National Strategy for Soil Health Act

Bill S-230, National Strategy for Soil Health Act · Second reading · now at second reading in the House Where it stands

What Bill S-230 would do

The bill would require the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to develop a national strategy to support and promote efforts across Canada to protect and maintain soil health. It would also set reporting rules for the strategy. The published material gives no further detail.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

16 statements

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“I want the House to send this bill to a committee. Healthy soil is at risk across the country, and we need it to grow food. This bill requires the government to create a national plan to protect our soil, track its health, and report back to Parliament every three years.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

moved that Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, 8.2 billion people around the world have something in common. We all rely on the soil, the critical ground beneath our feet, to sustain us. Globally, scientists estimate that the average soil depth on land is in the order of about only one metre. Of course, it can vary dramatically. Prime agricultural land in Ontario can often have only half a metre to one and a half metres of soil before reaching glacial deposits or bedrock, while some prairie soils can be two to three metres in depth. The life-supporting layer of life on Earth is remarkably shallow. It is extraordinarily valuable, and it is at risk. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations found that 33% of earth’s soils are already degraded and over 90% could become degraded by 2050. In Ontario, 68% of Ontario’s farmland is at risk of unsustainable soil loss. Like any scarce resource, we need to protect it, conserve it and enhance it, but this can only be done through a coordinated national approach to protecting Canada’s soil resources. That is why Bill S-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement, is so necessary and so timely. Introduced by Ontario senator Robert Black and passed in the Senate on March 26, Bill S-230 builds on the Senate’s agriculture and forestry committee’s excellent 2024 report entitled “Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health”. The title says it all. The report describes how this one metre of soil is essential for ecosystem services that enable all plant, animal and human life on earth. It is one metre for water purification and storage, climate and flood regulation, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and the provision of food, fibre, fuel and habitat for organisms. I encourage everyone to look it up at SenCanada.ca. It is a page-turner, a fascinating and thorough examination of soils across Canada, including forest soils and permafrost. It is informed by 153 witnesses, 74 briefs and fact-finding missions with farmers, producers, industry and researchers right across Canada. Someone who is not already fascinated with soil and soil health before they read this report will quickly become an advocate. Canada owes Senator Black a debt of gratitude for his lifetime of leadership in Canadian agriculture, and Parliament owes him a debt of gratitude for championing this legislation. In the House, we often talk about Canada’s food security. We talk about grocery prices, supply chains and our ability to produce and process more food here at home. They are important priorities, especially at a time when international trade uncertainty, rising production costs and extreme weather are placing pressure on Canadian farmers, families and food prices. However, there is another part of our food system that is so foundational and deserves much more attention, and that is the health of the soil that makes agricultural production possible. Soil provides crops with essential nutrients and water, supports biodiversity, stores carbon and helps agricultural land withstand drought and heavy rainfall. When soil loses its structure, nutrients or organic matter, farmers can face lower productivity and higher costs and are more vulnerable to extreme weather. Those factors translate into higher costs at the grocery store for Canadians. Restoring degraded soil can take years, even decades. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, restoring soil health, biological activity, carbon content and water-holding capacity can take anywhere between five and 20 years under good management. Fully regenerating the soil can take centuries. We use the word “generational” in the House quite a bit, and this is a generational issue. We use “vital” a lot in the House as well. What more appropriate word could apply to our soil health? Vitalis, meaning life, pertaining to life and necessary for life, captures the essential nature of healthy soils, which are necessary for our environmental, food security, sovereignty and economic needs. The city of Guelph is home to more than 50 agricultural organizations, industry associations, research institutes and government agencies. That makes us one of Canada’s largest agri-food innovation hubs. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, the Arrell Food Institute, Bioenterprise, and the Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance all call Guelph home. The University of Guelph’s Ontario Agricultural College is ranked number one in Canada and among the top 15 globally, anchoring world-leading soil and agri-food research right here in Ontario. University initiatives such as Soils At Guelph connect researchers, farmers, industry and government to deliver real-world solutions across climate, crops, biology and water systems. State-of-the-art soil monitoring systems at the Ontario crops research centre in Elora are among the only facilities of their kind in North America, supporting Ontarian and Canadian producers with valuable agricultural data for more than 45 years. We understand the important relationship among soil health, one health, and agricultural innovation and resilience. Every day, researchers in Guelph and right across Canada seek to make soils, plants and agriculture more resilient, more abundant and more affordable. These findings really matter to farmers, who are working every day to manage input costs, improve productivity and remain competitive, and who are extraordinary champions of soil health and protection. It is an exciting time. Agriculture is increasingly high-tech. Farmers, producers and ranchers are using technology to protect and restore soil health by making agriculture more precise, efficient and sustainable. Using GPS-guided equipment, satellite imagery, soil sensors, AI and data analytics, farmers can apply water, fertilizer and crop protection products only where they are needed, reducing waste and minimizing impacts on soil and waterways. New technologies also support practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage and precision nutrient management, which help prevent erosion, build soil organic matter, improve water retention and increase resilience to drought and extreme weather. Together, all these innovations are enabling farmers to produce more food, while preserving the long-term health and productivity of the soil on which agriculture depends and on which we all depend. Understanding soil health is equally important in preparing Canadian agriculture for a changing climate. In 2021, severe drought in the Prairies contributed to a 37% decline in Canadian wheat