Agriculture Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking or before you're asked any question directly by a member.

For those participating by video conference, click the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study on business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector.

I noticed while reading my comments that there was nothing about the microphones and earpieces. Please keep your earpieces away from the microphones. Try not to speak too close to the microphone. It's to protect the health and well-being of our interpreters, who work so hard. If you have any questions, there is a QR code on the cards.

Are the cards still circulating? I've been referring to the QR codes, but I don't see any. We'll get those back. If you have any questions about the process regarding the microphone, please let me know.

Joining us today, we have Mr. Atkins, CEO of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

From L'Union des producteurs agricoles we have Charles-Félix Ross, who is the general manager.

From the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food, we have Chris McKee. He is the senior vice-president of business development.

Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Then we'll go into rounds of questions with each of the respective parties.

We'll start with Mr. McKee.

[Chris McKee, Senior Vice-President of Business Development, National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food]

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the invitation to appear here today.

As mentioned, I'm Chris McKee, senior vice-president of business development for the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food. We're excited to have this opportunity.

Indigenous peoples represent the fastest-growing demographic in Canada. They're increasingly active in agriculture, food production and land stewardship. Indigenous agriculture has become one of the fastest-growing segments in the sector, yet it remains under-represented in a lot of current BRM programming. As we outlined in a recent submission to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the next policy framework, there's a clear opportunity and a necessity to ensure that indigenous agriculture is fully included in the next suite of programs.

Today, many indigenous producers face compound risks, climate volatility, limited access to capital, infrastructure gaps and challenges navigating these important program requirements. If the BRM programs are to achieve their intended outcomes, they must reflect the diversity of producers and ensure equitable access and meaningful participation.

I have a few key messages I want to highlight.

First, on indigenous inclusion and equitable access, inclusion must be embedded as a core pillar, not just as an add-on, through a suite of programs designed with indigenous producers, not for them. We recommend dedicated funding streams tailored to indigenous agriculture. This would be a fund that works integrally through all indigenous-led agriculture and food projects, including business acquisition, product expansion, capacity building and supply chain development.

Second, we need climate resiliency and modernization of risk management to make sure we evolve to reflect the realities of climate change and move from reactive compensation towards proactive risk mitigation.

The third piece we want to touch on is market development alongside infrastructure and regional realities. Risks extend beyond production. They're also tied to markets and infrastructure. There's a strong and growing demand for indigenous producers and indigenous-branded products both domestically and internationally. However, these producers are often limited by gaps in processing capacity, cold storage and transportation infrastructure.

The fourth point to highlight is workforce and technology enablement. Workforce and technology are integral to managing risk. Labour shortages continue to impact productivity, particularly in rural and remote regions, where housing and transportation challenges persist. At the same time, inconsistent access to broadband and digital infrastructure limits the adoption of precision agriculture and data systems.

Finally, the fifth thing is strengthening the FPT framework to be more coordinated, transparent and outcomes-driven. We recommend having clearly defined policy outcomes with measurable targets, greater clarity in roles and responsibilities across jurisdictions, and transparent reporting to track progress and impact. It's equally important to ensure indigenous participation in program design and delivery through formalized mechanisms, including FPT indigenous agriculture tables.

In closing, strengthening BRM programs is about more than managing risk. It's about building a more inclusive, resilient and competitive agriculture sector. By embedding indigenous inclusion, modernizing risk management tools and investing in infrastructure and workforce, Canada can position its agriculture sector for long-term success.

Prime Minister Carney established a strategy to position Canada as a global agriculture and food superpower, with the goal of contributing to global food security by 2050. It focuses on expanding food production rather than exporting raw commodities, with a target of adding over $45 billion to annual GDP over the next decade. Indigenous agriculture is a critical part of meeting that future goal.

The NCIAF stands ready to work with federal, provincial and territorial partners to codesign solutions that advance competitiveness, resilience and reconciliation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you, Mr. McKee, for your important presentation. We appreciate it.

We'll next go to Mr. Atkins for five minutes.

[Jaye Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Agricultural Credit Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee today regarding business risk management programs. My particular focus is on the advance payments program, AgriStability and production insurance.

My name is Jaye Atkins, and for the last 15 years I have been the chief executive officer at the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which most of you know as ACC. We are a not-for-profit organization established in 1992 and led by a board of directors with 22 member organizations.

