: We heard that the funding is available. We heard from other witnesses, however, that some people don’t know about these funding arrangements. They are having difficulty accessing these programs.

I want to know if you have any metrics which will tell us, well, we had farms across the whole spectrum that were able, not only to apply, but also to be successful with these applications. Does the government collect any of this data?

Ms. Brown: I don’t have access to that data. I don’t know that data.

The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association reports on how much funding goes to each of the practices, where those funds are. I’m not sure they have a map of exactly across the province which practices are where, but they do keep very good metrics and they report to the government on those metrics.

Senator Burey: Would we be able to get that available to this committee?

Ms. Brown: We can go back and ask for that data.

Senator Burey: Thank you so much.

Mr. Burton: Do I have an opportunity to respond to that?

Senator Burey: Most certainly.

Mr. Burton: Awesome. Great question and great observation.

Of course, the situation across the country is different. I think you’re hearing that today. I think there’s been different challenges across the country, but this also means that there will be different solutions going forward. We need to consider regional flexibility in our solutions and our approach. That’s one thing.

The second thing, in regions that have already made good advancements, like our province — I’ve shown you some of the evidence — farmers should not be penalized by that. We need to find ways to help them monetize and be recognized for the good work they’ve done to date.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Duncan: Thank you to all of our witnesses who have come before us this early morning. I can certainly appreciate that being from the Yukon.

I’d like to outline two areas of interest and provide the opportunity for the witnesses to respond. Following up on Senator Simons’ comment about the collection of data, you have all outlined amazing work that’s being done in your provinces, innovative solutions and practices. I’d like to ask you to provide the committee with a specific recommendation. If you could hold the pen, could you give us a specific recommendation to include in our report as to the best methodology you can see for sharing the data and practices with respect to soil health?

My second area of interest, yes, we are the Agriculture Committee. The changing soil and changing climate, it’s important that soil health include, when we say across the country, that we also look north and not forget that there are three territories farther north. I would point out that there are several innovative agriculture practices in my home territory.

With respect to soil health also, though, there are naturally occurring substances that have an impact on human health. I’m specifically referring to radon. The Canadian Lung Association has done a great deal of work. Radon is naturally released, and if it’s occurring in the soil and released and it’s in basements, it has an impact on the lung cancer rates of the residents if mitigation measures do not take place.

I know the Canadian Lung Association has done a great deal of work across the country where this exists, certainly in the Yukon. Your comments specifically included agriculture, but I’m wondering if you are also familiar with that data and if you would have any comments on that. Thank you.

The Chair: Are you addressing it to all witnesses?

Senator Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: Let’s start with Ontario.

Ms. Brown: That is totally out of my scope of expertise.

Mr. Saurette: Radon is out of my scope of expertise as well. In terms of your first question with regard to a recommendation of soil data management and sharing, we have heard from previous witnesses and I agree with them. Some sort of a federated model where the information can be shared across all the organizations. I think that data also needs to be housed at different institutions and replicated.

We have seen in the past where we have built data systems and then we have lost funding for those systems and they diminish and disappear. Part of it is to make sure that data is replicated across the country and can be accessed by anybody so that if we lose one site, we have many others.

Senator Duncan: Perhaps we can use the term throughout the country, if I might.

The Chair: Now from our online witnesses. Mr. Burton?

Mr. Burton: Thank you. Great question. No response to the second part of that question. I have no information on that.

With regard to the first question, first off, I want to congratulate you for holding the hearings and I look forward to your report because I think it can be an important first step in recognizing the differences in soil health across the country, but the gains that have been made. I think it’s important to recognize and celebrate that, not only nationally but internationally.

In terms of a recommendation — we’ve already hit on it. People have talked about a national database. I truly believe we need to be bolder and broader than that. We need to talk about soil innovation. The database is the first place to start, but we need to talk about how we can use that data to actually inform producers of changes that can make further gains in soil health across the country. It can also be used to help innovations in marketing systems that allow them to capture some of the benefits, which will further increase the impact and the pickup of some of these activities.

If they can monetize it, it’s going to happen quickly. I think an innovation centre with that can be very important. I think it’s important that all of us continue to tell the story of the sustainable agriculture situation and production that happens in Canada and in our regions when we go internationally. I think that’s important for our customers and clients to hear that. I think we have a great story to tell and we need to continue to tell it and tell it very loudly.