production. Healthy soil cannot prevent a drought, but better soil structure and higher organic matter can improve water retention and help agricultural systems become more resilient. Practical soil health solutions benefit both farmers and the environment, and demonstrate that agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability can be complementary. In fact, the long-term success of Canadian agriculture depends on it. Canadian farmers, producers and industry are leading in this respect. Canada already has tremendous expertise. This bill calls for consolidation, enrichment and evolution of that expertise across the country to ensure that it informs and guides a coordinated, long-term national effort. Our government has already taken an important step toward achieving this goal. On March 26, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced the Government of Canada’s commitment to advancing a national agricultural soil health strategy, alongside Senator Black and Alan Kruzel, farmer director at the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, with which the government will partner to develop the strategy. This builds on the significant work already undertaken by the council, farmers and industry partners across the country who have been working on soil health strategies for years. However, without an overarching federal strategy, as proposed in this bill, we lack the ability to protect and conserve agricultural and forestry soils in this country. This announcement marked an important step forward for Canadian agriculture: the recognition of soil as a critical national asset that supports the livelihood of Canadian farmers, our food security, agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. This strategy will be informed through regular engagement with provinces and territories, indigenous agricultural groups, producer organizations, academia and industry, ensuring that regional realities and long-term agricultural priorities are reflected in this development. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will also work with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada to establish a committee structure and advisory working groups, bringing together expertise in research, knowledge sharing, soil data and incentives to support sustainable agricultural practices. The objective is to build on existing knowledge, strengthen coordination, improve soil health information and support the long-term resilience of Canada’s agricultural lands. It demonstrates that the government is already taking steps to advance a national approach to agricultural soil health, building on the momentum created by farmers, researchers, industry partners and Parliament. The fact that work on a national strategy is already under way does not diminish the importance of this legislation. It reinforces it. The March announcement establishes a commitment to collaboration and action. Bill S-230 would complement that work by establishing a legislative framework with clear responsibilities and reporting requirements to support accountability over the longer term. Together these efforts would provide an opportunity to ensure that protecting and enhancing Canada’s agricultural soils remains a national priority for generations to come. The legislation also aligns with Canada’s first national food security strategy announced by the Prime Minister in July. That strategy focuses on increasing grocery competition, expanding food processing in Canada, growing more fruits and vegetables year-round and reducing regulatory barriers. However, if we want Canadian farmers to produce more food, we must also protect the very foundation of our food system by keeping farmland and soils healthy, productive and resilient. Time is of the essence, and the momentum is strong. That brings me to what Bill S-230 would accomplish. First, the legislation would require a national strategy that recognizes soil as a strategic national asset essential to domestic and international food security. We recognize the strategic importance of our energy resources, critical minerals and transportation infrastructure. Our agricultural soils deserve similar attention, because they sustain our ability to produce food, fibre and fuel. Importantly, the legislation would also connect soil health with agricultural production that is both sustainable and profitable. Second, Bill S-230 would require measures to improve our understanding of the condition of Canadian soils. That includes examining degradation, compaction, nutrient availability, contamination, carbon content and water-holding capacity. Better information would help identify emerging risks, assess the effectiveness of different practices and guide future research and policy decisions. Third, the bill would support education, research, technical assistance and knowledge sharing. This means helping farmers access practical information about effective soil management practices while recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge and stewardship. It would also provide for consideration of a national soil information system to improve how knowledge is collected and shared, which is very important. Fourth, the strategy would include recommendations concerning a national advocate for soil health, alongside appropriate targets, timelines and resources. This one is essential. These provisions matter, because national priorities need clear objectives and ways to measure progress. The legislation would also recognize diversity in Canada’s agricultural regions. What works for a grain producer in Ontario may not be appropriate for a rancher in Alberta or a potato farmer in P.E.I. That is why meaningful consultation is essential. Finally, Bill S-230 would establish an important accountability mechanism. The national strategy would have to be tabled in Parliament within two years of the legislation’s coming into force. The minister would then be required to report on progress within three years after the strategy is tabled, and every three years thereafter. These reports would assess what has been implemented, what results have been achieved and what work remains outstanding. We have established how urgent this is. Bill S-230 would provide an opportunity to reinforce the progress that has already been made and to support accountability for the years ahead. Our national food security strategy, our agricultural investments that support innovation and our environmental priorities all align. Soil health connects all three. The work being done across Canada is a testament to what is possible when research, agricultural productivity and environmental stewardship come together. We have an opportunity to build on that progress, because protecting our soils today means protecting Canada’s ability to feed itself tomorrow. It means carbon capture in our wetlands. It means healthy forest soils. Soil health, our food security and sovereignty are not partisan issues. I hope all members of the House will support the bill’s referral to committee.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“I have concerns about this bill. The government is cutting funding for farming science and research. How can the member support this bill while her party makes those cuts?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with concerns regarding this proposed act and also regarding the recent Liberal cuts to science and research for agriculture. Yes, the member endorses the bill, but how can she endorse it with the Liberal government’s making all these cuts?

