Agriculture and Agri-Food

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management (BRM) programs in Canada's agriculture sector. Witnesses from various agricultural organizations and individual farmers shared their experiences and recommendations for improving these programs. The main concern was that current BRM programs don't adequately address the risks faced by farmers today, especially with increasing climate volatility, rising input costs, and market uncertainties. Many felt the programs are too slow, complex, and don't reflect the realities of modern farming. They called for more flexibility, faster payments, and programs tailored to regional needs. William Huber from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) highlighted that many programs fail to meet their goal of providing stability due to issues with eligible expenses and slow payment times. Scott Ross from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) emphasized that BRM needs to be reimagined as part of a broader government approach, supporting growth, innovation, and resilience. Colin Hornby from Keystone Agricultural Producers stressed the importance of competitiveness and suggested specific improvements to programs like AgriStability and AgriInvest. Nelson Fagan, a farmer and butcher from Newfoundland and Labrador, spoke about the lack of adequate livestock insurance in his province, particularly for natural disasters. Éric Lafontaine, a cattle producer from Quebec, shared his experience with a catastrophic drought in 2023 and how the insurance program fell short of meeting his needs. Kristjan Hebert, representing the Hebert Group, suggested turning AgriInvest into a tax-deferred, income-smoothing account and proposed a private-public voucher system for BRM. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of BRM programs, including cross-compliance, regional differences, and the role of the private sector. There was a general consensus that the current programs need significant improvements to better support Canadian farmers. The committee will consider the testimonies and written submissions from the witnesses as they draft their recommendations for the future of BRM programs in Canada.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss how well current business risk management (BRM) programs support Canadian farmers. They heard from Chris McKee from the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food, Jaye Atkins from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and Charles-Félix Ross from the Union des producteurs agricoles. The committee wanted to learn how to improve these programs to help farmers deal with risks like climate change and market changes. Chris McKee highlighted that Indigenous farmers are underrepresented in current BRM programs and face unique challenges, such as limited access to capital and infrastructure. He suggested creating dedicated funding streams for Indigenous agriculture and including Indigenous voices in program design. Jaye Atkins focused on the Advance Payments Program (APP), AgriStability, and production insurance. He recommended making the interest-free threshold of $350,000 permanent and expressed concerns about the complexity of loan processing. He also noted that changes to AgriStability and production insurance could affect the APP. Charles-Félix Ross argued that Canada's support for agriculture is lower than in comparable countries and that the AgriStability program needs improvement. He suggested raising the trigger threshold for AgriStability to 85% of the reference margin and simplifying AgriRecovery initiatives. He also emphasized the importance of research and technology transfer to help farmers adapt to climate change. Committee members discussed specific issues such as budget cuts to research facilities, the flexibility of the APP, and the impact of cross-compliance requirements on farmers. Overall, the witnesses and committee members agreed that BRM programs are important for the resilience of the Canadian agriculture sector but need to be updated and improved. Key suggestions included increasing funding, simplifying program requirements, and better addressing the unique needs of Indigenous farmers and those facing climate-related challenges. The committee will use this information to make recommendations to the government on how to strengthen these programs.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management (BRM) programs for Canadian farmers. Representatives from various agricultural organizations, including the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères, the Grain Growers of Canada, and the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association, shared their perspectives and recommendations. Speakers emphasized the need to modernize BRM programs to address current challenges such as geopolitical disruptions, trade uncertainties, and supply chain instability. Andre Harpe from the Canadian Canola Growers Association highlighted the increasing costs of fertilizer and fuel, while Douglas Miller from the Canadian Seed Growers' Association stressed the importance of investing in new seed varieties to reduce production risks. Tyler Bjornson from the Western Grain Elevator Association proposed a tax credit for exporters facing trade barriers. Several speakers raised concerns about the closure of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) research centers, arguing that these closures would hinder innovation and reduce farmers' access to better genetics. Vincent Audet from the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères noted the vital role of the Quebec Research and Development Centre in perennial forage plant and soil health research. There was a general consensus that AgriInsurance is a strong foundation for risk management, but AgriStability needs improvements to be more responsive and accessible. The committee discussed potential solutions such as margin-based insurance programs, tax credits, and incentives for adopting new technologies and practices.