Agriculture Committee on April 21st, 2026

[Vincent Audet]

It’s clear that, in order to fully support our producers so they don’t hesitate to take the risk of increasing the amount of pasture land on their farms, covering that risk from planting through harvest can’t hurt. Today, we insure the harvest, but problems can also arise before that.

We need to be aware then that when a producer decides to increase or decrease their acreage, the risk associated with establishing new pasture is often part of their decision. So, the producer will consider the fact that, if they do more in one area, they could lose it, and that it might be safer to plant another crop instead. They will try to play it safer with the acres already planted with forage crops. That is where they are exposed to greater risks.

So, managing the initial risk would probably be a good start, but then, making the most of every hectare already planted with forage crops could improve things, because if we choose to have more hectares, we risk ending up with surpluses. But what do we do with those surpluses, then? We could end up with surpluses that we can’t bring to market because the entire region is in surplus. Forage, especially wet forage, doesn’t travel well. So, either we encourage producers, through programs, to build their own strategic reserves, or we establish a crisis monitoring system at the provincial or national level that can help move these surpluses. If there’s a surplus in one region and a shortage in another, we need to be able to move these products.

It’s obvious that moving forage isn’t efficient. It’s often wet. It’s heavy and doesn’t transport very well. On the other hand, when someone needs it, they really need it. It can be a disaster for a farm not to have the forage it needs. Access to forage can be the deciding factor between selling the cows and simply reducing their numbers a bit to adapt. We don’t want that to happen. We don’t want to reduce the herd. It’s about our food security and our use of the land. There are farms in every region that contribute to the local economy. When these regions lose their livestock, the agricultural economy suffers.

So, encouraging producers to keep their surplus so they can then move it around the region would, at the very least, be the start of a strategy.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Burrows, I’d like to ask you the same question. The reality for annual plants is different, and you’re also facing these extreme weather events.

How can we ensure that our programs remain exceptional and support long-term resilience?

[Bruce Burrows]

That's a great question, and I agree with much of what was just said.

I would say two things. One, from a climate change perspective, is weather. Obviously, ag insurance programs are fundamentally designed to address yield losses caused by weather. Climate change fits into that, but we're now living in a world of extremes. Certainly now, indirectly we're looking at other program expansions potentially to address climate change, as you asked me, and whole-farm income protection against indirectly these things becomes important.

Trade disruptions are a classic example. If you were to take, for example, the Panama Canal, which is drying up, that's potentially leading and already has led to a lot of disruption and a ton of delays in ships getting through that canal. That causes secondary impacts, ultimately, for the delivery of products related to the farm.

That's an example of where we need to ensure that we have programs going forward that focus on responsiveness and accessibility. I don't know, Kate, if you want to add to that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I'm sorry, but you're over by about 30 seconds. Maybe you can fill that in when you get another question.

Mr. Lemire for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Audet, first of all, thank you for your testimony.

I listened to the responses regarding hay requirements, particularly when there are weather events. We experienced one such event in Abitibi-Ouest. It was a perfect storm of winter frost, drought and forest fire. I worked very closely with producers, particularly as part of a so-called red letter initiative, to get the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that agricultural risk management programs could be better deployed. Of course, Quebec and Ottawa passed the buck back and forth. The initiative did not yield the desired results, because the programs were not triggered, even though the drought was evident and even though it was a perfect storm. This is a major problem.

What kinds of solutions do you see? The bottom line, according to the financial statements one of these producers showed me, is that the adjustments will cost producers more. I'm referring specifically to the allocation of resources based on hay needs. We have to source hay from elsewhere in the region, but transportation costs are exorbitant. It's poorly covered by agricultural risk management programs.

So, I'm listening. I have many other questions, but it doesn't help you if I ask too many at once.

[Vincent Audet]

I am not an expert on crop insurance. However, what I see when I talk to farmers is exactly that. We often hear that the program was not activated despite the situation that arose. Often, what I am told is that crop insurance programs for forage are regional rather than individual. That may be one of the root causes of the problem.

Next, as I mentioned earlier when I answered a question from the hon. member, having a monitoring system—a system that is truly ready to respond when a problem arises—would be a solution. We're thinking of Operation Sécheresse, which the Union des producteurs agricoles organized back then, around 2021 and 2022, during which producers moved a lot of forage all over the province. We need to be ready to respond with concrete solutions like that. We need a contingency plan or something that can be activated quickly, because even if crop insurance is triggered, we still have to find available forage and get it to the farms that need it. Then there are the transportation costs, of course. All of that has to be organized.