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“The government is already investing a lot in farm research. This is an important topic to discuss, and I will keep supporting research and innovation in Canadian agriculture.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 26 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first I would acknowledge that the original private member’s bill came from a member opposite. It is Senator Black who is carrying it forward for an important conversation. I believe there is a lot of investment currently happening in agriculture research. I think the question is worth a conversation, and I will continue to support agricultural innovation and research in Canada.

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“This bill steps into areas that belong to the provinces. If we care about soil health, we should fund university research instead of creating a federal plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was so long that we thought she was filibustering. We are accustomed to it. I serve with her on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and I recognize her patience. I was pleased to hear from her today. One of the things our regions have in common is the academic work done there. The University of Guelph is renowned for its work on soil. The same is true of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Institut de recherche en agriculture et agroalimentaire. In that context, yes, there are collaborations. For anyone really interested in soil health, would it not have been more appropriate for her to speak out, as my colleague suggested, against the cuts to science and research, and to propose investments in our university research chairs so that more data could be gathered, rather than encroaching on provincial jurisdictions?

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“Many studies from local research centres have moved to other centres and universities across Canada. I promise that I will always support farming and food research in Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many of the studies carried out by the research institutes have been transferred to other research centres in Canada or to university centres. We can talk about the framework in which research can be conducted, but I can assure the House that I will be a champion for agri-food research in Canada.

Emma Harrison, Peterborough

Liberal
“I am sharing my speaking time with the member for Guelph so she can talk about sponsoring this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an opportunity to my colleague from Guelph, which is the epicentre of so much research when it comes to agriculture, to say what it means for her to be the sponsor of this bill in the House.

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“I support this bill to protect soil health. Healthy soil is vital for growing food and feeding people across the world.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 40 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a beef farmer, has restored the soil on her property and is an ardent champion of agriculture in Ontario. We talk a lot about the importance of agriculture. There was a lot of battling over who else would be able to speak to second reading of this private member’s bill. I think that when we are in a centre of agricultural excellence, when we are surrounded by farmland and when we understand what this would mean to our food security and our ability to feed the world, we cannot help but be extremely passionate about the topic.

Steven Bonk, Souris—Moose Mountain

Conservative
“Farmers drive innovation in farming because they know their land and animals best. Why does the member think only the government can solve this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that most innovation in agriculture is driven by farmers. No one knows their land and their animals better than they do. The member said in her speech that this can be achieved only through government action, yet we have seen that some of the most incredible innovation, of any field at all in Canada, is in agriculture. Why does she now think it has to be done by the government?

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“This bill does not replace farmers' work. It recognizes the work farmers and researchers have done for decades. It sets up a national plan to help coordinate that work and reward farmers for protecting soil health.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not that at all, because we are acknowledging the work of the folks who have been doing this work for decades. We are acknowledging the work of universities and researchers. We are identifying what the gap is and a national system that could help coordinate, really supercharge, and have accountability for that. One hundred and fifty-three witnesses spoke to the Senate’s agriculture and forestry committee. This is absolutely about putting farmers, producers and ranchers in the middle of the conversation to see how we can help them and how we can reward them as well for supporting soil health.

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“This bill steps into areas that Quebec controls. The group the minister made to work on it has no members from Quebec, so our people have no voice.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on the day that the bill was introduced, the minister announced that he was going to work with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada to create an agricultural soil health strategy. That is nice, but the council he created includes no representatives from Quebec. Not only is he introducing a bill that encroaches on Quebec’s jurisdictions, but there are no Quebeckers to make their voices heard in Ottawa. Is there a problem?

Dominique O'Rourke, Guelph

Liberal
“The member is misleading people. This bill sets up a plan that requires talks with every province, including Quebec. It includes farmers, industry, researchers, governments, and Indigenous peoples.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 36 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, misleading people is really quite sad. This is a framework, and all provinces, including Quebec, will have to be consulted. Let us be clear. This is an extremely inclusive bill for producers, industry, researchers, governments and indigenous peoples.

