Evidence of meeting #30 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 producers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much.
That concludes our three rounds.
Mr. Miller, did you say that it was your last day as the executive director?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
On behalf of the committee, thank you for all the work you've done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
We'll take a short break. We'll be back in five minutes.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
I call this meeting back to order, colleagues.
I would like to take a minute for some comments to our new witnesses, and certainly we have a couple who have never been with us before. Mr. Burrows, welcome.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, or, members, before asking a question directly.
For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those who are on Zoom or teleconference, at the bottom of the screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation.
I remind everyone that all comments should be through the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee, the committee is resuming its study of business risk management programs in Canada's agricultural sector.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses here today. From the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères, we have Vincent Audet, chair, From the Grain Growers of Canada, we have Bruce Burrows, executive director, and Kate Sauser, policy manager. We also have Cedric MacLeod, the executive director of the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here.
To our witnesses, you will each have up to five minutes to make your presentation, followed by questions from our committee members.
We will now start with Mr. Audet for five minutes, please.
Vincent Audet Chair, Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Vincent Audet, and I represent the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères. The council brings together stakeholders across Quebec's forage industry, in production, harvesting, storage, processing and commercialization.
Perennial forage crops account for nearly half of all land dedicated to crop production in Quebec, providing the staple diet for the production of livestock essential to our food self-sufficiency. Thousands of farms make up these sectors, mostly family-owned small- and medium-sized businesses in every region, including remote ones. In 2024, the livestock industry alone contributed some $2 billion to GDP in Quebec. Add to that $2 billion for meat processing and $1.3 billion for milk processing.
Against that backdrop, business risk management programs are vital, particularly to deal with unpredictable weather, which will likely intensify because of climate change.
First, these programs need to cover more risks, from establishing the grassland to harvesting the crop. A poorly established grassland, a tough winter, excessive moisture or drought can jeopardize the viability of a small- or medium-sized business long before the final product yield.
Second, we need to better measure what we want to protect. For forage crops, performance measurement is a crucial issue. Every producer should be able to protect their yields. Performance measurement needs to be simple, accessible and sufficiently widespread for large-scale use on farms. That requires better support for data collection and tracking tools and technologies.
We also believe it's important to encourage surplus production in good years, to help the industry weather the bad years. Making it more economically attractive to produce surplus hay would help build strategic reserves that would be available for use in times of drought or during difficult years. Regional surpluses could also be leveraged to help regions experiencing shortages. Rapid response plans are needed to deal with an emerging crisis.
Furthermore, the programs should recognize that the best form of risk management tends to be prevention. Perennial forage plants provide important ecosystem services, improving soil health, capturing carbon and more. These benefits reduce long-term risks by making the agricultural system as a whole more resilient. They should be better recognized and possibly tied to better compensation, to show that perennial forage crop production is a smart business choice.
Lastly, we can't talk about prevention without talking about research. We need solutions tailored to the needs of the thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses I referred to earlier, solutions for the current and future climate.
The government recently announced the closure of the Quebec Research and Development Centre, which played a vital role in perennial forage plant and soil health research, not to mention knowledge transfer. To date, that work has led to the adoption of dozens of innovative practices tailored to producers' needs in every region.
The centre developed cropping methods and genetic enhancements that tangibly improved perennial forage crop yields, nutritional quality and persistence.
For example, researcher Annie Claessens, whose position was cut, had developed grass varieties with 15% higher yields and alfalfa varieties delivering 20% more energy to livestock. Those varieties could have made their way into our fields in the next few years.
Another researcher whose position was cut, Marie‑Noëlle Thivierge, was working on the resilience of cropping systems with a focus on plant roots. She had recently shown that the deep roots of perennial forage plants lead to higher-yield corn and soy crops, extending their benefits within crop rotations, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third and groundwater pollution caused by nitrogen by half.
Both of these researchers did a good job of sharing and explaining their findings, giving dozens of presentations to agronomists and producers every year. That expertise needs to be maintained, because it plays an essential role in helping the forage sector, and by extension the dairy and cattle sectors, adapt to climate change. By maintaining this research, the government would increase farm resilience and reduce the strain on business risk management programs.
