THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 26, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:01 a.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: Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to members of the committee and 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 on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses for today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator McNair: Welcome, panellists. It’s quite a large panel today. It’s good to see. I’m Senator John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Black: Welcome. Robert Black, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, senator for Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, but I also have a soft spot in my heart for Treaty 4 territory because I know there are Treaty 4 people here today. I’m from Saskatchewan.
Senator Martin: Good morning all the way from the West Coast, British Columbia. I am Yonah Martin.
The Chair: Before we ask our witnesses to speak, I wanted to point out that we have special guests at the back of the room. We have three young farmers, two from Saskatchewan, and one from Alberta, McKenzie, Annika and Kevin. It is so wonderful to see them here. Welcome.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
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.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming Kenneth Bear, First Nation Professional Agrologist. From Farmers for Climate Solutions, we welcome Geneviève Grossenbacher, Director of Policy; David Burton, Scientific Advisor; and Paul Slomp, Board Member and Farmer. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we welcome Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy; and Drew Spoelstra, Director and Dairy Farmer.
Thank you all for joining us.
We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. I will signal that your time is up looking at you really hard, so you have five minutes, then the death stare. The floor is yours, Mr. Bear.
Kenneth Bear, First Nation Professional Agrologist, As an individual: Good morning and thank you, committee, for the opportunity today.
My name is Ken Bear. I am a First Nation agrologist from the Ochapowace First Nation, and I serve as the president of the National Indigenous Agriculture Association, or NIAA, which is a federally incorporated non-profit group that focuses on advancing Indigenous participation and leadership across Canada’s agricultural sector. Our organization was established to help build the future of Indigenous agriculture through Indigenous expertise, land-based knowledge and modern agricultural systems.
The National Indigenous Agriculture Association is guided by a board of directors composed of all First Nation individuals, who collectively bring 25 years of experience working directly with federal institutions and regulatory systems, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and First Nations governments and agricultural producers across Canada. This experience spans policy development, program delivery, food-system regulation, land management and Indigenous economic development. In short, the expertise already exists within Indigenous leadership and within NIAA.
As this committee examines issues related to soil health and sustainable agriculture, I want to emphasize that First Nations perspectives on soil health are essential to Canada’s long-term agricultural resilience. Indigenous soil health is not simply agronomic practice. It reflects stewardship, biodiversity protection, intergenerational land management and sustainable food production rooted in Treaty relationships with the land.
For a more in-depth national examination of First Nations soil health, NIAA is fully positioned to undertake any work in relation to this. We have the relationships, technical understanding, community trust and governance structure necessary to lead Indigenous-driven research, engagement and implementation. Frankly, NIAA has been waiting for federal organizations to tap into this expertise.
Government departments are undoubtedly busy or, perhaps, unaware that a national Indigenous agricultural body has existed with the mandate and capacity to help build solutions alongside Canada. We’re here. The National Indigenous Agriculture Association was created specifically to help bridge federal policy objectives with Indigenous agricultural realities, and to support practical, community-driven outcomes.
In closing, Canada has reconciliation within agriculture. Indigenous peoples must not only be consulted, we must also be engaged as partners and leaders in designing the future. The National Indigenous Agriculture Association stands ready to support this committee and the Government of Canada in advancing Indigenous soil health initiatives, agricultural development and long-term food system sustainability.
I would be pleased to provide further information or submit additional materials to the committee following today’s discussion.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bear. Ms. Grossenbacher, Mr. Burton and Mr. Slomp, you have the floor for five minutes.
Geneviève Grossenbacher, Director of Policy, Farmers for Climate Solutions: Good morning, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I’m Geneviève Grossenbacher, Director of Policy at Farmers for Climate Solutions, or FCS, and a vegetable farmer in Quebec.
FCS is a farmer and rancher-led organization working to help farmers across the country build resilience and care for the land in the face of climate change. Farmers across Canada are facing greater climate risks, but they’re also showing that, by building soil health, they can stabilize yields, cut costs, increase income and strengthen food security.
On my farm, we’ve focused on soil health for 15 years through cover cropping, crop diversification and long-term rotation. The results are clear. We’ve doubled production, reduced labour and built resilience, which actually earned us a few prizes.
My farm isn’t alone. In our latest poll, 94% of farmers and ranchers said soil health is a top priority. What’s missing is coordination and on-the-ground support. Bill S-230 offers a chance to address this.
I’m joined today by Paul Slomp, a board member and farmer, and Dr. David Burton, a soil scientist. Our message is clear: Soil health is essential to Canadian agriculture, and this bill is key to protecting it. Thank you.