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative
“I support this bill to protect soil health. Canadian farmers already do great work caring for the land. But the government is being hypocritical. It says it cares about soil, but it shut down seven public research farms that study soil health, wastes money on foreign projects, and plans a costly train that will destroy prime farmland.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak in favour of this bill, which comes from Senator Robert Black, who should be commended for the work that he and his team did on developing his soil study, which was released last year. One of the most important parts of this study is that it highlights what Canadian farmers are already doing. Over the last 10 or 11 years, the government has done all it can to mislabel farmers as a problem child, when we know that farmers are doing incredible work. I just want to highlight some of the incredible work they are doing. The Global Institute for Food Security, out of Saskatoon, did a study a couple of years ago that highlighted the incredible work in conservation and soil health that Canadian farmers are already doing. For example, the carbon footprint of canola grown in Canada is 67% lower than the canola grown anywhere else in the world. A trainload of wheat grown in Canada can go around the world three times before it has the same carbon footprint as wheat grown in Europe. GHG emissions from agriculture in Canada are about 8% of our GHG emissions. If we compare that with the rest of the world, where the average is about 25%, it shows the incredible technology, innovation and advancements that have happened right here in Canada. Lastly, about 95% of Saskatchewan farmers are already using zero till or minimal till. However, this is where the problem arises with the bill and what the government is claiming it wants to do. It is claiming it wants to highlight soil health and encourage Canadian farmers to do science and innovation, but the initiative I talked about, how 95% of Saskatchewan farmers are already doing minimal or zero till, was developed at the research centre in Indian Head, Saskatchewan. That technology or that type of precision agriculture would not have happened had it not been for the lengthy study and research of our top scientists at Indian Head. That research and science is no longer going to be happening, as the Liberal government has announced. One of the first things the Liberal government announced after the election in 2025 was that it was going to shut down seven critical research farms and experimental farms right across this country. They include farms in Lacombe, Alberta; Indian Head, Saskatchewan; Swift Current, Saskatchewan; Portage la Prairie, Manitoba; Guelph, Ontario; Quebec City, Quebec; and Nappan, Nova Scotia. In fact, last Friday, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had the dispersal sale of the beef herd in Nappan, Nova Scotia. One hundred and forty years of critical breeding and forage research has now been lost. To the member for Guelph, who was talking about the importance of soil health in her speech, I want to highlight that every one of the research centres being shut down by the government was doing soil health research. I find it difficult that Liberal government members are saying how passionate they are about soil health and ensuring that agriculture has the tools it needs, when the first thing the minister and the government did when it came to agriculture was shut down seven critical research centres right across Canada. In fact, more than 50% of the cuts to employees at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada came in science and innovation. More than 70% of the total budget cuts came in science and innovation. One moment they are saying how important science, innovation and soil health are to Canadian agriculture, but on the other hand, they are dismantling the very foundation of the science, innovation and research that happen in Canada. They are dismantling that, making it extremely difficult for farmers to achieve the goals the Liberal government is setting out. When it came to those budget cuts, it was not a budget decision; it was a principles and values decision. I want to give a couple of examples, if I may. Closing these research centres is going to save the government about $200 million over a decade, but we are talking about $700 billion in new deficit spending over the next five years. Here are some things the government did spend money on: for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, over the last five years, $16 million on consulting and management fees; $22 million on beans for women for empowerment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; $20 million on building equitable climate-resilient African bean and insect sectors in Africa; $16 million on leveraging equity and gender-just poultry in Kenya; and $8 million on gender-just, low-carbon rice in Vietnam. It also put $8.5 million into a cricket factory that has now gone bankrupt. They put $40 million into a prison farm which is millions of dollars over budget, and $8 million to transfer the barn at Rideau Hall into a storage facility. Out of more than $300 million in spending, that funding would have kept these research centres open and operating for a decade. This is not a budget decision, this is a values and priority decision by the government, and there are consequences to that. Further to talking about how important soil health in food production is in Canada, Ontario, where my colleague who is sponsoring this bill lives, in Guelph, is losing 300 acres of farmland every single day. About nine farm families are being lost every single week. Our focus should be on protecting, or doing all we can to protect, critical and highly productive agriculture land. Yet the government is plowing ahead with a $150-billion high-speed rail, a train that no one will use, that will impact literally hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland and thousands of farmers. I want to highlight one farmer, Wyatt McWilliams, who was at our agriculture committee a couple of weeks, ago talking about the impact that this is having on his farm, not knowing what the future of a generational farm will be in his Ontario community. What made his testimony so moving is Mr. McWilliams was one of the brothers who started the Hay West initiative in 2002 when western Canada was suffering a devastating drought. Mr. McWilliams got more than 1,000 family farms to donate 60,000 large bales of hay, which was moved across Canada to ensure that farmers in western Canada had feed for their cattle. He was given the Order of Canada for that initiative helping farmers in another part of this country. However, his reward, for launching that initiative and stepping up when he was needed most, from the current government is it is going to expropriate his farm for the $150-billion high-speed rail that is going to go nowhere. No one is going to ride this. When the government is again talking about the importance of food security and food sovereignty, how can it make that claim when on one side it is shutting down critical research centres and experimental farms and, on the other side, building a high-speed rail that is going to dissect thousands of farms across Ontario and Quebec? It kind of shows where the government priorities are. We want to see how important this soil study is, but the government cannot profess to talk about how important this is when its actions are saying something completely different. That is something that we are trying to highlight. It is not that we are against this bill, we are trying to say we are against the hypocrisy of the Liberal government, when it is now saying how important farming is and how important Canadian agriculture is and we know that is simply not the case by the actions that are actually happening. Now the government is talking about cozying up to the European Union, which could further devastate Canadian agriculture if we somehow have to abide by EU standards when it comes to maximum residue limits, pesticides, crop protection products, hormones or carcass washing. Already we cannot get our beef, pork and wheat into the European Union. Now the government wants to align itself even more with EU standards. An Irish farmer told us at committee a couple of weeks ago that trying to farm in the EU is cruel. Those were her words exactly. As Conservatives, we certainly support the premise of this bill and again applaud Senator Black for all of his work and for being an incredible champion for Canadian agriculture. We certainly look forward to seeing where this study will go and highlight the incredible work that Canadian farmers are already doing. As Conservatives, we will continue to fight for our farmers to ensure that they have the tools they need to be competitive and economically viable and to continue to grow.