Not only must those programs provide compensation for losses after the fact, but they must also support farming systems that reduce risks at the source.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
Thank you, Mr. Audet.
Now we will go to Mr. Burrows or Ms. Sauser, who will take the floor for up to five minutes, please.
Bruce Burrows Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon to the members.
My name is Bruce Burrows. I'm the executive director of Grain Growers of Canada.
In contrast to the previous witness, I just started a couple of days ago, so please bear with me. For this reason, our in-house expert, a farmer herself, Kate Sauser, manager of policy, is joining me today. She's here to keep me out of trouble, I hope.
Please be patient with me. I'll be making my comments in English.
Grain Growers of Canada represents over 100,000 producers through our 15 national, provincial and regional grower organizations. Together, our members steward more than 120 million acres of farmland and produce crops that feed Canadians and customers in over 160 countries. That generates approximately $45 billion in export value, and 70% of our production is exported.
This study comes at a particularly important moment for grain farmers. Across much of the country, seeding is already under way or about to begin. At the start of every season, farmers make some of the largest financial commitments of the year, often before a single crop is in the ground.
According to Farm Credit Canada, producers are expected to invest approximately $22.5 billion in crop inputs for this season alone, which includes seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Talking about risk, this represents one of the most significant annual—and therefore regular—private sector investments in Canada, months before any revenue is realized.
Input costs remain elevated, margins are tight, and producers are increasingly exposed to risks far outside their control. Those risks are no longer limited to weather or production. Farmers are now navigating geopolitical disruptions, trade uncertainty and supply chain instability. Existing business risk management programs were not designed for this environment. That is exactly why this study matters.
Recent tariffs affecting Canadian ag exports, including measures targeting canola and other commodities, illustrate how quickly market access can change and how significant the financial consequences can be at the farm level. Member producers have reported losses of approximately one to two dollars per bushel due to geopolitical disputes, which can translate into six-figure impacts on individual farm operations. When shocks like these occur, producers need BRM programs. They have to be responsive, predictable, and capable of stabilizing operations through uncertainty.
As governments begin preparing for the next FPT framework, covering 2028-33, this is an opportunity to ensure that BRM programming reflects a multitude of risks that farmers are facing today and are likely to face in the future.
I'll make four points quickly and then conclude.
First, it's essential that existing core programs remain strong. AgriInsurance continues to be the foundation of risk management for grain farmers. There's no question about it. It's widely used. It's regionally responsive and delivers support when producers need it most. The current cost-sharing model between governments and producers is working and should be maintained. Protecting the integrity and accessibility of AgriInsurance must remain a priority.
Second, BRM programs must better reflect emerging risks beyond production losses. Trade disruptions, as I just mentioned, geopolitical tensions, transportation interruptions and regulatory uncertainty can all have significant financial consequences for producers, yet they're not always captured effectively within current programming. Tools such as AgriStability are intended to provide whole-farm income support during major shocks, but many producers experience meaningful income declines without triggering payments. Improving the responsiveness will strengthen both participation and confidence—and I underscore the word confidence—in the program.
Third, programs must remain flexible enough to reflect regional realities. Agriculture in Canada is highly diverse. Risk exposures differ among commodities, production systems and certainly regions as well. A one-size-fits-all approach limits effectiveness and reduces program uptake. That is why AgriStability needs adjustment to reflect commodity and regional differences, ensuring provinces retain flexibility to tailor delivery to regional needs, which will strengthen outcomes for producers across the country.
Fourth, BRM programming should support proactive risk management rather than creating an unnecessary administrative burden.
For example, proposals to link AgriInvest participation more directly to environmental cross-compliance risks duplicating practices that farmers are already implementing. Grain producers are leaders in environmental stewardship through measures such as zero till adoption, precision agriculture and soil carbon management. Programs should recognize these contributions rather than introduce requirements that reduce accessibility and effectiveness.
Every season, grain farmers commit hundreds of thousands of dollars before they know what the markets are going to be.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
I'm sorry, Mr. Burrows, but you're going to be in trouble right off the hop. You're over your five minutes. Could you just wrap it up really quickly? Ms. Sauser should be giving you heck now.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
The decisions made in this study will shape that framework going forward for the FPT. The window to get this right is now. We are asking the committee to use it.
