Agriculture and Agri-Food

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 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.

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.