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“I do not support this bill. Managing farmland belongs to the provinces, not Ottawa, and Quebec already has strong laws and tools to protect its soil. Also, the federal government is helping build a train project that destroys good farmland, and it lets chemical companies help write this new soil plan without any input from Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to rise after the member for Foothills. I hope I will be forgiven if my remarks are not quite as lively as his. I am nevertheless pleased to take part in this debate because Quebec is a nation recognized internationally for its abundant natural resources. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, for example, we are known for our water. Thanks to our eskers, we are home to one of the largest sources of pure water anywhere. It is no coincidence that our water has even won international awards. Our predominantly boreal forests form part of one of the largest forest ecosystems on the planet. They sustain our communities. They capture and store immense quantities of carbon. Beneath our feet lie gold and copper, which have made our region renowned for mining. That said, there is one resource that receives far less attention. It is a resource we do not see because we walk on it every day. I am speaking, of course, about soil. We have plenty of it in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We are also home to the Institut de recherche en agriculture et en agroalimentaire, or IRAA, at the Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, known as UQAT. We even have a leading expert on our soils: Vincent Poirier, director of UQAT, whom I would like to acknowledge today. During his recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Mr. Poirier pointed out just how detrimental the cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s research centres and experimental farms would be, because it is impossible to conduct research without being in the field. He had this to say: Soil can’t be moved. It’s unthinkable to do that. It’s also impossible to move climate conditions. We can try our very best, but there’s so much complexity involved in the natural environment that I would say it’s unrealistic to think that we can recreate everything under controlled conditions. That is the backdrop against which this bill is being introduced. This bill calls on the government to develop a national strategy to protect, conserve and enhance the health of agricultural soil. Maintaining research funding would have been a good start. We also need to put the bill into context. Right now, we are also dealing with the Alto high-speed rail project, which is going to absolutely destroy some of the best farmland in Quebec and Ontario. No one in the Liberal Party or on either the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities or the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food wants to address the actual consequences of this project, and yet, the Senate is telling us in this bill that we need to protect farmland. Does anyone understand where the Liberals are headed now? I am forgetting an important point. This bill is yet another federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, the federal government is trying to dictate what the provinces should do, especially since the bill speaks of “consulting” the provinces when, in reality, their consent should be required. Without consent, the answer is no. I think that should be obvious. What is more, Quebec is already taking action and has already made progress in protecting its farmland. It already has a plan for sustainable agriculture that was tabled by the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, and I would like to congratulate its new minister on his appointment. The Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities and the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec are also important pillars of soil protection and the preservation of Quebec’s agricultural lands. Together, they form the backbone of a comprehensive framework developed and tailored to Quebec’s realities. Incidentally, Alto should also be required to comply with that Quebec legislative framework. I would very much like my Liberal colleagues to confirm that the Alto project will be subject to an assessment of its impact on Quebec’s agricultural land and that it will obtain authorization from the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec. In the interest of getting this right, it seems to me that this project cannot simply sidestep the most basic laws. I imagine Bill C‑39 probably already includes provisions that would allow it to do just that. I will not apologize for that aside. My point, once again, is that Quebec has already taken action. Why, then, does Canada need to adopt this policy? Is it because some provinces are reluctant to act? If certain provinces wish to sacrifice their agricultural land, that is their choice. It is not up to Ottawa to tell them what to do. Another thing that astonishes me is that, on the very day this bill was introduced, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced that he would be working with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada to develop a national soil strategy. What is even more astonishing, however, is the composition of that organization’s board of directors: Not a single Quebecker sits on it. I will say it again: There are no members from Quebec. In other words, the strategy is being developed by an organization that has no roots in Quebec. They are unfamiliar with Quebec’s reality, so how can the minister delegate the development of a strategy that he considers important for Canada to a group that does not, in fact, represent the whole of Canada? This is the most basic of principles. What also shocks me is that two of the seats are held by people who serve on the boards of Fertilizer Canada and CropLife Canada, two organizations that advocate for the use of pesticides and chemical inputs. That amounts to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Pesticides and chemical inputs have a harmful impact on the quality of our soil. Everyone knows that. This shows that, with Bills C-30 and C-31, the government has sided with the pesticide and chemical input companies, as well as giving them a seat at the table. However, it has failed to ensure Quebec is represented. Instead of investing in and continuing research at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s research centres and experimental farms to discover new plant varieties and new, more regenerative practices, the government is placing even more importance on the chemical inputs and pesticides industry. That said, when we talk about market diversification, the European Union’s presence in Canada over the coming days is a reminder that Europe should be one of the markets we are targeting. However, our pesticide policies are causing Europe to close its doors to many of our agricultural products, precisely because of the use of these pesticides. In short, this soil strategy and this bill are first and foremost about forcing Canadian provinces to protect their farmland. However, Quebec is already at the forefront in this respect. A few examples of what Quebec is doing include tools like Info-Sols, which provides an overview of Quebec’s soils; OGeMOS, a simulation tool for soil management; and Terranimo, a web-based application to assess the risks to agricultural soils. That is not even mentioning the fertilization reference documents and the various pesticide regulations that Quebec has developed. Today, we are witnessing another attempt by the government to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. If Ottawa truly wanted to protect farmland, it would start by asking its members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to study the Alto project immediately, to better understand its impact on farmland. If we truly want to recognize farmland as a strategic national asset, that begins with a government that refuses to sacrifice its best land in Quebec and Ontario essentially to save an hour of travel time. In closing, I would like to accept the olive branch extended to me by my colleague from Guelph during questions and comments and simply say this: If she thinks what I am saying is untrue because our interpretations differ, yet she wants the support of the Bloc Québécois, she should try to convince us rather than accuse us of saying falsehoods.