Thank you. We will be pleased to answer questions.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
Great job. Thank you very much.
We're just testing you to see how you're going to do on your first day.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
So far, so good.
I understand Mr. MacLeod, that your technical issues may have been resolved. We're going to see how well this goes. We're going to give you a whirl for up to five minutes. We'll see if the interpretation is sufficient.
Please go ahead.
Cedric MacLeod Executive Director, Canadian Forage and Grassland Association
Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for the invitation to be with you today.
I'm Cedric MacLeod, representing the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association as the executive director. We represent just over 72,000 producers and 70 million-plus acres of crop production across the country.
While these acres are substantial, we continue to see acres under production continue to decline due to a number of factors. It's largely due to the conversion of perennial cropland to annual cropland, but we also see urban encroachment taking some of those acres. Native rangelands are the most endangered ecosystems globally. Canada currently stewards just over 30 million acres of native rangelands that are potentially at risk of conversion. Public extension services also continue to decline across Canada. As we know, this limits the access of forage producers to current program opportunities and agronomic support services.
There are many recognized positive impacts of foraging grasslands on the economy and the environment. These underpin the dairy, beef, bison, sheep and equine industries, as well as a supportive export industry. Beef prices are elevated. Encouraging market growth with federal, provincial and industry investment can help improve pasture management, productivity and profitability for growers across Canada, for which we are thankful. However, forage and livestock producers carry higher production risk than annual crop producers, typically, and they have fewer tools, insurance and policy supports to manage risk, which therefore exposes them to greater market volatility.
Existing policy frameworks can move farmers towards annual cropping even when foraging or pasturing would be the better choice on the land base simply from a risk management perspective. BRM policies must be levelled so farmers can choose what is best for their farm economically, environmentally and socially, not between perennial or annual crop production.
Here are some current policy realities.
Coverage and functionality disparities between forage and annual crop insurance programs require perennial forage producers to assume far greater production risk. In some provinces, there are little to no forage or livestock insurance supports available, creating even greater incentive to convert from perennial or native grasslands to annual crop production, where such supports do exist.
Small to medium-sized mixed operations are more heavily impacted by available risk management program and policy options than larger operations, with new entrants to the grazing and foraging sectors especially negatively impacted.
Limited risk management tools are available to satisfy lenders' required level of security when advancing working capital or providing long-term financing for land, cattle or equipment purchases in the forage sector.
There are recognized negative environmental impacts when converting native rangeland or long-term tame perennial pastures to annual crop production, as we see significant releases of carbon dioxide through the decomposition of soil organic matter. That has negative environmental impacts on both climate and soil productivity, as was mentioned earlier.
Considering those reduced public extension services, the responsibility for timely and accurate knowledge translation and transfer—or KTT—services will increasingly fall to industry. With a surge of new entrants and farm succession changeovers happening in the next 20 years, KTT strategies will need to be developed to provide timely and relevant support in order to ensure resilience in the forage-cropping and livestock-grazing systems, as we heard from my colleague Vincent a few moments ago.
Canadian agriculture continues to trail its global competitors in the adoption of advanced technology and management practices, with research capacity to support the Canadian forage sector continuing to decline.
Here are some recommended actions.
One, develop a comprehensive risk management suite of programs to reduce risk for forage and pasture production, and place forage on a level playing field with annual crop production systems. This is especially pertinent for small to medium-sized operations and new entrants.
Two, develop tools and resources to provide forage growers with a better opportunity to proactively manage risk using crop yield monitoring, on-farm data management and cost production analysis supports through the development of a Canadian forage production centre of excellence.
Finally, invest in industry-led knowledge translation and transfer programs to ensure that graziers and forage producers are provided the most up-to-date production, practice and technology adoption supports possible, ensuring that the forage sector does not fall further behind the annual cropping sector from an innovation adoption perspective.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
Thank you very much, Mr. MacLeod. It's good that your technology's working. It's certainly important to have your input here as well.
We will now turn to questions from the committee members.
We will go to the Conservatives.
Mr. Gourde, you may go ahead for six minutes.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Audet, first I'd like to commend the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères for its amazing work over the past 25 years, always connecting producers and research. I actually attended some of your events and I always enjoyed them. In my next life as a farmer, I'll definitely be back.
In your opening remarks, I was pleased to hear you talk about the problems caused by the cuts, including at Deschambault‑Grondines. You focused particularly on the researchers, and I think that's important.
Research is part of the business risk management programs. If we lose research that could result in cultivars with a 20% higher yield potential, it will definitely bring down producers' revenues in the medium and long term.
Can you talk more about the collateral damage caused by letting the expertise of those researchers go?
Chair, Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères
Practices on the ground are always affected by research. Sometimes it takes a long time; sometimes it doesn't. Developing new varieties is obviously a long process, and it's not without risk. Not everyone will do that work.
Beyond that, though, we also saw that the researchers working at those centres had the ability to transfer their knowledge and share their findings with those who would be putting them into practice.
That's important in our sector. We want to be on top of the latest breakthroughs, technologies and best practices, so we can make them as accessible as possible to producers, so that they too can reap the benefits as quickly as possible.
There is no doubt that having less access to this new knowledge and losing the connection to researchers on the ground increases the risk we and Quebec's forage industry as a whole face, especially in the current operating environment. The impact of losing that connection will be quite dramatic for Quebec's industry.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
My sense is that the forage industry is unfortunately at a disadvantage when it comes to research in Canada. When we look at corn, soy or canola crops, for instance, we see a lot of private sector investment because of the benefits they represent in terms of export markets.
In the forage sector, however, farmers produce forage for their own livestock, and it's always challenging when there is no revenue associated with forage. It is nevertheless thanks to forage that revenues are generated. People seem to forget the important role forage plays in the cattle, sheep and dairy industries. You touched on that in your opening remarks.
Could you provide more information on that?
Chair, Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères
It's hard to put a monetary value on perennial forage crops once they have been harvested and used on the same farm, because no money has changed hands. It's also true that the Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères feels that not enough research is being done on this topic. Not enough attention is being paid to it to truly ensure the entire industry recognizes the potential of forage crops, because we aren't gathering enough data on the subject.
Often, a farming operation includes everything—in other words, the fields, the barn, and all other aspects of the business are accounted for in the same books. How could we then truly assign forage crops the fair value they represent?
The closest I can get you to that value is by telling you that half of the hectares under production in Quebec, for example—about 30% in Canada—are used to grow perennial forage crops for the beef and dairy industries. That’s why I had some figures on what the dairy and meat industries represent in Quebec.
Once forage crops are processed, what do they contribute to the economy? Fundamentally, they created these industries; in other words, we start with land where there is nothing and we grow something, which is ultimately processed by the rest of the industry.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Due to climate change, the climate in Canada and the United States is becoming drier. However, when conditions are drier, there are forage shortages. It is therefore important to develop cultivars that can cope with these water shortages.
So, if the research dedicated to this disappears, will it cause us problems?
Chair, Conseil québécois des plantes fourragères
It's now clear that this will cause us problems.
Research isn't just about developing new cultivars. There's also more field-based research being done to study the combination of different cultivars and different species. Here, we’re really down to earth, and we can, for a specific region, combine different cultivars of different species to achieve good results and minimize the risk of a farm facing a forage shortage.
There’s also then a bit of research to be done here. We believe it’s very important.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
Thank you, Mr. Audet.
Now it's the Liberals and Madame Dandurand for six minutes.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You're doing an excellent job in your new role. I thank you for that.
I thank the witnesses for being with us today.
Mr. Audet, I am from the Eastern Townships. This region has a lot of forage crops, a lot of cattle farming and a lot of dairy cows. So, I am very sensitive to what is currently happening in Sainte-Foy and have a strong interest in seeing this type of research continue at the Sherbrooke research centre, in collaboration with other stakeholders. So, this is an important issue that we will continue to discuss for a long time to ensure that the expertise is maintained.
In your remarks, you frequently referred to climate risk. One of the main questions I have regarding business risk management programs is this: How can we make farmers more resilient to extreme weather events, which are occurring with increasing frequency? So, rather than having to pay out every time there is a drought, for example, how can we use these programs to better support farmers?
This brings me to my next question: Do we have risk management programs that address structural issues or exceptional issues? Basically, these programs are in place for exceptional situations. Now, it seems like these are becoming more of a recurring pattern.
What's your view on this then?