Mr. Geesing: Maybe I can take this question. I will focus on the first part, what would I do if I could put my pen on that. Much of what has been said before is very true. Since it is a very complex and technical question, I would set up a task force pushing forward to see all that data collection and data-sharing approach. That task force would be on a federal level and it will have, if you want, broader task forces in the provinces. It needs to be modular. The type of information we need on the provincial, even on the local level, is different, so it becomes more granular. Those task forces have a different mandate but we still have that system in place that we can communicate. The data exchange is easy and simple. We start with a national repository, yes, but we also need provincial. Those different repositories need to talk to each other. We should not stop at establishing it, it should be a long-term commitment. The history is there that we have established beyond the next two or three years.

These task forces can then really get into the technicalities. That should not only be an academic exercise but it needs to be consistent with practical approaches.

The Chair: You have one more minute, if you want.

Senator Duncan: For my one more minute, I would flag for the committee that soil health is related to human health. As part of an overall picture of soil health, I think it’s important we also consider these other aspects, such as the radon that I mentioned. Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: I would be remiss if I didn’t — everybody is talking about times everywhere. I’m from British Columbia and I want to say to you that my British Columbian colleagues, it’s only 10 to 7 a.m. Welcome to all of you. I want to give a shout out to my British Columbian friends, where it’s even earlier.

I have a question for the British Columbian witnesses, but before I ask it, I want to say in all transparency that I’m a farmer in Abbotsford. You should know that.

Mr. Raymond, you talked about diking in the Fraser Valley. We have had droughts and floods and then A1, but that’s not to do with soil, happily. Mr. Raymond and then maybe Mr. Geesing, has the soil affected the dikes? What is the situation of the soils and the dikes?

Mr. Raymond: I can’t speak to the integrity of the different diking systems throughout the Fraser Valley. They are all at various levels of integrity. As far as the soils from a recent flooding, we did a study looking at the impacts of flooding on our agricultural soils. There were no contaminants of interest in the sites that we tested. In terms of the impacts from the recent flooding, the agricultural soils were at low risk and we supported producers in getting back into those fields and growing.

Mr. Geesing: The dikes are engineered soil systems that have little in common with the soils on the Prairies. As Mr. Raymond said, after the flood, there was a lot of learning. We also heard there would be an impact from contaminants and even compaction. None of it was true. In fact, we were positively surprised that while many blueberries died — and that was a tragedy — we were surprised by the amount. We thought that all the blueberries had died, but in the end, quite a large portion survived.

You specified Abbotsford, and I live in Abbotsford. The lands in the Sumas Prairie are lake-bottom lands and are, if you like, used to being under water. Here, the physical structure has not been compromised to that extent. The concern of contaminants was predominant, but it has been proven not to be a concern. The diking is a municipal issue, which I can’t speak to. My understanding is that an improvement in dikes is overdue, but that is also a funding question for the municipalities.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all of you.

Senator Greenwood: Thank you for the opportunity. I am filling in on this committee. I don’t have all the background that everybody else does, so I might ask some questions that are far beyond anyone’s expertise. However, these questions occur to me as I’m listening to these important conversations, and they have to do with the health of non-agricultural lands and soils.

I’ll tell you why I’m asking. Recently I was listening to a conversation around the warming of permafrost, the impact on soil and, therefore, the access to services and human health, as previous senators have spoken of. I wonder if that is part of your work.

I also wonder about food security. In all transparency, I have lived most of my life in northern British Columbia and have done a lot of work in the north across this country. Many communities have spoken to me about augmenting their food security by hunting, fishing and those sorts of things. That’s what precipitates this question around the health of the land that’s outside of agriculture. Maybe that’s far beyond your purview; I don’t know. But I thought it was important to raise it.

I briefly heard the words “Indigenous knowledge” around the health of the land. I wonder if you might share any of that information or if that’s been an opportunity for you so far.

