Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. This is my first speech in this place.

Can you imagine a farmer talking about dirt?

I will admit that I had some homework to do while I prepared my speaking notes. One thing I learned is that debate on a bill at second reading focuses on the principle or merits of the bill. Senate Procedure in Practice notes:

This debate is intended to address questions such as: “Is the bill good policy?,” “Is it worth pursuing further?” and “Will it be a good law?”

Another thing I learned from Senate Procedure in Practice is that the role of the Senate is, first and foremost, one of carefully reviewing legislation, conducting long-term investigations, representing the regions and protecting linguistic and other minorities.

So, as I see it, our collective job at the second reading of Bill S-230 is to determine whether it is good policy, and my particular job is to apply a regional lens to the legislation.

Per the bill’s summary, Bill S-230 requires the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to develop a national strategy to support and promote efforts across Canada to protect, conserve and enhance the health of soil. It also provides for reporting requirements in relation to the strategy.

Senator Black’s perspective is informed by his region: Ontario faces significant challenges, as much of its farmland is in proximity to its cities and is at risk of being converted to housing, industrial or commercial use. In my province of Saskatchewan, the situation is somewhat different. In fact, when it comes to soil health, we have had many successes in the past decades.

In 2016 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, released a report entitled Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture. The report defines soil quality as “. . . the soil’s fitness to support crop growth without resulting in soil degradation or otherwise harming the environment.” Soil quality can be degraded by natural processes such as erosion, salinization, loss of soil organic carbon and the accumulation of trace elements.

The AAFC report shows that, in most provinces, soil loss from erosion — that is, the combined effects of wind, water and tillage — decreased between 1981 and 2011. In 1981 only 29% of cropland was identified as at “very low risk.” By 2011 that number was up to 61%. Much of this change was in the Prairie provinces, thanks to the widespread adoption of conservation tillage, especially no-till.

Regarding salinization, AAFC notes that 8% more land area was in the “very low” to “low risk” classes in 2011 than in 1981. These improvements are largely attributable to a 78% reduction in summerfallow area and a 14% increase in permanent cover. A reduction in risk has been observed in all Prairie provinces, with the greatest decline recorded in Saskatchewan.

In more good news, the Prairies’ soil organic carbon is increasing primarily due to a reduction in tillage intensity and summerfallow area.

AAFC’s webpage on soil organic carbon explains:

About 60% of soil organic matter comes from carbon. Plants capture carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. This carbon is converted to a solid form in plant tissues. Animals and micro-organisms consume plants and this carbon becomes part of the food web. When plants and animals die, their tissues decompose. During this process, most carbon returns to the atmosphere. However, a small amount of this organic carbon is transformed into soil organic materials that do not decompose as easily.

What that means is roots of plants. When we talk about no-till, those roots stay in the ground and don’t rot. The air doesn’t get to them, and they don’t turn into carbon. That is, in layman’s terms, how the carbon cycle works. The improvements we have seen in organic matter are mostly due to not tilling up the soil and exposing those roots to the air.

Soil organic matter holds soil particles together. This stabilizes soil structure; reduces soil erosion; improves the ability of soil to store and transport air, water and nutrients; improves soil workability or tilth; binds potentially harmful substances, for example, heavy metals and pesticides, reducing their adverse environmental effects; and it also acts as a storage sink for carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere.

In the Prairies, we are correcting past practices that caused soil degradation. As Dr. Lana Awada and her co-authors note in a 2014 article in the journal International Soil and Water Conservation Research:

In the 1930s, the Prairies experienced a period of severe drought and dust storms. As a result, the period was named the “Dirty Thirties,” and the area became known as part of the “Dust Bowl” . . . .

As Dr. Awada outlines, governments, experimental farms, universities and farmers launched co-operative efforts to address the dust bowl crisis. Soil scientists confirmed that tillage should be kept to a bare minimum, land should only be worked to control weeds and crop and weed residue should be kept on the surface to reduce soil erosion.

