THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:34 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business) and to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. 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 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. I will start with my deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Senator John McNair, New Brunswick. Welcome back, Mr. Berrigan.
Senator Burey: Welcome. Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, also in Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you.
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 Ag 101 spotlight series under its general order of reference. These spotlight briefings are meant to inform Canadians and committee members about select topics of interest in agriculture.
Today, we’ll be hearing about the disappearance of agricultural land in Canada.
From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, we have the pleasure of welcoming Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Berrigan. We’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will have five minutes. The floor is yours.
Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you, Madam Chair. I did prepare some formal, opening remarks. I know this is an Ag 101 session, different than our normal meetings. I had to reassure my bosses that I was going to stay on script; that’s why I had to prepare something in advance here.
The CFA, as you know, is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing approximately 190,000 farmers and farm families from across the country.
I’m here today to speak on an issue that underpins every aspect of agricultural policy, food security and rural economic development in this country, and it’s the disappearance of Canada’s farmland.
According to the 2021 Census of Agriculture, Canada has lost 3.2% of its total farm area since 2016, the last census period. I should note as an aside that they just launched the new census of agriculture yesterday, so we will, hopefully, have new data in about one year’s time. We’re very interested to see what comes out of that on this subject in particular.
From the most recent census period, 8.5% of its total area since 2001 — so going back about 20 years — has seen a net loss of more than 5 million hectares, which is about 13 million acres. That is the equivalent of lost agricultural land in the last 20 years of about the total land mass of Nova Scotia.
This decline is not isolated to one region. Every province has experienced a reduction in total farm area, including some of the most productive Class 1 farmland located near major population centres in urban Vancouver and around Toronto; those, in particular, are two areas.
In Ontario alone, analysis of census data shows farmland being lost at a rate equivalent to hundreds of acres per day, largely due to urban expansion, transportation corridors, energy projects and other non-agricultural development pressures.
We did find an archived Environment Canada report from a little while ago stating that in the mid-1960’s 37% of Canada’s Class 1 land and 25% of all Class 2 land in Canada could be seen from the CN Tower on a clear day. You can imagine what that would look like today.
Once farmland is converted, it is effectively gone forever. Soil formation takes centuries. Canada has very limited prime agricultural land.
At the same time, climate change, geopolitical instability and global supply chain pressures are increasing the strategic importance of domestic food and agriculture production.
What is particularly concerning to our members is that farmland loss is occurring in the absence of any consistent federal requirement to assess agricultural impacts. This is something that I would like to talk about more.
Canada has well-established frameworks for environmental impact assessment. However, there is currently no mandatory agricultural impact assessment, or AIA, for federal projects, even when those projects permanently remove prime farmland from production.
Recent proposals affecting federally owned or regulated lands — from transportation and energy infrastructure to defence and industrial developments — have illustrated this gap clearly.
Agricultural land, food production capacity and farm viability are often treated as secondary or incidental considerations, rather than matters of national interest.
The CFA is therefore calling for the implementation of a mandatory agricultural impact assessment for federal projects, particularly where projects convert or fragment prime agricultural land; interfere with drainage, soil quality or water access; or undermine the long-term viability of surrounding farm operations.
An AIA would not be about stopping development, and I do want to be very clear about that. It would be about making informed decisions; evaluating alternatives; and proposing mitigation measures, such as buffer zones or site design modifications.
Similar tools already exist in other jurisdictions and, importantly, within several Canadian provinces, to varying degrees. What is missing is a federal framework, federal consistency and some leadership in this space at the national level.
In terms of why this matters, the agriculture sector, as I know all of you are very well aware, contributes more than $150 billion to Canada’s GDP and supports over 2.3 million jobs across the economy.
Protecting farmland supports our national food security, climate adaptation and resilience, rural economic stability, Indigenous and local food systems and long-term affordability of food for Canadians.
Allowing unchecked farmland loss shifts costs onto future governments, consumers and taxpayers while weakening Canada’s ability to adapt to future shocks.
In closing, the question before this committee is not whether Canada will continue to grow, but whether that growth will be planned in a way that protects our capacity to produce high‑quality agriculture and agri-food products.
Farmland is a finite, irreplaceable resource. Once it is gone, no amount of program funding or innovation can bring it back into production.
A modern federal policy approach must recognize this reality by embedding agricultural impact assessments into federal decision making.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We are really appreciative of your attention to this issue and happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: I have a full list of people who want to ask you questions, Brodie. I will start with our deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Mr. Berrigan, thank you for being here tonight and trying to shed some light and knowledge on this subject for us. There are lots of stats, and you mentioned a number at the beginning. According to StatCan, farmland covered 70.2 million hectares of land in 1941 and 67.5 million hectares of land in 2001, but this number declined to 62.1 million hectares in 2021, which represents 6.2% of Canada’s total land base.