ACC administers a commodity loan program and the ginseng loan program in Ontario, as well as the advance payments program, which we administer in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and parts of Alberta. ACC has administered the advance payments program for over three decades, 34 years, to be exact.

As the second-largest administrator in Canada, we anticipate providing approximately $1.1 billion in lending for the current year to more than 5,000 producers and ranchers. These funds enable producers to finance critical stages of production, including planning, growing, harvesting and marketing of their commodities in a manner that optimizes financial outcomes.

At ACC, we continue to expand our reach, particularly in the current lending environment, where we see traditional financial institutions are adopting a more cautious approach to agricultural financing. The value of this program is clearly demonstrated through engagement with producers at industry events. Many have indicated that, without access to the advance payments program, their operations would not be viable. This program is also well suited to young and beginning producers, and encourages participation in AgriStability and AgriInsurance, thereby enhancing risk management and financial viability.

Nationwide, the advance payments programs deliver operating capital to nearly 30,000 farmers and ranchers through its 28 administrators, and is certainly an attractive alternative in the current financing marketplace. We at ACC believe, however, that there are key opportunities to strengthen its effectiveness and delivery.

First, we recommend establishing a permanent interest-free threshold of $350,000 under the program. This proposed adjustment reflects a continuous market increase for input costs, including fertilizer, seed, chemicals, fuel, labour, and equipment maintenance. Making this interest-free threshold permanent would provide much-needed certainty for both producers and administrators, replacing the current annual process, under which the limit reverts to the legislated $100,000, unless otherwise announced by the Minister of Agriculture.

The current lack of predictability complicates planning and program utilization. Late announcements delay the producer applications as they await a possible announcement, and this delay frequently requires administrators to revisit and revise previously issued loans. At ACC, for example, this can involve reprocessing up to approximately 2,000 loans, resulting in increased administrative costs and delays in delivering funds to producers.

Second, we wish to raise concerns regarding the revised credit guidelines introduced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in 2024. The requirements for these loans now exceed those typically applied when applying at a commercial financial institution, and increase both the complexity and duration of loan processing, without any demonstrable improvement in risk of default outcomes. For instance, the portion of applicants requiring full adjudication for us has increased, at ACC, from approximately 25% to 73%. While intended to strengthen oversight, these changes have instead introduced significant administration burden, with limited or no benefit in terms of reducing default rates.

Finally, we encourage the committee to recognize that administrators rely on assignments over AgriStability and production insurance as security for the advance payments program. Any changes in these programs may have direct implications for our ability to use them effectively as security instruments, and any changes require that careful consideration needs to be taken.

Having said all this, ACC believes that the advance payments program is one of the best programs out there. It is our goal to continue to provide, to as many producers as possible across Canada, this program that allows them continue farming and ranching operations.

Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions the committee has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

That was perfect timing. You hit five minutes perfectly.

[Jaye Atkins]

Usually with a CEO, you don't want to give him a mic, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

That's impressive. Thank you very much.

We'll go next to Mr. Charles-Félix Ross for five minutes.

[Charles-Félix Ross, General Manager, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for giving us the opportunity to contribute to your work on the effectiveness of agricultural risk management programs in an environment marked by increasingly severe climate change and growing geopolitical uncertainties.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Union des producteurs agricoles, which represents over 42,000 agricultural producers in Quebec. I'm its general manager. Our message is quite simple. To ensure the resilience and sustainability of Canada's agricultural sector, it's necessary to strengthen risk management programs and adapt public tools to current and future realities.

First, let me remind you of a key finding. Public support for agriculture in Canada remains lower than the support observed in a number of comparable countries. While the international average is around 2% of government spending, Canada currently allocates less than 1% of its spending to agriculture. In a period of heightened climate, economic and geopolitical risks, this gap is no longer tenable. We recommend that the federal government commit to gradually increasing its investments in agriculture to 2% of public spending. This increase should serve first and foremost to strengthen risk management programs, which are producers' first line of defence in the face of shocks.

On that note, the AgriStability program requires significant improvement. The current trigger threshold fails to adequately cover the losses incurred by agricultural businesses. We recommend raising this threshold to 85% of the reference margin. This measure would provide more realistic protection and help businesses weather difficult times without compromising their long‑term viability.

Second, the AgriRecovery framework requires a review. Extreme weather events, including droughts and floods, are becoming more frequent. The financial impact is immediate and often devastating. Yet it takes much too long to implement AgriRecovery initiatives. Producers need quick and predictable support tailored to the reality on the ground. We recommend simplifying the response mechanisms and speeding up the compensation payments.