Paul Slomp, Board Member and Farmer, Farmers for Climate Solutions: I grew up on dairy farms in the Netherlands and Alberta, where I learned that without healthy soil, farms don’t survive.
During the BSE crisis in Alberta, many neighbours lost their farms. The ones who survived were those who focused on soil health, grazing and lowering input costs. That shaped how I view risk.
Today, my goal is simple: build soil health in a way that makes economic sense. My family runs Grazing Days farm in Saint-André-Avellin, Quebec, where we mob graze cattle and pasture poultry for local markets.
When we bought our farm, the soil was exhausted, but improving it has doubled our carrying capacity. That’s twice as many cattle on the same land.
Healthier soil grows better grass, supports healthier animals and reduces reliance on costly inputs; it builds resilience. In the past two years of extreme drought and flood, healthy soil helped our fields keep growing, while others struggled.
Farmers invest in soil health because it works, and it is a great way to manage risk, but it takes time, expertise and trusted support. Programs like FCS’s FaRM program, which empowered 26,000 producers across more than 8 million acres last year to build soil health and resilience, are essential.
Farmers are ready, but success is about more than policy; it’s about providing farmers and ranchers with the right people and support — agrologists, peer networks and extension services.
David Burton, Scientific Advisor, Farmers for Climate Solutions: As a scientist and researcher, I have seen farmers already proving that healthy soils drive both environmental and economic growth. They reduce costs, increase income and lower public spending on climate-related disasters. Healthy soils are the foundation of a thriving, climate-resilient agriculture.
Canada has invested for decades in soil research. We have learned much. We have practical, regionally adaptable indicators such as soil organic carbon to measure and report on soil health. Are they perfect? No. Are they sufficient to guide action? Absolutely. The quest for perfect measures cannot delay progress.
The Senate’s Critical Ground report clearly documents the problem. Now this bill focuses on solutions and focuses on action.
To be effective, this strategy must focus on practical measures and the means of reporting on successes, ensure that farmers retain control over their data but have a means of safely sharing it for the collective good, focus on continuous improvement rather than rigid standards and invest in an advisory capacity so science can be translated into practice.
Bill S-230 creates a framework to turn what we already know about soil health into real, measurable benefits for farmers and Canadians. It recommends stronger data systems to track and share progress, equips farmers to improve soil health and build resilience and helps communicate the economic and public value of healthy soils and a strong agricultural sector.
The science is there. Now we need policies to convert that science into action. That is what this bill is all about.
Ms. Grossenbacher: This bill recognizes soil health as a shared responsibility and a critical economic priority, and emphasizes the need for collaboration, which is essential. But to truly move the needle, we need more than just this bill. We also need complementary policies and on-the-ground programs, support and extension services. The next Agriculture Policy Framework is where we can also scale these efforts and make soil health a core priority.
Through our Resilient Agriculture Initiative, farmers and ranchers are already telling us what they need to boost profitability and build resilience through soil stewardship, and we are happy to talk more about it during the Q & A.
Take Prairie Creek Farms in Manitoba — by using cover crops, intercropping, grazing and reduced tillage on 4,000 acres, they have reduced costs by $70 an acre, which is $189,000 annually, and increased their margins 16 points above average. This success shouldn’t be the exception. This bill can help scale this across Canada’s 150 million agricultural acres.
Thank you. We welcome your questions.
The Chair: Perfect timing, thank you. Lastly, Mr. Spoelstra, the floor is now yours for five minutes.
Drew Spoelstra, Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. It is a great opportunity to be here for me as someone who is passionate about the issue of soil health in the industry, and a real farmer on the ground myself.
I am a Director with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, pleased to be joined by Brodie Berrigan, and also the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. For a few months, I still qualify as a young farmer to sit here in the back of the room.
The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing more than 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada. Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector contributes $150 billion to GDP and supports 2.3 million jobs, making it a strategic driver of economic growth and rural vitality.
The importance of healthy soils: To start, I want to acknowledge the leadership and dedication that Senator Black has committed to this issue. As a farmer in Ontario, I know first‑hand how important healthy soils are to my business and its future. We are grateful that this topic is getting the attention it deserves. Healthy soils help me improve nutrient availability, manage water, boost crop yields and enhance plants’ resilience to stress. Simply put, healthy soils support more efficient production today while protecting long-term growing potential for the future.
There is not a lot of time, and there is a lot of ground to cover today — no pun intended — so I will focus my remarks on three key areas: First, the need to consolidate the government and industry approach to a National Soil Health Strategy; second, the potential role of a national soil advocate; and, finally, the need for a coherent vision and a coordinated approach to the delivery of extension services in Canada.
