Agriculture and Agri-Food

This meeting of the Agriculture and Agri-Food committee focused on Canada's new national food security strategy and various challenges facing the agriculture sector. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Heath MacDonald, presented the strategy, which aims to give Canadians more choice, control, and affordable, locally produced food, backed by a $3.2 billion investment. Key parts of the strategy include speeding up approvals for farm products like fertilizers, helping young farmers with loans, investing in controlled environment agriculture, and supporting food processors. Committee members raised several concerns. Conservative members, including John Barlow, questioned why the government hasn't removed a 35% tariff on Russian fertilizer imports and pressed the Minister on the impact of the Alto high-speed rail project on farmland. They also criticized cuts to agricultural research centers, arguing it harms food security. Bloc Québécois member Sébastien Lemire echoed concerns about research cuts and the Alto project, and asked about protecting supply management in trade deals like Mercosur. Minister MacDonald defended the strategy, stating that the research cuts were operational, not scientific, and that the government is working to address regulatory delays for farmers. He also mentioned that the Alto rail route is not finalized, making it hard to assess the full impact on farms. He assured the committee that protecting supply management remains a priority and that the government is not jeopardizing Canadian health with pesticide decisions. Liberal committee members, such as Kent MacDonald, Paul Connors, and Marianne Dandurand, asked about the concrete actions of the strategy, support for regional food hubs, and the importance of the African swine fever zoning arrangement with Japan. Giovanna Mingarelli asked how the strategy supports rural agricultural regions and helps farmers with rising costs. The Minister highlighted efforts to increase competition in the grocery sector and reduce reliance on imports. In procedural matters, the committee voted to extend the deadline for submitting recommendations on a study about business risk management to September 30. A motion to reopen debate on the Alto high-speed rail project was defeated.

This meeting of the Agriculture and Agri-Food committee focused on food security in Canada. The committee heard from several groups about the challenges and opportunities in ensuring Canadians have access to affordable and reliable food. Key speakers included Sylvain Charlebois from Agri-Food Analytics Lab, who argued that Canada doesn't have a food security problem but rather a competitiveness and productivity issue. He recommended making food affordability a key factor in federal policy, reviewing internal trade barriers, and setting national food security goals. Jeff Harrison from Grain Farmers of Ontario highlighted the rising costs for farmers, especially for fertilizer, and the impact of tariffs on Russian and Belarusian fertilizer. He also raised concerns about the proposed Alto high-speed rail project affecting farmland. Renaud Brossard from the Montreal Economic Institute suggested that government involvement in food distribution, like food hubs, is not effective and that reducing tariffs and trade barriers would be more beneficial. Later in the meeting, witnesses from CropLife Canada, Food and Beverage Canada, and the Food Processing Council of Quebec discussed the recently announced national food security strategy. Gregory Kolz and Émilie Bergeron from CropLife Canada welcomed the strategy's focus on innovation and regulatory improvements for pesticides and plant breeding. Kristina Farrell from Food and Beverage Canada and Sylvie Cloutier from the Food Processing Council of Quebec emphasized the need for more domestic food processing. They called for targeted investments, solutions for labour shortages, and reduced regulatory burdens. They also discussed the new $1 billion fund through Farm Credit Canada, with some skepticism about whether it would be new grants or just more loans. During the meeting, a motion was put forward by John Barlow (Conservative) to study the impact of the Alto high-speed rail project on farmers. After debate, the motion to adjourn the discussion on this topic was passed, meaning the committee will not study the high-speed rail project at this time. Committee members expressed concerns about the project's impact on farmland and farmers' mental health, while others argued it was too early to study as the route was not finalized.

This committee meeting focused on how to make sure everyone in Canada has enough good food to eat, especially with all the changes happening in the world. The committee heard from groups that help people get food and support local farming. Joshua Smee from Food First NL talked about how important "food hubs" are in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. These hubs help small farmers sell their food to more people and to bigger buyers like schools and hospitals. He said the government should give money to these hubs for a few years so they can get started and become strong. Lori Nikkel from Second Harvest Canada explained that a lot of food is wasted in Canada, even though many people don't have enough to eat. She said we need to process more food in Canada instead of sending raw food out and buying processed food back. Justin Cantafio from the Atlantic Food Action Coalition stressed that Canada grows enough food, but the systems to get it to people are broken. He suggested investing in local food processing and storage, and using government buying power to support local farms. Later in the meeting, Karen Hoeft from the Salvation Army explained that more and more people, including those who used to donate, are needing help with food because of rising costs. She asked for a steady fund from the government to help local groups buy food. Alex Boyd from Greener Village talked about how his organization has seen a huge increase in people needing food, especially full-time workers and students. He highlighted their new center that will process fresh local food to reduce waste and help people. Jean-François Archambault from La Tablée des Chefs shared how his group rescues leftover food from hotels and events to feed people and teaches young people how to cook. He asked for clearer rules to make it easier to rescue food and for kitchen equipment manufacturers to help community groups get equipment at a lower cost. Committee members asked about how to get more local food to people, how to deal with the rising cost of food, and what the government's role should be. There was a strong call for the government to provide stable, long-term funding for local food initiatives and to encourage more local processing and buying. The idea of a tax credit for farmers who donate food was also discussed as a way to help both farmers and food banks.