Part of the problem with our country is the vastness of Canada suggests an abundance of soil. However, as you have indicated, that’s not the case. According to StatCan, only 6.7% of Canada’s land is suitable for agricultural use.
I guess my first question is: Who is getting it right as far as practices to stop the disappearance of agricultural land? When I say, “Who is getting it right,” within Canada or in the world, other countries that are doing it right.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. We did take a look at this before preparing for this evening and as part of our just general work at the CFA. A couple of things I will note: In terms of the top tier of who is getting it right, I think the best example that we have before us right now is the Province of Ontario. They actually have an agricultural impact assessment in place as part of the Planning Act. So it’s embedded in legislation. It is a requirement and there are processes — I didn’t print the whole thing because it’s quite long, but you can find a guidance document online, which includes a number of things, including a checklist of all the different AIA study components throughout the different phases that you have to go through.
I would say probably the closest example to what we’re calling for at the federal level is something similar to what has been implemented in Ontario.
I want to stress again that it’s not about halting production. It’s simply about gathering information to make more informed decisions. Or where you cannot alter an infrastructure or planning project, it’s about identifying some alternatives or mitigation measures to deal with the impacts of that development. We can certainly talk about that.
In terms of other jurisdictions, in Canada there isn’t really another good example. I know that provinces like British Columbia have an agricultural land reserve. So that’s a set-aside part of the province dedicated for exclusively agricultural purposes. Quebec has something similar; I’m not as familiar with it.
Internationally, if you look at the United States, they actually have — and I had the name of it here. You will have to forgive me. I do have notes. I feel it’s sort of like high school, and I have a cheat sheet or something that I have to refer to here.
An Hon. Senator: It’s an open-book exam.
Mr. Berrigan: It’s an open-book exam. Good, I like to hear that.
The name of the legislation in the U.S. is the Farmland Protection Policy Act. So there is a process established in the U.S. to do exactly that, protect farmland.
In Europe, it varies by member state, but it has a much different lens. It’s much more about the environmental impacts and kind of has the reverse effect of what the impacts of agricultural production on the environment are versus infrastructure on agricultural production, although some countries, like Ireland, have a little more of an agricultural preservation lens to it.
Australia has a similar sort of model. At the state level, it’s a little more clearly aimed at the protection and preservation of farmland.
So in short, it varies by jurisdiction. I would say it’s the subnational level that does seem to have a little bit more of a role in some of the countries around the world that are more similar to Canada in the way that they are set up. Ontario is the leader, I would say, within Canada.
Senator McNair: From your perspective, is building in an AIA process a starting point?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes. And I think the model that we have in Ontario is a very good place to start on that. I think there are some questions around when you think of the environmental impact assessment process in Canada. I think a lot of people see it as a sort of heavy process. It can take up to two years. I think that’s actually what their publicly stated — I don’t know if it’s really a service standard but the typical length of an environmental impact assessment process.
We haven’t put too much thought into how similar in nature an agricultural impact assessment process would need to be for the environmental impact assessment process, but our sense on the face of it would be that it doesn’t need to be nearly as lengthy or detailed. I don’t want to use the word “cumbersome” because that has a bit of a judgmental connotation to it, and I do not mean that. It’s just it’s a much more intensive process, I think, than we would need in the agricultural space. But something that we would need to take a look at, I think.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much again, Mr. Berrigan, for being here. Of course, my seat mate — we all steal each other’s questions. That’s normal here. I wanted to ask you just to dig into the Ontario agricultural impact assessment that is in the Planning Act. How old is this?
As a follow-up on that, do you think that having that impact assessment has had an effect on preserving agricultural land?
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question. It has been around for a few years, but it was only just recently reintroduced in 2024. I think they made some amendments to the guidelines associated with it. But I would have to follow up with a bit more detail on the exact evolution of the AIA in Ontario and how it came to be.
I could certainly talk to our Ontario Federation of Agriculture colleagues, who I know would be seized and knowledgeable on that specific subject.
It is, as I said, part of the provincial planning statement, and it is applied province-wide. They did publish the guidance document, as I mentioned earlier. It has that checklist of AIA study components.
AIA has included an evaluation of alternative locations. An assessment of the impacts and measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate the effects of any kind of a planning infrastructure project on agricultural systems.
There have been some examples of how it has had a positive effect in Ontario. For example, in Hamilton and Caledon, AIA has led to changes in project design, including the adjusted layouts of planned projects, the introduction of buffer zones in between the project and agriculture land or farmland, or setbacks to reduce the impacts on nearby farms.
