Evidence of meeting #28 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
We worked very closely with our provincial colleagues to put an initiative in place to support the cattle sector, in particular. It was related to feed costs that increased significantly due to the drought. We moved very quickly to try to support them.
Obviously, we have the rest of the suite of programs—AgriStability, AgriInvest and AgriInsurance—for those times of need.
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
Another issue in our province would be under AgriStability and the whole-of-farm reference margins. Most of our farms are smaller farms and multicrop farms. If they have a good year in one crop, but it's offset by a bad year in another crop, AgriStability won't be used.
Is there any thought to how we could address that for the smaller farms and multicrop farms?
Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
That's a very good question. You're correct that small farms are traditionally more diversified. They often have off-farm income. In a sense, they self-insure. Because they are diversified, they may trigger AgriStability payments less frequently. Their losses may be less deep, so the amount of compensation they receive might be less, given that they're diversified.
I think it speaks in part to what the intent of the program is. Is the intent to deal with events that significantly impact their operations and threaten their viability, or is it to provide them with some additional support on an annual basis? I think there are discussions ongoing on how we can continue to improve the suite. Small business is one area we're looking at.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
If I might, Mr. Chair, I'll just add as well—
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
You mentioned that some of these farms have off-farm income. That's usually because they need that to subsidize their farming income to survive. If they had the proper programs, they wouldn't have to have off-farm income.
Thank you very much.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Sébastien Lemire
That's a good conclusion. Thank you.
I propose that the Bloc Québécois have its turn to speak only at the end, if that suits the committee, and that we move on. That way, if Mr. Barlow ever arrives, I'll be able to speak from my usual chair. Otherwise, I propose that I take my turn only at the end.
Everyone seems to be in agreement. That works.
Mr. Bonk, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you very much for being here.
I'm just going to start my questioning with strychnine because, as we know, there's a huge problem with the gopher—or Richardson's ground squirrel—population in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The population has exploded since strychnine was banned by the Liberal government.
I'm just wondering if you could tell the committee how much damage has been done, in dollar terms, by these gopher infestations.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I would say that the witnesses you have before you today wouldn't necessarily be the ones who would have the specific information related to what the potential costs might be, but it is something that we could look into and follow up with the committee on.
Conservative
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay. According to the government's communications department, the CBC, it's $800 million of damage since the ban was put on. There's a real concern in Saskatchewan and Alberta that this could trigger payments through AgriStability and AgriRecovery if states of emergency are declared. This is something that's really of concern to farmers in our area, so we're hoping that the government will put due attention on this because we're running out of time. On my way to the airport to get here, I saw some gophers out. We have about a month left in which strychnine will be effective. This could be huge costs.
Right now, we know that the federal government subsidizes crop insurance by 60%. That is something that's being paid by all Canadians due to this government's ban on strychnine. Hopefully that message can get brought forward to the ministry.
I'm just wondering whether the closures of the scientific centres will be brought up at the FPT meeting in Halifax that's coming up.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
As to whether or not provincial-territorial ministers would raise it, I wouldn't be able to anticipate that. What I can say is that, at the officials level, we have had discussions to explain what has happened in terms of the site closures. There is ongoing dialogue and conversations, particularly in the provinces where there are closures, to ensure that there's alignment. There are ongoing discussions about areas, particularly where there are shared facilities or areas of research that have been done in common, to make sure that there are discussions and a path forward on those things.
Conservative
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Do you know if there have been preliminary talks with the provinces?
Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
There have been some initial conversations, the details of which I wouldn't be familiar with for each one. However, certainly any time there is, from the Government of Canada's position, a disposition of property, there's a very lengthy consultation and discussion process and a very specific order of things that need to happen over a period of time. I think it was indicated to this committee in the previous appearance by our deputy minister as well that we're making sure we are keeping all impacted parties well informed and are having discussions with them on an ongoing basis.
Conservative
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to turn my time over to Mr. Epp.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you.
Welcome here. Thanks for coming.
Obviously, we're kicking off the study of the whole CAP renewal program. BRM is one of those components. There are four more to go. I have some stuff. We'll get to science and innovation but probably not today.
I want to start on the BRM. As has already been put on the record, crop insurance, AgriInsurance, is the largest component of that from the spending. It has probably been the most successful as well, given its longevity compared to the other programs. That's where I want to start, and very shortly we will get into the weeds as well.
AgriInsurance is one of the first that really addresses risk on the farm. It's used by producers to address their risk. Governments, when they also deliver those programs, take on risk. From an AAFC perspective, it's funded sixty-forty with the provinces. With most crop insurance plans, it's sixty-forty, government-to-producer, so it's 36:24:40, with the government picking up the admin.