The committee met to discuss how Canada can ensure its food supply remains strong, especially with challenges happening around the world. Witnesses shared their concerns and ideas on how to support Canadian farmers, food processors, and consumers. Farmers and growers from Quebec and across Canada spoke about the difficulties they face. They highlighted how a few large grocery chains control most of the market, making it hard for local products to get to consumers. They also pointed out that Canada's farmers receive less government support compared to other countries and face unfair competition from imports. One witness shared the success of a local food voucher program that helps vulnerable families buy fresh, local food and supports farmers, asking for federal funding to expand it. Concerns were also raised about a proposed high-speed train project that could take away valuable farmland. Representatives from food manufacturers and a policy institute emphasized the need for Canada to process more of its own food, rather than just growing it and sending it elsewhere. They asked the government to invest in modernizing food factories, simplify regulations, and improve transportation for food products. They also called for better ways to help farmers manage risks and for more support for new farming technologies. The head of the new grocery code of conduct explained that its purpose is to create fairer business dealings between grocery stores and their suppliers, which could encourage more investment in Canada's food sector. However, she clarified that the code is not designed to directly lower food prices. Committee members discussed the need for more competition in the grocery industry and how to make it easier for small local producers to sell their products to larger stores. While no specific decisions were made during this meeting, the committee is continuing its study on food security. The witnesses provided many recommendations for the government to consider, including increasing financial support for farmers, modernizing regulations, and strengthening local food supply chains.

The Agriculture and Agri-Food committee continued its study on how global problems affect Canada's food supply, hearing from farmers, seed producers, and food bank representatives about various challenges and solutions. Committee members listened to concerns about technology, farming rules, land use, and food waste, all of which impact how easily Canadians can get food. Donald Killorn from the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture explained that many Canadians don't have enough food, even though Canada grows a lot. He suggested a national plan to keep farm data and artificial intelligence tools under Canadian control, arguing this would help farmers make better decisions and improve food security. Tim Livingstone, an organic farmer, highlighted the difficulties faced by new farmers, such as too many government rules, high fuel costs, and problems getting products into large grocery stores. He also stressed the importance of research for organic farming. Karine Bercier, a seed producer, emphasized the need to protect valuable farmland from development projects, like the proposed high-speed rail, which causes stress and uncertainty for farmers and discourages investment. She also pointed out that investing in seed genetics is crucial for future food production. The committee heard that farmers are facing rising costs for things like fuel and fertilizer, making it harder for them to stay in business. Later, Tina Bishop and Fred Marshall from the Community Food Sharing Association in Newfoundland and Labrador described how their province's geography, high living costs, and limited local food production lead to food insecurity. They showcased a community gardening program and asked for a new, larger warehouse to help distribute food more effectively. Christian Bibeau from Moisson Estrie in Quebec spoke about the huge problem of food waste in Canada, where nearly half of all food is thrown out. He suggested solutions like encouraging farmers to donate food with better tax incentives and supporting local food production to reduce reliance on imports. No specific decisions were made by the committee, as this was part of an ongoing study. However, the witnesses provided many recommendations, including protecting farmland, investing in agricultural technology and research, streamlining government regulations for farmers, and finding ways to reduce food waste and support food banks. A committee member noted that the Minister would be invited to a future meeting to discuss these issues further.