There are some concrete examples of how it’s had a positive effect on certain planning projects in Ontario.
Senator Burey: I wanted to go on to the Experimental Farm Stations Act. Do you have some Coles Notes there? Tell me about that. How has it protected farmland across Canada? It’s federally owned, but if you could expand on that for me, please.
Mr. Berrigan: Like the experimental farm here in Ottawa, for example?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Mr. Berrigan: Well, certainly that is the case. There is a long history here at the experimental farm in Ottawa, which dates back to around the time of the Great Depression. It has a very interesting history. It has gone a long way in preserving farmland.
I think it’s a little bit different, though, at least in the context of the experimental farm here in Ottawa, because it’s located in the middle of the city. It has more of that historical story and history behind it.
What we’re predominantly concerned about is the disappearance of that prime agricultural land on the outskirts of the city as urban sprawl continues to advance. I don’t have a lot more information about how many of these types of experimental farms exist across the country.
It’s rolled into a longer conversation that we could have around Canada’s research footprint and the importance of investing in our research and innovation to support agricultural production in Canada.
These experimental farms — not just the central experimental farm here in Ottawa — but also include the University of Guelph’s Ridgetown Campus, which I think you have perhaps visited recently, I think, are important for developing some of the innovation in Canada, which is critical to maintaining and improving our productivity and yield.
There are essentially two different ways to meet the demand for agricultural products around the world. Option one is you need to expand your footprint. You need more agricultural land. You need to bring more territory or land into production. I’m oversimplifying.
But option 2 is investing in innovation, genetics and the science that will make the productive land that we have more — increase yields, for example, or more profitable and productive. That’s where the research stations are so critical.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Black: To be transparent to my colleagues, Bill S-230 — which was the development of a soil strategy — started out as an agricultural impact bill. I was told back in February 2025 that the federal scheme for environmental impact assessments — call that ag — was deemed by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. It infringed upon the rights of the provinces.
The federal government argued that the environment — and agriculture — were federal responsibilities, but the Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that projects were within provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government adding a layer of review was unconstitutional. That’s what we’re up against, but we need to work around that because I agree with you.
Mr. Berrigan, I have a fear — I have been transparent about this, and it does keep me up at night — that we’ll come to a time when we can’t feed our own province or our country, let alone the world, which is something we are asked to do right now.
What do you think about those words? Because it scares the crap out of me.
Mr. Berrigan: Things just got dark really quick there, senator.
I don’t know. This is something that we think about all the time. It’s a relevant question right now. I mean, we’re dealing with this as a result of the effects of the closure or restricted access through the Strait of Hormuz and the conflict in Iran. I think that’s shed light on some of those critical inputs to agricultural production that impact farmers here in Canada.
Fuel, which has an impact across the supply chain directly on farms, but right across the value chain, as well as access to critical inputs like fertilizer products.
We’re very susceptible in Canada to these types of external geopolitical shocks and/or climate and environmental shocks, which threaten our ability to meet our domestic and international food security interests.
I think that’s part of the reason why one of the tools that we’re advocating for in that toolkit to try and prevent that from becoming an increasingly more likely scenario is this agricultural impact assessment.
I would like to dig into a couple of those examples as well, because I can think of a few federal projects where I have a hard time believing that doing an ag impact assessment would be unconstitutional, but I’m not an expert, nor a lawyer, as I’m sure you know.
The other tool that we have been increasingly calling for in the context of supporting our domestic food security interests is the development of a critical farm input strategy. I’m not sure if we have talked about that here before or not. But Canada has a critical mineral strategy for a very good reason. We have many resources here in our mining sector, which are important for a number of different and very important things.
The Government of Canada has decided that we need to have a strategy to support a stable, reliable supply of these critical minerals. We think there is a strong argument to be made about having a similar sort of approach for critical farm inputs.
Again, it’s not to suggest that we would produce 100% of everything that we need here in Canada, because that’s very costly and challenging, but also not necessarily consistent with a model that we’re trying to pursue internationally, which relies on integrated markets.
What we are looking for through a critical farm input strategy is some attention on what those critical farm inputs are and should be, how we are able to access them and what are some of the potential limitations on accessing those. That could include everything from labour disruption.
Right now I know the Government of Canada is doing a consultation on the Canada Labour Code. That would be one part of it. I think there is a regulatory component of that. I think there is a trade part of that as well. There are a number of things that we need to look at as part that have a strategy to ensure we have a steadier and more reliable supply of those critical farm inputs so that we can stabilize our domestic production so that we are not as vulnerable to those types of external shocks.
A really good example — I cited Iran — but the one where that lightbulb really went off was the Russia and Ukraine conflict. The vast majority of farmers in Eastern Canada relied on fertilizer shipments from Russia at that time. That was very destabilizing and frightening for many producers, not knowing if they were going to have what they needed. Our country is just not set up, ironically, even though we are a net exporter of fertilizer products, to ship east to west. We don’t have that infrastructure in place to do that efficiently and effectively, versus north-south.
I am oversimplifying, but that was a big part of it. I know a lot of momentum is behind that right now, and we would like to see that continue. But we could do some things here, today, that we think are very measured, not massively costly, not majorly intrusive on jurisdictional considerations, that would give some measure of predictability and stability around our food security and food production in Canada. Agricultural impact assessments, for example, would at least give us more informed decisions and a critical farm input strategy, which would hopefully stabilize our access to the inputs that farmers need.
Senator Sorensen: I have some questions, but I will let you finish that sentence. “There are things we can do right now,” and I was going to say, “Like what?” But then you started to speak to it, too, and we certainly heard the comment about input assessments. Did you want to elaborate a little more on those ideas?
Mr. Berrigan: Those are the two main ones where I wanted to shine a spotlight right now. On food security in Canada, we are anticipating an announcement hopefully soon on food security. The government stated its intent to develop a food security strategy. The CFA did provide some input into the development of that, which we hope will be taken into consideration. It included a number of different planks that we could consider pursuing.
The two that I just mentioned were certainly on that list, but it also included things like investing in value-added processing in Canada. Because that is a critical part of the story around building resilience in Canada’s food security system. In many cases, we export raw commodities to which other countries add value, and then we import them back into Canada. From a trade diversification perspective, if you’re adding more value before you ship these things internationally, A., it gets you into more markets and, B., your producers here in Canada get more domestic market opportunities. We think it is an area that we need to take seriously, and we should be investing in it.
We also talked about a number of measures around regulatory modernization and that sort of thing. Essentially, those were some of the major components.
Senator Sorensen: Then I will ask one of my questions, taking us off to another topic. We often hear that farmland is being lost not only to development but also through challenges in intergenerational transfer.
From your perspective, how significant is succession planning in the loss of agricultural land? What could we be doing better? Maybe make reference to barriers that are at play, that stop those transfers, and/or are there any examples of incentives? Do provinces or areas have incentives at all?
Mr. Berrigan: That’s a really good question. I’m glad that you raised it, and it is an important one. That’s very much an important part of the conversation right now: succession planning in the agriculture sector.
One of the stories told by the 2021 census is the story of farm consolidation in Canada. There are far fewer farms in much the same way as there is far less farmland in Canada because there has been a lot of consolidation. We’re also seeing an aging demographic in the agriculture sector.
A number of different, non-CFA, completely external sorts of organizations, like the Royal Bank, the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council and others, have pointed to this sort of demographic cliff that we’re facing in the agriculture sector and the importance of succession planning to support that. I want to validate that this is a critical issue in the agriculture sector right now.
Probably the most critical tool at our disposal on which we’ve made significant progress — collectively, I would say, as a sector and with the support of government — are the changes to the Income Tax Act. That is our most important lever to incentivize successful farm succession in Canada.
There have been a number of measures — actually, we were going down a path that was going to take us backwards on that point previously, around some of the capital gains.
An Hon. Senator: The gains — [Technical difficulties]
Mr. Berrigan: Exactly. I think we’ve walked it back, and we’re okay now. There is a question around the total capital gains exemption threshold. It’s increased and it is indexed, but farmland values in Canada have completely shot through the roof. I think the average increase in farmland value last year was 9%. It’s very challenging for that next generation to jump into that market when farmland values are so expensive. A lot could happen there.
The next frontier in that fight, if I could put it that way, in that ongoing discussion with the government, would be around what are called farm rollover provisions. They are part of that whole capital gains and intergenerational transfer issue, which right now is restricted to immediate family members. We would like to extend that to a broader definition of that next generation, like nieces and nephews. Does it really matter whether it is a kid or a niece or a nephew? We want to see that next generation jump into the agricultural sector, so, yes.
The Chair: Some people might even say it is okay so long as it stays designated as ag land if we’re looking to protect the resource.
Thanks to Senator Sorensen, and two points to you for the best question so far, I think.
Senator Muggli: Just out of curiosity, though, do you know what per cent of land loss is related to the inability to have farm succession?
Mr. Berrigan: I don’t. I don’t have that —
Senator Muggli: I am curious. How much is this impacting us, the inability? Because then you’d have data to say, “This is why we have to extend it to nieces and nephews,” and whatever. I think we should be able to do that anyway. It is an obvious point. But you were talking about large corporations taking land. In the news last week, we heard about Monette Farms.
Are some people just getting too big for their britches? What will happen now to all the farmers who may have been leasing land to that kind of organization? I am interested in your thoughts on what happens to land when a big corporation takes it on and then all of a sudden —
Mr. Berrigan: That’s a really good question, to which I don’t have a great answer, to be perfectly honest with you. It’s a bit different from the one we’ve been examining. That’s about private landowners and what happens when they transfer that private land. The most common challenge that we are seeing is with federal projects. For example, in Ontario, the Department of National Defence had a recent acquisition for the Arctic Over‑the-Horizon Radar program.
Senator Black: They have not done it yet.
Mr. Berrigan: That’s right. I’m sure Senator Black is very familiar with this. The examples that we are more often seized with are these types of federal interventions or projects, versus the private transfers of land. But this Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar defence project in Ontario is a good example of the federal government prioritizing national defence, obviously.
A lot of federal money has gone into this sector recently. There are plans to acquire several thousand acres of prime agricultural land in Ontario to build these radar stations.
Private landowners are faced with this decision: Do I sell my land and walk away? It’s getting very expensive to be a farmer in Canada. There’s a lot of pressure. There are mental health pressures. Do I take it and run? And then that land falls out of agricultural production.
The reason we are citing this as an example is that, in discussing this, some of our members came to the realization that these Department of National Defence officials, who were going through this process of procuring or approaching the procurement of this land, had absolutely no background, interest nor experience in agriculture at all. You can’t really blame them. It’s not their job. That’s not really what they are there to do. They have a mandate or an order to go buy some land, and so that’s basically what they are doing, based on whatever the defence science is around where you need to place radar stations.
But we are simply asking for some kind of formal federal assessment as part of the process, that it is baked into the process that they would ask these questions.
Senator Muggli: This is an I-have-no-clue question, but do a lot of farmers also have mineral rights on the land they own? Does that play into this in some way? Are they more likely to keep mineral rights when they sell their land? I’m curious if there is any intersection there.
Mr. Berrigan: That’s a good question, and I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for you, senator. I am not familiar with that.
Senator Muggli: I am not sure if that would play into it or not. Just quickly, have you looked into or has there been any discussion around charitable land trusts?
Mr. Berrigan: You are just full of stumpers for me tonight.
Senator Muggli: We will have a witness on that issue. I just wondered if you guys had any position on that.
Mr. Berrigan: No. I have taken note of them and will have that conversation when I get back to the office. If we have any information, we will share it.
Senator Muggli: I will stop for now and go on second round.
Senator McBean: I’m trying to lean into the Ag 101 and just be curious about the loss-of-land side of it. You started with your testimony by informing us that, in the last 10 years, there has been a loss of 3.2% of land, and in the 10 years before that, it was 8.5%. Isn’t that slowing? So the loss of land isn’t as rapid as it was.
Mr. Berrigan: Yes, so 3.2% over the last census period, and then 8.5% from 2001.
Senator McBean: That’s 15 years. So that is not terrible. I just wanted to check if I heard that right.
Senator Black: It is terrible.
Senator McBean: It is less.
Senator Black: I know, but it is still terrible.
Senator McBean: It is still terrible, I know.
Mr. Berrigan: The pace. Your question —
Senator McBean: You said that when soil is gone, you can’t get it back. If a building, like a large data centre, is built on land — and these things are very big — and that data centre is there for 10 years and they are not using that data centre after 10 years because technology will evolve and we won’t need that much space, will the soil under that be dead or can it be reclaimed for ag land?
Mr. Berrigan: I am not a soil scientist. Actually, I should defer to Senator Black on this, who I think is about the closest thing we have. It takes such a long time, from my understanding, to get that organic matter, those living organisms back into that soil, that it is virtually impossible — very, very challenging. It takes a very long time and would require quite a bit of care and attention, I think, to reintroduce and remediate that land.
On data centres, for example, one of the challenges that I know that presents — because I was recently reading about the prospect of data centres in Western Canada — is the impact it can have on water. It requires a lot of natural resources to sufficiently operate. I think what accelerates the impact on agricultural soils is the drain on those water resources.
Senator McBean: You mentioned Caledon, which I am familiar with. I was first introduced to the Caledon area when Toronto was bidding for the 2008 Olympics. And everything was going to be in the city, but we had to go out to the Palgrave-Caledon area because it had some of the best footing in the world. Now I see that a lot of that land is being designated for mining. It is farmland on top, and it is being used for aggregates and cement and stuff like that.
Is there a battle between mining and ag for land? Is there or should there be — again, back to the tax benefits — some sort of tax benefit when you are selling it to ag, and a tax hit when you are selling it to mining? Does this exist already?
Mr. Berrigan: That’s a good question. We have not really thought of it in terms of a battle, necessarily. There are competing interests that go beyond just the mining sector. I think you could extend that to the forestry sector; certainly urban development, infrastructure planning and development across Canada.
A lot of mining happens in agricultural areas, although it tends to be more in northern Ontario, remoter areas which tend to be forested and have less prime agricultural land. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in agricultural land, but I think by virtue of the fact that most mining happens, to my knowledge, in those more remote rocky areas.
Senator McBean: [Technical difficulties] shock at the number of big pits that are taking over. Gravel pits.
I am trying to rifle through my curiosity questions here. It was also around the Strait of Hormuz. As we’ve heard here, less land needs fertilizer to grow more food. As you guys have said, we need to be concerned if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed. Is Canada doing anything to problem-solve its next solution? If we stop buying from the Russians and need fertilizers in the fall, do we have a plan? Are we coming up with plan C?
Mr. Berrigan: It is a very challenging dynamic when you look at fertilizer. I would defer to my Fertilizer Canada colleagues to give you precise answers. When we diversified away from Russia, a lot of that was redirected to the United States, and so we are where we are now. I would say the other main sources are China; Morocco is a huge exporter, and we are an importer from Morocco. But there are not a lot of reliable sources of fertilizer for Canada. Canada is a reliable source of fertilizer. I think we need to invest in infrastructure and technology to better utilize the fertilizers that we do have.
We are a net exporter of potash. We also export nitrogen-based fertilizer, although it has to be transformed into a different form and then transported across the country to be used in Eastern Canada. We do import a lot of our phosphorus fertilizer, as I recall. We do rely on imports from other countries, and the options out there are not always ideal.
Senator McBean: [Technical difficulties] I knew it.
The Chair: You are right, our phosphorus does come from the U.S., which leaves us, obviously, in a bit of a vulnerable situation, as trade is not the certainty it used to be. I think in order for us to produce our own nitrogen, it is simply a matter of economics. On the East Coast, we do have the components to produce nitrogen fertilizer, but the economics just make it really unattractive right now. But in agriculture, there is that expression, “You can never pay too much for land.” You can buy too early, meaning that eventually the price of land will meet the price you paid. With nitrogen, eventually the market will most likely make it attractive for us to produce our own nitrogen, but it will take a while. It is simply that you can’t buy inputs that expensive and expect farmers to continue on.
Before we go to second round, I was trying to remember: Did you attend COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes.
The Chair: You were in Dubai. In Sharm el-Sheikh, we saw something interesting to the point about what happens to soil. Ukraine had a pavilion, and they were showing the effects of missiles that had landed in soil and basically baked the soil. For all intents and purposes, it was dead, and it was never going to be able to be brought back to life. We know in time, technology will probably get us there, but right now, it’s dead and it won’t come back.
The same applies when you decide to put in a data centre, pave that and put buildings on it. You are, in essence, removing that land for all intents and purposes from production for quite a while.
I have heard from one of our colleagues who farms in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan does have a lot of land. To your point, you have talked about Class 1 soils. That nuance of what that means for the productivity we can expect out of that soil is an important part that I want to make sure we don’t miss.
With that, we will go to the second round. Senator McNair has three minutes.
Senator McNair: Senator Black’s comment earlier on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision around AIA processes is a little scary. But our materials talk about the federal government playing a minor role in issues surrounding land use and planning outside of Crown property, national parks and certain other designated areas.
It has, however, undertaken some activities in this area, most notably it’s Canada Land Inventory, a national survey of Canadian land that identifies areas most conducive to agriculture. That would be able to deal with provincial lands. Are you familiar with that inventory?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes. Senator Robinson was referring to that sort of Class 1 land. The Canada Land Inventory is the inventory which maps agricultural soils across Canada and then assigns certain classes of value to them based on the quality for agricultural purposes.
My understanding of Class 1 is there are few, if any, restrictions on what it could be used from an agricultural perspective. Basically, it’s good for everything. What’s the type of blood. Type O or something. It’s the equivalent of Type O blood. Anybody could use it. Class 7 would be the worst. We would have the most restrictions in terms of what it could be used for agricultural purposes.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Black: The National Farmers Union, an organization I know you are familiar, said, an hour ago, that, “Farmland loss is a public interest issue,” and that:
In recent months, a series of development-oriented projects and provincial bills have been introduced that threaten four foundations of public wellbeing: local decision-making, environmental protection, responsible housing development, and prime agricultural land.
Any comments to that? I just want to get a reaction.