Furthermore, the AgriInsurance program, the crop insurance, must become more flexible. Agricultural realities vary considerably from region to region, in particular as a result of weather conditions, production types and business structures. It's crucial to give the provinces all the leeway necessary to tailor crop insurance coverage to the specific risks faced by their producers. A more flexible approach will help to make the protection provided more relevant and effective.

These adjustments are vital in order to better respond to crises as they arise. However, they must fit into a much broader vision that also includes medium‑term and long‑term risk prevention. Research and technology transfer play a key role in this area. Climate change calls for extensive adaptations of agricultural practices. These adaptations include improved soil management techniques, diversification of production and innovations in water management.

Initiatives such as the living laboratories initiative are particularly effective tools. They provide a way to test and implement concrete solutions directly on the farm, together with producers. However, these initiatives remain underfunded, especially since the recent cuts to Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada's research budgets. Increased investments in applied research and knowledge transfer remain crucial so that Canada's agricultural sector can adapt to climate challenges.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize the importance of taking into account the regional realities and needs of small and medium‑sized farms. These businesses lie at the heart of our agricultural fabric and play a key role in the vitality of our regions. The federal programs must be designed to remain accessible, adapted and effective for all producers, regardless of their size or location.

In conclusion, strengthening the resilience of Canadian agriculture means making clear choices. These choices include investing more, better protecting producers' revenue, improving the speed of crisis responses, providing flexible tools tailored to regional realities and supporting innovation in order to anticipate future challenges.

The agricultural sector is a strategic pillar of our economy, our food security and even our national security. It deserves tools commensurate with the risks that it faces.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering the members' questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes.

Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Ross from the Union des producteurs agricoles.

Mr. Ross, thank you for joining us.

You referred to budget cuts in research facilities across Canada, and especially in Quebec.

Some cultivars could make farms more profitable in the future, within five to ten years. Researchers have told us that yields could increase by 10% to 15%. I'm talking mainly about forages, but it could be something else. That too is part of risk management.

If we invest less in research, risk management programs may need to pay more in compensation in five or ten years.

Is prevention better than a cure?

[Charles-Félix Ross]

You're absolutely right. We need good risk management programs.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published a report last week stating that global warming was a reality. There will be extreme heat events. There are a number of risks, including floods and droughts. This will result in the loss of 500 billion hours of agricultural work every year. In concrete terms, this means crop losses and yield losses.

Yes, we can work on risk management. We need good programs, but above all we need to work on prevention and adapt to what lies ahead. To do this, we need to invest in research. We need to support farming businesses so that they can invest in new technologies, in innovations, in irrigation systems, in greenhouses or in anything involving soil practices. Quality soils are more resistant soils. We need to think of new approaches. Living laboratories are really a tool to help us adapt to the new reality.

I would say that prevention is better than a cure.

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

Many of the farmers who came to my office complained that the advance payments program wasn't flexible enough and that it was difficult to go through a third party.

Is there any way to make this program more widely available? Less than 30% of Quebec farmers are currently eligible for it. They're required to split their guarantee between the third party and their financial institution.

Wouldn't it be simpler to give the guarantee directly to the financial institution of the farmer's choice? This would make it possible for some farmers to at least benefit from the interest‑free portion.

[Charles-Félix Ross]

First, I would like to tell you that I'm also a director for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I represent the Union des producteurs agricoles. I was invited to sit on the corporation's board of directors. I wanted to let the committee know.

At the Union des producteurs agricoles, our position is more or less the same as the corporation's position. We would like to at least see the interest‑free portion maintained at $350,000 and made a permanent part of the regulations.

If we have stability and we don't make changes every year, it will send a message of stability and predictability to farm businesses. Some businesses will enrol in the program because they think that they can obtain $350,000 or any other interest‑free amount. They'll work with their financial institutions. This predictability will increase the number of enrolments in the program.

The guarantees have always been shared since the program's inception. Financial institutions are often quite reluctant to share the guarantee. That said, when a business stands to gain a significant economic benefit, the banker or bank teller is generally accommodating. This is currently the case. The interest rates are higher. Businesses really stand to benefit from enrolling in the program. However, we need to make it more predictable and stable.

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

The risk management programs don't take production costs into account. In the short term, how could we improve the programs in order to help certain productions that are always, or often, below the cost of production?