This committee meeting focused on how to improve Canada's farming industry, especially in the face of changing weather and global issues. The committee heard from three groups about ways to make farming more stable and less risky for farmers. Dr. Catherine Filejski from the Canadian Animal Health Institute talked about the importance of preventing animal diseases. She explained that current programs often pay farmers only after a disaster, which is too late. She suggested making it easier and faster for Canadian farmers to get new animal medicines that are already approved in other trusted countries like the U.S. and Europe. This would help farmers protect their animals and avoid huge losses. Ashley Honsberger from the Canadian Alliance for Net-Zero Agri-food highlighted the need for farming programs to support long-term solutions, like improving soil health and water management. She said that farmers are dealing with more extreme weather and need help to adopt new practices that make their farms stronger. She also mentioned that it's hard for farmers to find all the different funding and support they need, suggesting a more coordinated approach. Adeline Cohen Boulakia and Jean Caron from Équiterre focused on the critical issue of soil health. Mr. Caron, a professor, warned that poor soil health is costing Canada billions each year and is making farms less profitable. They recommended that farming programs should reward farmers who use good practices, like crop diversification, with lower insurance costs. They also suggested protecting and funding new ideas in farming and supporting local food sales to reduce waste and help farmers get fair prices. The committee members asked questions about soil compaction, the loss of research centers, and how to make sure programs are fair for all farmers.