Mr. Berrigan: I haven’t seen the details of the statement. On the face of it, we would agree that we are concerned about the loss of agricultural land in Canada.
Our proposed recommendation and approach, as I said earlier, is that we have some mandatory agricultural impact assessment baked into the process when undertaking these types of projects.
There are several examples that come to mind recently. I talked about the radar stations in Ontario. There are some examples of land that is owned by ISED, actually, in British Columbia. I think you will have a witness here on Thursday —Heppell’s Potato Corp — who will have a little more to say about that. There are plans to convert that land, which is prime agricultural land and supplies a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables, potatoes in particular, to many consumers across Western Canada.
There are also plans for the Government of Canada to introduce 10 new designated marine conservation areas in Canada, which is a great initiative.
There is a very small proportion of Canada’s coastline that is suitable for aquaculture. Aquaculture is farming, a part of agriculture. We just want to make sure that, as we are establishing these new marine conservation areas, that there is some care and consideration taken to what the potential impact could be on those very small, limited areas where aquaculture is viable on Canada’s coastlines.
You probably heard — Senator Black, or others — about the Pickering Lands development. This is some land that was originally purchased by the Government of Canada just north of Toronto. The plan was to build another airport there. That’s prime agricultural land that is currently being leased to farmers and into agricultural production.
The Government of Canada has recently launched a consultation on what to do with that, which could include anything from development, to other infrastructure and transportation. We think part of that process should include consideration of what the impact would be on agricultural land.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I was just reflecting on research. We talked a bit about research earlier. Do we need more research on this issue? It sounds to me like we might. But who is best situated to do that, and what questions do we want answered?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes. So there are a couple of different types of ways that we could go about that. My understanding of the Canada Land Inventory is that a lot of that mapping exercise is quite dated, actually, very dated, from the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, exactly.
One area that I think would be important to underpin and put a little rigour behind the establishment of an agricultural impact assessment would be to ensure that you are basing that on up‑to‑date soil and land inventory maps.
I would think that, with some of the new technology and tools that we have at our disposal now, that could be done effectively. That’s one area that I think would be worthwhile investing.
The other thing that I would argue, frankly, is more of an internal-to-government type of procedural review. This is where I think we need to be looking inward at the process we are using when we are undertaking an assessment around these types of projects to ensure that we are efficient in time on what we don’t want. We have been out there consistently saying we need to streamline and modernize our regulatory processes.
To be clear, by implementing an agricultural impact assessment, we don’t want to add a cumbersome, burdensome, laborious process on top of the approval or the decision-making process.
We do need to figure out a way to more systematically embed within the Government of Canada’s consideration of agricultural impacts.
The only way that really works is if this country, the Government of Canada, decides to make agriculture a national priority. I mean, that is an important prerequisite.
Senator Muggli: A national asset.
Mr. Berrigan: Yes.
Senator Muggli: Do we need to do some research on how much of our agricultural land is being used to grow food for what we consume domestically, so that we could show, if we reduce the amount of land, how much of our own food that we consume domestically are we reducing?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes.
Senator Muggli: And I’m not thinking of wheat, canola, whatever. I am thinking of produce.
Mr. Berrigan: Certainly, that would be ideal to have that information. I know I’m sounding very repetitive here. But if we had an effective agricultural assessment process, it would give you the answer to those questions because you would have systematically, every time you are reviewing a project or a potential new development, that information about what the impact would be on our food security and production.
You would incrementally be developing that database of what the impacts are as you go.
Senator Muggli: You need a baseline to start with.
Mr. Berrigan: Yes. Again, I would hope that the updated Census of Agriculture will have a lot more information in it about the current state of agricultural production, because it is quite thorough. There is a lot of great information in our Census of Agriculture. It is, unfortunately, five years old.
Senator Muggli: My last question is: Can you pass that little checklist down?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes. You can have this.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: I might have the last question if that’s all right.
I’m thinking about your members. I know one of your members who recently sold their family farm. They didn’t have a next generation looking to buy it. That statement we hear a lot. They made the choice to sell. Some of it went for development. Some of it went to larger operations. As Senator Muggli alluded to earlier, we saw the Monette Farms situation and all the eggs going in one basket when we got these big operations.
I want to go back to the issue that they didn’t have anyone in their family interested in taking it on. Land ownership is a provincial issue. Federally, there are some things we can do to ease the burden, to sweeten the pot or attract the next generation into farming.
This committee, through some of its Ag 101 work, has learned about business risk management. We have learned about free trade agreements. We’re learning that there is no silver bullet here. This is a multi-pronged answer to a very complex situation.
I was wondering if you could speak maybe a little bit about the impact of the lack of predictability and the regulatory burden. We have heard about how Canada ranks 32 out of 39 on the OECD list for regulatory burden. That’s not just agriculture; that’s a lot of things.
