THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 7:31 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 Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to members of the committee, our witnesses, as well as those watching this meeting online.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I would like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. 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 continuing its study of Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. Joining us at the table from Fertilizer Canada, we are pleased to welcome Catherine King, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs; and Frank Annau, Director of Product Stewardship. Thank you for joining us.
We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. Ms. King, the floor is now yours for five minutes.
Catherine King, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Fertilizer Canada: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you all about Bill S-230.
As the chair mentioned, my name is Catherine King, and I’m the vice president of corporate affairs at Fertilizer Canada. I’m joined by Frank Annau, our director of nutrients policy.
At Fertilizer Canada, we represent the producers, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and distributors of fertilizer supplements and essential crop nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, potash and sulphur fertilizers. The fertilizer sector contributes over $42 billion in annual economic output and supports more than 118,000 jobs across the supply chain in Canada. I also represent Fertilizer Canada on the Soil Conservation Council board of directors, which remains a priority for our members.
Fertilizer Canada is the leading proponent of 4R Nutrient Stewardship, which helps farmers use the right source of fertilizer, in the right place, at the right rate and at the right time. Through our members, we have over 500 4R-designated agronomists across Canada at our 90 retail locations and 28 4R‑certified facilities in Ontario.
We thank Senator Black for his leadership on the Senate soil study and for recognizing the importance of 4R Nutrient Stewardship. As the study highlights, adoption of the 4Rs ensures that nutrients are applied as effectively as possible — improving efficiency, protecting agricultural soils and supporting long-term productivity. We must continue focusing on practical actions that directly benefit farmers while clearly communicating to Canadians the essential role that healthy soils play in food security and climate resiliency.
I’ll now pass it over to my colleague, Mr. Annau.
Frank Annau, Director of Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada: I’m Frank Annau, Director of Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada. We commend the bill for promoting improved management practices through professional training and extension services for farmers.
At Fertilizer Canada, we deliver nationally recognized training that equips agronomists and Certified Crop Advisors to become 4R Nutrient Stewardship experts, giving producers the confidence they need in the guidance that they receive. We recommend that the soil strategy formally recognize and support programs like ours, as well as the services provided by 4R‑designated experts across Canada and 4R-certified facilities in Ontario.
Fertilizer Canada welcomes the bill’s support for research to advance sustainable soil practices. Research from universities across Canada shows that improving nutrient use efficiency strengthens root systems, enhances soil biological activity and also supports long-term soil structure.
Many of our members are also bringing forward innovative biostimulant products that can improve soil health, including by increasing soil organic matter. Registrations of these products are growing across Canada, and performance can vary with different soil types as well as different growing regions throughout the country. So we believe the strategy should support research to help producers determine which of these solutions work best for their specific growing conditions.
Soil testing is also mentioned in the bill and is critical to establishing the right rate of fertilizer needed to maximize nutrient use as well as reducing soil health impacts. We agree that the strategy should support measures for farms to carry out this analysis and also consult closely with producers on voluntary data sharing that respects confidential business information and adequately compensates farmers for their participation.
We believe that the strategy presents a significant opportunity to realize these benefits across the country. As the bill notes, the government is committed to helping farms conserve soil under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. We believe the strategy should look to support research, training and extension measures under the next cap.
I would also like to offer some note of caution regarding the section of the bill that addresses targets. Over five years ago — as I’m sure most of you recall — the government introduced a fertilizer emission reduction target without much meaningful consultation with Canada’s agriculture sector. The initial lack of engagement created significant uncertainty for producers, particularly given that the baseline data was not well informed at the time.
To avoid repeating that experience, any targets developed under this legislation should be grounded in robust data and, most importantly, meaningful engagement with producers as well as the broader agriculture sector. Targets must be workable, regionally appropriate, economically sustainable and, of course, reflective of on-farm realities.
We respectfully recommend that the bill be amended to require engagement and consultation with agricultural producers on targets that are developed under the legislation. To that effect, industry engagement is already under way.
As Ms. King mentioned, Fertilizer Canada sits on the Soil Conservation Council of Canada alongside producer groups, conservation organizations and other industry partners. The council’s recent progress report provides a strong road map for engagement and coordinating with the sector to obtain the bill’s objectives.
In closing, Fertilizer Canada recognizes soil health as a strategic national asset, and we were very pleased to see that language directly reflected in the bill. We and our members are dedicated to efficient fertilizer application to help ensure the health and productivity of Canada’s soils. It is critical that the government identify 4R research, education and extension as priorities in meeting objectives under Canada’s national soil health strategy.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue. We welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you both for your opening remarks.
Senator McNair: Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you for being here tonight.