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management (BRM) programs in Canada's agriculture sector and the development of the next agricultural policy framework. Officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Steven Jurgutis and Francesco Del Bianco, explained how these programs help farmers deal with income and production losses due to things like trade issues, weather, and rising costs. They also talked about how the federal government works with provinces and territories to create these programs. The current framework, the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, lasts until 2028. Discussions are underway to develop the next framework, which will run from 2028 to 2033. Committee members asked about different aspects of the BRM programs. Jacques Gourde brought up concerns about the advance payments program (APP) and how it requires collateral that some farmers can't provide because they already use it for other loans. He suggested allowing farmers to access APP funds through their regular banks. Paul Connors inquired about AgriInsurance and how it addresses climate change impacts, particularly after a drought in Newfoundland and Labrador. Emma Harrison shared her personal experiences as a small farmer and asked about ways to make BRM programs more accessible to smaller farms. Steven Bonk raised the issue of gopher infestations and the damage caused since strychnine was banned, questioning if this could lead to AgriStability and AgriRecovery payments. Dave Epp discussed AgriInsurance in more detail, including the use of reinsurance to manage risk. Kent MacDonald focused on the importance of farm succession planning and innovation in the next policy framework. Sophie Chatel asked about priorities for the next framework and suggestions for improving risk management programs. Sébastien Lemire questioned why agricultural producers have to resort to hoping that the government will create special programs without being able to benefit from regular agricultural support programs. The committee discussed the need for improvements to existing programs to better meet the needs of farmers, especially small and diversified operations. They also talked about the importance of collaboration between the federal government, provinces, and territories in developing the next agricultural policy framework. Francesco Del Bianco agreed to provide written responses to some of the more technical questions raised during the meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss the impact of science in Canadian agriculture, specifically focusing on the proposed closure of several research centers. Witnesses expressed concerns about the negative effects of these closures on agricultural innovation, food security, and the economy. Speakers included Alberta's Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation Richard J. Sigurdson, Mayor of Indian Head Steven Cole, CEO of Protein Industries Canada Tyler Groeneveld, and several researchers and agricultural experts. Minister Sigurdson emphasized the importance of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre to Alberta's agricultural sector, highlighting its role in supporting provincial research programs and addressing prairie-specific challenges. Mayor Cole spoke about the Indian Head research farm and the negative impact the closure would have on the local community and agricultural innovation. Tyler Groeneveld stressed the need for continued investment in agricultural research to maintain Canada's competitiveness in the global market. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various issues, including the impact of the closures on research, the role of public and private sector partnerships, and the need for innovation in the agricultural sector. Minister Sigurdson also discussed the challenges posed by Richardson's ground squirrels and the need for access to strychnine to control their populations. The committee discussed a motion to extend the study by two meetings, but the motion was ultimately defeated. The committee agreed to provide draft instructions for the report on Thursday and set a deadline of April 19th for external submissions.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss the impact of closing agricultural research centers in Canada. Witnesses shared concerns about the negative effects on agricultural innovation, food security, and the economy. They emphasized the importance of region-specific research and the need for long-term investment in agriculture. Committee members questioned the witnesses about the potential loss of expertise, the difficulty of transferring research, and the economic consequences for local communities. Tyler McCann from the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute suggested that Canada's agriculture innovation system is heading towards a crisis due to underinvestment. He recommended more transparency and accountability from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), embracing partnerships in science, and focusing on the future of research and development. Andrea Brocklebank from the Beef Cattle Research Council highlighted the negative impacts of the closures on the beef industry's ability to remain competitive. She recommended transferring critical programs and expertise to preserve their function and ensuring long-term funding. Alison Sunstrum, an entrepreneur in agricultural technology, emphasized that the closures signal either erosion or renewal. She stressed the importance of investing in modern infrastructure and building a strong foundation for the next era of agriculture. Mayor Thalia Hibbs of Lacombe spoke about the economic and social shock the closure of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre will have on her community. She requested a validation period to assess the potential loss of research assets and publish a cost-benefit analysis. John Ireland, Reeve of Lacombe County, emphasized the need for region-specific research and the importance of unbiased science. Patrick St-Georges and Sébastien Paquette from the Public Service Alliance of Canada expressed concerns about the negative consequences for Canadian agriculture and the loss of expertise. They called on the government to reconsider the budget cuts at AAFC. The committee discussed the possibility of universities and the private sector filling the gaps created by the closures, but witnesses noted that these institutions often lack the resources and capacity to do so. The committee is studying the impact of these closures and will prepare a report with recommendations for the government.