Louis Villeneuve, Brome—Missisquoi

Liberal

Linked statement

“I want the House to pass this bill. It creates a national plan to protect our soil. Healthy soil protects our water, helps farmers grow food, and keeps our economy strong.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in support of Bill S-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. In Brome—Missisquoi, the challenges related to soil health are not theoretical. They directly affect our agricultural producers, the water quality of Missisquoi Bay and the Lake Memphremagog watershed, the protection of Lake Brome and Lake Davignon, and the resilience of our communities in the face of climate change. That is why a national soil health strategy is not only relevant, but necessary. I would like to thank Senator Black for his commitment to this critical issue, as well as the member for Guelph, who is sponsoring this bill in the House. Bill S-230 has played an important role in bringing stakeholders together and advancing the work that will lead to Canada’s first-ever national strategy for agricultural soil health. I also want to thank Canadian farmers, who are leading the way in soil conservation, from cover crops and mapping techniques to no-till and reduced-tillage practices. Under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the government continues to invest in research, innovation and technology to help farmers continue to reduce their environmental footprint and preserve and improve essential resources like soil, while ensuring the sustainability, competitiveness and growth of their operations. For example, the government’s on-farm climate action fund has already helped more than 8,000 Canadian farmers adopt sustainable practices, such as cover cropping, crop rotation and nutrient management, covering nearly three million hectares in Canada. In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, many farmers are already committed to this transition. They are using cover crops, improved crop rotation and soil conservation practices that protect both the environment and the profitability of their business. Every day, these farmers demonstrate that it is possible to bring together agricultural productivity and the protection of natural resources, particularly through more efficient management of inputs and by using innovative practices that reflect today’s climate realities. Canada is also a member of the Global Soil Partnership, a forum created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. This partnership aims to facilitate and accelerate the flow of knowledge and technology for the sustainable management of soil resources. Healthy soil is one of our country’s most important assets. It determines the future of agriculture in Canada and the economic viability of Canadian farms. The food we eat and our economy depend on it. Soil health is essential to the productivity, competitiveness and long-term resilience of Canada’s agricultural sector. Healthy soil improves agricultural yields, reduces input costs, regulates diseases and pests and protects against drought, floods and other climate risks. Soil is key to the success of our agriculture and agri-food sectors. It accounts for one in nine jobs, $150 billion of our GDP and over $100 billion in exports. Globally, soil provides approximately 95% of the world’s food supply and performs other essential functions, including filtering and storing water, mitigating climate extremes, sequestering carbon and sustaining biodiversity. However, despite significant investments and the best efforts of our farmers, erosion, urban sprawl and extreme weather events, including droughts and floods, continue to have serious impacts on the health of our soils. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 33% of the world’s soils are already degraded and warns that, if no action is taken, more than 90% could be degraded by 2050. That is why the introduction of this bill could not be more timely. I would like to emphasize that Canadian producers are already using the latest technologies and knowledge to improve productivity, conserve the resources on which they depend and maintain strong incomes, thereby ensuring a viable agricultural sector that feeds Canadians and contributes to the global food supply. To support them in this essential work and to preserve and enhance soil health for current and future generations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working in partnership with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, commonly known as the SCCC, to develop Canada’s first-ever national agricultural soil health strategy. I would therefore like to thank the SCCC for its leadership on soil health and for its work in developing the national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. The work carried out in the Senate on Bill S-230 has already helped to shape this strategy and advance its implementation. It has played an important role in engaging stakeholders and advancing the work that will lead to Canada’s very first national strategy for agricultural soil health. Since last summer, we have consulted with farmers, academics, researchers, the provinces and territories and other industry representatives. Four expert sub-committees have been established. They are made up of members from private-sector producer associations, academia and government representatives. This autumn, the government will meet with indigenous groups to discuss important issues such as soil health, land management and regional or community priorities. The sub-committees will then draft the content, after which Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the SCCC will finalize the strategy in consultation with all stakeholders. The strategy would be an important step forward for Canadian agriculture. Overall, it would support the adoption of sustainable practices, improve data collection and strengthen the long-term resiliency of Canada’s farmland. Keeping our soil healthy requires a co-operative approach involving all partners. Under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s current policy framework, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, the government is working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the competitiveness, innovation and resiliency of the agriculture and agri-food sector. That includes programs such as the resilient agricultural landscape program, which helps farmers conserve and enhance the resiliency of agricultural landscapes through the adoption of on-farm land use and management practices that maximize environmental and societal benefits. In fact, improving soil health is one of the most effective ways of improving on-farm resilience. Healthy soil improves infiltration and water retention, promotes biodiversity, reduces erosion and helps farmers adapt to climate change, while maintaining their productivity. As the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership winds down, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working on a new strategic framework that will be launched in April 2028. Many stakeholders took part in the initial consultations that led to the Halifax Statement in July. The statement charts a course for the work ahead, work that will lead to greater innovation and more growth for Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector. Soil health is definitely one of the priorities that have been brought to our attention. To ensure that we have healthy soils for sustainable food production, we must also consider the economic realities facing farms. The environmental measures that farmers adopt on their farms must benefit both the environment and their farming businesses. I would like to highlight an example where environmental benefits go hand in hand with farm profitability. Nearly 75% of the arable land in western Canada is now farmed using no-till methods. This innovative farming practice leaves crop residue on the soil to reduce erosion and capture carbon in the soil, while allowing farmers to save on input costs, including fuel and labour. I am confident that the national agricultural soil health strategy will support the growth and resilience of this remarkable industry. Helping farmers protect and improve their most precious assets will help them earn a good living. This support will also ensure sustainable food production, improved biodiversity and cleaner air and water for current and future generations. Our government will continue to work with partners across Canada, such as the SCCC, to protect our soil as a vital resource, support biodiversity and help drive prosperity for Canadian farmers. We can and should all get behind this bill.