In 2024, your organization — and you touched on this — commended this committee for the important work on soil health and the recently released report at that time entitled, Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health.
Your president at the time went on to say:
Data collection, research, innovation and technology, including 4R Nutrient Stewardship, and adequate funding will be vital in protecting Canada’s soil health.
How, in your opinion, does this bill properly reflect those elements? If and when enacted, how will Bill S-230 both incorporate these elements and account for regional differences in soil health conditions across the country?
Mr. Annau: The biggest opportunity I saw was the portion I was referencing on soil sampling, analysis that can be taken and gathering that type of data on what types of soils are best receptive, especially to nutrient application. Those are services that a lot of our retail members, for example, offer through their 4R experts helping farms select the right rate of fertilizer to use based on their different soil types.
On the retail level, it’s data that is taken very seriously in terms of privacy, but if farms are engaged effectively, especially at the producer level, that type of data can be something that will be able to provide very solid insight in terms of the health of soil across Canada, especially, in our case, what is receptive specifically to certain types of nutrients.
Like I said, there’s also great potential for research into biostimulant products, since there could be particularly different soil conditions across Canada in terms of being able to provide that extra bit of a boost to productivity in Canada. That research would go a long way in terms of helping us establish what types of both products and advice are applied at the farm level and potentially be able to generate research data that, again, with engagement at the farm level, would ensure there’s confidential business information protected and be able to provide that good level of data insight.
Senator McNair: Thank you. Ms. King, is there anything you want to add?
Ms. King: I agree with Mr. Annau on the new and innovative products. That is an avenue where our members are certainly investing in and doing research, so having those available to Canadian farmers is a priority of ours. We have a great working relationship with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and we work to help educate them and obtain all the information they need about new products. Giving Canadian farmers access to innovation is the foundation for increasing productivity and keeping soil health going for many years to come.
Senator McNair: Thank you. It’s interesting to look at your website, which provides information about the 4Rs, et cetera. How much of your role is education of not only the producers but also the Canadian public? I ask because fertilizer gets a bad rap sometimes.
Ms. King: We have a sister association called the Nutrients for Life Foundation. Their mandate is to educate youth about the importance of crop nutrients, not only fertilizers, but the whole scope of the fertilizer system — so “mineral to manure” is the best way to put it. They go into classrooms and educate youth on how to properly use fertilizer. If there’s a garden they happen to have at their school, we are invested in helping them with their school gardens in that aspect. That is extremely important.
As a proud member of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada’s board of directors, we have a fabulous program called “Soil Your Undies,” in which you take a pair of cotton underwear and put it in the soil. Depending on timelines, I go with my children’s class, and we do it probably around April, and then in June we dig it up and see how much of the cotton has disintegrated into the soil. You can see the different micronutrients that have clung onto it. The end result is, hopefully, just the elastic band. Sometimes you get more underwear, sometimes less. It’s a wonderful program, and it’s offered for free; it’s the same with the Nutrients for Life Foundation education materials.
Senator Black: Thank you for being here. I need to clarify something. Are you suggesting that the bill should be amended to ensure more engagement by farmers and producers?
Mr. Annau: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Black: So it’s under “public consultation.”
In developing the national strategy, the Minister must also engage in a public consultation process with
(a) stakeholders, including representatives of agricultural industry and organizations; and
(b) any interested persons.
So you would suggest adding “farmers and producers.” Is that so?
Mr. Annau: Absolutely. Just for clarification, just to make sure it’s explicitly outlined, yes.
Senator Black: Thank you. Which parts of Fertilizer Canada’s current work would be most impacted if this bill were to pass? Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it going to make it easier, harder or take some material away?
Mr. Annau: Sure.
Ms. King: Having a government priority that recognizes soil as the foundation of human health and agricultural health will help not only Fertilizer Canada but the agriculture sector in general. It is something that not many people think of often, but we literally interact with it every day. We’re walking on it. It’s under the concrete eventually. Having the government recognize that is extremely important. Looking back to when it was last recognized, the last time a Senate study was done was 1984, so it has been a long time coming.
My opinion is that it will not only help Fertilizer Canada but also the agriculture industry as a whole.
Senator Black: Thank you. You talked about identifying it as a strategic national asset, and I appreciate that.
Do you see value in the national soils advocate piece, which is also part of this? I’m just curious, having someone out there advocating on your behalf, on behalf of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, or SCCC — do you see value in that?
Ms. King: I personally do. If it’s not your full-time job, sometimes it can become something that is on the side of the desk. I think that is an extremely valuable aspect of the bill. Then that person can go and represent.