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss science in Canadian agriculture, focusing on the closure of research centers. Witnesses included researchers, industry representatives, and a member of the Nova Scotia legislature, all expressing concerns about the impact of these closures on agricultural innovation and regional economies. Speakers emphasized the importance of regionally relevant research, the need for consultation with industry stakeholders, and the potential loss of long-term data and expertise. They also highlighted the role of public research in supporting sustainable agriculture and ensuring food security. Lori Oatway from Western Crop Innovations spoke about the importance of research for developing better crop varieties and responding to emerging threats. She highlighted the Lacombe Research and Development Centre's role in innovation for the beef, forage, and cereal industries, emphasizing the economic impact of its closure on the local community. Serge Buy, from the Agri-Food Innovation Council, stressed the need for more consultation with industry before making cuts and suggested a national strategy for agriculture and food research. Sophie Martel, from Centre d'expertise et de transfert en agriculture biologique et de proximité, discussed the challenges facing Canadian agriculture, such as climate change and pesticide resistance, and the importance of public research in addressing these issues. Committee members questioned the witnesses about the process and priorities behind the closures, the impact on research and innovation, and potential solutions for the future. There was discussion about the need for better coordination between the public and private sectors, as well as the importance of stable, predictable funding for agricultural research. A motion was passed to invite the minister to appear on March 24 to discuss the estimates for an hour, followed by officials for the second hour. Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin, a member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, raised concerns about the closure of the Nappan research farm and its impact on Atlantic Canada's agriculture research. She emphasized the importance of location-specific research and the potential loss of expertise and knowledge transfer. Blaine Calkins, a member of Parliament, discussed the accomplishments of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre and the negative impact of its closure on the local community and the broader agricultural sector. Rickey Yada and Heather Bruce from the Deans Council - Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine spoke about the importance of science, technology, and innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector and the need for continued investment in research. The committee approved three budgets related to studies on science in Canadian agriculture, the closure of research centers, and supplementary estimates. The meeting adjourned after discussing the importance of strategic partnerships between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments on agriculture.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss changes to the Farm Credit Canada Act, specifically clause 223 of a proposed law. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Heath MacDonald, spoke about the importance of Farm Credit Canada (FCC) in supporting farmers and the agri-food industry. He highlighted a new $7 billion investment in the sector by 2030 and emphasized the need for regular legislative reviews of FCC to ensure it meets the evolving needs of farmers. The committee also discussed the closure of agricultural research centers and the allocation of funds to the on-farm climate action fund. John Barlow, a Conservative member, raised concerns about FCC sharing private information with the government during the Emergencies Act and questioned the effectiveness of the on-farm climate action fund. He also criticized the closure of agricultural research centers. Other committee members questioned the minister about trade with China, the Canada Grocery Code, and the protection of agricultural land. The minister responded to questions about research funding, trade relationships, and support for farmers. Justine Hendricks, CEO of Farm Credit Canada, along with other FCC executives, presented on FCC's role in supporting the agriculture industry. She highlighted FCC's investments in ag-tech innovation and its commitment to helping farmers succeed. Committee members questioned Hendricks about FCC's spending on consultants, a loan to Aspire Food, and the sharing of client information with the government. Hendricks defended FCC's practices and emphasized its commitment to supporting small and medium-sized businesses in rural communities. The committee discussed ways to support young farmers, women in agriculture, and innovation in the sector. They also explored the possibility of partnering with Agriculture Canada to offer more universal access to short-term cash flow programs. The committee agreed to send a letter stating they have no recommendations or amendments regarding the proposed changes to the Farm Credit Canada Act.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss science in Canadian agriculture and the closure of research centers. The meeting focused on the impact of budget cuts on the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which needs to save $154.7 million by 2028-29. This includes closing some research facilities and farms. Lawrence Hanson, the Deputy Minister, explained that the cuts are necessary to make the department more efficient and focus on core goals. He said that older research facilities are expensive to maintain, so consolidating research into fewer locations will save money in the long run. He emphasized that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will still be the biggest agricultural research organization in the country, with research centers in every province. Committee members, including Andrew Scheer and Blaine Calkins, voiced concerns about the closures, particularly the Indian Head research farm and the Lacombe Research and Development Centre. They questioned whether the savings were worth the loss of research capabilities and the impact on local farmers. Some members suggested that other programs, like the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, should be cut instead. The committee requested more information from the Deputy Minister, including an analysis of the impact of closing the research centers and a breakdown of the costs associated with each center. The committee also discussed the importance of working with universities, producers, and farmers to address challenges like climate change and food security. No specific decisions were made during the meeting, but the discussion highlighted the concerns about the future of agricultural research in Canada.