Mr. Raymond: I can start with that. Indigenous agriculture has been an increasing priority for our ministry and my branch over the past six years. Four years ago, we started a minister’s Indigenous advisory committee, which has 15 to 18 members. We’ve met many times throughout the year, looking to see how we can support Indigenous agriculture and truly understand their needs. At that table, we have agricultural producers, chiefs and economic development councils. We’ve put forward a pretty strong B.C. Indigenous Agriculture Development Program that’s looking at the many different needs, whether that’s business planning, local food initiatives or greenhouse supports. From an Indigenous side, we are looking to support our agricultural producers. This has been a predominant piece of our programming and will continue to be going forward.

From a non-agricultural land side of things, as I mentioned, the agricultural land base in B.C. is only 5% of the land within the Agricultural Land Reserve. We have a lot of Crown land that supports timber as well as grazing for our cattle.

We are working closely with our colleagues at the Ministry of Forests in terms of looking at soil health and soil carbon. We have a lot of integrated systems. We look at the soil health of our forestry sector and how that impacts water infiltration and downstream effects on agriculture and irrigation levels, and even getting into some of our fish and aquaculture habitats. It is a very integrated system and we are working closely together on that.

You mentioned food security for B.C. One of the pieces in our minister’s mandate letter is to develop an emergency preparedness strategy for food security in B.C., taking into account some of the recent weather events — whether it’s fires, floods or extreme heat that we’ve had in the past two years — and how that impacts our local food security. Many communities haven’t had access to food because roads have been shut off by wildfires and such, and Indigenous communities as well.

As per our mandate, we are looking to work with Emergency Management BC, our partner ministry, to put together that plan or strategy to make sure we’re connecting local food security with the extreme weather events we’ve been having.

Mr. Burton: I won’t weigh in on the first question about non-ag lands.

In terms of engagement with Indigenous agricultural producers and opportunities, our minister is also on a journey in this area. We’ve increased our resources and our focus on this area in recent years. We’ve hired a senior Indigenous adviser and set up an Indigenous unit to help engage with First Nations and Métis communities. We have a team of regional specialists, called the Building and Strengthening Indigenous Supports group, which is trying to build relationships to help Indigenous communities take advantage of the agriculture opportunities that exist for them and where they are seeing interest in expanding those.

Ms. Brown: Mr. Saurette and I work exclusively with farmers. We’re not involved in non-agricultural land, so we can’t comment on that.

In terms of best management practices that try to maintain or improve food security, those are related to soil health. Anything we can do that will maximize infiltration of water, we will have enough organic matter in the soil so that we can have the best water-holding capacity. Even during the dry season, when there’s been no rain for weeks on end, we will still have some moisture available for the crop. I think that’s the best we can do in terms of food security.

I can’t comment much on the work with Indigenous communities. We do have more and more staff in our extension group that have an Indigenous background, and that’s helping with inclusivity and working with those groups.

Senator Greenwood: The comment I would make is about the interrelationship. Just because it’s agricultural land here and next door is non-ag land, they are all in relationship and influence each other. That is an important point that the speakers brought out. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Brown, you said in your presentation that there’s no common method of measuring and reporting soil health status across government, industry and organizations. I know this has been touched on through a number of other questions, but is it realistic to expect that one can be developed? I’ll ask each of the other provinces as well. Is it realistic that we can expect a common method of measuring and reporting?

Ms. Brown: I’m going to refer that to Mr. Saurette. Before he answers, though, it’s not part of the long-term metrics maybe, but perhaps we could put a price on organic matter. We have a price for nitrogen, phosphorus and potash. If a value were put on organic matter, in a lot of cases that would help with reporting. It would be consistent regardless of where you go across the country, or in the United States, or in other countries. It would also help with balancing some of the organic amendments, for example, that look more at the liquid fertilizer part of it versus the organic matter component.

Look at opportunities like, for example, using some of the urban waste, leaf yard waste, sewage biosolids, and so on. Compost it, bring it to retail and have a fertilizer mixed and an organic matter value. That is one thing that could help with that reporting. I’m going to turn it to Mr. Saurette now.

Mr. Saurette: In terms of soil health measurement and a single metric, it’s more complex than that. I’ve heard other testimony as well and I would agree. If you have a single metric, a soil organic matter metric, or soil organic carbon, is likely more important. We also have to acknowledge the fact that there are regional differences. Ontario soils will not achieve the same amount of soil organic carbon as prairie soils. Keep in mind that there are regional limitations to soil carbon.

The Chair: To the other two provincial governments, is it realistic that we can expect a single measure of reporting soil health?

Mr. Burton: Of course, it’s realistic to have a single measure. I’m always convinced you can do that. However, when you have one single measure, you also lose some of the other underlying aspects that you might want to know and hear.

You can do it within a single measure, yes, but I think we’d want a more robust set of measurements, whether you’re talking about organic matter, or organic carbon, or other things that are important on a regional basis.

The Chair: B.C.?

Mr. Geesing: I’m optimistic that it is feasible, but it will not be one single number. It will be a set of parameters. Those parameters will have different importance, depending on the circumstances and on site-specific conditions.

I’m very optimistic that if we measure the same set of parameters, depending on the station, we can pick and choose which one is important in that context while still being able to communicate and compare across regions and provinces and perhaps even internationally.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Saurette, I heard your minister speak about OASIS. Could you just share with us what OASIS is?

Mr. Saurette: Yes. OASIS, the Ontario Agricultural Soil Information System, was included in the 2022 Ontario budget funding announcement last week. It includes physical infrastructure to store soil and agricultural data that’s being collected by the ministry; to build field data collection applications to standardized soil data collection in the field so that all our specialists are collecting information that can all feed into a single database or repository; and to provide mechanisms to disseminate soil information and provide resources for data analysis and reporting. It’s an information system to collate soil information that’s been collected at the provincial level all into one database. That would allow analysis of all that data in one place. That includes soil information and, eventually, data from things like agronomic trials on site — stuff that some of our specialists are doing with our partner organizations.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Brown, I know you’ve been involved in soils for many years. As an expert in soil health, we’ve heard from several witnesses in the past that early adopters of healthy soil practices are concerned about being forgotten in government recognition when developing programs and subsidies.

In your job, now and in the past, do you see these early adopters being ignored, not listened to? How can we support them better?

Ms. Brown: That’s an excellent question. The short answer is yes, we see the adopters. They don’t qualify for some of the funding programs for the BMPs because they’re already doing them. The intent with these programs is we want to get more people doing the best management practices. There’s always some standards on what is needed to qualify for the funding.

It’s important to have early adopters feel like they belong in these funding programs. One of the things — and this is just an idea — that I see that could help is if you had some kind of funding for new adopters or somebody adopting a program where there’s a bit of insurance. They’re trying something new. When you’re trying something new, oftentimes there are modifications to be made and you can experience a yield hit or a setback in what would be your compared practice. If there were some insurance to cover some of those potential economic losses while that practice is being modified or perfected, it could be an opportunity for some of these innovators. There are probably other things that we can do, but that’s the one that comes to mind.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I will yield the rest of my time. Before I do, I know you’ve been recognized as a soil champion in the province of Ontario, so congratulations.

Senator Simons: Senator Black, you stole the question I was going to ask Ms. Brown, so now I’m going to move on to the question I have for Mr. Burton.

You talked about the importance of precision agriculture and precision agriculture techniques to minimize fertilizer waste and maximize irrigation. The challenge is that lots of that precision agriculture technology is extraordinarily expensive for farmers to purchase. Some of it relies on having access to good Wi-Fi broadband, some kind of computer technology, which isn’t always available in rural prairie farms.

Do you have some thoughts, picking up where Ms. Brown left off, about what we could do to make it easier for farmers to be able to finance those kinds of purchases and to lead to widespread adoption of techniques that are really valuable but costly for the point of entry?

Mr. Burton: That’s both a great question and a challenging one. Yes, broadband and access to connectivity is an issue in some parts of our province and, I think, in other provinces as well. We continue to see investments in that area through our provincial organization. A few weeks ago, the federal government’s Minister of Rural Economic Development, Minister Gudie Hutchings, was out in Saskatchewan and made a welcome announcement. We appreciate that support to expand broadband, but that is a challenge in some areas for some producers.

You’re right, it can be costly. Whether you’re talking about more extensive soil testing, access to satellite imagery, or sectional control shutoffs, all of these things have a price tag. But producers are seeing they also have a payoff. If financing is an issue, are there ways that we can help with financing? I don’t think we have looked specifically at that because I don’t know that financing has been an issue. It’s more the economic case for their individual farm. Sometimes, you have to be at scale to make that purchase of a new air seeder with the latest technology. Maybe I’ll leave it at that for now.

