Agriculture Committee on March 24th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. I'll remind you that you must keep the earpiece away from the microphone, avoid touching the shaft and the microphones when they're on, keep a safe distance from the microphone when speaking and avoid increasing the volume to the maximum, in order to preserve the hearing health of our interpreters.

Participants in the room who wish to speak can raise their hand, and we can give them a chance to speak. The same goes for those joining us on Zoom: they can use the “raise hand” feature.

Today is a very important meeting for us: We're beginning a new study on the business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector.

With us today are two officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Francesco Del Bianco, director general, business risk management directorate, and Steven Jurgutis, director general, policy, planning and integration directorate.

We will start with you, Mr. Jurgutis. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear today to speak about business risk management programs and the development of Canada's next agricultural policy framework.

Canadian producers and the agri-food sector operate in a complex and rapidly evolving environment. They face the pressures of global trade disruptions, extreme weather, market volatility, rising input costs and growing consumer expectations.

As you are aware, agriculture and agri-food is an area of shared jurisdiction in Canada. Agricultural frameworks represent decades of collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial governments. They set shared goals and align investments across key areas, helping to shape Canadian agricultural policy and provide the sector with programs that are responsive to both national priorities and regional realities.

The current framework, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, runs until 2028. It is organized across five pillars: climate change and the environment; science, research and innovation; market development and trade; building sector capacity, competitiveness and growth; and resiliency and public trust.

It includes two complementary sets of initiatives. First, strategic initiatives are delivered through both federal-only programs and FPT cost-shared programs that are designed and delivered by provinces and territories. Second, we have a suite of demand-driven business risk management programs. These include AgriInsurance, AgriStability, AgriInvest and AgriRecovery, which are cost-shared among federal, provincial and territorial governments, and the advance payments program, which is federal only.

BRM programs provide agricultural producers with protection against income and production losses, helping them manage risks that threaten the viability of their farms. They provide an array of complementary solutions for producers to select the approach that best helps them manage their specific risks. Improvements and changes to the BRM suite happen on an ongoing basis to respond to current context and priorities and, in the case of cost-shared programs, must be agreed upon by a minimum percentage of participating provinces and territories.

Recent enhancements to BRM programming include temporarily raising the AgriStability compensation rate and payment cap, making pasture-related feed costs an allowable expense under AgriStability, and temporarily increasing the advance payments program's interest-free limit to $250,000 for all producers for the 2025 program year and to $500,000 for canola for the 2025 and 2026 program years.

In line with the committee's interest, the long-term impacts of climate change on BRM and the integration of climate risk management and climate readiness into BRM programs has also been a priority.

BRM programs are statutory, demand-based programs, and do not automatically expire when the policy frameworks end. However, FPT discussions about BRM do occur as part of the development for each new framework.

As the next framework will run from 2028 to 2033, it will be important that it reflect and respond to current and emerging opportunities.

Factors such as global economic uncertainty and trade disruptions play a significant role in determining where our focus needs to be. We also have to be mindful that the agriculture and agri-food sector in Canada is diverse, with a wide range of interests that reflect regional and sectoral differences.

Collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners is foundational to the framework development process. Ministers and officials have been, and will be, meeting to advance the work, align priorities and build consensus on key decisions.

The first anticipated milestone for FPT ministers is to publish a policy statement to communicate their intentions for the next policy framework, or NPF.

Engagement is under way to inform the vision, priorities and objectives of the NPF. Minister MacDonald is hosting round tables across the country to hear from regional associations, producers and processors, and officials are engaging both in-person and through our online survey, and will be hosting a series of national sessions next month.

AAFC has a clear plan that includes meaningful engagement with stakeholders and a continued strong partnership with provinces and territories. We are committed to developing a framework that meets the challenges of the moment and positions Canada's agriculture sector for long-term growth, resiliency and success.

We look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Thank you very much.

For the first round, I'll give the floor to Mr. Gourde for six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to break the ice for this important study.

As an introduction, can you tell us how long the business risk management program has existed in Canada?

[Francesco Del Bianco, Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

AgriStability and AgriInvest have existed since 2008. They've since evolved. I can provide more details if you like.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

That's perfect.

It is a financial risk management program that doesn't necessarily take production costs into account, but it does consider the business's financial evolution and financial risks, regardless of the sector. That's pretty complex.

This program was implemented so that we'd comply with the World Trade Organization's standards, correct?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Yes, that's correct. In 2013, some changes were made in order to make us compliant. This is in accordance with our obligations under free trade agreements, as you mentioned.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Under international agreements, there are certain things that can be subsidized in agriculture, and there are other areas that require caution, particularly in the context of trade and related matters. Canada was keen to have a financial risk management program.

Was this program specially designed by the department for Canadians or was inspiration drawn from what other countries were doing?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

It's pretty unique to Canada. It's pretty unique because it's based on taxes paid by producers and farms. The United States has a program too, but it's not the same. This program is truly unique to Canada.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I'm going to ask another more technical question on the advance payments program, or APP, which is part of the risk management programs.

The APP is managed by a third party. Producers are entitled to receive a certain amount, determined based on their livestock and acreage. The amount isn't necessarily the same for every producer. However, rather than the money coming directly from their financial institution, it's managed by an association, depending on the province.