Also, taking all of the opinions on soil is important. There will be a wide variety of what you hear about the importance of it. Having someone be able to take all that consultation in, develop something and then be able to bring that strategy forward and push that strategy is an important aspect of that.
Senator Black: Ms. King, you sit on the board of the SCCC. I made it very clear that we’re not trying to compete against the work you folks are doing. If this passes, do you think it can come together? Is there enough leeway and work that still has to be done and that sort of thing that we don’t want to see duplication, but we also don’t want to say —
Ms. King: If I can be very frank, it’s almost needed. We’ve done a great job on soil conservation. We have the National Soil Health Strategy that we’re working on, and we have a number of initiatives, but this would almost breathe new life into the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, which we are very much looking to do. It would give us some renewed vigour, and we would work more like this versus like that.
Senator Black: Do you see the strategy contributing to climate goals, biodiversity protection and agricultural resilience?
Mr. Annau: Yes. In one word, yes. Fundamentally, up and down, especially in the context of 4R, where we’re not only advocating for soil health but economic resilience for farms, reducing constant fertilizer applications, reducing emissions and incidents of runoff. All these aspects coalesce, especially in our own programming, and we see it very much working in lockstep with the soil strategy, yes.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here.
Fertilizer Canada — you’ve mentioned the word a couple of times — has positioned “innovation” as central to improving nutrient stewardship. Can you, for somebody like me who doesn’t know a whole lot about soil, explain what kind of innovation? You mentioned innovative products. Maybe just give me a few examples.
How can this National Soil Health Strategy recognize and accelerate the adoption of those innovations? Again, in your comments, you said “supporting research,” but just maybe elaborate on that.
Mr. Annau: I have a cheat sheet here that I can reference on some background regarding biostimulants, which is what I referenced. They’re not specifically fertilizers as we traditionally know them, such as NPK, which is nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. They’re meant to be more of a supplemental product.
Biostimulants, for example, can enhance soil health, primarily by increasing soil organic matter. These would be certain types of biostimulants. There are other ones that, for example, are more focused on the plant rather than the soil aspects. Organic matter in this context would be formed from crop residues that would be left both above and below ground. Biostimulants that increase crop biomass would contribute to more residue within the soil. This would result in greater —
Senator Sorensen: I can’t stop thinking about the underwear, but go ahead.
Mr. Annau: We have introduced soiled underwear into the Senate record. I would agree.
Greater biomass production improves both yields and soil organic matter inputs, which contributes to soil health. As I said, it’s the one-two punch of being beneficial for productivity, but they also have soil health benefits, which, in and of itself, are obviously very interrelated to productivity.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. My next question is about soil health metrics. I heard what you said about including farmers. I’m going to assume it’s a fairly reasonable thing to do — consulting with industry for targets because you want people who actually understand what a realistic target is. I would also say for metrics.
My question is this: What metrics should be prioritized in a national strategy? Are there already standard measurement tools that are being used and could be used in the strategy, or would that be another investment to create new metrics?
Mr. Annau: Sure. Absolutely. Definitely, crop productivity would be the key one there. That would be heavily predicated on soil health in terms of the return that farmers will see on investment from those aspects. That’s the key one that we want to see likely reflected just with the economic aspect to make sure it reflects the on-farm livelihood.
The soil organic health measurement has been used within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, over the last number of years.
Senator Sorensen: You’re looking at me as if I knew.
Mr. Annau: Tell me where to look. I’m happy to launch the inquiry.
It has been one that has received a decent amount of data and analysis, and it is definitely ready to receive an update in terms of those different data points of input. Again, crop productivity would be one of the key things to determine what is working based on soil health across Canada and to make sure it reflects that on-farm livelihood component.
Ms. King: I might add, just because we are Fertilizer Canada and we’ve talked about 4R Nutrient Stewardship, that, with regard to the number of farmer acres that use 4R, we do have a fertilizer use survey that Mr. Annau’s team conducts. It’s a survey, so it’s not concrete numbers, but it’s a way to measure how many farmers are using 4R. As Mr. Annau mentioned, soil testing is a key component of that, which helps with soil health. Including that sort of measurement might be helpful as well.
Senator Sorensen: Great. Thank you.
Senator McBean: Is 4R an actual thing? You were just saying they use it. I thought it was just this educational thing that would have been really helpful for me when, with the best intentions, I totally singed my lawn one year. Is 4R an actual thing? Educate me on that.
Mr. Annau: Absolutely. It’s a designation program that we offer to Canadian crop advisers as well as professional agrologists. Once they have their certifications within those specific programs, they can undertake our 4R designation training to help farms select the right source of fertilizer to use, at the right rate, in the right place and at the right time.