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss reference prices in the beef and pork supply chains, focusing on challenges faced by Canadian producers and processors. Witnesses from Beretta Farms, True North Foods, and Viandes Lafrance shared their experiences and suggestions for improving the industry. They emphasized the need for greater price transparency, support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and addressing labor shortages. Thomas Beretta of Beretta Farms highlighted labor shortages and the impact of the agri-food pilot program's closure on their ability to retain skilled foreign workers. He also expressed concern over the closure of the Lacombe Research and Development Centre. Calvin Vaags from True North Foods discussed the influence of U.S. pricing on Canadian markets and the need for adjustments to reflect Canadian conditions. He stressed the importance of supporting cow-calf producers and small beef packers to ensure food security. Indira Moudi of Viandes Lafrance focused on the structural imbalances in the Canadian beef system that disadvantage independent processors. She proposed a safety net and liquidity support mechanisms to stabilize independent processors. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of the beef and pork industries, including pricing transparency, regulatory burdens, and the role of government support. The witnesses agreed on the need for mandatory price reporting and a Canadian reference price that reflects the realities of Canadian processing. They also discussed the challenges of competing with larger, often foreign-owned, companies and the importance of supporting local producers and processors. Representatives from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC) provided insights into their roles in supporting the pork and beef sectors. Donald Boucher from AAFC discussed the integration of Canadian and North American supply chains and the government's support for industry-led efforts to improve price transparency. Diane Allan from CFIA outlined the agency's efforts to safeguard Canada's food supply and protect animal health. The committee also discussed a motion to undertake an emergency study to examine the government’s rationale and decision-making process related to the closure of multiple Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centers and experimental farms. The committee agreed to hold a subcommittee meeting to discuss the motion further and to develop a work plan for future studies.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss reference prices in the beef and pork supply chains. The committee heard from representatives from the Canadian Pork Council, Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Meat Council, and an agricultural economist, Gilbert Lavoie. The pork industry representatives argued for a mandatory price reporting system similar to the one in the United States. They said this would help Canadian producers better understand market prices, manage price differences with the U.S., and ensure fair negotiations with processors. They believe more transparency would benefit the entire value chain and attract investment in the sector. The Canadian Cattle Association discussed the importance of trade and competitiveness, as well as the impact of government regulations on production costs. They highlighted the need to align Canadian regulations with U.S. standards to lower costs and encourage domestic processing. The Canadian Meat Council focused on the challenges faced by processors, including livestock supply shortages, tariffs, labor shortages, and rising input costs. They asked the government to address these challenges by compensating processors for losses due to tariffs, prioritizing trade diversification, aligning feed ban programs with U.S. standards, and addressing labor shortages. Gilbert Lavoie explained how the U.S. mandatory price reporting system works and how it has helped American producers. He suggested that a similar system in Canada would lead to greater price transparency and a more accurate picture of the Canadian pork industry. During the meeting, committee members discussed the importance of food security, the impact of trade agreements, and the need to support Canadian producers. A motion was passed to invite the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the President and CEO of Farm Credit Canada to a future meeting to discuss budget implementation. There was also discussion about the closure of agricultural research facilities and the need for a strategic vision for science in agriculture. The committee agreed to continue its study on reference prices at the next meeting and set a deadline for submitting witness lists.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss supplementary spending plans for 2025-26. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Heath MacDonald, gave an update on his recent trips to British Columbia and China to promote Canadian agriculture and address trade issues. He highlighted investments in programs like AgriStability and AgriMarketing, as well as support for young people in agriculture. Committee members questioned the minister on topics ranging from strychnine approval to Farm Credit Canada expenses and supply management. Conservative members pressed the Minister on the slow approval of strychnine for pest control, the financial losses from a failed cricket farm, and the travel expenses and leadership of the Farm Credit Canada CEO. They also raised concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on farmers. Liberal members focused on the government's commitment to supply management, support for the pork industry, and investments in agricultural infrastructure. They also discussed the importance of supporting small producers and addressing climate change. Bloc Québécois members questioned the Minister about advance payments for farmers and the government's intentions regarding the Canadian General Standards Board and organic standards. They also raised concerns about fraudulent poultry imports. The Minister committed to looking into these issues and working with stakeholders. Overall, the meeting covered a wide range of issues affecting the agriculture sector in Canada, with committee members seeking assurances and updates from the Minister on various government policies and programs. The committee agreed to move in camera to discuss other matters.