Senator Simons: I want to put on the record that the other question I want to raise is about carbon markets. How can we provide economic incentives by having real, legitimate backed carbon markets that authentically reward people for the authentic sequestration of carbon?

Senator Cotter: Can I donate two minutes of my time in the second round to Senator Simons, because that is a question I was going to ask and this is a good opportunity?

Senator Simons: That is the question: What do we need to do to create working carbon markets to incentivize people to change what they do? I’ll start with Ms. Brown.

Ms. Brown: The question is really on carbon sequestration. On a field level, we’re not there yet. As a soil team, we’re working really hard with farmers to say, okay, where are the opportunities to store carbon? To store carbon is different than carbon sequestration. In that cycle, sometimes that carbon is there not for 20 years or whatever, but where are the opportunities to store carbon with cover crops, organic amendments, combinations and synergies of combinations of practices, residue management, less tillage, all of those things?

Where in our production systems, and in the different production systems, are the places where we’re releasing carbon? For example, tillage, how much of what we’ve stored is being released when we do a tillage event? That’s where we’re starting. We’re starting more on a shorter scale. Let’s learn where the opportunities are.

Senator Simons: Saskatchewan, you are at scale. What do we do for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have real markets?

Mr. Burton: Thank you for that question. I really appreciate it.

If you’re looking at the federally regulated system, it starts with 2017. That’s an arbitrary date and that penalizes early adoption.

In the voluntary market, there are principles around additionality and permanency that don’t always work well in an agriculture environment. We need to think about some of those rules.

As we develop, and as voluntary markets develop, we’re seeing a lot of emphasis put on aggregators, verification and bean counters who will get a big slice of that pie. There is a much smaller slice of that pie and incentive for producers.

We have to find ways and mechanisms to make sure that many or the majority of those dollars go to the producers who are actually making the difference. How do we do that?

Senator Simons: It is not just the crop growers, but the ranchers too.

Mr. Burton: Yes, absolutely, great point. The ranchers too. How do we do that?

There are some things we can do in terms of research that can minimize some of the field-level data collection that’s needed in the current environment to say there are models that can say how much you’re aggregating based on the practices you’re using. We are investing in that research at the Global Institute for Food Security. I have mentioned some work that the University of Saskatchewan is doing, Dr. Bedard-Haughn. Those will be the initial steps in how you can help producers monetize the gains that they have made and the carbon that they have sequestered into their soils.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much.

Senator Cotter: Thanks for the answer on carbon markets. That was a similar interest I wanted to inquire about.

A question or observation with respect to Mr. Burton. There have been these tensions between federal and provincial governments on various fronts, particularly Prairie provinces and Ottawa. Some of it has been negative dialogue.

I wanted to observe whether the numbers are precisely right, every airport I go in now, on those electronic billboards I get to see what great work Saskatchewan farmers and ranchers are doing. I don’t know whether you’re the architect of those billboards. I thought that was a more constructive form of dialogue. As a Saskatchewanian, I certainly appreciated it.

Can I zero in on the point you made about penalizing early adopters? Those billboards, and much of the evidence we have heard here, indicates that there have been significant achievements by farmers, ranchers and other producers in Saskatchewan, and across the Prairies in particular.

Two questions here, one is the degree to which there are more adopters to come; where would we be on that continuum? Second, is there a mechanism by which the people who have actually led the way can see those efforts recognized and, in some cases, compensated?

Mr. Burton: Thank you for the question. Yes, a great observation on the billboards and the campaign in the airports. I think it’s just another way.

Senator Cotter: Rick Burton somewhere, I think.

Mr. Burton: No, no. There is a team behind those numbers. It is important to tell that story. There are a lot of people going through the airports, both domestic and international, who see and have commented on that.

How many more adopters are there? First, I want to say that zero till, I mentioned that zero or minimum till is up to 95%. Even though it’s at 95%, it means there is only 5% more to go. It means they are making incremental gains and contributions every year. That soil health or increased organic matter, the longer they’re doing zero till or conservation tillage, the more it is to improve, so that’s there.

