Agriculture Committee on March 24th, 2026

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

I'm going to start off by asking about measures that may be in the next policy framework to deal with farm succession. It's quite obvious that as we look at an aging population of farmers, some of us have reinvented ourselves here on Parliament Hill, but we all can't do that. There has to be a transition of farms. There has to be generational renewal. It's probably more important now than ever as the farms get larger and the operations sometimes require several operators to be successful going forward.

I look at the next policy framework, from 2028 to 2033, and I just wonder: Are those considerations getting built in by the framers of this policy, in terms of succession planning? Provinces do things. They have new entry programs and they have new farmer programs, but they are kind of just at the tip of the iceberg. The actual requirements for young people to enter the industry have never required more capital or more investment.

Can you just speak to what's being done?

[Steven Jurgutis]

Thank you for the question.

There are maybe a few things to consider in this context. Recently, over maybe the last six months to a year, some changes have been made in terms of succession planning and capital gains that I think have been quite favourable for the farming sector. We're hopeful that those are going to be able to help as well.

Certainly, as we have conversations with provinces, territories and stakeholders, it is something that is raised quite often. As you rightly state, there are concerns about capital costs as well as the implications of being able to transfer to the next generation. I would say there are a few things that we want to be considering within the next framework.

One is that in the current framework, for example, a large portion of the funding that's the cost-shared part, which is the $2.5 billion, is delivered by the provinces and territories. That fits inside a frame that we agreed to as part of the multilateral framework agreement, but then there's a lot of latitude for provinces and territories to decide exactly how they want to apportion it and what sorts of programs they want to have. They have a great deal of leeway. There seems to be more interest in considering that as part of the things we need to be thinking about going forward.

The other is that there are certain tax changes that have helped and have been more positive. The frameworks are only one part of what we, as the federal government, do within the agriculture space as well. It's the same thing for provinces—certainly the larger ones. It's not necessarily that it would be a deliberate, succinct thing within the framework, if that is an option. That will be something we'll discuss, but there are opportunities outside of that as well. For example, there's the work FCC is doing in this space and the ongoing considerations we have with them when we develop this framework.

I would say it's probably a multi-faceted issue to address. It's certainly something that's being raised and that we're looking at in the context of developing the next framework.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

For instance, when you look at the cost of acquiring acres of farmland, something that might work is new farmers getting more ITCs for buying up farmland, to allow for the intergenerational transfer. It would be a specific benefit to those individuals who are turning their farms over to a new generation of farmers. That's something that I would suggest you take a look at. It would help those retiring. It would help the new generation coming in.

I'll move on to something else. When we talk about the next policy framework, we know that innovation and technology adaption is probably going to be more important, again, than ever before, because we're vastly changing the way that we're operating our farms with AI adoption. Just with the way the equipment is set up today and the cost of the equipment, we have to be more productive.

I hope that the next policy framework will put more emphasis on innovation and adaption compared to.... We're getting there on climate. Farmers have been very quick to adapt climate resilience measures. We've been doing that for a couple of decades. My colleagues over there love these comments—but we have. We've been achieving things on that front, but what we need to do is help those farmers continue to be competitive. The only way they're going to do that is with more investment in technology and innovation on their farms.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Please give a very short answer.

[Steven Jurgutis]

Thank you for the question. It is certainly something that we're looking at. More than half of the federal-only portion of the current framework goes towards science and innovation. The sector is very interested in having a continuation of that kind of work, recognizing that things continue to evolve and change and there might need to be more consideration put into that space.

Again, we're having conversations with provinces and territories in terms of the cost-shared portion that they have. The science and innovation coming forward is certainly a big theme.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Thank you.

Mr. Epp, you have the floor.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'll move on to the next two soon, but let's diverge. You commented that over half of the federal APF is going towards science and innovation. In the actual results from 2024, you're actually showing a change of negative two in sector productivity when you've set a growth target of plus two. The sector's productivity is actually shrinking.

What plans are in the kettle right now to address that differential?

[Steven Jurgutis]

In terms of the complete science and innovation landscape within the country, a big portion of what we do within the AAFC, as the federal government, is through our current sustainable CAP, but that's only part of the picture.