If we're talking about something that can be handled at the provincial level, that's one thing, but if forage needs to be transported from one province to another, we need coordination at the federal level. If rail or other modes of transport that are more efficient for moving large volumes need to be used, producers often feel helpless. How can producers talk to the rail companies to transport forage by train? This isn't something that can be done on an individual basis.

We need then to start thinking about a system or a contingency plan that could be implemented quickly to collect forage where it is available and bring it where it is needed. I think we need to go beyond insurance to truly manage the risk of declining herds.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What's really great is that you've answered several of the other questions I wanted to ask you.

Furthermore, scarcity is causing prices to skyrocket, and that obviously places an even greater burden on producers.

On another note, the government says it offers the AgriInnovate program to promote the commercialization, demonstration and adoption of technology, and the AgriScience program to support pre-commercialization initiatives and research activities.

How do these programs currently fit into your reality?

[Vincent Audet]

In that regard, I—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Am I being too direct?

[Vincent Audet]

No.

Indeed, I'm sorry to say this, but I cannot give you an intelligent answer, even if I would have liked to do so.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Unfortunately, academic institutions are not eligible for AgriScience. They must have a partner.

What can you tell us about collaborating with the academic community?

[Vincent Audet]

Earlier, I was talking about our colleagues—the people working in the research community. We've recently noticed—and it really struck us—just how few academics are involved in the field of forage crops. This is a problem for us. Given that this crop covers half of Quebec's farmland, it's not normal that we have so few people in universities to support students in training and help them reach the next level, and to continue building this expertise. It is essential that universities have more professors and more researchers to support the training of new agronomists as well as the training of all the new professionals who will be working in the field to support our producers.

So, if we have knowledge, if we have experts available to support our producers in the fields, we will certainly reduce the risks and potential problems related to forage. Therefore, we need more knowledge. We need more expertise in universities and educational institutions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Audet.

We will now go back to the Conservatives.

Mr. Epp, you have five minutes, please.

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

The present APF has five pillars to it. We're hearing from witnesses of the importance, obviously, of the BRM pillar. We've studied the closure of the ag research stations. That's another one of the pillars that are broadly supported, and those closures are being rued. We've heard about the impacts to the forage sector.

Let me ask each organization to get on the record. Do we favour cross-compliance from other sectors that perhaps aren't as broadly supported, over to the BRM sector?

Let's start with the Grain Growers of Canada.

[Bruce Burrows]

I will turn it over to Kate.

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

I'll ask for short answers here. I want to get through a lot of material.

[Kate Sauser, Policy Manager, Grain Growers of Canada]

Yes, that's for sure. I'll give you a short answer.

I feel as though grain farmers already lead so many stewardship practices. That environmental tie and cross-compliance risk perhaps add more duplication of existing efforts that are already being done by grain farmers.

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

Mr. MacLeod, go ahead.

[Cedric MacLeod]

I have similar comments. The environmental contribution of the forage sector is substantial from a soil health, water quality, water management and landscape functionality perspective.

I agree.

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

Monsieur Audet.

[Vincent Audet]

As Mr. MacLeod mentioned, forage crops play a role in each of the objectives of the various agri-environmental programs. Perennial forage crops can make a significant contribution to achieving all of our environmental goals.

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

Let's get into the BRM. AgriInsurance has been widely supported, particularly by land-based crops. I know the forages have historically been difficult to insure by our provincial agencies, because of the intersection of yield and quality, which is linked to the value.

Do you have any specific recommendations to get better insurance provisions for forage? If not, would a margin-based insurance program—where often the forages are walked off the farm in the form of livestock, or sold—address the concerns, if it was responsive, timely and bankable, or do specific AgriInsurance improvements need to be made?

We'll start with Mr. Audet.

[Vincent Audet]

I'm not sure if putting a price on forage is really the solution. Our producers know what they need. They simply want to reduce the risk they face when planning their pasture management, especially when they don't have quite enough forage to meet the season's feeding needs. On our end, we try to assign a value or find a benchmark for that value, but it's extremely difficult.

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

Mr. MacLeod, would you comment? I'll leave it at that.

[Cedric MacLeod]

I agree. Margin-based insurance would certainly help.

I think we need to place more emphasis on understanding our forage cost predictions and using technology to track our yields. There should be more incentive to track yields.

I agree 100% with your thoughts, Mr. Epp.

If we had better yield and quality tracking, we'd be much better attuned to what we can do from an insurance perspective. That's tracking our rainfall more effectively on the farm, including soil moisture, content tracking and utilizing new technologies like satellite imagery, which help us to give biomass yield. Calibrating those systems will go a long way to helping us with the forage yield data that we really need to bring us on par with annual cropping systems.