Other things, I’ll mention precision ag. We talked a little bit about precision ag. There is lots more that we can do in making gains for our nutrient stewardship programs. Again, we’re working with Fertilizer Canada to extend that. We’re in the early days of some of the adoption of those technologies. That is where we will see further gains in the future.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Klyne: I’m going to frame this question for Ontario, but I welcome the other two governments to chime in with answers.

Ontario is home to some of the country’s largest agricultural operations. As a province, there is a little bit of everything: Urban farming on rooftops in Toronto, large-scale farming operations in rural areas, and everything in between, not to mention that much of the land in agriculture also adds value, finishing and packaging what they harvest which, I believe, results in the highest revenue per acre in the country.

My question is this: With all this diversity and intensive agriculture, does this create issues for you to get your arms around the concerns for soil health, assuring equitable food distribution, food security and being able to sustain all this alongside urban sprawl, diverting vast quantities of agricultural land and productivity capacity?

Mr. Saurette: With regard to the diversity and the struggle with understanding soil health, it’s certainly a challenge to have a diverse agricultural sector that we have to try to understand soil health for. We are starting to get a better understanding of that.

We’re working with the topsoil sampling program, where we’ve targeted all of the different types of production systems. We’re doing sampling and trying to quantify soil health as best as possible in the various sectors. That goes from the vineyards and orchards of the Niagara Region, to the cash cropping areas through all of southwestern and eastern Ontario, and also into the specialty crop of vegetable production areas.

It certainly provides a challenge. We have to do more sampling work because of the diversity there is, I don’t think that there is that much of a struggle to understand.

Again, there are a key set of indicators that we’re looking at in terms of trying to quantify soil health. Those are the same across the board.

Senator Klyne: In the sense of food distribution, equitable food distribution and food security, are you feeling the urban sprawl push on that, diverting productive land?

Mr. Saurette: I’m not sure. The focus of our work is on the technical and scientific aspects around soil health. We have colleagues in other departments within the ministry that work on land use and land-use planning. That’s outside of my expertise.

Senator Klyne: I’m wondering, if there’s time, because innovation may need to weigh in, in terms of more production per acre, given that some land is going to be taken up by urban sprawl. I don’t know if the others have comments on that.

Mr. Burton: Thanks. The challenge or dichotomy is between helping to deal with food insecurity internationally and soil health.

I don’t think those are mutually exclusive and we’ve proved that in this province. We have growth production targets of 45 million tons of crop production by 2030. I think we will achieve that and see improvements of our soil health through the adoption of the practices.

I heard Dr. Curtis Rempel before your committee and he talked about intensification of crop production means improved soil health and crop sequestration; that is important to remember on the crop side.

On the livestock side and the range side, how can we get more pounds of beef off the same amount of range and tame forage acres? We can through better range health assessments, understanding what grass native species are there and when to graze them, rotational grazing practices, all of these things are going to contribute to increased food production and improve soil health over time because that nutrient cycling occurs when we make better use of the land.

The Chair: Anything from British Columbia?

Mr. Raymond: We have our agricultural land reserve in British Columbia that protects our agricultural land for productivity. It is a pretty good tool to help us with food insecurity. That being said, we have ongoing pressures, whether from the urban spread or the further food processing side of things at the larger scale, to integrate that into the agricultural land reserve to make sure that we do have that local food security side. We have those pressures, but the ALR as a tool definitely does help.

To the other question, with 200 commodities in B.C., we definitely struggle with getting the education out there for the different types of production practices. When you’re growing so many different varieties, it is very hard to have that reach to all the producers to promote the best practices to them. It is a struggle that we work on and do our best to reach.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Burey: Thanks to the witnesses again.

So much has been asked on food security. That was going to be one of my questions and knowing how all the provinces are doing, but I think we spoke about that. I’m going to move to my second question which is on net zero. I heard that word from you, deputy minister Burton. In the AAFC’s strategic plan for science, it admits that, currently, there is no clear net-zero pathway for agriculture that does not compromise food production for Canada. However, Saskatchewan I heard has achieved that. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Please tell us how each province is doing on this journey right now.