Generally speaking or maybe more specifically speaking, what should the federal government be looking to do to attract more new farmers? You have talked about the lifetime capital gains exemption and how it’s indexed now. We have seen land prices up 9% over the last year. You can’t pencil that out, the cost of being in food production with the profitability of food production.
I am wondering if you want to take a couple of minutes to try to answer the question I didn’t ask you.
Mr. Berrigan: The first thing, jurisdiction is a real consideration here, for sure. But one thing that we feel strongly that we need to be doing at the national and federal level is prioritizing agriculture as a national priority. I think we should be sending a signal that this is important and that this is an important part of Canada’s identity. It’s important to our quality of life. It’s important for our economic development and our growth. I think that’s an important place to start.
The second thing is I would say is we need to do a better job of reaching that next generation, through resources and programs like Agriculture in the Classroom. I am sure you have heard of it; hopefully you have. If you haven’t, then that would be something definitely worth having future discussions on. It is a great program, under-resourced, but really out there just trying to educate really little kids about agricultural production in Canada. That’s a really important part of it.
Certainly, the tax system, the regulatory system, there are a lot of different pieces to that puzzle to put it all together. But it starts at the top. I think we need that signal from above, from the highest levels, to say, “This is going to be a priority for us. We need to invest in this for a whole variety of reasons” and I could list the reasons for you. It’s our food security interests, agricultural supports and our diplomacy internationally. It can support our foreign service and our diplomatic objectives. It’s a driver of growth in Canada. It creates jobs. There are a number of solid reasons why. But what we need is that.
Then what we need to realize — which I think supports and addresses your question, senator — is that this cannot simply be an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada problem to solve. We have increasingly come to the realization that as great a partner as they are — and they really are, and we work very well with that department, they are tremendous advocates — the solutions to some of the main challenges that are affecting the agriculture sector lie outside of the boundaries of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It’s the Treasury Board Secretariat and the regulatory process. It’s the Department of Finance and the tax system in the Income Tax Act. It’s ISED and investments in infrastructure.
So much of our challenges in our yield and productivity in Canada can be brought back to water management; too much water when it’s wet, not enough water when it’s dry. Some simple irrigation infrastructure investments in Canada could go a long way to addressing that.
So I think we need to be finding the way to make this a Government of Canada priority and not just an agriculture and agri-food issue to deal with.
The Chair: One last question, then we’ll wrap up. We did hear from folks at AFC at this committee about business-risk management: They were questioned about bankability, the kind of predictability and the timeliness of, in particular, AgriStability. I’m just wondering, do you feel there is room for improvement on the business-risk management suite of programs? Do you have feedback from your members using this? Do they have it right?
Mr. Berrigan: I think there are some fundamental pillars of the suite of risk-management programs in Canada that are working fairly well. Crop insurance is a good example. That was one of the very first risk-management programs that existed in Canada, and it, as a fundamental anchor in the risk-management suite, is very effective.
AgriStability works very well for certain types of farms. For many other types of farms, including diversified farms, not so much. The CFA is in the process of developing some recommendations, working with our industry partners because we feel we need a consolidated set of advice around this, to the extent possible, for the next policy framework that includes some recommendations on the risk-management suite. There are a couple of key points I will leave you with.
One, we think there is a need for and some space for more players involved in the risk-management field, not just the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada is a very important part of this puzzle. But by attracting some additional private sector risk-management tools and solutions to supplement the existing programs or offer alternatives, which would then give farmers some more choice and flexibility and more of a competitive marketplace in the risk-management suite, we think that might help fill some gaps that exist right now in a system that is one-size-trying-to-fit-all and not serving everyone that well.
The other thing we think is important is we need to be more proactive in our risk-management planning, which is part of why we think it’s important to develop stronger linkages with our federal portfolios, like infrastructure and infrastructure investments, so that we’re less weighed down, bogged down by very costly and expensive ad hoc, so after-the-fact responsive risk-management support, and invest more in preventing the effects of these major events that can disrupt yield and production.
The Chair: Do you feel that some of these things might help stave off some of the land disappearance that we see if we’re able to build more predictable and bankable agricultural opportunities for young entrepreneurs or new entrepreneurs looking to get into agriculture?
Mr. Berrigan: Yes, I think it’s a big part of it; risk management, the tax system, there are better perceptions of agriculture. There are a number of pieces to that puzzle. I think we need to needle away at all of them.
The Chair: Perfect. Once again, I wish to thank our witnesses for taking the time, all one of you, for being with us tonight, and answering our questions.
(The committee continued in camera.)