[Charles-Félix Ross]

It would be important to establish a threshold for providing support in the AgriStability program. It isn't necessary to guarantee 100% of businesses' production costs. However, a minimum level of support should be guaranteed to cover the business's main expenses.

This brings us to the problem with the AgriStability program. If producers have two or three bad years, for reasons or causes beyond their control—such as climate change or geopolitical tensions—these producers no longer have a reference margin, no longer qualify for support and no longer have any flexibility in terms of revenue.

Through the AgriStability program, would it be possible to guarantee a spending threshold? I would say yes. No program in Canada guarantees 100% of production costs. However, we could have an improved AgriStability program that would guarantee a percentage of production costs. In other words, it would be a minimum, a threshold for providing support.

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

Briefly, would you like to highlight a previous request related to the AgriStability program?

[Charles-Félix Ross]

We would like to see the AgriStability program reinstate the same level of support as in the past. This means guaranteeing 85% of businesses' reference margins and establishing a threshold for providing support.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Liberals and MP Dandurand for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us in our study of business risk management programs.

I would like to start with you, Mr. McKee.

As you said, indigenous people are under‑represented in agriculture. As a result, we hear much less about the challenges faced by these communities. I've already heard that the programs are poorly adapted to the reality of farming in an indigenous community.

Could you elaborate on how farming is done in indigenous communities? What are the differences?

[Chris McKee]

I think the biggest thing is that they're not understood. Oftentimes, we look at primary agriculture as agriculture. In indigenous communities, that may be traditional harvesting. That might be a greenhouse or a community garden, just to get that food security and food sovereignty back in place.

Oftentimes, the programming is fit for conventional financial benchmarks, but those benchmarks don't exist in a lot of communities just due to.... I can think of certain programs that want the financial farming income and expense claim that was submitted for income tax, but nations don't submit those same forms. Therefore, at the first checkbox on eligibility, it's “not eligible” and they just move on.

The more voices that are around the table in the creation of those programs, instead of saying afterward, “By the way, here's a suite of programs that would be great for you to use,” and they see from the first three boxes that they're not eligible, or they're seen as not being eligible, and they just move on and it's not looked at.

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

There are major food security issues in indigenous communities. If risk management programs were improved, would this encourage the communities to invest more in agriculture and agri‑food?

[Chris McKee]

Absolutely. I mean, it's more inclusion in the right suite of tools, and then also looking at what financial stability in those tools is sustainable.

A one-time injection or one conversation is not going to move the dial in that space. It has to be a concerted effort that is stabilized over time, not a one and done. It's more about getting around the table and starting the conversations. Then we can grow the food sector not only for those communities, but for the country as a whole.

There's a real opportunity. We've seen in over 60 projects that we're involved in across the country just the excitement of kids getting their hands back in the dirt. It's invigorating, but also, to meet our goal by 2050, we have to involve all pieces of that puzzle.

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

Thank you.

I'll now turn to Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross, you're well versed in the entire suite of business risk management programs, which we're looking into. You spoke of a desire to strengthen the programs.

Some people are talking about major changes.

Do you think that the suite of risk management programs available generally covers all risks and simply needs some fine‑tuning, or do you think that major changes are warranted?

[Charles-Félix Ross]

I think that there are some good programs, but that they really need improvement.

As I said, it would really be a good idea to consider establishing a spending threshold in the AgriStability program. For example, a reference margin, which basically amounts to the level of support, wouldn't be allowed to fall below a business's expenses or variable costs.

There should be a way to establish a threshold for providing support within the AgriStability program. This threshold would serve as a guarantee no matter what happens.

In the past, we've tried to tell producers that they should manage risk and be good managers. Producers are good managers. They can manage risk, but they can't manage a war or an exceptional weather event.

One of our requests or demands is the establishment of a threshold for providing support in the AgriStability program. In the past, this program has been criticized for covering profits in very good years. The AgriStability program can have a lower limit, but it can also have an upper limit for providing support. Quebec has the Agri‑Québec Plus program, which complements the AgriStability program. The Quebec program guarantees 85% of the reference margin, but sets an upper limit for providing support. In Quebec, over 85% of our farms are enrolled in the AgriStability program, whereas this rate is less than 40% in the rest of Canada. Improved levels of support through complementary programs or the programs themselves result in higher enrolment rates. One of our requests is to improve the AgriStability program.

The AgriRecovery program, as we said, doesn't work. It steps in too late and involves complicated administrative procedures.