The problem here is that many producers in my riding do not have access to the APP because they have issues with their collateral. When a producer takes out a line of credit from a financial institution for their business, they must provide collateral—most often their livestock. However, under the APP, exactly the same collateral is required: the livestock. The producer is eligible for a certain amount. As a result, the APP may provide the producer with one third or 40% of the amount needed, because it's limited.

The APP is still worthwhile because the first portion of the advance is interest-free. Often, the average amount is so low that the entire amount is interest-free, but producers can't take advantage of this.

Why shouldn't producers be able to access this assistance through their financial institution? For example, let's say a producer is eligible for $80,000. They would apply directly to their financial institution instead of receiving payment through a third party. The federal government could transfer the funds directly to the financial institution. That way, many more producers could benefit. It must be said that the program is not universal, and that shocks me. We have a very good program, but it isn't universal.

Would it be possible to explore this solution during the study or when preparing the new strategic framework?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

We're always looking at ways to improve programs.

In this case, the law requires collateral for the loan to be approved. The idea is to give producers an interest-free loan so that they can sell their livestock at the best possible price. However, to do what you're proposing, changes would have to be made to the act.

We are looking at all that to see how we can improve things to meet farmers' needs.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Except it's more complicated than that. In reality, producers are stuck negotiating between the APP and their main creditor, which may be their bank or, in many cases, Farm Credit Canada. In Quebec, it's the Financière agricole du Québec or simply a line of credit from their financial institution. However, producers have to share their collateral. The first financial institution will not automatically want to give up its position in terms of collateral. APP administrators want to be first in line for collateral. They won't agree to be in second place for less than the amount the producer needs.

Take the example of a producer who has a $200,000 line of credit from their main creditor. The APP offers them an $80,000 interest-free loan, but they have to give up all their collateral to get the money. Since APP administrators don't want to take second place for the collateral, producers would lose their $200,000 line of credit, which they need. Producers need their entire line of credit. As a result, they turn down the chance of getting an $80,000 interest-free annual loan, which would represent considerable savings that they really need for their business.

You say that changes have to be made to the act. You can rest assured that we are ready to work with you on this. If you have any changes to propose to the act, I think we would be all ears. You could explain your proposals in writing and send them to the committee so that we can include them in our study report. That way, they would be properly noted and less likely to be forgotten by 2028. It's all very well to talk about things, but often they fall by the wayside or get neglected.

Please point our committee to the sticking point in the act. Tell us what changes you recommend to the act to allow producers with a line of credit with their bank to say that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is offering them a chance to get an $80,000 interest-free loan and ask the bank to apply it to their line of credit.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Give a short answer, please. If not, you can send a response in writing, as requested. What would you prefer?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

I could get back to you in writing, if that's okay. I can also answer you right now. It's up to you.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It would be better to respond in writing. Written words stay; words fly away.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Written responses are always welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

We will now go to the Liberals. Mr. Connors, you have the floor.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming out today to answer some of the questions about the BRM programs.

My first question is on AgriInsurance. I think that's the largest BRM program available. Who's responsible for the design and delivery of the insurance plans in the respective provinces?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

You're correct. AgriInsurance accounts for about two-thirds of the total spend of the collective federal, provincial and territorial contributions to the suite of BRM programs. AgriInsurance is delivered by the provincial Crown corporations. For example, some of the larger ones, such as the AFSC in Alberta and the SCIC in Saskatchewan, design and deliver the programs.

Actually, our department is the only department outside of OSFI that has a team of actuaries. We review the plan proposals to make sure they're actuarially sound. What that means is that we ensure that the premiums they're charging producers are sufficient to cover any future indemnities. Then we collectively subsidize the premium by 60%.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

In Newfoundland, I think it's the Newfoundland and Labrador government that actually designs and does that.

[Francesco Del Bianco]

That's correct.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

In 2024, the audit reported that the program's administration “was found to be efficient in only a few provinces”—I'm not so sure it was efficient in Newfoundland and Labrador—and recommended that the department “identify and address Program inefficiencies by facilitating collaboration between provinces to share promising design and delivery practices.”

Has that been addressed in the various regions?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Yes. I know that all the Crown corporations meet on a regular basis. There are also committees within federal and provincial governments. We have a committee where they meet to share best practices. They meet in person once a year.

The cost per contract varies largely by jurisdiction, but in part it's because there's a minimum cost to deliver these programs. As you know, Newfoundland and Labrador has fewer farmers than Alberta. If you look at it per farmer or per contract, there will be quite a large difference. The administrative costs can range from $400 to $7,000.

They are sharing best practices. They're also looking at how they can innovate. What we're seeing is that with all the data that's being generated on the farms and the use of satellite technology, they're starting to also explore how they can further improve the administration to reduce the cost for farmers and government.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Last year in Newfoundland and Labrador, we had a drought and it was significant. It impacted almost all commodities in our province. It was caused by climate change, of course.

What action, if any, has the department taken to ensure that AgriRecovery can meet the increased demand for disasters caused by climate change?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Actually, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we just recently announced an AgriRecovery response to help—

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much for that.