Steven Bonk, Souris—Moose Mountain

Conservative
“Healthy soil is vital, and Canadian farmers are world leaders in protecting it. I support this bill, but the government should fund our own farm research instead of closing research centres like the one in Indian Head.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is something that I have a great privilege to speak about. It is deeply close to me and deeply personal to me. I grew up on a farm. I live on a farm. I have had the pleasure of working for 30 years on five different continents, promoting soil health and consulting on soil health and animal genetics. They say that all life on earth comes down to the top six inches of soil we have. This is true. This is something we should not take for granted. We have seen, through the very poor farming practices we had early on in Canada, that it is very easy to degrade the soil, but it is also possible to regrow the soil, to improve it. There are many things we are doing now that are of great use. I come from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is famous for having eight feet of topsoil. We always hear stories about when the settlers came and dug the basements for their houses. They never hit anything but black dirt. That is no longer the case. A lot of that soil was lost in the 1930s or 1920s, when we had a lot of erosion during dry years. Due to plowing and basically the powderization of the soil, we lost a lot of good topsoil. However, there has also been a lot of great innovation. Think about the topsoils that we had. They were developed over millennia, in partnership with the bison that would come in. Sometimes they would graze heavily and take everything off. They said when the bison left, there was just black dirt; there was no grass left. Sometimes those bison did not come back for two or three years, which gave ample time for the soil to rest and the microbes to regrow. It was like pages in a book. We had soil that would grow grass. The bison would come. They would trample the grass, eat some and leave their dung and urine behind, which would increase the organic matter in the soil. That was like another page. They would do that over and over again. That is how we developed the rich black soils we have today. That is the same thing that has happened all over the globe. When we look at seasonal grasslands, there are about three billion hectares in the world. We can think of the Prairies, the Eurasian steppe, the savannahs in Africa and the pampas in South America. They all developed exactly the same way. Large groups of herbivores would come in, take about half of what there was, trample the other half and leave their fertilizer behind. That would grow incredible soils. With the advent of modern agriculture, we decided that we would manage agriculture. We would have cattle in a small fence and would just let them eat whatever they wanted. Animals are lazy. Cows especially are very lazy. They eat what they like, and they leave what they do not like. By having cattle go back constantly to the same plants they like, they weaken the root systems, which gives an advantage to the grasses they do not like and they soon take over. The cattle do not like those grasses, so they leave them. When they leave them, the plants die. They do not get trampled or eaten, and they are not in contact with the soil, which helps them break down. What happens when the grasses are left standing is that they have to break down by oxidation. That can take years sometimes. When we see two- or three-year-old grass plants in a park, for example, that are silver, that is the oxidation I am talking about. They need soil contact to break down. We used to do that in agriculture by locking cattle in, say, a 160-acre parcel of land in Saskatchewan. That was typical. We would put them there in the spring, leave them there for the whole year and bring them off in the fall. The animals would eat what they liked and leave what they did not like. That caused a problem in the grasslands. We would see a big space between the plants. However, we changed that. Canada is a world leader in something called regenerative agriculture, especially when it comes to livestock agriculture. What we have done is used cattle as a proxy for the great bison herds. We do what is called rotational grazing or cell grazing, where we lock animals in a very small, specific area so they have to eat everything there, or at least eat every plant there, hopefully leaving half of them or a little bit more and trampling the rest. Then we move them to other parcels. If we do this management correctly, the grass that was grazed will not get regrazed at all until, perhaps, 60 or, even better, 90 days after that. This has made huge differences in our soil’s capacity to hold water. We are seeing it on my own farm. We used to have small potholes that would fill up in the spring and then the water would go away by June and nothing would really grow there for the rest of the year, and now those potholes do not develop at all because all that water can filtrate into the soil. We are seeing a much healthier water table that way. Also, it keeps the temperature of the soil much cooler. This is something that was pioneered in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it has been exported all over the world. I have had the great opportunity to do a lot of this work, particularly in Central Asia. When we look at the great Eurasian steppe of Kazakhstan, Siberia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, that whole area, and Mongolia, there is so much potential because