I have to add my congratulations to that wonderful video that I see in the airport. It’s phenomenal work. Keep it up and we have a lot to learn from you.

Who wants to start? Would it be you, deputy minister?

Mr. Burton: Thanks for the question.

Yes, I said in my presentation that for many years we are net zero and moving more in that direction in the future.

Carbon sequestration is a big part of the equation in Saskatchewan. On cropland that’s offsetting 80% of the emissions for crops, livestock and fuel. When you work in the sequestration that’s happening on native soils, native grasses and tame forages, which — we have estimates of how big the sink is and how much is in the sink. What we don’t have is great information yet on the amount being sequestered on an annual basis. But we know it is enough to offset the others. We need to do more data collection on that, but that needs to be recognized in the national inventory report as well. Yes, we’re net zero in many years right now. Of course, it will move from year to year depending on climatic conditions. But over time we’re making progress and we’ll continue to make progress.

The Chair: Let’s hear from Ontario and then we’ll go to B.C.

Ms. Brown: The food security we’re seeing in some of the vegetable and horticultural growers, there are a lot more conservation practices to try and capture more. As far as net zero goes, I think there is a lot that we still need to learn in Ontario about what it takes to get there. There is a greenhouse gas calculator which is part of our AgriSuite tools. This is where working with farmers is a place to start because it looks at a site‑specific farm field and it looks at the cropping practices, the livestock and manure storage and handling practices and some of the barn energy efficiencies. It looks at those practices and it lets farmers say, okay, here are the things I’m doing or here are the things I was doing before, here is what I’m doing now. What type of a difference is that making in net zero? In most of the situations that we’ve done these scenarios, we’re not there yet. But some things in manure management are promising. There’s been some great work with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, cooperating with the University of Guelph where they’re looking at the emissions from manure storage and the impact if it gets covered with a couple inches of straw or with a crust? What is the impact on saving emissions if we empty the storage in the spring and in the summer instead of just only in the fall? Some of those types of things.

I think that net zero starts with an understanding at the farm level of what does it take for me to get there? How much carbon am I storing if I have cover crops or a diverse rotation compared to if I don’t?

The Chair: Thank you. We’ll hear from B.C. and then end the question.

Mr. Geesing: Yes, I have to be frank. We don’t have much data and the tools that are available are tools from out of the province or international tools to assess that. The University of British Columbia has developed a small tool, but the problem with those tools are often they require an input of data that the farmers simply don’t have. So we’re going back to square one about accessing data. Altogether, I think this certainly is something we need to look into, but it will be a headache for British Columbia since we have so many small-scale farmers that the diversity itself will certainly slow down progress on this.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is to Mr. Geesing. A major concern we’ve heard from witnesses from B.C. and also experts across the country is the lack of water retention. What practices have you seen in British Columbia that are successful in improving soil-water retention? If we get through your answer, we’ll go to other provinces as well.

Mr. Geesing: Excellent question. Water retention is very much related to the organic matter content in the soil and, of course, texture. Organic matter is the component that we can manipulate. This is the single-most important factor that farmers need to assess. In my favourite list of parameters to measure, planned available water is one factor that we need to monitor to see whether our soil health management practices are going the right way.

In terms of farming practices, everything basically that increases the soil organic matter content will be helpful to do so. Same with increasing the soil structure, which allows infiltration. Regenerative farming practices are certainly the tools that we need to increase water in the soil.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Saskatchewan?

Mr. Burton: I don’t have anything to add.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ontario?

Mr. Saurette: I like the comments already. Soil-water retention is certainly an important metric. I will add one thing that is becoming more and more apparent in Ontario is the issues of soil compaction and the effect it has on water movement in soils. It reduces the pore space in soils, degrades the soil structure and it prohibits water movement through the soil. Because there is less pore space, it also holds less water. That is another thing that we’ve been focusing on a lot to date is compaction and trying to assess how much compaction there is across the agricultural landscapes of Ontario.

Senator Petitclerc: Just a quick question. In your opening remarks, Ms. Brown, when we were talking, you were talking about data and you mentioned the industry. You said that, for example, Fertilizer Canada was collecting data as well. Are they sharing that data? Are they partnered with the farmers? Are they sharing the data as much as they could or should? I imagine that they have the means to do studies and to invest in a lot of specific things. I’m wondering what kind of partners they are — if they are.