For AAFC, is the risk split for delivering the programs...? In theory, we're dealing with weather risk, market risk and all sorts of other risks that impact the program design. Does AAFC feel that it also carries 60% of the risk of the delivery of the program?
Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
As I mentioned earlier, we ensure that the programs are actuarially sound. The idea is that the premium should cover the indemnities. In the past, the majority of provinces built up a surplus. The prairie provinces, in particular, in the last two drought years, got hit fairly hard. Some provinces purchased reinsurance with third party multinational reinsurers, so they do either a stop-loss or a quota share. The federal government can also offer a backstop, so we can act as a reinsurer for the provinces.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I know my time is up, but I will continue exactly on this theme in the next round.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Sébastien Lemire
That works. It will be in five minutes, after the Liberal Party round.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Emma Harrison Liberal Peterborough, ON
To touch on what my colleague Mr. Paul Connors said, I'm a small producer. I do this job so I don't lose my farm. My husband is a paramedic. In the history of my family, no one has ever been able to access AgriStability because we are small producers. One of those pieces may seem like a small loss, but it's tremendous when you own a small farm and go through a drought. We experienced one in Ontario last summer. We're still dealing with the consequences of that. We just purchased hay—really terrible hay—for an incredibly expensive price because we were about to run out. Who knows when we'll be able to start grazing again?
We say these things within the government and within the bureaucracy of the government, but it's one of those things that are hard to hear sometimes, because the reality on the ground is vastly different. It's challenging. The complexity I hear about from my neighbours, who don't even attempt to access AgriStability or any of those other programs.... It's becoming harder every day to remain a farm in Canada, especially on the smaller end of things, even though your biggest desire is to support the local food economy and the overall food system across Canada.
What support can we provide for the smaller farmers, so they're able to access these programs more easily? The complexity is a lot, and sometimes they just don't have the time and energy to put into applying to these programs. What could we do long term to save the viability of our agricultural system in Canada, which relies on small producers, just as it does on our larger producers?
Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thank you for the question. I can start on an answer, then see if my colleague wants to jump in.
I think there is an understanding that—based on the diversity of sizes and operations across the country—realities are very different for different types and sizes of farms and operations. As mentioned in the opening comments, we're continually looking at things we should be thinking about and considering for improvement, going forward. We are actively having conversations. Of course, any potential changes to the business risk suite of programs, or anything within the cost-shared or the development of the next framework, is done in collaboration with provinces and territories. We have ongoing discussions with our colleagues, as well, to look at some of these things.
I would also say that it's important to consider the totality of the BRM suite. I know, oftentimes, there are issues raised about the effectiveness or applicability of AgriStability in particular. The important thing we want to make sure we're considering is how the whole suite operates together, and how it supports, in different ways, different types of operations and sizes of operations. That's one opportunity for us to look at.
The other thing I'd say is that the rest of the programs fall under the current sustainable CAP, which can also be things applied for by smaller producers. When we're trying to look at these things, we're looking at them with a very holistic point of view.
Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Maybe I can quickly weigh in on that.
The programs have continued to evolve. In 2023, we increased the compensation rate from 70% to 80%. Then we subsequently announced that we were increasing it from 80% to 90% for the 2025 year. We've introduced a new model for AgriStability, so producers can file on a cash basis rather than on an accrual basis.
We're constantly looking at ways to try to evolve the suite to meet the needs of producers. As Mr. Jurgutis mentioned, we're going to have, again, discussions with the provinces up until 2028 in order to see how we can continue to meet the needs of producers.
Liberal
Emma Harrison Liberal Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
During the 43rd Parliament, the committee recommended that the federal government address gaps in provincial AgriInsurance plans, particularly for the horticultural sector. The committee reiterated this recommendation in the 2024 report.
Why do some horticultural producers continue to find it difficult to access AgriInsurance in their province?
Director General, Business Risk Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
The provinces are responsible for designing and delivering the programs. We work very closely with them, and we encourage them to broaden the product offerings to their farmers and ranchers. We ensure that the programs are sound, but it's the provinces that design the actual products that are available to producers.
Liberal
Emma Harrison Liberal Peterborough, ON
When we compare our programs to the U.S. farm bill or the EU's common agricultural policy, where do we fall in line in terms of being competitive in the offerings that the U.S., Brazil and the European Union provide to their farmers? I know the U.S. does a lot of direct-to-producer, and it's very costly.
Could you explain where we stand in comparison to that, some things that we could learn and make adjustments for and the benefits and weaknesses of those programs?