they have had years and years of nomadic herders who built the beautiful soils they have now. However, because of the Soviet system they had to endure with Soviet farms, the Communist farms they had, the management was so poor that they have desertification on a scale that people just cannot imagine. By using some of these great principles we have developed in Canada, such as rotational grazing, the proper management of moving these animals in the right place, and most importantly, allowing for adequate rest of the grasslands after they have been grazed, they are seeing huge responses. The spacing between plants is getting better. The soil temperature is going down. The organic matter is coming up. Water filtration is improving. Water filtration is something that is so important, especially in the seasonal grasslands, which are known for not having that much rainfall. It is typical in the regenerative agriculture world for someone to say, “How much rain did you get?” On our farm, we say, “all of it,” because we do not have runoff. All of it goes into the soil. All of it is there to keep the soil temperature down in order to grow our plants. Allan Savory, who is the founder of the Savory Institute, claims that if we were to take half of the world’s seasonal grasslands and we were to use proper management, if we were to use rotational grazing as a proxy for these wild herds of herbivores that used to roam, we could bring the carbon levels in the atmosphere down to pre-industrial levels. That is the power of soil health and proper soil management. This is not a pipe dream. This is something we can do. The health of the soils is extremely important. It is a fact that there is about 2.5 tonnes of carbon in every hectare of grasslands right now. Third party studies in Saskatchewan have already shown that a lot of people are sequestering up to six tonnes of carbon per year in their grassland. By managing it properly, by doing what we do here and exporting that to the world, we can make a huge difference. This is something that I think is so important. However, I am a little confused by the Liberals promoting this bill so much. I appreciate that they are, but I do not know why they would do something like close the research centres we have in Canada that have promoted, developed and pioneered some of this technology. I think of the Indian Head research centre, which is right next to me in my riding. A farmer named Jim Halford partnered with Guy Lafond at the research centre, and they were the original pioneers of zero-till technology. That has been exported all over the world, and now we are seeing about 270 million hectares of grain land in the world that is now under zero-till. This was developed, and I am going to take the credit that it was in Saskatchewan, at Indian Head, and was all pioneered at the Indian Head research centre. It costs about $3 million to keep the Indian Head research centre open, yet the government decided it was not worth it. It decided that scientific innovation and agriculture was not worth it, yet it gave $8.2 million to study gender-neutral rice in Vietnam. I appreciate this bill, but I also want the Liberals to understand that scientific research in Canada is very important, and the world is relying on us for it.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Conservative
“I support this bill to protect soil health. Canadian farmers are already world leaders at taking care of their soil.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 26 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain, who is a hard act to follow and very informative, for his leadership with respect to soil health. That was just an incredible speech. I do want to thank, as well, Senator Black for bringing this forward in the Senate. This is an important issue. At the same time, I do want to recognize, as many of the speakers before me today have already put forward, that we are blessed here in Canada to have some of the most incredible farmers, who are the leading innovators, when it comes to soil health, in the world. In my own riding, I am blessed to represent what is likely the most beef producers per capita in eastern Canada. It is hard to compete with some of the ridings out in western Canada, but our farmers take their grasslands, their pastures and their soil health very seriously. I have a number of farmers who are organic farmers who fully incorporate rotational grazing and no-till to make sure that the health of that soil is of the utmost importance. It is something I personally know. I am blessed to have taken over the family farm back home. I have about 60 acres that we are using for crops that another farmer actually rents out. I do not have the time to do it myself, but that rotational stuff is obvious on a daily basis and yearly basis. I will continue my speech the next time this comes back to the House.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 158

  1. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 38 statements
  2. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 81 statements
  3. Oral Questions International Trade 18 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Government Appointments 5 statements
  10. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 7 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 42 statements
  20. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Families, Children and Social Development 2 statements
  23. Private Members' Business National Strategy for Soil Health Act 16 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements