THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:31 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Robert Black, and I am the chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome members of the committee and our witnesses, as well as those watching this meeting on the World Wide Web.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we move to committee business, I have some news. It is my time to step down as the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to pursue the role of Deputy Leader of the Canadian Senators Group.
I wrote a letter to our clerk a few weeks ago. In the letter, I said I want to thank the clerks whom I have worked with, and they have all been wonderful. To Joanne and your group, thank you so very much for your diligent work and unwavering support during my time as chair.
I want to thank my fellow committee members, both current and past, and the steering committee team who have provided camaraderie, creativity and steadfast support. Folks, it has been an honour and a joy to sit here. It has been the opportunity of a lifetime. To each of you, thank you very much.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: I will be presenting the new chair with a gavel that I brought to this. We always switch it out when I arrive at the meeting. This was created by a gentleman farmer from Ontario — from Ontario Wood — named Mr. Barrie. I have the history, but I don’t have it with me. This was number 1,879 of over 2,000 that he did in the course of his lifetime. I will be leaving that with the new chair to use as the individual sees fit. I have brought it to every meeting that I have chaired here.
With that, I will accept a motion about the new chair.
Senator Burey: Thank you, chair. First, I would like to say thank you so much for being such a wonderful chair — I’m sure all the committee members wholeheartedly agree — and for leading us to do some very great and historic work on this committee.
With that said, chair, I would like to nominate Senator Robinson for the role of chair.
Senator Martin: I second that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further nominations? Three times: Any further nominations? And for a final time, any further nominations? Nominations are closed.
Senator Robinson, do you accept the nomination?
Senator Robinson: It is my pleasure to accept the nomination. Thank you.
The Chair: I should have said: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Burey that the Honourable Senator Robinson do take the chair of this committee. I can still say that.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried, and I now invite Senator Robinson to take the chair.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Well, how the tables have turned. I wanted to start by thanking Senator Black. I have to say that succeeding Senator Black in this role is both an honour and quite nerve-racking — big shoes to fill. As a member of the agricultural community, I remember very well when Senator Black was appointed and how incredibly grateful and excited we were. There was just rejoicing within the agricultural community because Senator Black certainly has very strong connections to the industry and has always cared so much.
Here are a few little factoids about Senator Black’s time: He joined the Senate in February 2018, and about a month later, he joined the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. He became chair in December 2021 in the First Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament; I think that is how we say it. Amongst all of the senators on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee today, Senator Black is the longest-serving member of the committee. What an absolute victory for our committee to retain the institutional knowledge that Senator Black has, as he will continue to sit at the table amongst us. It is a really important thing that we are not losing that. Thank you so much for continuing to serve on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
Since joining the committee in 2018, Senator Black has travelled 10 times with the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. He has travelled as far west as British Columbia and as far east as Rome, and I was part of that when you were striking off to meet with the folks of the World Farmers’ Organisation. I remember that well. And one incredibly important stop he made along his way was to my family farm in Prince Edward Island. We went up behind my uncle’s house and we dug some potatoes. Yes, we did. And you gave me a Canadian flag. Thank you for that.
Senator Black has, since becoming chair, reported on nine bills, requested five special study budgets for travel and tabled two special studies entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods and Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health, and Senator Black will be an important part of this committee when we table the wildfire report.
Thank you so much, Senator Black, for everything you have done. You have definitely set a standard. And thank you for the gavel.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I would like to start by asking our colleagues around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Martin: Congratulations, chair. And thank you, Senator Black. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, senator from Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you. I have to read a little spiel here.
I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. This is the first time I have read this. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Just trust it. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker.
I would also like to remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid-sentence and to not speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today, the committee is starting its study of Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Senator Black, sponsor of the bill.
Thank you for joining us, Senator Black. We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. The floor is yours for five minutes when you are ready.
Hon. Robert Black, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Honourable colleagues, I am happy to appear in front of you this evening as the first witness and proud sponsor of Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.
I am pleased to be here to talk about the critical need for the federal government to take action in protecting our critical ground by passing this bill.
As you all know, I am always happy to speak about the importance of the Canadian agriculture sector and raise awareness of the irreplaceable role that soil plays in our economic, environmental, human and social health.
I would like to take this time to thank my many colleagues who spoke to Bill S-230 at second reading for their words of support and their critical insights into this issue. I would be remiss if I did not highlight some of their remarks.
Our colleague Senator Lewis, a fourth-generation farmer from Saskatchewan and a strong advocate for change and progress in the Saskatchewan agriculture industry, used his speech to highlight the development and progress of soil regeneration efforts being made in the Prairie provinces through widespread adoption of conservation tillage. He reminded us of the critical role that can be played by the federal government in supporting the reduction and reversal of soil degradation.
Our colleague Senator Simons, who previously sat as deputy chair of this committee during the Agriculture and Forestry Committee’s soil health study, shared in her speech her experiences at the Global Changemaker Academy for Parliamentarians, or G-CAP. She was joined by numerous international partners, including folks from Sweden, Kiribati, Columbia and Zimbabwe, who are all focused on preventing and reversing land degradation in their countries around our world.
Senator Simons reminded us that according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, our world only has 60 years of soil remaining unless we do something about that. I share her sentiment when she said, “It’s not enough to sign pledges and make promises. We actually have to act. . . .”
Finally, Senator Ataullahjan, the friendly critic of Bill S-230, spoke to her own personal experiences coming from an agricultural family and reminded us that protecting, conserving and enhancing soil health is protecting our most essential human rights and is a cornerstone of survival and justice.
Further, she highlighted the importance of honouring traditional Indigenous knowledge that teaches us that soil is a living trust — something to be honoured for generations to come.
Honourable colleagues, Bill S-230 is for our children, our grandchildren and every generation that will come after us. Passing Bill S-230 will make sure that our country and our world won’t go hungry. It will help promote diverse ecosystems and build a resilient environment. It will safeguard our prime agricultural soils so that they continue being used to grow food and fuel. It will support our efforts against climate change and counteract pollution.
Bill S-230 will not produce immediate changes in these areas, but passing Bill S-230 emphasizes the federal government’s commitment to building a stronger, more resilient Canada that is looking out for all the generations of Canadians yet to come.
I have tabled Bill S-230 in honour of all the agronomists, researchers, farmers, innovators, environmentalists, ranchers, scientists and others who are diligently working with our soils day in and day out to ensure that we won’t have to worry about running out of enough healthy soils to feed our country and our world for years to come.
I hope you will join me in supporting these efforts to safeguard our soils by passing the national strategy for soil health act in committee and sending it back to the chamber for third reading.
Thank you again, colleagues. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from senators. You will each have five minutes for your questions, and that includes the answer.
Senator Martin: Thank you, senator, for your testimony and for the leadership you continue to show on various aspects of this sector, especially soil health. I met with the dairy farmers of B.C. this morning. They are on the Hill, and one of the issues they raised was what has happened in areas in B.C., specifically in the Fraser Valley with the atmospheric river and the flooding that took place this past December and also several years ago.
British Columbia farmers face unique climate pressures, including flooding, wildfires, drought and soil erosion, which directly affect soil quality and food production. How does this bill, if passed, ensure that a national soil health strategy is responsive to regions like B.C. and other special needs across the country?
Senator Black: Thank you, Senator Martin, for that question. We heard during the soil health study that we cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy. We have to look at things regionally. This is a prime example. My expectation in the development of the strategy is just that: to develop an action plan that suits all of the regions across this country. One of them, obviously, would be in British Columbia, which has been impacted significantly for a variety of reasons, and you have mentioned them.
As the strategy is developed, there will have to be regional strategies. That might actually be where provinces and territories and maybe municipalities can play a bigger role. Part of the bill talks about collaborating with other orders of government. I’m hopeful that strategies will be developed that will suit the various regions across this country.
Senator Martin: That’s good. The bill also calls for the creation of a national advocate for soil health. I’m curious about this advocate. It will be an individual. We have such different issues across the country, although soil health is something where common ground and understanding need to happen. Could you talk a bit about the role of this advocate? Ideally, what kind of a person would be the best first person?
Senator Black: Thank you for that question. In a previous Parliament, a former member of Parliament put forward a bill to create a national soil advocate position. When we were doing our study, we also heard from Penelope Wensley, who was the Australian National Soils Advocate. We have a couple of places to go looking for further things. But I know that Penelope Wensley, in her role as the Australian National Soils Advocate, travelled the country and the world, talking about soil health in Australia, developing strategies and contributing to the development of strategies and action plans out of those strategies. She had the ear of the government and the Prime Minister of Australia for five years.
I see this position doing something similar: being an advocate for soil, which is very important. If we think that we have 40 to 60 years potentially, unless we do something, then it is time we need to put into this. I hope that person — whomever it might be — will have the connections across this great country to be able to advocate for soil in Canada and beyond.
Senator Martin: Further to that, you mentioned Australia. There are other jurisdictions that are good examples, not just for the advocate but also for addressing soil health. Is that something that will also inform what we do in Canada?
Senator Black: I firmly believe that when our government looks at a soil strategy, they might turn to the Australian National Soil Strategy that was created in 2021 and use that as a potential template for moving forward. Australia is the one that sticks out in my mind. They have done a great deal of work around strategic initiatives. I would hope that those who are working on a national soil health strategy would consider looking at those resources.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being with us tonight, Senator Black. My question is around developing this strategy in collaboration with the provinces and Indigenous rights holders. Do you have any thoughts on what that might look like? Do you anticipate that there might be some barriers, and what might those barriers be in trying to bring all the stakeholders to the table and come up with something that works for everyone?
Senator Black: I have no qualms about saying it is going to be difficult. We know our provinces have jurisdiction around agriculture or part jurisdiction, as we do at the federal level. Then provinces have downloaded some of that policy development to municipalities.
It will be difficult, but that’s why we have ministries for agriculture and agri-food and bureaucrats who are involved in those. If we put our minds to it, I believe it can be done. It has to be done. We know the United Nations said that in 2021, 33% of the world’s soils were degraded to the point where nothing could be grown. They also went on to say that by 2050, 90% could become degraded. That’s 24 years from now. We have to get this right — let alone 60 years of soil. We have to get this right or we are in deep trouble when Canada thinks about feeding itself and the world.
We have to put our minds to it, but I firmly believe that it is something that may pull all orders of government together to discuss. It is something that might be useful in pulling our groups together: Indigenous, federal, provincial and territorial.
Senator Muggli: Do you know if any of the provinces have implemented, in any meaningful way, some of the recommendations from the Critical Ground study?
Senator Black: During our study, we heard that Ontario has done some good stuff. In the year and a half since the report was tabled, Ontario continues to do further work around soil health. They have put a push on soil health. There is some good work being done out there.
I also know that some municipalities across Ontario have developed recommendations around things that are in the report.
Senator Muggli: Good to hear.
Senator Black: Yes.
Senator Muggli: Bill C-241 is over in the House of Commons right now. It’s the national strategy on flood and drought forecasting. Hopefully, we will get that bill soon, and we can also put that one to rest.
Do you see an intersection between these two bills?
Senator Black: I do, actually. I have heard it said that it is a three-legged stool: air, water and soil. We spend a lot of time on air and a fair bit of time on water, with soil being the third cousin. I think that bill and this bill bring it all together. I look forward to it. I think there are good opportunities to come together.
Senator Muggli: Yes. You cannot really talk about one without the other.
Senator Black: It’s a three-legged stool.
Senator McBean: Before I get to my questions, when you were talking about degradation, I think you said that by 2050, there is a certain percentage of the world’s soils that could become degraded. When we consider that you said Australia is world-leading, are we trying to be ahead of the world curve in protecting our soils? Are we behind? Where is Canada in the effort of getting onto this?
Senator Black: During our study, we heard that Canada is behind. We are trying to do good things in some provinces, and some organizations are, but I think we are behind the curve. That’s just an opinion.
Senator McBean: Okay, thank you.
Senator Black, what gaps in Canada’s current approach to soil management does Bill S-230 seek to address? Also, how would a national soil health strategy strengthen long-term agricultural productivity and environmental resilience?
Senator Black: Again, referring back to the study, we heard that a lot of data that was collected was not shared. It is collected in Saskatchewan, Guelph, Dalhousie and elsewhere, yet a lot of times, it is not shared. I believe with a strategy, one of the first actions, I would hope, would be to put in place a portal of sorts, which is one of our recommendations in the study, in order to share that data and realize what is happening in Saskatchewan versus B.C. versus elsewhere. That’s a gap in my mind; that’s one of the main gaps.
I think that another one might be the fact that, as I say, some provinces have moved forward and are doing good things, and other provinces might be resting on their laurels. We heard from Senator Lewis that organic soil carbon in the Prairie provinces is very good, and we heard his examples specifically. However, over time, that can become degraded as well, so we have to keep that at the forefront.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
How does this strategy that you’re hoping for — and maybe that’s the answer to my next question — and how would the legislation support farmers on the ground, particularly the small- and medium-sized operations, in adopting soil-building practices without adding regulatory burden or financial strain?
Senator Black: The bill is to develop a strategy, so some of that will be the actions out of the strategy that is developed. I would suggest, though, that in the bill we talk about the need for further extension services, ensuring that farmers have the information they need so that they can do good stuff on the ground — or in the ground, so to speak. We have also proposed — and the study talks about it — some tax advantages and financial support. The bill speaks to those in general terms. My hope is actual tactics that will be done on the ground will come out of this bill.
Senator McBean: What kinds of benchmarks in data collection or reporting mechanisms would be included to track the improvements in soil health over time to ensure the strategy is delivering measurable outcomes?
Senator Black: Again, that’s part of the strategy to be developed. The group that would get together to develop the strategy will identify the performance measures and tactics that need to be done to ensure — I cannot speak to what I think should be done; it is what will come out of the strategy. You develop a strategy, and out of that strategy comes objectives, tangible measurements and tactics.
Senator McBean: Senator Sorensen, I want to make sure I’m not stealing your question.
Senator Sorensen: You already stole my first question, but that’s okay. And the other question will be for clause by clause, I think.
Senator McBean: How did the government originally receive the soil health study from the Senate? When you look through Bill S-230, there are a lot of “musts,” such as “The minister must do this.” How do you think the minister will receive that list of “musts”?
Senator Black: The bill does not speak to “must.” The bill says, “Thou shalt develop a strategy.” That’s the —
Senator McBean: There are a lot of “musts” in there, such as “The minister must provide representatives of provincial governments . . . .”
Senator Black: That is “must” collaborate.
Senator McBean: Also, there are: “The national strategy must provide . . . .” and “The national strategy must identify . . . .” I just want to make sure it is going to pass.
Senator Black: I would hope that it will, but it is the development of a strategy that is the “must.”
Senator McBean: Okay.
Senator Sorensen: We had talked about that question together, so you can take some of my time, if you want.
I’m trying to remember other bills I’ve looked at, but it sounds strong. We can debate or talk about it at clause by clause. I think that’s the place to do that.
The first interesting knowledge I learned about soil was when you were doing the soil health study, and there was a dinner in Calgary that I attended out of interest, because that was in my backyard. I was not part of the committee then, but I definitely learned a lot about soil. I left being very loyal to the soil.
Senator Black: We’ve got to get her a shirt.
Senator Sorensen: I have been looking for a shirt since then.
I was also curious about Senator McBean’s question regarding why we need to do this, which is perhaps what her question about gaps was speaking to. I will just add to that. The bill is to direct the minister to develop a strategy.
Senator Black: Correct.
Senator Sorensen: You just said in your last answer that you cannot necessarily speak to what it should say, but I will ask you: If you were the author of the strategy, how would you envision the bill in terms of partnerships with provincial research bodies — agri-food, universities, industry, et cetera? Would this overlap or would you see it complementing the partnership work with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada?
Senator Black: There is a real opportunity to collaborate, overlap and work together, especially if you had asked that a month ago when we had seven more research stations which we now know are being closed. This may change because of some of those closures that are taking place. I hope not.
I think there is an opportunity for collaboration and working together between provincial bodies and academic universities, as well as the work that the federal government does at the research stations.
There is an opportunity for sharing. We already know that the federal government has supported — to the tune of $6.9 million — a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada project that went to Dalhousie with partnerships across the country to develop a portal and more working together.
I see some of the work that this strategic group might develop, and a strategy might look at that and ask: What gaps are you seeing? What might a strategy look like?
Senator Sorensen: Good comment on those closures because that also then becomes a gap, doesn’t it?
My last question is on trade uncertainty. How could this soil health strategy strengthen the long-term competitiveness and productivity of Canadian agricultural exports? How will it help with the uncertainty and market volatility?
Senator Black: If we do not have the soil to grow the crops, then we do not have the crops to export. That is the key piece there.
Yields have increased over time, partly because of changes in varieties and things like that, but there comes a time where it is what is in the soil that will create the growth.
I return to what we heard on January 20 when the Prime Minister said, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” A strategy like this will help us feed and fuel ourselves.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Senator Black, thank you for bringing this bill forward.
I want to ask you about this bill and how it relates to the Critical Ground report’s recommendations. I am going with the top six recommendations, which spoke to what the government at the federal level could do. I went through the bill. I may have missed it, but I saw that of your top six recommendations, only the top five were inside of the bill.
There was one that was missing, and it was the recommendation that states, “The Government of Canada create a national permafrost assessment program.” Somehow, it wasn’t worked into there. Did you think about it? If it is not in there, why is that?
Senator Black: To be honest, I didn’t think about that. At the same time, for those who are creating the strategy, through consultation processes, that obviously will come up if we hear from those from the North and Indigenous Peoples who contribute to the strategy. I don’t hesitate to say it will come up. It is not in the bill.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator Black.
The next question is about reporting requirements. This was in clause 5. Is two years too long? What was your thinking in putting the two years? Was it the standard?
Senator Black: To develop the strategy?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Senator Black: We felt it was important to allow time for that consultation process. Too often, I’ve seen requests for extensions, and I would suggest a two-year period provides reasonable time to develop a strategy.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Black: If I may point out, going back to Senator McBean’s comment, Bill S-235 uses the word “must” 12 times, while Bill S-242 uses it 5 times and Bill S-207 uses it 14 times.
Senator Sorensen: All S-bills.
Senator Martin: This question is related to how farmland is being lost to urban development, infrastructure projects and other land uses, reducing the amount of productive soil.
How will the national strategy address the tension between land development and the need to preserve productive agricultural soils, and what role should soil health conservation play in federal land use planning?
Senator Black: Thank you for asking that. It allows me to rant a bit.
Senator Martin: Okay, please.
Senator Black: Because we know land use planning is a provincial jurisdictional issue, we cannot say anything about it at the federal level. We heard, through the study, a lot about land use planning and the issues that you are raising. It doesn’t float to the top in the soil study that we put forward.
It is a provincial and territorial jurisdictional issue. From my perspective, if we realize, through a strategy, that we have to protect our lands, I hope those who consult and develop the strategy will come up with some strategies that will allow the federal government to realize that we do need to protect our lands. We’re going to wake up someday and realize we can’t feed our province and our country, let alone the world, if we keep losing land at 200 acres to 300 acres a day, as well as 4,000 acres here with the Department of National Defence and 3,000 acres south of London with an EV plant. And that is just here in Ontario.
It is my hope that a strategy might allow the federal government to think, “Yes, we had better do something.” But if we also think about the food security study that we’re also undertaking, that is a pan-Canadian and national jurisdictional issue. Those two together might actually make us all realize at the federal level that we had better be protecting our prime land or agricultural land for the betterment of the generations to come. I hope this starts to tickle folks’ thinking around that issue.
Senator Martin: If I may, I’m proud to live in Pitt Meadows, B.C., which was, I think, recognized recently as one of the most livable small cities, and 85% of Pitt Meadows is agricultural land.
Senator Black: Right, and B.C. has some good agricultural land trust policies. Again, that may be part of a strategy.
Senator Martin: This is related to AI. I am hearing more about it. I am behind the times. I need to learn this myself.
It has been reported for some time that innovative technologies like AI are being promoted as tools to improve agriculture, but those tools rely on high-quality, up-to-date soil data, which is something that is currently fragmented and outdated in many parts of Canada. How does Bill S-230 address the risk that new technologies, such as AI, may be limited or misdirected if we don’t, first, build a robust national soil information base?
Senator Black: I think a strategy, hopefully, would include the development of an up-to-date, robust national soil map.
In some provinces, we’re looking at soil maps that are 50, 60 or 70 years old. We need to improve that before AI can ever — I will say that I’m from agriculture, so AI means something totally different from my perspective. But artificial intelligence —
Senator Martin: Which is what I mean.
Senator Black: — certainly is something that has to be taken into account. If it is using out-of-date data, it is not much good or it might not be good.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: This might be more of a comment than a question. Considering the fact that we have such a robust study with so many great recommendations, I wonder if you might think that because this exists, a two-year timeline just makes it all the more reasonable to have a strategy because we have such a platform or a basis of information that has already been gathered. Any thoughts on that?
Senator Black: I would agree. I think this committee did a great job in developing that strategy, and I extend my thanks to the Library of Parliament folks as well. I think they have a good base to start from. Again, we could have chosen six months or asked for an extension, and it would have been pushed back, so we included the two years.
Senator Muggli: If the recommendations had been instituted with that report, do you think that you would need this strategy?
Senator Black: I would say that a number of our recommendations, as Senator Burey pointed out, are included in this. We all know that only one or two of the recommendations have been put in place. Of the number of recommendations, 13 were accepted, 9 were accepted in principle and 3 were just looked at. So 22 out of 25 isn’t bad, in my estimation.
I have crossed this country since June 2024, talking about this study, and it is being well received across the country.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: I wanted to ask a question to build on what you just spoke about. I know that you have been a staunch promoter of the soil health study, and you have been doing a massive amount of outreach, in particular within Ontario municipalities. As you speak about the recommendations in the soil health study, what has the reaction been from those people?
Senator Black: Thank you for that question, senator.
In June 2025, I sent out 284 letters to rural municipalities across Ontario, my home province, about the soil health report. I included a copy of the report and a cover letter, highlighting that every Canadian needed to take a look at this letter.
I have heard back since that time from several municipalities asking more questions, and 18 municipalities have actually passed resolutions that speak to the report and actually speak to one or all of the recommendations. I can’t use a prop, but I do have one here. I will make sure that everyone here gets a copy of that summarized report, which has the 18 resolutions from municipalities across this province.
Senator McBean: What were some of the resolutions that the municipalities had passed?
Senator Black: The resolutions speak to the following from the Town of Rainy River:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of The Corporation of the Town of Rainy River fully supports the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry’s report and its 25 recommendations in total for the federal government, two of which had recommendations for provincial and territorial.
They are supporting it, and they are showing their support. I didn’t speak to the Town of Rainy River directly, but I have been out to a number of municipalities to talk about the report. Many of them agree that they can actually start to implement some of those recommendations — they don’t have to wait for a strategy or whatever, and that’s exciting.
Senator McBean: What have been some of the best actions that you have seen from the soil health report? Which also, by the way, was what made me stay with the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, coming in and being in this room. It was fascinating.
Senator Black: I would say, in general terms, how well it has been received. At the municipal level, I have been out to speak to municipalities. I have spoken to organizations that just want to know more about it. It’s the pickup. The most important thing for me was the pickup that folks, organizations and governments have looked at and thought about.
For me, it’s exciting. I have been across this country, talking about this thing. Out of it has come land use planning comments. Again, I can’t do much about that, but we can talk about that and commiserate over it and those types of things.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you again, Senator Black, for coming before us and for putting in all of the prep work to be able to answer our questions. We appreciate your time.
Senators, for our second panel, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we welcome Sophie Beecher, Director General, Sustainable Development Policy Directorate; and Kevin Norris, Director, Resilient Agriculture Policy Division.
We also have the pleasure of welcoming officials from Natural Resources Canada: Dominic St-Pierre, Director General, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service; and Eric Loubier, Director General, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation, Geoscience and Earth Monitoring Sector.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you all for being here today. We will now hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators. I will signal that your time is running out by raising one hand when you have hit the one-minute-left mark, and I will vigorously raise both hands when your time is up. Ms. Beecher, the floor is yours.
Sophie Beecher, Director General, Sustainable Development Policy Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, senators, for the invitation to appear today to talk to you about Bill S-230.
I wish to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Soil health, as you well know, is not an abstract concept for farmers; it is foundational to every decision they make. Producers will tell you that soil health directly affects yields, input costs, water management and their ability to withstand droughts, floods and extreme weather. In very practical terms, soil health is a key determinant of farm performance, resilience and long-term sustainability.
Canada has a strong track record, particularly in regions like the Prairies, where widespread adoption of practices such as reduced tillage has led to measurable soil health improvements, including reduced erosion, increased carbon sequestration, better water infiltration and improvements in soil organic matter. Those gains matter not just environmentally but also economically because they support more stable and productive farming systems over time.
At the same time, there are real and growing pressures on soils across the country. Agricultural land has declined significantly over the past two decades, and native grasslands continue to be converted under economic pressure. Climate change is intensifying risks in different ways across the country — prolonged droughts in the West and flooding and excess moisture in the East — placing new demands on soil resilience and water management. These challenges underscore why soil health remains top of mind for producers and governments alike.
It is also important to acknowledge that improving soil health is not cost-free for farmers. Many beneficial soil conservation practices involve upfront investments, changes in farm management practices or short-term risks, such as in yields, for instance, while the benefits, especially financial, may take several years to materialize. We hear this regularly from producers.
This is why Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, strongly supports collaborative, practical approaches that help farmers manage that transition through the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership and with federal programs such as the Agricultural Climate Solutions — On-Farm Climate Action Fund.
Science, research and data are also central to our approach. AAFC scientists have a long history of advancing practical soil tools and practices from cover cropping and nutrient management to real-time soil moisture monitoring and soil carbon measurement. We are also tracking long-term soil health trends and identifying where progress is being made and where challenges remain. This evidence base is essential for informed decision making by producers and policy-makers.
Canada’s soils are generally in good condition, largely because of decades of farmer-led stewardship, research and extension. But we are now seeing that progress has slowed and, in some regions, key indicators such as soil organic matter and erosion risk have begun to plateau or even reverse. Without more coordinated action, better data and modern soil information infrastructure, there is a real risk of losing hard-earned gains.
Collaboration is critical in this space, and success depends on strong partnerships. Soil health is an area of shared jurisdiction and interest with many sector stakeholders. In addition to working closely with provinces and territories and other government departments, we also engage closely with the sector, including the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, which has been leading the development of an industry-led national soil health strategy. AAFC has been actively participating in that process, contributing ongoing expertise and some financial support.
A national soil health strategy provides a way to maintain momentum. Stakeholders see value in a coordinated, collaborative framework that provides a shared vision, improves alignment and supports practical action while respecting regional diversity and jurisdictional roles. From our perspective, we see clear benefits in continuing this work in a way that is inclusive, evidence-based and grounded in producer realities.
In closing, healthy soils are one of Canada’s most important long-term assets. Continued progress will depend on collaboration, sound science and practical supports that help farmers succeed both environmentally and economically.
AAFC remains committed to working with partners across the sector to advance soil health outcomes for the benefit of producers, communities and future generations. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Beecher. Perfectly timed.
Dominic St-Pierre, Director General, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. It’s a pleasure for me to be back at this committee today.
As mentioned, I am the Director General of the Laurentian Forestry Centre, a Canadian Forest Service research centre located in Quebec City. I am also responsible for the integrated forest landscape dynamics research program, which has a particular focus on forest soil research.
While soil health is often and rightly discussed through the lens of agriculture, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, welcomes this committee’s holistic approach. Soil is not merely a medium for crops; it is the foundation of our forests, the stabilizer of our northern landscapes and a critical component of our national climate strategy.
NRCan’s role in supporting the government’s response to your 25 recommendations focuses on the areas where the “farm gate” meets the forest floor and the permafrost in the North.
[Translation]
Over the last year, your Critical Ground report has helped sharpen the national conversation. While Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada leads many actions, NRCan provides the forestry science, geoscience and mapping expertise that complete the picture.
In that spirit, we’re also ready to support the intent of Bill S-230 to develop a national soil health strategy in collaboration with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other departments. To be most effective, that strategy should explicitly recognize non-agricultural soils — including forest, peatland and wetland, grassland and tundra — so that the framework works across Canada’s full land base.
[English]
Canada’s forest soils provide invaluable ecosystem services. A significant portion of your study highlighted the role of soil as a carbon sink. Through the Canadian Forest Service, NRCan conducts and coordinates national-scale research on forest soil health, recognizing that forest soils cover an area five times larger than agricultural soils and store vast amounts of carbon, much of it below ground.
The Canadian Forest Service maintains the National Forest Carbon Monitoring, Accounting and Reporting System which tracks carbon stocks and fluxes in both biomass and soils. This system allows us to examine how forest management practices affect soil organic matter, nutrient cycling and long-term carbon storage.
[Translation]
Our researchers also work directly with partners to fill critical forest soil data gaps. This includes investments in long-term research plots, digital soil mapping and improved integration of soil data into forest inventories. This is foundational work for any credible national soil strategy.
Forest soils play a central role in regulating water movement and quality. Through Canadian Forest Service research, NRCan studies how forest practices, fires, pests and climate change influence soil structure and water-holding capacity, helping to identify approaches that protect both soil function and watershed resilience.
[English]
I also want to touch on flood mapping. Degraded or compacted soil cannot absorb water effectively, which exacerbates runoff and flooding. NRCan leads the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program as well as the Federal Flood Mapping Guidelines Series. By providing guidelines, foundational data and flood hazard maps, NRCan helps provinces and territories and indirectly supports agricultural producers identify areas where flooding poses the greatest risks. This data is essential for the “proactive” management style which the report advocates for.
NRCan’s Geological Survey of Canada is the national lead on permafrost monitoring. Our work ensures that northern communities and industries have the geoscience necessary to adapt to these shifting soils, protecting infrastructure and traditional ways of life.
In conclusion, while Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada leads the charge on the majority of your recommendations, NRCan provides the underlying forestry and geoscience that completes the picture. We appreciate the committee’s diligent work in highlighting these interconnections, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Pierre.
Senator Black: First, speaking to Mr. St-Pierre, how is NRCan currently prioritizing the protection, conservation and enhancement of soil health in your work which is, as you say, predominantly forest work? Do you see benefit in the implementation of a national strategy for soil health? I want to get it on the record.
Mr. St-Pierre: Thank you for your question, senator.
Currently, we do a lot of research in collaboration with the provinces and territories and with academia, mostly on data collection, digitalization and dissemination of information. For example, currently, this year, we have research projects with a value of nearly $3 million with direct or indirect aspects or linkages to forest soils.
Building on that, we also just renewed a program called Forest Systems Information Technology Enhancement, or ForSITE, to get a better understanding of the state of Canadian forests. It includes soils as well.
Yes, we think this bill, if broadened, could surely improve our understanding of forest soils.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Ms. Beecher, are there any parts of the bill that are particularly promising? Is there anything missing from the bill that you think would be most important to include?
Ms. Beecher: Was the first word you used “promising”?
Senator Black: I did.
Ms. Beecher: Yes, okay. I was just making sure. Well, we have read the bill multiple times with great interest. As you know, we provided a government response to your report. We have been looking from a policy standpoint into your recommendations, noting that the rest of our department does considerable work on soils, but we as the policy team are responsible for looking into a strategy.
I believe you noted that 22 out of 25 recommendations were agreed with or agreed with in principle. It reflects the interest and enthusiasm of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in supporting the development of a national soil health strategy. Therefore, we find that your bill generally is very promising in that sense. The department has already been supporting the work on a national soil health strategy that is undertaken by the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, or SCCC, and a lot of representatives from the sector and stakeholders. We have done so in kind. We have done so financially. You see us here today telling you that we very much support the development of such a strategy.
The reason why I think the bill can be described as promising is it does exactly what you shared in your interventions in the first part. It allows us the space to do the work, go out and meet with stakeholders, consider the issues and really come up with a shared vision, a shared forward direction and shared objectives with PTs, with the sector, with academia and with Indigenous governments and communities. As such, I think we can describe the bill with your adjective.
Is it missing anything? I don’t want to pronounce on that. As I said, we read the bill in a manner that sort of presents us with an opportunity. It is my belief that in the department’s work in support of such a strategy, we will not hesitate to go where we need to go to contribute to a complete strategy.
Senator Black: As a comment, I know that the SCCC is involved in that. I told them I didn’t see this as going above their heads or doing something else, and you were in the room when I said that. It may be that this part of the bill takes this and makes it broader, so I appreciate your comments there.
You talked about the 22 recommendations that were accepted or accepted in principle. I will just say, as departing chair, we have not been able to hear from the minister on that.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for making that point, Senator Black.
Ms. Beecher, I feel your enthusiasm, so I think we are on the same page. Good things ahead, I hope. Do you have concerns that a strategy may need to employ regulations that producers may not necessarily like? Any thoughts on how you might navigate that or how committed you can be to do what it takes to protect our soil? Can you regulate crop rotation? These are some of the practice measures that may need to be employed.
Are the support programs that you mentioned enough?
Ms. Beecher: Our job in support of a national soil health strategy is to examine the gaps, set out objectives and desired outcomes and then look at our tool box of what is the best tool to get to your results. Legislation is part of that spectrum in theory, but experience has told us that in the ag sector, consensus, collaboration, persuasion and the recognition of an economic benefit work best in getting producers to adopt the practices that they need on their farms to improve soil health. They need to be convinced there will be a benefit for them in the short term or, at least, there won’t be an economic cost and there will certainly be a benefit in the long term.
The other thing I would say is that being too prescriptive in a strategy would present some risks in not allowing for the flexibility necessary for the application of the right practices and strategies per region just based on different soil types or cropping systems or microclimates. The approach that we would contemplate for the strategy is one of sitting down and collectively identifying what needs to be done, getting buy-in and genuine momentum and then figuring out what the tools should be.
To your second question, are the existing programs sufficient? I will not pronounce on that directly. Let’s just say the question of soil health is a broad one. When you look at the surface area of our country, it’s massive, so obviously resources will be important. The implementation of a soil health strategy would require significant, long-term resources, certainly.
Senator Muggli: Mr. St-Pierre, how big of a gap do we have regarding mapping for soil or related factors, such as droughts or floods? How recent is our mapping data and how much territory is covered by the mapping data we currently have?
Mr. St-Pierre: The forest mapping for Canada is actually pretty good. We have national coverage. Every year, we produce The State of Canada’s Forests report that is presented to Parliament every year. We have a good overview of the forest coverage. When it comes to soil, the data is not as precise and could be improved. That’s why NRCan is investing. As I mentioned, we just renewed our ForSITE program. That’s exactly for that. We have one area of indicators for forest soils to make sure we have a better understanding and better data and that we are coherent with the international standards in the forest field.
Senator Muggli: What about flood mapping data? How recent and how robust is it? How much work needs to be done there?
Eric Loubier, Director General, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation, Geoscience and Earth Monitoring Sector, Natural Resources Canada: The flood mapping program that currently exists has been in place now for the last six to seven years. It’s in partnership with provinces. It’s a cost-year program. As it’s designed, it maps the hazards of floods, and the priorities are being established in conjunction with provinces. As it stands, it mostly targets inhabited areas where people live because this is where there is the greatest economic impact of floods. There is very little in the priority areas being done that is actually targeting agriculture, if any. However, it is modelling risks and hazards. It doesn’t mean those methodologies that are currently being done at a fairly engineering level to protect infrastructure and people — there are methodologies to do modelling at the regional level. That could eventually be leveraged if the program were expanded that way.
Senator Muggli: Sounds like a good reason to have a strategy to build that.
Senator Martin: It is nice to have the two departments side by side because, in essence, a national strategy for soil health will involve both of your departments. When there are two departments involved, in terms of one leading the development, how does that communication or plan work? How often do you meet? Is there a joint committee? I was curious about the inner workings of how you would work on such a strategy together.
Ms. Beecher: Federal departments are very much used to working together on complex issues. I personally have never worked on a file where at least another department wasn’t involved, so this is second nature to us. Departments already have technical working groups — joint departmental working groups. I believe that our two departments sit together on some technical working groups concerning soil measurement, et cetera.
This would be collaboration at a different level. We normally just develop a bit of a governance structure. If multiple departments are involved, we would decide which level of official makes the most sense, then get together and set strategic objectives, come up with a bit of an action plan and make sure that the right people are at the table. We usually have people above us who like to remind us of the time frames and the outcomes that they desire. That’s probably how we would proceed.
Senator Martin: Yes, I’m sure that happens on a regular basis. It leads to my second question, which is: What steps will be taken to ensure Bill S-230 complements existing programs, avoids duplication and encourages collaboration across departments while delivering a coherent national soil health strategy?
Ms. Beecher: That is always the challenge. To be honest, the development of the strategy actually forces us to confront those realities. It almost forces us to sort of go deeper and do a bit more of our own homework. I think that is the exact point of the strategy, frankly.
Personally, what I like about the word “strategy” is it implies that there is a study of the existing programming and resources: what we are doing well already, where there is duplication, where there are gaps and who is not at the table. Then you identify the immediate actions you can take and the longer-term actions that you will probably need to undertake, as well as what resources you will need to do that, and then you establish an order of priority based on urgency and feasibility and resources. I find that process really has the capacity to focus the minds of all those in other government departments.
However, I would like to note that in the context of a national strategy, it has to be done at a much broader level than the federal government. That is where there can be a lot of challenges because you are bringing together provinces, territories, Indigenous governments, communities, stakeholders, academics, non-profits, associations, et cetera.
Senator Martin: To add to that, there are regional needs that need to also be fully considered and then integrated into the strategy. I’m from B.C. I was talking to dairy farmers about what happened in December and how it is the river in the U.S. that is flooding and affecting B.C. That’s a separate question as to how you interface with, say, the United States. My question on this specifically is: How can NRCan’s research and monitoring help ensure that forest soil health, particularly in wildfire-affected regions like British Columbia — and then we have the flooding too — is fully integrated into the national soil health strategy?
Mr. St-Pierre: Like Ms. Beecher said, it’s with the governance process where we can discuss and have clearly identified roles and responsibilities and where each department can contribute through its scientific knowledge that we bring to the table and also the networks of contacts. You mentioned provinces and territories. In forestry, it is the same. We are used to dealing with provinces and territories because forestry is also a shared jurisdiction. For me, it is a given that we will work together, bringing our knowledge to the table.
Senator Martin: Yes. There’s information data from so many places, and there is all of this being done. It is a big task. I thank you in advance for the work ahead for you, if and when this becomes something that will be mandated to you. Thank you.
Senator McBean: I’m going to take Senator Black’s question to you, Ms. Beecher. He asked what was promising and what could be better, and you asked to confirm the word “promising.” I’m going to change that word. Is there anything in Bill S-230 that is problematic?
Ms. Beecher: I wouldn’t use the word “problematic.” However, we all know that legal language can be very specific and, at times, constraining.
Should we proceed with the bill and should it be passed and should the minister take on this leadership and should the department take on this work, we would benefit from the most flexibility in where to go in certain topics and areas. So we wouldn’t want certain things to be prejudged or pre-mandated by a bill.
Perhaps I can offer as a consideration the identification of specific soil health indicators. I will not name the clause — we are not at clause by clause — but that provision could prove to be a little constraining because it depends, really, on the kind of data that can actually be collected.
The other thing is there is no current consensus in the sector on what the indicators should be. The work that we would do in the development of a strategy would allow us to genuinely explore what is needed and what is possible, and I think that’s how we would come to recommendations on the proper indicators or, at least, on the feasible indicators in the first phase.
Senator McBean: That’s good. I’m trying to get these real answers.
My other question is very similar to Senator Martin’s question. I will repeat my question, but I don’t think you need to necessarily repeat your answer. What roles would Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, and Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, each play in developing and implementing the proposed national soil health strategy, and how would the responsibilities for coordinating across departments work? And you said — I’ll paraphrase a little bit — that you already have joint technical working groups, but this would be cooperation at a different level. Is that accurate? Do you feel like you are already working together?
Ms. Beecher: The collaboration that exists is really at a scientific or technical level. Those working groups do not necessarily have the mandate to advance policy work or to decide or make recommendations on where we should be going in the future.
When we are talking about policy governance, it is much more ambitious and much more visible because we would be going out there and working with a lot of stakeholders and a lot of partners and doing consultations as well. I think the duty of the federal government is to make sure that we are on the same page and we present a coherent position when we are out there and developing a strategy.
We have done it before, and we can do it again.
Senator McBean: Would it be helpful to have a single soil health advocate to get in the middle, or is it better to have it legislated that you now have this new mandate? Is it better to get the new mandate, or is it better to have another layer in there?
Ms. Beecher: That’s a tricky question. It is hard to predict. I will not comment on a legislated mandate. The position of the department today is we already support the work on a national soil health strategy. We are already doing part of this work together with the sector and our stakeholders. But to speak to the second part of your question, I take it you are asking me about a national soil health advocate?
Senator McBean: Yes.
Ms. Beecher: The legislation would ask us to make recommendations on such a mechanism, which we would do, should we be mandated to develop a strategy. We would certainly look at that as one mechanism to make soils visible and to galvanize public attention. We believe it is worthwhile to study the option of a national soil health advocate. We would certainly speak to our Australian counterparts who did it very well.
However, that may not be the only option. My understanding is that the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, or SCCC, is contemplating perhaps something more durable than an advocate, with maybe a little bit of a lower cost, which would be a national round table. So that could be another option, for instance. We would have to look at the relative costs and benefits.
I think that the Australians have shown us the pros of a national soil health advocate. That advocate was extremely visible. She was extremely knowledgeable. She supported collaboration across governments and stakeholders. She was almost like a third party that brings everyone together.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Beecher. I’m going to have to interrupt, as you are out of time.
Senator Burey: I have a question for Mr. St-Pierre. I was listening between the lines about a statement on expanding this to include non-ag soils in the sense that we want to include all soils or forest soils. Could you please expand on what you meant and how that could work itself into the bill as is, or is there an improvement that needs to be done?
Mr. St-Pierre: What I meant there is — and I think Ms. Beecher mentioned it also — we feel that a national soil health strategy needs to be flexible, diverse and broader. In our view at NRCan, this would include forest soils. Currently, as drafted, Bill S-230 is very focused on agricultural soil. As I mentioned, it is okay. Senator Black mentioned the importance of agricultural soil on food security. We would be in favour of broadening the strategy to non-agricultural soil. This would provide the opportunity to put a greater emphasis on critical ecosystems and goods and services that bring the diversity of ecosystems, both forested and non-forested as well, but which are not of agricultural use for now.
To come back to the indicators, there was a question earlier about the indicators of soil health. In forestry, we align with internationally agreed upon indicators through The Montréal Process criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. It is a series of indicators, and there are some for forest soils specifically. There is already a canvas that we can use and align with internationally.
The effort would still be needed. As Ms. Beecher mentioned, this would need consequent investments to ensure we are up to the level of information and the quality of data that is needed to do a good follow-up, but it would be particularly important for the health of our forests and the sustainability of our forest management.
Senator Black: The comment was made, Ms. Beecher, about no consensus on soil health indicators. We heard that in spades during the report as well.
Would a soil health strategy with one activity or one tactic ensure that there must be a development? I’m not saying that might come out of a strategy, but I think we all agree that there needed to be some sort of — I wasn’t aware of The Montréal Process conventions. Don’t you wish we had that in agriculture? Might that be one of the tactics out of this proposed strategy?
How do you see a national soil health strategy contributing to climate goals, biodiversity protection and agricultural resilience? The question is for you both.
Kevin Norris, Director, Resilient Agriculture Policy Division, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: As you mentioned, there is no consensus on data and indicators, but we measure some through our agri-environmental indicator platform already. There are other regional indicators that we will need to take into consideration.
Whether or not there is international agricultural science, I’ll have to talk to my science colleagues about that, but I think we’re well aligned with international colleagues on what we measure, with soil carbon being one of the major ones.
I think that’s an opportunity. A strategy would bring together the right people through academia and research within governments to talk about indicators and land on an appropriate selection of indicators for the country.
Ms. Beecher: On the second part of the question, certainly there is an environmental component to soil health. There is no doubt that healthy soils result in more carbon sequestration and, therefore, allow the sector to shine in doing its part in the fight against climate change. My colleague Mr. Norris can talk at length about biodiversity. That’s one of his areas of expertise. It would definitely benefit.
The beautiful part of working on soils is that it does not have to be primarily about the environment. A lot of producers care about their soils because it is the basis of their entire operation, and it’s what they rely on to grow food and provide for their families, but then you also have these co-benefits for the environment that can come out of the actions that you can take.
In speaking to farmers, you can talk to them about the concrete benefits of taking care of soils. You can also talk to them about the environmental benefits. You don’t necessarily have to talk to them about both. If they choose to adopt certain practices, we will have outcomes in both areas.
Mr. St-Pierre: In terms of soil health, the importance of having good-quality soil for forestry is there because you want to have biodiversity and ensure you have productive forests. Also, the quality of the soil has an impact on tree growth and regeneration and resistance to insects and disease. The benefits are not only to biodiversity but also to the forest itself and, ultimately, to the forest sector as an industry. If our forests are healthier, then it is easier to harvest, and the forest will regenerate more sustainably if we have good soil quality for Canadian forests.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I want to double back a little on the considerations of legislating farm practices. Maybe this is for you, Ms. Beecher, or whoever might have any knowledge.
Are there other jurisdictions that have developed strategies and legislation regarding soil strategies, such as Australia, the U.K., the EU or others who have actually legislated farming practices that you know of?
Ms. Beecher: We do not have the answer to that specific question.
Senator Muggli: If you happen to have knowledge of that in your department, it would be great to share it. We will probably be diving deeper into that in the research too. I was just curious. Thank you.
The Chair: As you may or may not know, in Prince Edward Island, we have the Agricultural Crop Rotation Act, which is legislation that says you can grow one row crop in three years or two row crops in five years with a management plan. To me, farmers look at their land like the goose that continues to lay the golden eggs.
Ms. Beecher, in your opening comments, you mentioned the economic pressure on ag land. I always wonder about the role that profitability plays in the protection of not only preserving ag soil or ag land from being converted to development but also the withdrawals and deposits that you have to make as you grow a crop and do nutrient removal and nutrient deposits.
You had mentioned the On-Farm Climate Action Fund and other programs that are offered through the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. Could you speak to what you think the appetite is within the agriculture industry and primary production to adopt better practices, and how much of the lack of adoption is simply a result of economics?
Ms. Beecher: It is very interesting to look into the reasons that certain producers have for adopting certain practices and that others have for not adopting. We actually are doing some work at AAFC on the behavioural mechanisms behind decision making in agriculture. It has been fascinating to listen to producers tell us, “I have decided to adopt these practices because I fundamentally believe in growing the biodiversity in my soils.” Others will tell us simply, “Well, I just asked my accountant and it made sense,” and that’s that. They do not even have to go into whether or not they want to do something for the environment or not. They think it makes economic sense.
Depending on the practice, there are a number of reasons why it might make economic sense. Perhaps you need fewer inputs or perhaps you use inputs that are less expensive. Perhaps better soil gives you better yields incrementally over time.
There is also the reverse angle to this. We know healthy soils bring resilience. Building the health of your soils is a form of adaptation to climate change. In an era of increasing climate change events, it is important for both the sector and governments to look into the joint or collective financial benefit of investing in soil health so as to not have to spend more money down the road in repairing damage from a multitude of climate events. I think most producers understand that, certainly the ones who have gone through climate events recently and suffered some devastating damage to their operations.
There are multiple angles that you can look at it. Certainly, it has been interesting to talk to individual producers about where they get their advice. How are they persuaded? How do they go through the cost-benefit analysis? What pushes them over the edge sometimes in going ahead and adopting the practice? It varies per region and per crop type, et cetera.
The Chair: I know in Prince Edward Island, we seem to have an oversubscription to any funding that we can get. Are you measuring the appetite? Do you have a sense of how underfunded those programs are in practical terms?
Ms. Beecher: We are. I cannot provide you the details of that. I do believe that our programs branch keeps a close eye on the difference between applications and what funds are available. Certainly, we would want the adoption of practices in the future to make sense from an economic standpoint in and of itself, or perhaps explore other options, such as farmer supply chain partnerships or agri-food partnerships where there could be some co-benefits, such as in providing funds to producers to adopt practices.
There are multiple mechanisms out there to provide the financial resources to producers that helps them with the upfront costs of adopting certain practices.
The Chair: I would be interested to see how you think that will play out in a commoditized market when farmers are selling grain to a grain elevator.
My time is up. I have one more question because I did not ask any questions in the first round.
I wanted to speak about the legislative component, potentially, or the prescriptive component. I am sure that producers will be concerned about what it means for things to be legislated. I wanted to clarify. You have been asked about Australia, the U.K. and what we see in other jurisdictions.
It would be my understanding that the federal government would not possibly be able to regulate something like crop rotation. That would be provincial, territorial or First Nations jurisdiction. It is my understanding in looking at Bill S-230 that we are looking to create an environment where the federal government would collaborate with provinces, territories and First Nations.
I wanted to clear that up.
Ms. Beecher: Absolutely. We are not under any illusion that the federal government could come in and propose solutions that are all-encompassing. We would have to work closely in this joint jurisdictional context to ensure that provinces and territories are on board. We know what provinces and territories require to be on board, which is the flexibility to adopt the approaches that make the most sense in their contexts and for their producers and their realities.
On the point of legislation, of course it is part of the tool box. But one of this government’s priorities is to reduce red tape. We would be extremely mindful of not adding any additional regulatory burden on producers in this context.
Through our consultations and our work, we have heard time and again that producers make the right decision when it makes sense. I think that is where we have to go on soils.
The Chair: As nostalgic as we might get about how we can figure out if it makes sense or not, ultimately people have to be able to pay their bills and continue to be stewards of the land and run their farms.
Ms. Beecher: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m out of time.
I think that wraps up our questions. I want to take a moment to thank you for being here with us tonight. It was an informative session. We appreciate your contributions. Thank you. And thank you to the interpreters, pages, support staff, technicians and all those who ensure that we, as senators, can conduct our work in a committee setting in a timely fashion.
(The committee adjourned.)