It’s training that we offer online with Fertilizer Canada as a certification program across Canada. Within Ontario, it even goes a level higher than that. Certain facilities that become 4R certified are audited by a third party to check their 4R records to see the level of actual advice they’re providing to farmers and making sure their records are maintained year to year. Yes, it’s definitely well categorized as being a thing.
Senator McBean: My apologies. I was thinking it was like a Girl Guides motto or something like that.
From your perspective, how will Bill S-230, the proposed National Soil Health Strategy, support and accelerate increased adoption of these practices?
Mr. Annau: Honestly, it’s in the eye of the beholder. Hopefully, it would provide support for farms to possibly invest in 4R advice, getting that input from agrologists who have undertaken the training to provide that input to them across Canada and to make that initial investment in it.
Even at the advisory level, Fertilizer Canada has been doing our best to make sure that there are digital tools available to advisers who provide that input to farms. It’s really something that does have to work lockstep, where you have the support at the farm level to undertake 4R advice, but also potentially support at the 4R advisory level, where there are tools to provide that level of analysis and recordkeeping, even something as simple as getting people off of paper-based records onto digital services, which is something we’re heavily invested in. That would really benefit the soil strategy.
Senator McBean: There’s always something nice about a little notebook.
Mr. Annau: There is. I agree. I have a whole library of notebooks.
Senator McBean: On that vein, what role should economic incentives, cost-sharing programs, research funding and carbon market mechanisms play in encouraging farmers to adopt soil health and enhance nutrient management practices?
Mr. Annau: It’s a strong role. Definitely, incentives at the farm level for uptake are exactly what’s required here, even down to the data-sharing component as well.
At Fertilizer Canada, for example, we have a nitrous oxide and emissions reduction protocol that we’ve been developing, hopefully, for adoption within Canada’s compliance market. The point is to be able to provide farms with a conduit to receive financial incentive to share that level of data in that context on their emissions reductions. But if you have something similar to soil carbon protocols, for example, that are under way from Canada as well, being able to leverage that as a mechanism to have farms incentivize them to share data, making sure that economic return results from that is a good way to ensure that occurs.
Senator McBean: How do you think the national strategy could be structured to complement existing provincial initiatives and industry-led programs rather than creating duplication? I think Senator Black was trying to get at this too.
How do you create a solid program that is efficient and new versus duplication with an additional regulatory burden for producers in the fertilizer sector?
Mr. Annau: We should identify what works well and enhance it. Obviously, the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, for example, did provide a lot of financial incentive for farms to undertake innovative best practices. So we should look to work from that foundation, expand it and allow for a more nuanced level of practices to be adopted.
In our case, definitely a wider variety of 4R practices from the direct nutrient levels across potential biostimulants, like I said, would work well at the farm level. Being able to encompass a broader array of practices that benefit soil health practices would be a good approach.
Ms. King: Could I add something on your urban comment? For 4R, we do have an urban program that is mostly in Ontario to educate homeowners about how to properly use, share and store their fertilizer, but that follows the 4R too.
Senator McBean: I could have used that information. The hand scatter method was not correct. Lesson learned.
Senator Muggli: I met with some grain growers today who are very concerned about cuts to some research centres.
Do you think this bill has a strong enough emphasis on the research measure that’s articulated in this bill?
Their point was that, if we don’t continue with R&D, we are not going to be able to be at the top of the game and have high output, and that’s where we’ll start losing money and farmers.
Mr. Annau: Yes, I would take the farmers’ tack from that, for sure. There’s always room, especially for the strategy, to bolster that research aspect of it. At Fertilizer Canada, we do put a lot of funding into research across Canada. We have a 4R research network of scientists, for example, who will provide us with input on our science-based policy of making sure we do keep those research studies going. In terms of the private sector, it’s something that is a huge priority for us. Without question, we would be more than happy to see the bill enhance that.
Senator Muggli: Do we articulate it strongly enough in this bill? We do have a section that says we should encourage use of effective management practices, including through, number one, research programs that help to develop and apply sustainable soil practices.
Mr. Annau: Sure. It could be in the word “encourage” or maybe a stronger word. Yes. Maybe.
Senator Muggli: I want to emphasize that we have to — I almost feel like it is the number-one thing that has to happen in order for everything else to be possible, but —
Mr. Annau: “Bolster.” Any variety. It should encourage a number of different interpretations, too.
Senator Muggli: Yes. It might not be directive enough.
Mr. Annau: Yes, I agree. I encourage you to have a number of different interpretations for it. It is good to see. A thumb’s up and a good tweet are encouraging, but —
Senator Muggli: Yes. Maybe a friendly amendment later.