Canada has a range of soil health expertise and capacity spread across agronomists, producer groups, provinces, academic institutions, the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, conservation districts and federal programs. These efforts are often disconnected. Bill S-230 directly recognizes this disconnect by calling for a national strategy, with cross‑government coordination, reporting requirements and support for consistent knowledge sharing.
The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, or SCCC, has long served as a national convener on soil health, building awareness, providing leadership and promoting research and policy discussions.
Aligning the national strategy envisioned in Bill S-230, and any potential role for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with the SCCC’s ongoing work would help ensure that Canada is not starting from scratch but rather building on existing networks, data and producer-led initiatives. This alignment is essential if we want to see real on-farm improvements in soil health that are practical, scalable and regionally appropriate.
On the national soil advocate, the CFA supports Bill S-230’s proposal for a national advocate for soil health, a role intended to elevate soil as a strategic national resource and champion long‑term stewardship.
Farmers are deeply committed to soil stewardship, but a national advocate can help ensure these efforts are supported, recognized and connected to broader public and policy priorities.
However, we feel that this role needs to be not only an advocate for healthy soils but an advocate for farmers’ interests when it comes to the preservation of healthy soils. Having someone in the role who understands the economic realities farmers face on the ground is important to ensure credibility and success.
This role should also serve as a direct link and liaison between farmers and the Government of Canada throughout the implementation of the strategy.
On extension services in Canada, to truly advance soil health, Canada must renew its commitment to agricultural extension services and adoption supports — areas where capacity has eroded significantly in many regions.
Bill S-230 highlights the importance of training, knowledge sharing and education as essential components of the National Soil Health Strategy.
The Next Policy Framework, or NPF, offers a critical opportunity to align federal-provincial-territorial investments with the goals of Bill S-230 by supporting extension capacity so that producers have access to trusted, regionally adapted guidance.
Producers are willing and eager to adopt soil-building practices, but adoption requires practical on-farm support, not just policy aspiration.
Strengthening extension through the NPF is one of the most direct ways to accelerate meaningful improvements in soil health across the country.
In conclusion, Canada’s soils are a strategic national asset that underpins the agriculture sector as a driver of economic growth and food security and sovereignty in Canada. To protect our soils, we need better coordination, leadership and on-the-ground support. By connecting its recommendations to the long-standing work of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, supporting the creation of a national soil advocate and ensuring the Next Policy Framework strengthens extension and adoption supports, we can make real progress for producers and all Canadians.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spoelstra. Before we move into questions, I wanted to note that Farmers for Climate Solutions have provided a case study in both official languages, so we will circulate that to everybody.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you will have five minutes for your question or questions, and that includes the answer.
So you may have a senator interrupt you to say that they want to hone in on something.
We will start with our deputy chair, Senator McNair.
Senator McNair: Welcome, again, to everyone here today. I will start with Mr. Bear. You talk about the fact that Indigenous communities have to not only be consulted but fully engaged as partners.
I am curious, in the development of the national strategy for soil health in Canada, how do you feel the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should collaborate or engage Indigenous governing bodies, such as, for example, the NIAA that you talk about?
Mr. Bear: Thank you for the question. Not too much pressure. I was told when I came in the door that I was going to be first, and I thought, that’s okay, not too much pressure. I don’t want to take up a lot of time.
In the nation that I come from, there is what they call land‑based training. A lot of the Elders are starting to incorporate their historical oral interpretation to the youth about what we will call biodiversity. From the perspective of scientific terms, as an agrologist, I learned that certain plants and animals are given scientific terms. I didn’t realize that there are filums and subfilums in biology, for example, with respect to chemistry. When I was in the college of agriculture, I always felt the sense that this cycle of life and this respect for the land that I heard from the nation, from the Elders, there was information that wasn’t collected from the Elders in relation to the land. There was a connection scientifically, but it wasn’t incorporated into the system, I guess.
To answer your question, I think it is important that Canada take that perspective from First Nations people about the relationship with the land and biodiversity. If you look, senator, at the structure of agriculture, 80 bushels per acre is a good crop for canola in Saskatchewan, but what does that 80 bushels represent? Does it represent more money for that farmer? Does it give him bragging rights? What does it do in terms of getting that 80 bushels per acre? All of that produce goes somewhere else, so he is not eating 80 bushels per acre of canola. It is going somewhere else.
It questions how First Nations would see it in terms of sustainability. In a way, we’ve been part of this land for centuries. Would we agree to producing a crop that we’re going to base economies on and ship it somewhere else? Or do we want it to become more within Canada?
I don’t know if that answers your question, but I don’t want to take up more of your time.
Senator McNair: Thank you for that. The cycle of life and the stewardship concept are critical to everything that this bill is about. I think everyone at the table is a steward, in a sense, and understands that from the opening comments, so thank you for that.
Senator Black: Speaking to all three groups, are you comfortable that the bill involves all who should be involved, engaged and consulted in the development of a strategy in what it says? Does it involve everyone that it should?
Ms. Grossenbacher: I would love to hear from others, but we definitely think it does. I think there is room in the bill, if it doesn’t, to make sure we capture everyone. From our perspective, that is one of the key strengths: collaboration and making sure everyone is at a table.
Senator Black: Mr. Bear?
Mr. Bear: Just to answer very quickly, the soil in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario — we were just talking about having some land here in Ontario. I said there are more trees here than in Saskatchewan. We were just talking about the clay soil in Hamilton. There is a huge difference in terms of that classification.
I just met some First Nations people from northern Ontario at the airport. I had never met First Nations people from northern Ontario before, but I’m sure the teachings from their Elders are a lot different from those in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Spoelstra: I do, senator. Thanks for the question. I think most people who need to be included in this process are, and it will take all of us to help move this initiative forward to support soil health across the country.
Senator Black: Thank you. Are there things missing in the bill that should be in there?
Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you, senator.
I wouldn’t say there are things missing. As Mr. Spoelstra mentioned, there are a lot of things we really like about this bill. There are important key issues to stress. I will say these as things to keep in mind as you go through clause by clause, one being regional flexibility. I think that will be really important because of the diversity of soils across the country.
The other thing is building off existing structures that are already in place. I don’t know what that means in terms of the specific language of the bill, necessarily, but as Mr. Spoelstra and others have mentioned, there are already existing structures and initiatives under way that are doing good things.
My interpretation of this bill is that it is meant to wrap its arms around these things and pull them together, so that’s what we would also like to see. For example, agriculture in the classroom is an initiative to get information out to younger generations. There is a Canadian Soil Information Service that already exists. I’m sure it could be approved, but we have structures in place, as well as the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. Those would be a couple of things that I would say are important to keep in mind as we’re doing the clause-by-clause review.
Senator Black: Mr. Bear, is there anything missing?
Mr. Bear: I haven’t seen the bill, so I don’t want to comment on it.
Ms. Grossenbacher: Everything that Mr. Berrigan said, but also for us, the resources are mentioned. Obviously, any strategy has to come with support on the ground. We learned that through the sustainable development strategy, so making sure there are things on the ground for farmers.
On the national advocate, if I may, a few have mentioned already that having farmer representation would be very important.
Senator Black: Thank you. Your words of wrapping arms around, that’s beautiful. That’s wonderful. I will wrap up by saying your words, each of you this morning, fill my heart and make it sing. Thank you very much.
Senator McBean: Is this where I’m supposed to sing? I don’t know.
Thank you, everyone. For the farmers who are speaking on Farmers for Climate Solutions, I enjoyed when you were speaking about building resilience in your farm and how you have come to it over time. You said 15 years ago you started doing that. Mr. Burton, you cautioned about rigid standards.
Are there any potential unintended costs or regular burdens with this bill that could discourage farmer participation? It is not being done on their own path. It is a little bit like we’re talking about everyone having their own soil. All the soils are different among each province and even within each province.
Is there any concern that this prescription actually creates barriers? And what safeguards should be put in to prevent that sort of outcome?
Mr. Slomp: Participation in this will be, I hope, voluntary for the farms, so I don’t think there is an infringement. I think there is a great opportunity for a big picture in soil health to be painted for what is happening in Canada and for farmers to look at and engage with and make decisions related to that on their own farms.
Ms. Grossenbacher: I love the question, and it’s such an important one. Farmers often feel that any policy or program is an imposition on them. I go back to the supports and extension services. I thought it was great that they’re in the bill already. If we focus on that and show what the policy can do for them and that the policy is there to embrace, support and help get to the next phase, then I think the reception will be very different. I think there is room in the way it’s written right now for it to sound positive to farmers and ranchers and be welcomed.
Mr. Burton: If I can add briefly, I don’t think we’re looking at a national standard per se as much as a process of improvement, a farm-level, regionally monitored process for improvement. It’s about improving soil health as opposed to everyone reaching a particular national standard because soil health is a contextual, regional concept. It has to be interpreted within the context of the farm.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Mr. Spoelstra or Mr. Berrigan, what mechanisms should the bill include in order to ensure ongoing consultation and meaningful engagement with producers and agricultural organizations, including ones from Indigenous communities during both the development and implementation phases of the strategy?
Mr. Spoelstra: It’s about the collaboration piece and working with farmers on the ground directly, working with all of us across the table to make sure the bill has everything it needs. It needs to be farmer focused and focused on all the tools available to help build soil health and bring in all the existing organizations that we already have and all the tools that are available to us as farmers to move this forward.
It’s the farmers on the ground actually implementing these things down the road. Those are the people that we need to make sure that we are working with to develop these policies as we move forward if we want any chance of success.
Senator McBean: Thank you. I appreciated your thoughts on the question, “Is farming for food for the community versus money for the community?” and balancing that out. I’m wondering, Mr. Bear, how would you hope to ensure that Indigenous communities have decision-making authority and involvement in this and, as you said, aren’t just consulted but are properly engaged?
Mr. Bear: Thank you for that question. I was driving to the airport and flying here. I didn’t really take notice, but wow, there is a lot of land. There is a lot of land. When I think of the nation, my nation, and First Nations, there is a history, of course. We all understand this history. There is some reconciliation that is happening. There is not a lot of reconciliation happening in the agricultural sector with First Nations across Canada that I hear about or that I see.
Any relationship with respect to land, the environment or how First Nations view — it’s a similar, I believe. When I was sitting in university, I felt there was this similar teaching in both our ways of teaching, but it just wasn’t put together. When you get someone like me sitting here, I’m actually amazed that I can talk with you and think at the same time because if you’re overwhelmed with a sector that doesn’t have a lot of Indigenous inclusion, it becomes the task of asking how you can build something that will get more First Nations people interested in land and agriculture and put their own perspective on it in terms of how they see agriculture for themselves and for Canada as an incorporated system.
I know you’re all familiar with certain acts. I know you’re all familiar with certain sectors with First Nations. As an agrologist, I could have spent — I’m sorry, I’m taking up your time.
Senator McBean: I’m good with it.
Mr. Bear: I spent the first part of my career with Farm Credit Canada. I was so thankful to be asked to work with Farm Credit Canada, but I lost interest quickly because of sections within the Indian Act that I thought were going to hamper my relationship with First Nations individuals on the reserve to come in and borrow that money simply because of the Indian Act. So I decided to leave the FCC and work with First Nations organizations for my career.
Senator McBean: I think there is a lot even right there that we could unpack. I think that just indicates a more fulsome conversation needs to be had on that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I’ll start with maybe Mr. Bear and whoever talked about — was it you, Mr. Berrigan? I was just thinking about I’m hearing from Mr. Bear that when this bill is passed in the other place, there is a lot we can learn from the Elders about respect for and treatment of our soil.
The government is going to have to figure out how to co‑create the plan with First Nations at the table, so I was thinking, “Who are the right people to have at that table?” Is it somehow co-engaging all rights holders? Then, I got to thinking about the concept of the advocate. I think the application of this bill will have to always have a lens of not only the impact on First Nations but also the learnings and teachings of First Nations. So in a soil advocate model, should there be regional advocates and should there be First Nations advocates as part of an advocate office so that this lens can always be applied to the approach? Mr. Bear, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Bear: I’m with you 100%.
Senator Muggli: Okay. I’m just trying to think of ways to make sure that voice is represented in a wholesome way. Do you have anything you want to share about the advocate?
Mr. Spoelstra: That office approach is a good one. We have talked about a lot of regional differences across this country.
Senator Muggli: I don’t think it can be one person.
Mr. Spoelstra: That’s right.
Mr. Slomp: I would echo that. I would like to stress that the people living and working with soil should be filling this advocacy role. It shouldn’t be another bureaucratic organization. It should be people who are on the ground in farming themselves or Indigenous people themselves.
Senator Muggli: For sure. My next question is for you. I want to know: What you did to get your soil back?
Mr. Slomp: I followed the five principles of regenerative agriculture. I will try to remember them all now.
The most important is to limit tillage to allow the soil ecosystem to not be disturbed, to provide armour over the soil, to ensure that there are living roots in the soil that are photosynthesizing and feeding sugar, providing that to the microbes in the soil, incorporating livestock into the system, and I think the last one is biodiversity, increasing the types of plants and the types of animals that are in the system. This is all to ensure that if there is a dry year or a wet year, different species will thrive or suffer in different proportions, so you have an ecosystem that is working, regardless of what the external weather or circumstances may be.
Senator Muggli: I can imagine that takes a lot of patience as well. It doesn’t happen overnight.
Mr. Slomp: That’s right. It requires a lot of trust that nature actually wants to get to the state of homeostasis, where we trust that the species that are there are attracting the other species that are there to make the whole system work.
Senator Muggli: Congratulations on your hard work.
Mr. Spoelstra, should we call this act the Rob Black Act?
Mr. Spoelstra: I’m sure he’ll get a statue somewhere one day, maybe in front of the OMAFA office in Guelph or something like that.
Senator Muggli: Sounds good.
Senator Martin: Good morning, everyone. Wow, Senator Black, what will happen beyond this?
Thank you for all your hard work, and thank you so much for your testimony this morning. Some of the questions I had have been answered. I was listening intently to your responses, and I guess I have two additional questions that have emerged.
To the CFA, what you said, as I’m looking at my notes, the importance of building on existing networks and all of the existing structures, initiatives and networks, there is so much already. I’m actually surprised by almost 100% of farmers and sector leaders saying that soil health is of primary importance and that we are doing this in 2026.
Are the Government of Canada and the ministries fully aware of all of these networks and initiatives that have probably been happening for quite some time? I’m sure there are some new ones as well, but is there a list or information of such existing networks and initiatives? I guess, in essence, this bill will undertake that process. I’m just curious, how much is known to the public or especially to the Government of Canada?
Mr. Spoelstra: I’ll say I think so. Definitely that information is all available. Certainly, everybody is working at their own pace on their own thing, including provinces. Each individual province is doing their own thing as well. This really brings it all together, I think, in a common goal for soil health and a common goal that is probably shared by all of us to make our soils better and leave them in a better place for the next generation.
Mr. Berrigan: If I may add on to that, I happen to know for a fact that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is already supporting a number of the initiatives that are happening, including the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. That work is happening. I think they just need to be unleashed a bit to implement the broad direction outlined in this bill and provide that coordination role. I think there is generally a good awareness; there just hasn’t been that connective tissue between the various initiatives under way.
Senator Martin: That’s good to know because I was curious about upon implementation or once the bill is enacted, how long it would take to coordinate all of this. The bill calls for consultation, and there are many parts to the national strategy, but it’s good to know that so much has already been done, and it’s a matter of coordinating and having the legislation to really push this forward.
The other question I have is for Dr. Burton and Ms. Grossenbacher. It’s based on what you’ve said. You’re saying the science is there, but we need practical measures to convert science into action. I wanted to hear more about these practical measures, and you had listed some. I was trying to listen, and I missed a few. How can we do this effectively upon enactment of this bill?
Ms. Grossenbacher, you said we need complementary policy. I wanted you to expand a little more on that.
Mr. Burton: Mr. Slomp nicely explained some of the basic principles, and you’ve heard them before, about not disturbing the soil and ensuring the groups are doing those kinds of things. I think those principles are well understood. The practices are regionally specific, and you have heard that before as well.
I do think I would like to add a bit to the previous comment, though. We have had a lot of agencies that were doing this that no longer exist. The provincial soil and crop improvement associations have been allowed to decline. Those are exactly the kinds of organizations that could be delivering this kind of message. The provincial governments have declined their extension services, so I think while at one time we had a much better capacity to take the science to the producer, we have allowed those capacities to decay. I think part of this bill, I’m hoping, would be to reinvest in that kind of farmer-based, farmer-directed, farm-level network of extensions.
Senator Martin: That’s a key point. Thank you.
Ms. Grossenbacher: I’m not sure how much more time I have, but one thing I wanted to say is with complementary policies, there is a lot on the ground, and there is an agriculture policy framework coming. That’s the next best place where we could make sure soil health is a priority, and I think it would play very well with the strategy.
I did want to say, there is no one I’ve talked to who says we don’t need a soil health strategy. Everyone is like, sure, that’s the connective tissue we have been missing. Let’s do it.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here.
I have been on the Agriculture Committee since I came. Actually, it was Senator Black. When I was first appointed, I looked him up, and I said, I have to get on that committee. We can see the work of Senator Black.
Going from the connective tissue analogy — I’m a physician, a paediatrician, by training — I’m going to take that analogy and segue into what I am hearing here is the system-syncing that is now coming into the Senate. I’m so happy to see how we’re collaborating, using existing networks and that sort of thing.
I happen to be on the Social Affairs Committee, where we passed an early learning and child care bill, which really built on all the various things that already existed and did that wrap-around stuff that we’re talking about. We just went to third reading for a child and youth strategy, which actually did some of the same stuff.
What I heard in regard to some of the concerns and considerations, however, was to make sure that the strategy was inclusive so that we did not leave anyone behind. We say no child left behind in our child strategy bill. The same thing here — no farmer, no group left behind. I’m certainly talking about free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous nations and for the newcomers.
How do you think this bill could integrate all of that so that it’s an inclusive strategy for everyone? I think, Mr. Bear, you’re going to go first. Are you?
Mr. Bear: I don’t want to.
Mr. Spoelstra: First of all, thank you for being an honorary “aggie.” I think it’s great that you took an interest in this committee and are passionate about this subject too, and all of you around the table.
That collaborative approach is a big one. I think you mentioned new farmers, young farmers coming into the business, new folks into the business. Mr. Slomp said a lot of great things about regenerative agriculture and moving that initiative forward, but what he didn’t talk about was the time it takes and the costs involved. As he is doing all that, regenerating that soil, he still needs to pay for that land as well. There is a cost aspect to doing all this work on a farm, and we’re certainly looking for partners to help out with that to move our initiatives forward in soil health, whether that’s adapting to new technology or bringing new expertise onto the farm, those types of things.
Mr. Bear: I was kidding before.
What I’m hearing from Saskatchewan land managers is that a majority of our land in Saskatchewan is rented to non-First Nations farmers. What I’m hearing is they want information on fertilizer, as an example. How much fertilizer is put on this quarter section or this acre? How many chemicals are put on this acre?
With what I’m hearing, this would be very useful for the First Nations to have some standards put in place that farmers who are renting this land may have to use as part of their production cycles or whatever. To me, the monitoring is what they are asking for. They want to know what is being put on it and taken off — that sustainability of this land that, if you haven’t grown up farming and don’t know a lot about the land — we’re missing quite a few generations of farmers and the First Nations communities that — you take on millions of acres and Treaty land entitlement. You’re given an asset that you want to protect for generations to come. The more information that First Nations are asking for or are presented with in regard to sustainability will be of benefit to them.
The Chair: You’re out of time. For our following questions, we’re going to have to go to two and a half minutes.
Senator McNair: Ms. Grossenbacher, thank you for the honorary “aggie” designation for the rest of us after the statue.
Ms. Grossenbacher, it struck me when you were doing your opening comments that you said this was a good start, but, as Senator Martin pointed out, you talked about policies and programs. We also heard of the need to support extension services. It’s a good first step. Did you want to expand on that? You were a little rushed for your response. Is there anything else you want to say with respect to that?
Ms. Grossenbacher: I really appreciate the question. Thank you for that. Yes, you are right.
I feel we have had a lot of lessons as farmers for climate solutions but also looking at the government — what has happened on the sustainability ag strategy and other policies that have happened to try to support farmers. For me, there is so much consensus around the table right now that soil health is critical and that it’s actually what we need to get to the next level in terms of economic viability in the long term for the sector. That’s known. That’s key. There is consensus.
To the question that Senator McBean asked earlier, for farmers, ranchers and Indigenous Peoples to feel like they are partners in this, they need to see that there is support for them and that we are listening to their needs. That’s from the ground up. Collaboration and inclusivity are absolutely key to this — but also making sure that, when they have needs, their needs are met. There are programs to help them implement practices so that they know what to do on their land — that we are here as a government risk-sharing the costs of taking on a new practice — those types of programs.
I’m sure Mr. Slomp and Mr. Burton can expand on that. I think that’s absolutely essential what you’re asking about.
Senator McNair: This is a very positive panel. You’re all singing from the same song book. What I find very illustrative is that the young farmers are sitting right behind you, getting ready to take their place at the table as we move forward. Thank you for today.
Senator Black: Two farmers, Mr. Spoelstra and Mr. Slomp, have talked about it costing money to do what you did, Mr. Slomp. Is money the only thing as an incentive? Are there other pieces of it that, out of a strategy — not in the bill, but out of a strategy — are there other pieces that could help to help to incentivize farmers, ranchers and producers to move forward with stuff?
Mr. Spoelstra: For me, it’s threefold: It’s funding, people and technology. It’s that ability to pass it on to the next generation. There are a few things, definitely, that come into play, but support for all of those things is very important.
Mr. Slomp: It’s a lonely world out there for people who are doing things that the rest of the sector is not. What is really important is that we acknowledge that these people take risks. It’s risky to try something new. Having the support of people — somebody you can call when you’re in a situation, and you’re not sure how it’s going to end. To provide a quick example: The first time I grazed cattle was after we had a foot and a half of snow. It was really scary for me. I have livestock that I nurture and they are supposed to be eating, and is it okay to continue grazing in a foot and a half of snow? I didn’t know, but I had another farmer I could call who did know. Just having that kind of practical support is absolutely necessary.
Senator Black: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Muggli has ceded her time, so I’m going to ask a question.
As I look at the title again — “An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health, protection, conservation and enhancement” — what I have heard people talk about that I wanted to take a moment to highlight was the regionality and the concern about something being too prescriptive. For those of you that know me, I like analogies. For people outside of agriculture, would you agree that a good analogy would be that, for each one of us, we have our own level of health, fitness, stress and all of that. When we want to improve ourselves, we go to a specialist. That specialist, whether it’s a doctor, a personal fitness coach or a mental health coach — whatever — that professional tells us how we can be the best we can be.
For me, I have used soils like that because there are so many nuances. We talk about regionality, but we also have microclimates and different cropping. If you want to be an Olympic athlete, your caloric intake will be different than if you want to be a tractor operator. Our soils are so unique.
I’m wondering if you could add anything to that or if you have something that could help us help people who don’t perhaps understand soils as much as you do about those nuances and concerns about the prescriptive and paying attention to regionality. Mr. Spoelstra, would you like to start?
Mr. Spoelstra: I agree with your analysis. I think that’s a great way to put it, especially for people who don’t necessarily understand the differences in soil health across the country. Mr. Bear and I were talking about my clay soils in Southern Ontario, and they will act and react a lot differently than those in P.E.I., Saskatchewan or anywhere across the country.
There are things that we need to do a little differently, whether that’s with drainage or incorporating nutrients and manure — those types of things. Other areas across the country are going to do that differently. Sometimes, we just get lucky, and it rains on the right day.
But we need to do whatever we can to build resilience within our soils and to have sustainable practices within our business and soil health, and improve it for many generations to come.
Mr. Bear: Thank you for the question.
I was thinking quite a bit about the committee here and how I could contribute. I’m flying, and I’m thinking, “Okay, who is flying the plane? We’re all passengers,” so there is trust with these pilots to land us safely. I’m thinking: Who is flying the plane for First Nations and Indigenous participation? How is that lead incorporated into that trust with First Nations across Canada?
My opening remarks to you were about how the National Indigenous Agriculture Association is ready to fly that plane with respect to the expertise we have in understanding soil health. I am amazed that I can understand what they are saying, which, to me, is a good thing. To hear Mr. Slomp use these scientific terms that I have not heard for a long time, for me, it is that trust and trusting the information and trusting that connection to a vision of the future, in terms of its sustainability.
Mr. Burton: I’d like to announce a theoretical profession because one of the challenges is that we need access to those experts, but many producers don’t know who to call. The “who to call” is what’s missing, that extension piece and whatnot.
The Chair: We are out of time. I have to mind the time for me as well. Once again, I do wish to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us and for answering our questions.
Senators, we will now proceed to a clause-by-clause analysis of Bill S-230. I would like to welcome the officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, who are with us in the room today, and are available to answer technical questions if needed:
Sophie Beecher, Director General, Sustainable Development Policy Directorate; and Kevin Norris, Resilient Agriculture Policy Division — no strangers to this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points:
One, if, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Two, in terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
Three, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Four, some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Five, because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
Six, if committee members ever have questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
Seven, the committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
Eight, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Nine, finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. A tied vote is a no.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator McNair: I have an amendment. I am moving:
That Bill S-230 be amended in clause 3 on page 3 by adding the following after line 18:
Subsection 4: the minister must ensure that the views of farmers representing different regions of Canada and the diversity of farm operations are taken into account in a meaningful way during the consultations referred to in subsection 3.
The Chair: Is there any discussion or any comments on this?
Senator McNair: Just to say that this arose out of testimony when we had witnesses in the last panel before us, saying that farmers seemed to be an obvious gap.
The Chair: No discussion? No comments? No debate?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator McNair that Bill S-230 be amended in clause 3 on page 3 by adding the following after line 18:
The minister must ensure that the views of farmers representing different regions of Canada —
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator McBean: I’m wondering if we can put in the list — specifically putting in Indigenous People and that the stakeholders be added, including representatives of the agricultural industry and organizations and Indigenous People.
My apologies. I didn’t show up with a formal page on this. Sorry, it would be with the stakeholders, clause 3(a) or add a (c), specifically a (c). Either in (a) with stakeholders, including representatives of agriculture industry, organizations and Indigenous People; or, as a specific subsection (c).
This is from today’s testimony where Mr. Bear suggested the idea of not just being consulted but included. I see in the bill Indigenous voices are considered almost in bookends. It comes out in the content. It is important in the discussion, but not in the consultation. I’m breaking with the group here on it.
The Chair: Senator McBean, are you proposing a separate amendment?
Senator McBean: Yes.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Muggli: Just to clarify, what line of the bill are you talking about?
Senator McBean: I’m asking for us to work together on this.
Senator Muggli: Line 16.
The Chair: I will suspend. Suspend is our friend.
Senators, we are coming out of suspension. At this point in time, we are nearly out of time for this meeting. We will continue clause by clause at our next meeting, which will be the following Tuesday.
I would like to thank the interpreters, pages, support staff and technicians and all who ensure we, as senators, can conduct our work in the committee setting in a timely fashion.
If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)