In 1935, the federal government established the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, or PFRA, including the establishment of experimental substations, agricultural improvement associations, community pastures, water projects and shelterbelt programs. The PFRA worked with experimental farms, universities, provincial agencies and farmers to share knowledge and feedback with the objective of developing more sustainable agricultural practices.

The agricultural improvement associations facilitated the two‑way flow of information among different participants in the network. However, these advancements coincided with the Great Depression, which drove farmers to prioritize immediate survival. Economics were hard, and conservation tillage would not become the norm.

After the introduction of the herbicide paraquat and some no‑till seeders in the 1960s, researchers experimenting with low‑disturbance direct seeding systems reported that yields under this system were as good as those under traditional tillage systems. Early adopters of conservation tillage technology shared their knowledge with conservation tillage associations, agents, scientists and equipment company manufacturers and representatives, as well as other farmers. Nevertheless, barriers to the adoption of conservation tillage persisted into the 1970s. In the 1980s, however, the problem of soil degradation, aggravated by drought, emerged again.

Dr. Awada notes that three publications contributed significantly to understanding the importance of soil degradation in Canada: Land Depletion and Soil Conservation Issues on the Canadian Prairies by the PFRA; Will the Bounty End?: The Uncertain Future of Canada’s Food Supply by Garry Fairbairn; and Soil at Risk: Canada’s Eroding Future by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry — as it was then known — chaired by then-Senator Herb Sparrow.

Dr. Awada writes that Senator Sparrow’s report led the way for the establishment of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association. In turn, these bodies responded to farmers’ questions, provided technical assistance, arranged field days and workshops for the effective use of conservation tillage technology and offered social and moral support.

Then, in the 1990s, the price of the herbicide glyphosate decreased, the price of fuel increased and interest rates went down. Summerfallow and traditional tillage became more expensive than conservation tillage, which prompted farmers to take advantage of lower interest rates and invest in machinery.

Today, more than 75% of Prairie cropland is under some form of conservation tillage, and more than 50% is under zero-till.

However, in regions of Canada east of Manitoba, soil organic carbon is generally decreasing due to the steady conversion of tame pastures and hay land to annual crops or development.

In the dirty thirties, the federal government established the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. In the 1980s, the PFRA released a report that contributed significantly to understanding the importance of soil degradation in Canada. So did the report written by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What I’m getting at here is that there is an important role for the federal government to play when it comes to soil health.

According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in 2021, more than half of the cropland in Central Canada and Atlantic Canada was at high risk for soil degradation because of loss of soil organic carbon.

We must keep our eyes on the prize in Western Canada as well. Grasslands accumulate and store carbon, purify water, mitigate flood risks and provide a habitat for grassland species. But over 80% of Canada’s Prairie grasslands have been lost to crop production or urban development.

Soil is the base of everything we do in Canada, whether in the North, South, East or West — and whether in urban or rural Canada. That’s why soil protection, conservation and enhancement is so important to all constituencies in Canada. Soil health can be improved by management practices that add carbon to soils — such as reduced summerfallow, reduced tillage, planting high-residue crops and spreading manure — and by maintaining natural areas that accumulate and store carbon. Doing so benefits us all.

Therefore, colleagues, I believe that Bill S-230 is good policy and am proud to support it at second reading. Thank you.

Senator Black, do you have a question?

Yes, I will.

We’re in a very unique position south of Regina. It’s an old ocean bed. Where I farm, on some of the land, there is an inch drop over three miles. That’s how flat it is. The topsoil is 25 feet deep, so there are no wells; there is no undersurface water. We dig dugouts, and they might be 25 feet deep. We spread that soil on top of the ground and farm it the next year. So there is really no soil profile in our country except black dirt.

To your point about the success in Western Canada, the reason I bring that up is because it’s never too late to start doing the right thing and protecting our soils.

Would the senator take a question?

Yes.

The question is this: Can you send some of that soil to the Maritimes?

That might pose a railroad problem.