It's true that in certain areas in terms of advancements for science and innovation, we haven't been, as a country, as advanced as we need to be. That's part of the reason why we're having conversations more actively with the private sector as well, to try to figure out where the places are that AAFC, in particular, and provinces and territories should come into play. What are the opportunities that exist for a greater degree of investment and advancement to be able to increase that productivity? I think it needs to be something that we consider in conjunction—not only as spending that's done amongst governments, but also as something that's done by the private sector and universities.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

One of the goals in the last APF was 1,100 peer-reviewed papers driving toward that productivity, yet only 129 were achieved. Now we're also talking about cuts in researchers and research stations. How do you reconcile that?

[Steven Jurgutis]

On the last comment, I know that you had the opportunity a number of weeks ago to speak with the deputy and others about some of those changes and cuts that were happening in terms of requirements under CER.

I would say that over time, the types of things that are measured—the metrics—also change. There's always consideration as we go into the multilateral framework agreements to, for example, how we are going to measure that we're reaching success. In previous instances, it might have been done for published papers. Things do evolve over time to try to figure out the most effective and efficient metrics to demonstrate progress in this space. Some of that does shift over time.

As per my earlier comments, science and innovation is emerging as a big theme in the early conversations that we're having about this next framework. I think a more coordinated approach that includes how we work with provinces and territories, as well as the private sector, is going to be key to that.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I have one last question on science and tech for today. Again, on the transfer of innovations and science developed within AAFC, the target was 500 to transfer to the sector; 111 were successful. There was an 80% failure rate. Is that a change in metrics? Where's the disconnect there?

[Steven Jurgutis]

I wouldn't be in a position to speak specifically to those activities.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Table it in writing.

[Steven Jurgutis]

It could be something that's tabled.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'm going to get back to BRM for a minute and pick up on a comment from my colleague from across the way.

In Newfoundland, as I understand it and if I heard you correctly, an AgriRecovery response was just tabled. That was in response largely to drought and a very dry situation. Is that correct?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Yes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

My understanding is that the AgriRecovery program's parameters were to address circumstances outside what would be covered under crop insurance or AgriInsurance—I still go back to the previous iterations—and AgriStability, or CAIS, if you want to go all the way back to 2003.

I understand the issue. Why are we now addressing through AgriRecovery things that, if programs worked well, would be addressed either through crop insurance or AgriStability? Why is there an AgriRecovery response?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, there was no forage insurance.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

If forage insurance and horticultural insurance—it came up earlier—have also been challenges in developing AgriInsurance programs, because of some of the very nature....

My understanding is that the next member of the suite to address that is AgriStability. AgriStability has worked well in operations that are singularly focused, or narrowly focused maybe. If you're highly in the beef sector or highly in the greenhouse sector, those variations.... Where it's really fallen down is in diversified operations, where the uptake has been much more reduced because, basically, producers are self-insuring to a certain level—or at least they view themselves as doing so.

Would you agree that this is a fairly accurate characterization?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Yes, AgriStability is “whole farm”. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the AgriRecovery response.... As you know, AgriRecovery is a framework.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Right.

[Francesco Del Bianco]

We looked at the situation with our colleagues in Newfoundland. We looked at all the program supports available to producers and then looked at whether they still had the capacity to manage that event. The conclusion was no, and that gave us the impetus to put forward a program.

As you mentioned, the more diversified a farm, the more there are offsets. In a sense, they're self-insuring, because they could have a significant loss in barley, but have a large cattle herd that offsets those losses. I think it speaks to the fundamental purpose of these programs. Are they—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I know, Mr. Chair. I've been good.

I just want to say I'm not opposed to AgriRecovery in Newfoundland. I know there have been similar responses. If AgriStability worked better, it would probably reduce the need for the AgriRecovery program. That's the point I want to get on the record, and we'll come to that in subsequent meetings.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Sébastien Lemire]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mrs. Chatel, you have the floor.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to ask you three questions all at once. If you don't have time to answer them, please submit your answers in writing. I must say that you are the first witnesses the committee has heard from on this important study.

First, if you had three priorities for the next framework, what would they be?

Second, you've already started discussions, and I know you're constantly consulting with stakeholders. What shortcomings in the current framework have been identified by the department, but also by stakeholders?

Lastly, what would you suggest to improve risk management programs?