This committee meeting was about how to better manage risks for Canadian farmers and food processors. The committee heard from representatives of the dairy, cattle, bison, and sheep industries about the challenges they face and how government programs could be improved. Key speakers included Mathieu Frigon and Chathurika Dayananda from the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, who highlighted that risk management needs to go beyond the farm and address issues like complicated regulations, outdated dairy standards, and the need for more research funding. Stephen Duff, chief economist for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness, spoke about the wide variety of crops in Ontario and how many smaller farms don't have good tools to manage risks. He stressed the need for better data collection and a more complete approach to risk management. Élise Gosselin from Novalait emphasized that innovation and research are key to preventing risks, not just reacting to them, and called for stable, long-term funding for agricultural research. Later, Scott Yule from the Canadian Bison Association explained that bison producers need better access to risk management programs like AgriStability, which currently doesn't fit their unique farming style. He also noted that bison producers lack price insurance. Brayden Schmidt from the Canadian Cattle Youth Council spoke about the importance of strong risk management programs for young farmers and asked for government help with Livestock Price Insurance premiums. Corlena Patterson from the Canadian Sheep Federation made bold suggestions, including creating a special fund for new farmers and for products where Canada doesn't produce enough for its own needs, like lamb. She also pushed for better insurance for livestock and improved meat inspection rules. Committee members discussed ways to improve existing programs like AgriStability, including making payments more timely and increasing coverage. They also talked about the importance of data collection and the potential for new types of insurance. There was a strong focus on how international trade agreements, like CUSMA and Mercosur, could impact Canadian livestock producers. The committee also briefly discussed the mental health challenges faced by farmers and the need for more support. No specific decisions were made, but the committee will continue its study on business risk management programs, with a request to invite the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to a future meeting before the summer break.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss how to improve programs that help farmers manage business risks. Committee members heard from experts about the challenges farmers face and how current support programs could be made better. Representatives from MNP LLP, a large agriculture advisory firm, explained that while current risk management programs are good, they haven't kept up with modern farming. They suggested making payments faster, making program rules clearer, and offering more financial education for farmers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) highlighted that farmers face more severe and varied risks today, like climate change and global market changes. The OFA strongly recommended restoring the main farm income support program, AgriStability, to cover 85% of income losses, as the current 70% level is seen as only for disasters. They also want farmers to be able to withdraw money from another program, AgriInvest, without paying taxes, to encourage more investment in their farms. Sarah Delisle from the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec focused on how climate change affects farming. She shared how their "on-farm climate plan" tool helps farmers understand and prepare for climate risks. She stressed that farmers are most concerned with adapting to climate change for economic reasons. She also noted that current programs need to be more flexible and updated to match new realities, like changing planting times, especially in northern regions. She emphasized the critical need for more research and financial support for farmers to adopt new practices. Committee members discussed various ideas, including whether to link different support programs, the role of reinsurance, and how to simplify programs for all farm sizes. There was general agreement that programs need to be designed for the future, not just the present, given how quickly agriculture is changing. While no specific decisions were made, the discussions provided many recommendations for improving Canada's business risk management programs to better support a strong and adaptable agriculture sector.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management (BRM) programs in Canada's agriculture sector. Witnesses from various agricultural sectors, including organic farming, cattle feeding, and greenhouse vegetable production, shared their perspectives on the current BRM programs and suggested improvements. They talked about how the programs don't always fit the realities of modern agriculture, especially for organic farmers and greenhouse growers. They also discussed the need for programs to address risks beyond just crop failure, like trade issues, energy costs, and labor shortages. Guillaume Camirand and Marianne Bergeron from Coop Agrobio du Québec talked about the challenges organic farmers face with current programs, like how AgriStability doesn't account for longer crop rotations and transition periods. David Sullivan from Global Ag Risk Solutions suggested allowing farmers to choose enterprise-level accounting for AgriStability and creating a federal reinsurance system for private BRM products. Janice Tranberg and Brad Deleeuw from the National Cattle Feeders' Association asked for an increase to the AgriStability cap and making livestock price insurance a permanent, subsidized program. Other witnesses, like Scott Shiels from Grain Millers Canada, talked about the need for organic-specific crop insurance and better recognition of preventative risk management. Richard Lee from the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers said that current BRM programs don't address the unique risks faced by greenhouse growers, such as trade volatility and energy costs. The committee members asked questions about how to improve the programs to better support farmers and ensure the long-term resilience of Canada's agriculture sector. They also discussed the importance of research and data collection to inform program design and address emerging challenges. The committee acknowledged the need for changes to the BRM programs to better support farmers and ensure the long-term resilience of Canada's agriculture sector. Witnesses were encouraged to submit frameworks for pilot programs and specific recommendations for improving the existing suite of programs. The committee also discussed the importance of research and data collection to inform program design and address emerging challenges.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector. Witnesses from the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council, CropLife Canada, Farmers for Climate Solutions, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture shared their perspectives. The discussion covered topics like trade risks, biosecurity, regulatory efficiency, and the need for programs that support resilience and innovation. Committee members explored ways to improve existing programs and address gaps in coverage, particularly for smaller and diversified farms. The committee also heard about the potential of public-private partnerships to enhance risk management tools. Tyler Fulton from the Canadian Cattle Association emphasized the importance of policies that encourage growth in the national cow herd and expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of the Mercosur trade agreement on Canadian beef producers. René Roy from the Canadian Pork Council stressed the need for agile financial tools and permanent animal health protections, highlighting the importance of biosecurity measures to prevent African swine fever. Pierre Petelle from CropLife Canada advocated for a stronger focus on policy outcomes, regulatory modernization, and science-based decision-making to support the growth and competitiveness of the agri-food sector. Karen Ross from Farmers for Climate Solutions called for a new vision for risk management that balances reactive responses with proactive investments in resilience-building practices. She suggested rewarding farmers who reduce risk and ensuring that programs don't discourage sustainable practices. Lysa Porth from Agi3 Limited proposed a more modern, layered public-private risk management framework to improve choice, flexibility, and performance for farmers. Richard Carey from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture highlighted the challenges faced by smaller farms in accessing and benefiting from existing programs. Committee members discussed the need for programs to be more responsive to regional realities and adaptable to smaller industries. They also explored ways to simplify program requirements and improve communication with producers. The committee agreed to provide drafting instructions for a letter outlining the committee's overall vision and recommendations for the next partnership, and set a deadline for submitting witness lists for the upcoming study on food security. Overall, the meeting highlighted the need for a comprehensive and adaptable approach to business risk management that supports the long-term viability and sustainability of Canada's agriculture sector. The committee acknowledged the importance of addressing both immediate challenges and long-term goals to ensure food security and economic growth.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to discuss business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector. The committee heard from representatives of fruit and vegetable growers, young farmers, and Quebec market gardeners, as well as experts from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and the Deans Council of Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine. Witnesses representing fruit and vegetable growers highlighted the shrinking profit margins and rising debt ratios in their sector, emphasizing the need for stronger risk management programs and specific support to compete with the United States and Mexico. They called for increased funding, lower triggers for AgriStability, and better adaptation of AgriInsurance to horticultural realities. Representatives from young farmers' organizations focused on the challenges of farm succession and access to land, proposing a "patient capital" program with low-interest loans for young farmers. Quebec market gardeners emphasized the volatility of farm-gate prices and the need for flexible programs adapted to regional realities. Experts discussed the need to modernize Canada's approach to agricultural risk management, emphasizing innovation, consistent coverage, and better integration of programs into proactive risk management plans. They suggested improving market transparency, enhancing predictability through rules-based program delivery, and encouraging voluntary risk-sharing across the value chain. The committee discussed the importance of research and development in reducing business risk, as well as the potential impacts of government decisions to close agricultural research centers. Committee members questioned witnesses on various topics, including the effectiveness of current risk management programs, the challenges faced by young farmers, and the impact of climate change on agriculture. The committee also discussed the potential for cross-compliance measures in agricultural programs and the importance of maintaining a strong trading relationship with the United States. No specific decisions were made during the meeting, but the discussion will inform the committee's ongoing study of business risk management programs.

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.