You did talk about the fact that you’re really happy to see that soil is recognized as a strategic national asset. Tell me why you were happy to see that. What does that mean?
Mr. Annau: Sure. All across the world, where we work with a number of different organizations, even across the EU, for example, the messaging of strategic asset is something that has been popping up in terms of some of our engagement with them. It is something that we thought, okay, we’ll make sure that we highlight this. It is something that we’ll take to government and make sure it’s in our messaging. So we read the bill and thought, okay, there it is. That’s excellent to see.
Ms. King: Having healthy soils and investing in them are the foundation of how our food is grown. Food is an asset that we all need. For a very long time, the agricultural industry in Canada has needed to do more. If we invest in our soils, it is one of the first steps to reaching our full potential on where we can go to be a global superpower in the agriculture sphere. Having soil as a strategic national asset makes 100% sense to me.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. I was thinking that would be the opening paragraph of our report, expressing our passion for it: “This is a strategic asset. We must understand this.”
Ms. King: Yes, but if we don’t have healthy soils, we can’t grow the food that we need, and then where do we go from there?
Senator Muggli: You say you are hearing it more on the international stage as well.
Ms. King: Yes.
Senator Muggli: So there are other countries and jurisdictions that are realizing how important it is.
Mr. Annau: Absolutely. I was very pleased to relay the language in the bill and to express that it is taking the forefront in Canada. It was excellent to see. Yes.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here. I have a couple of questions. I’m thinking that this is a great bill, as is the work we did on the soil in Critical Ground. I’m following on Senator Black’s question about how you help farmers, in terms of soil testing, nitrogen content, water and organic matter.
We were lucky to go to Saskatchewan and Alberta as part of our research for Critical Ground. At Olds College, we saw all of that.
I was struck by the issue of small farmers and how they get access to all of this data that will improve their best-management practices using a system like yours. One of the things we came up against, or that I heard, was, “We just don’t have the funds; we can’t get the data.” Will this soil strategy bill encompass the smaller farmers who have more trouble getting at that data and improving their yields? Give me your comments on that, please.
Mr. Annau: Sure. It even has to do with the method with which data is collected. For example, there is precision agricultural equipment that offers that advanced data collection. GPS used to make sure you’re not doing too much section overlap in your fertilizer application, which results in less soil compaction. As a result of that, soil benefits with precision ag technology. Obviously, the investment can be quite high. There was a report, which may have been seven years ago, in 2019, in the “before times,” as we call them, where there were farms of 500 acres in size and under, which likely wouldn’t be able to afford that level of equipment. So it would be helpful to scale down that level of advanced technology in a way that would be more affordable, and even make funding streams more available if it is through the Agricultural Clean Technology fund. That needs to be one option.
Senator Burey: Do you think this bill could be part of that? I ask because one of the things we heard was that the small farmers can’t make it. As you know, their margins are much smaller. We want to keep as much farmland as possible. I’m thinking of the big picture, improving agricultural lands and keeping farms going. Do you think this bill could go a far way into filling out that whole picture?
Mr. Annau: I think so.
Senator Burey: The next question I wanted to ask was about emissions. I wanted you to talk more about that in terms of the targets. What went wrong? What was the downside and what were the unintended consequences?
Mr. Annau: I’m going to have to quote this. Hopefully, I will get it correct. We actually had the privilege of co-chairing with the AFC, the fertilizer emission reduction strategy, so if I mess up this target on the record, that’ll be very embarrassing, but I believe it was 30% by the year 2030, which was the target that was set at the outset.
The issue at the time was that a large amount of fertilizer emissions were based off of shipments and sales of fertilizer. That was the input data that, for example, through Statistics Canada would be available for that. The industry knew that it’s how you apply the fertilizer — at what time, what rate, what place, et cetera, and the 4Rs being the big one — that would predicate the level of emissions that you see.
Trying to estimate based off the quantity of shipments and sales, that’s basically fertilizer use. So while explicitly it is saying fertilizer emission target, you are effectively looking at a fertilizer use reduction with those actual metrics there. Our goal and our advocacy would be to get the 4R, for example, best practices used by farmers and the emission impact in terms of emission reduction, recognizing our national emissions reporting, to make sure it’s effective, and especially to report back to the UN.
Ms. King: From my perspective on when that was announced, there was no consultation on how it should be implemented. The target was just put out there, and then industry was expected to respond. Just to have it on the record, it was voluntary.
However, the agriculture industry and the fertilizer sector have been very proactive when it comes to sustainability and the practices that they use. Instead of coming to us and asking, “What we should be putting in the report? How do we work with you guys to achieve it? We are looking to hit this. How do we get there?” they just told us, “We are looking to hit this,” and then they said, “Make it happen.”
So, consulting with the industry, understanding programs that are already going on and that you can incorporate into programs like the 4Rs — those are important aspects. I know you are obviously doing testimony. I know many great folks are coming on Thursday as well, so you’re already doing the right thing by consulting and looking at what the bill should look like. That’s very much appreciated, at least, from our end.
Mr. Annau: You are asking the right questions.
The Chair: When that target came out, the 30% reduction, I remember hearing someone say, that’s like someone telling you, you have to lose 30% of your weight but not telling you how much you weigh. Then there’s the whole nuance of the source and the rate.
Within that, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions if I could. One, Senator Sorensen asked about technology. There is a whole bunch of exciting technology in fertilizer. I am thinking of Environmentally Smart Nitrogen, or ESN, and wondering if you can give us a really short description of what ESN is.
I also want you to take a minute and talk to us about the memorandums of understanding that you have signed, whom you have signed them with, and what kind of relationship — what that back and forth has meant? I know some of those have been in place for quite a long time. I want to understand how the industry has taken ownership of the issue from your perspective.
Mr. Annau: ESN is slow-release fertilizer, time-released based on the soil type, making sure the nutrients are released at a rate calculated enough to maintain the actual soil-nutrient requirements for the crop. It’s one of the key innovations that we’ve seen released, I would say, over the last number of years. It is one that we were always obviously lobbying for different levels of support for, especially at the farm level. We saw with the On-Farm Climate Action Fund that some combinations had more support than others, and one with future iterations we would like to see put into place there.
The Chair: For the layman, I find the analogy of a Smartie in your pocket compared to a Hershey’s Kisses candy unwrapped in your pocket — which will melt faster? To me, ESN fertilizer is a pellet of nitrogen that’s got a polymer coating on it that doesn’t disappear as soon as the rain hits, but that is put in the ground with the seed and is designed to be released at the time that the crop needs it. So instead of that Hershey’s Kiss being a mess in your pocket at the wrong time, the coating on the Smartie keeps it until you need it.
Mr. Annau: I wrote that down. The senator just wanted to show off her great analogy, and I am taking that to heart.
The Chair: That’s the kind of technology we are talking about. It is both complicated and simple; it’s really quite beautiful. Sorry, I interrupted you. You were about to talk about MOUs.
Ms. King: Fertilizer Canada recognized, probably, starting around 2011, that our best partners to have adoption in 4Rs were the local provincial partners because not all soils are created equal. What someone needs in P.E.I. is very different from Ontario, very different from British Columbia. Frankly, in Ontario, you might have two different things going on in what you need in the soils. So the best folks to help us with our 4R program would be provincial partners.
In 2013, we signed our first MOU with the province of Prince Edward Island. That was with the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, the P.E.I. Potato Board, Kensington North Watersheds Association and then the Government of Prince Edward Island, because it was also very important for us to have government buy-in on the 4Rs. We established a working group, and throughout those working groups, we talk about best practices on the island, or wherever we are, to help implement 4Rs, the best 4R practices for those types of soil and give guidance to retailers that they can give down to their farmer customers.
Since 2013, we have signed a number of 4R MOUs. We have MOUs with Quebec, not with the provincial government, but with the local agriculture retail association there. In Ontario, we have quite a robust group: we have the government, then we also have the Grain Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and we had a watershed working with us, but I’m not quite sure about it. In Manitoba, it is the Manitoba government and Keystone Agriculture Producers. In Saskatchewan, it is just Saskatchewan and the government. Our latest one we signed was last year in Alberta with Alberta Grains as well as the Alberta government.
We are all invested in ensuring that the best management practices get to farmers, and they know what they are doing with their fertilizer. So Mr. Annau’s team has all of those. Each has a steering committee, and those groups look to educate local agricultural retailers. We have our 4R designation program that I mentioned. So we have certified 4R designated agronomists who go in and do a nutrient stewardship plan on farms.
In Ontario it is a little different. It is a certification program, where the retailers get audited. We’ve built quite a robust framework for our work with the provinces, which is key. Thank you for your leadership on that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: We go to our second round.
Senator McNair: Mr. Annau, you mentioned a couple of the times that the data has to be good data, or it is not worth much to you. I know that your organization has the fertilizer-use survey that you use. Explain to me how that’s used by growers or producers. But before we get there, out of curiosity, I see every province in Canada except Nova Scotia and New Brunswick listed for fertilizer use. Is that because you have not signed MOUs?
Ms. King: We used to have an agreement with New Brunswick. That one lapsed, and we just didn’t renew it. But we are always looking for new partners. We also don’t have an MOU in British Columbia yet. We are working on that, hopefully. The same applies to Nova Scotia. We’ve had some discussions, but we’ve just prioritized some other areas.
Senator McNair: Does that mean there is just not interest in the uptake on the 4R system?
Mr. Annau: It could just be time to participate in the survey as well. It is largely incentive-focused in terms of outreach to farms and expanding the client base. So if they have time during the winter months, particularly November through January, to respond to the fertilizer use survey that’s available to them, then they can participate in it. It is something that we’re looking to expand. We have an AgriScience application that we are currently having some back and forth with AFC on to expand the survey to cover more regions across Canada and more crops to get that even finer level of data to it.
In terms of use, as you were saying, definitely our actual membership provides that insight into the quantities of fertilizer use, the source, different best practices that are put into place as well as industry perceptions of the 4R program in terms of what farmers think of it, whether they are using 4Rs within their own operations in and of themselves, whether they’re engaging with 4R experts to get that advice, giving us an idea as to where we might look to target more of our own engagement in terms of education. It is a very solid resource for us at the policy level and also at the retail-membership side. At the farm level, similarly, it gives that level of transparency on where different best practices are being put into place across Canada and the quantities and types of fertilizer being used.
It is something that is farmer self-reported. Stratus AG Research is the company we use to conduct the survey for us and tabulate the data year to year, doing the initial release of that information, and a general report in the springtime for us. But it is something that is self-reported. Farmers are very generous with their time in terms of what they are telling us with regards to their own on-farm applications. It’s something where we say, if there is a finer level of data that would be looked at by producers, we look to provide that direct incentive. Offset protocols are a big one on that. We always maintain a nitrous oxide emission-reduction protocol for producers that would kind of grant that level of data and provide them with that direct incentive and economic opportunity for sharing that data.
Senator McNair: Have you seen any “Aha!” moments where people were not necessarily believers or were hesitant but then saw that it works — the 4Rs?
Mr. Annau: Definitely. There were, I would say, “Aha!” moments for sure, especially in terms of perceptions. You do see a solid level of economic return that we look to make sure we have in our own messaging. It’s something we’re looking to pursue as well, especially with a bit of a refocusing in terms of more of an economic perspective at the federal government level. Looking more specifically to research and communicate the economic return of the 4Rs — not to put the environmental aspects aside, but to make sure we’re making the business case quite clear.
Senator McNair: Like Senator McBean, I was wondering whether “4Rs” was a science-based program: right source, right time and right place. Take that and add the Hershey’s Kiss and the Smartie and you’ve got —
Mr. Annau: And the Smartie.
Ms. King: On the fertilizer-use survey, I would add that we have a working group we work with to make sure we’re asking the right questions. When we’re looking at the data, they’re looking at it with us and making sure we are interpreting it right. We are trying to bring that forward as well.
We do release the results and the raw data annually if you want to go through it. It’s available on request, and we like to track who is looking at it, and that sort of thing, but, yes.
Senator McNair: You’re pretty generous with giving access.
Ms. King: Yes.
Senator Muggli: There will be another bill coming to us from the House of Commons on drought and flood forecasting. I’m interested in how important you think it is to have drought and flood forecasting. How important is it to soil health as it relates to fertilizer planning? Do you collect any data like that, or do you have any?
Mr. Annau: We do our best, especially in our certification program in Ontario. One of the records audited at the retail level ensures the timing for the placement of the fertilizer.
Local forecasts are taken into account to make sure you’re not putting it down directly right before a rainstorm that will wash everything away, at great cost to the farmer, and, obviously, the environmental impacts of runoff. It’s something that is absolutely —
Senator Muggli: Longer-term forecasting, to be able to forecast ahead in months, especially for drought.
Mr. Annau: It’s something that would be extremely beneficial for us, and it is something we actually haven’t even commented on. I will be pursuing it to see where we might be able to provide some insight on alignment.
Senator Muggli: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Are you familiar with what happened — I can think of two times — in Prince Edward Island, where we saw a drought through the season? What happened was that the crop was planted; fertilizers were put in the drill; it didn’t rain; things didn’t grow; and at the end of the growing season, when the small crops were harvested, there was an issue with soil data. When soil probes were taken, there was actually undissolved fertilizer still in the pearl form in the ground.
I’m thinking of Senator Muggli’s question about long-term drought forecasting, which could — if it were accurate — be very helpful, but the accuracy would have to be pretty bang on. I don’t know if you have anything to say about that?
Mr. Annau: It’s an aspect we see in the bill, the support for research that could definitely be — in terms of long-term forecasting for drought, whether it’s drought or excessive rainfall, I would say that 100%, it would be a good priority to focus on when it comes to research aspects.
The Chair: We keep seeing these 1-in-700-year events, and I should be about 43,000 years old now for the ones we’ve seen.
Ms. King: In 4Rs, many people pay attention to source and rate, time is the unsung — oh yes, we know time. But having a bit more predictability would actually be extremely beneficial. Time needs to be put to the forefront, maybe.
The Chair: My last question is this: You mentioned certified crop advisers, and I’m also thinking of nutrient management planners. You mentioned a third, which I can’t remember. Can you speak to those designations? Why do they exist? How do they exist? If you’re familiar with what it means to become certified and to maintain that certification, was it industry driven?
Mr. Annau: Definitely. The CCAs would stand somewhat apart from our 4R designation. They would be general crop advice providers, would be my understanding of it.
Not being CCA certified myself, and — embarrassingly enough — not 4R designated either, but that would be the preliminary qualifications one would get to undertake our training.
To combine that — your basic level of crop advice — with that higher level of 4R advice that would be required to be applied at the farm level. It would be for certified crop advisers as well as professional agrologists as well, depending on the jurisdiction you’re in.
In Ontario, we have our nutrient management specialists, a kind of 4R specialization that does happen, which would be a high level of training as well that would qualify for being 4R designated.
It’s kind of jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking at what those essential qualifications would be and where they overlap and where they would sync up.
Ms. King: In my opinion, a certified crop adviser is — I’m going to compare it to time in the 4Rs — a bit of an unsung hero that not a lot of people know about in Canada. They are often probably not thought about until they are very much needed on the farm.
Being a certified crop adviser is almost like becoming a lawyer. You have to take an exam. I can’t remember the stats, but, last time I checked, on the first try of taking the CCA exam, I don’t believe the pass rate is very high, because it’s a very extreme exam.
Once you get it, it’s a great badge of honour. I am also not a CCA, but I greatly respect the work that they do.
Their education doesn’t stop there. Every year, they have to take a number of continuing education units, or CEUs. They have to keep learning what the latest trends are, knowing how to assist their farmers in the best ways possible. They are a critical component to what is needed in soil health and in the agriculture industry.
So to take some of our designated courses, which Mr. Annau mentioned, we do give CEUs because it does take a lot of time to take some of the 4R courses. That’s the end result, but they are extremely important.
Mr. Annau: It’s part of our ongoing process, reporting CEU credits back to the regional CCA boards to ensure that farm designated advisers get recognized.
The Chair: Now, I’m embarrassed to say this, but I am a CCA. You did pretty well in answering what a CCA is. You have to write a regional and international exam; you have to pass those two and then have 40 CEUs a year, a cycle; and there are requirements that you have to meet so many within each category. One would be nutrient management planning, one would be soil and water, and there are others.
It is industry driven. It was industry’s response to the fact that extension services were more or less gutted through the FPTs. There was no money there for that to continue, but industry saw there was a need for the people who are making recommendations to producers.
These relationships are longstanding relationships. A CCA is highly motivated to make sure they make the right — and they have taken an oath. They want to make the right recommendation to the producers, because they need that producer to still be in business next year when they go back to sell them more product. Good job.
Senator McNair: It’s for specific crops, I assume?
The Chair: No.
Senator McNair: So it’s the whole gamut?
The Chair: It’s the whole gamut. Certified crop adviser, but you have that regional component when you write.
Senator McBean: Are there enough certified crop advisers around?
The Chair: Good question, Senator McBean.
Senator McBean: No, are there enough?
Ms. King: I don’t know the answer to that, but I will get back to you.
The Chair: There are a bunch of different types. You have your P.Ag.’s, your agrologists, and your P.Ag.’s are no slouches. Like when you go to a nurse practitioner, there are different players in the whole realm.
It is a good question. We have witnesses coming from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. If we tell them we’re going to ask them that question, maybe they can answer it for us when they come.
That exhausts all of our questions. Thank you so much. Thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. This was definitely an informative session, and we appreciate your contribution to the study of this bill.
I also remind honourable senators that the committee is scheduled to commence clause-by-clause consideration of this bill on Thursday morning after hearing from one more panel of witnesses. Members considering amendments or observations are encouraged to send them in advance to the clerk and to authorize sharing them with the committee. Please note that these items will be treated in a confidential manner and will not be distributed to other members of the committee prior to the meeting unless the clerk is authorized to do so. This will definitely expedite our process. Should you not wish to provide these items in advance, members are asked to bring 20 copies in both official languages for distribution at the meeting.
Thank you to the interpreters, the pages, support staff, technicians and all those who ensure that we, as senators, can conduct our work in the committee setting in a timely fashion.
(The committee adjourned.)