Ms. Brown: It’s already been mentioned that a lot of data is being collected with precision agriculture. You have companies like John Deere and all the companies that are collecting yield information, every aspect of planting and every aspect of every operation on the farm. I think there are a lot of opportunities there. I don’t know that those industries want to share with government, but if there were a way where some of that information could get aggregated — almost like what they’re talking about in OASIS, but aggregated so that someone could say, “I’m on a loam soil. What kind of impact does this management practice have?”

You were talking about Fertilizer Canada. In Ontario, there are a number of retail outlets that sell fertilizer that have been certified under the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program. One of the things that has so much opportunity in there is that you’re getting retail that is impacting how farmers manage their fertilizers. It’s looking not at being perfect, but at how we can improve the right time, the right place and get the right rates. This was initiated because of concerns about phosphorus, but I think it’s equally important for nitrogen and carbon emissions. They are able to report and report to government and say, “Here is the number of acres that farmers in this area are managing with 4R practices.” If that could include manure and horticulture eventually, then every nutrient will be treated with the same lens by all farmers, not just crop and livestock farmers.

Senator Petitclerc: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that the opportunity is there? Could it be maximized a little more maybe?

Ms. Brown: The opportunity is coming. The difficulty is what does that aggregated data look like that industry is willing to share with government? That’s where we still have questions.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We have one questioner for the third round, Senator Simons, and then we have to wrap up.

Senator Simons: This is for Deputy Minister Burton. You talked about the importance of native grasslands to the balance of things in Saskatchewan. What policies does your province have in place to protect those native grasslands and to ensure that land that ought not to be farmed isn’t sort of ripped up to be marginal canola that fails and gets crop insurance, or even forage?

What are you doing to maintain those grasslands for their importance — not just for ranchers, but for the environment?

Mr. Burton: Thanks for the question. A lot of the native grasslands are held by the Crown at this point. Before we sell those or put them in the hands of private producers, we do an assessment of them. If they have a high habitat or a high ecological good, we will retain them. If it is moderate, we will sell them, but only sell them with a conservation easement restriction on them that restricts them from being broken or drained in the future. We have those protections.

Yes, there will be some marginal lands and some native grasslands in the hands of private producers. We don’t currently have any provincial regulations, but there is support through some other conservation groups that have worked with producers to keep them in their native state.

Senator Simons: Some people would argue that those lands actually require grazing to maintain health. Do you lease out some of that Crown land for cattle or bison grazing? What do you do to keep it healthy?

Mr. Burton: Yes; absolutely. Our agricultural Crown lands are native. Those are leased to producers for grazing. To help with that, as I mentioned earlier, we’re doing range land health assessments on large tracks of those lands. That’s going to help producers and patron groups leasing them with additional information on how they can better manage those lands.

I talked about rotational grazing opportunities, and other opportunities such introducing new species that will be better for soil health in certain regions. That information is coming with more extension work and more range land health assessments that we’re doing across our land portfolio.

Senator Simons: Are you talking about bison, elk, goats?

Mr. Burton: The vast majority of our Crown land is leased to cattle ranchers.

Senator Simons: But you said you were looking at alternate species.

Mr. Burton: I’m sorry, I meant grass species.

Senator Simons: Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

Mr. Burton: Thanks for letting me clarify that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think we’ve come to the end of our testimony. Deputy Minister Burton, Ms. Brown, Mr. Saurette, Mr. Geesing and Mr. Raymond, I would like to thank you very much for your participation today. Your assistance with this study is very much appreciated. I think you can see that in the questions that you were asked and the interest in your testimony.

I also want to thank committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions. I also want to take a moment to thank all the staff that are involved in supporting the work of this committee. Thanks to our interpreters, the team transcribing the meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technicians, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD and our pages. Your help is very much appreciated.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, at 6:30 p.m. We’ll be looking at Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

Before we adjourn, I want to remind you that if you haven’t already RSVP’d for the UNFAO session that we’re having on April 19, from 12:30 to 1:30 — that’s not a committee meeting, but you were given an invitation — please do reply and RSVP.

If there is no other business for this committee, honourable senators, I move that the meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)