Agriculture Committee on April 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, 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.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. Thank you.

Before I jump to the witnesses, I'd like to welcome our two new members to the committee.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all members of this committee. I think we've worked very well together on these issues. I just want to say thank you to all members, especially our folks on the left side here and, of course, on the right, for working together to champion these issues. Agriculture, as we know, represents a large percentage of our GDP. It employs many people across this county and has helped build this country.

I just want to say thank you for your hard work and dedication.

Yes, sir, go ahead.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you for that, but never again say that I'm on the left side, please.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I just want that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay.

Now I'll go to the right. Then everyone will be angry at me.

MP Chatel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and thank them for their valuable collaboration over the past few months. I hope it will remain the same, exactly as it was. We've conducted extremely important studies, and we are now in the midst of a very important and relevant study.

For my part, and I can also speak on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank my colleagues and welcome our new colleagues. This is a wonderful committee, and I am very proud of it. We work extremely well together, and it will remain that way.

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

Mrs. Chatel, I just want to say thank you. Obviously, this raises certain concerns, and we’ll see how it plays out. That said, I thought your statement was so tactful. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

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'd like to welcome our witnesses.

We have the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. You made it just in time. I know you had a bit of a delay downstairs. Thank you so much for being here.

We have Mr. Huber from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

Online, we have, from Keystone Agricultural Producers, Colin Hornby, general manager.

Welcome to each and every one of you. Thank you for being here.

You'll have up to five minutes each. Then we'll open it up for questions from the members.

We'll start with Mr. Huber for five minutes.

[William Huber, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to join you today. It's a privilege to be here on behalf of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, representing 296 rural municipalities and the thousands of producers who make up the backbone of our province's economy.

Saskatchewan's producers have built a reputation as some of the most resilient and innovative farmers in the world, but that resilience has been tested by extreme weather events, market volatility and rising input costs. Business risk management programs are intended to provide stability and confidence in times of uncertainty. Unfortunately, what we hear from producers across this province is that many of the programs, structures and eligibility requirements are failing to meet that goal.

Our members consistently raise concerns about how eligible expenses are defined within programs such as AgriStability, AgriInvest and AgriInsurance. The issue isn't only the complexity, but the disconnect between what is considered eligible under the program and what producers actually spend to operate their farms today. The costs of fuel, fertilizer, freight and interest have grown dramatically, yet these real, unavoidable expenses are often capped, limited or excluded in ways that erode the effectiveness of the BRM support.

As a result, the very producers these programs are meant to help are too often left without meaningful assistance when they need it the most. Many have found themselves paying into programs that simply don't respond when their margins collapse or unforeseen costs cut deeply into their operations. The intention behind BRM programs is sound, but the way eligibility criteria are applied, particularly around input costs and depreciation, means that the calculation of support does not reflect the true cost structure of modern farming in Saskatchewan.

I also want to stress the importance of flexibility and timeliness. In agriculture, decisions are made in real time. When support programs take months to deliver assistance or require complex reconciliations that push payments well past the period of need, that delay can make the difference between staying afloat and leaving the industry for good.

That's why SARM supports calls for program modernization, clearer definitions of eligible expenses, faster mechanisms for payment and improved regional adaptability so that the program design will recognize the unique cost pressures and production realities of prairie agriculture.

Producers' confidence in BRM programs has declined because the rules have fallen out of step with the realities on the ground. Our goal is not to increase dependency, but to ensure fairness, so that the programs producers pay into actually cover the risks and costs they face. Saskatchewan producers are proud to manage risk responsibly, but that management must be matched by federal programs that offer real relevance and value.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, SARM appreciates your commitment to reviewing these programs and to hearing directly from those affected. The future competitiveness and sustainability of our agriculture sector depends on ensuring that the safety net fits the modern farm business.

I look forward to discussing ways to strengthen BRM programs so that they serve producers as they are—not as they were a generation ago.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, sir.

Next, we'll go to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for five minutes.

[Scott Ross, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Chair.

We apologize for our lateness. We did have some issues at security. We appreciate everyone's patience here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

No, that's beyond your control.

[Scott Ross]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Scott Ross. I am the executive director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing more than 190,000 farmers and farm families across the country.

Canada’s agricultural sector is operating in a risk environment that has changed fundamentally and continues to change faster than our current BRM tools were designed to handle. Producers today are facing climate volatility, extreme and recurring weather events, geopolitical instability, input cost spikes, animal and plant disease pressures and ongoing market uncertainty. Events that were once viewed as rare or extraordinary are now increasingly routine, yet many of our core BRM programs were built for a different risk profile, grounded in more traditional production and market-based risks without the underlying context of ever-increasing climate volatility.

As a result, we are seeing growing misalignment between the risks producers face and the tools available to manage them. Programs have become increasingly fragmented and understood as stand-alone instruments rather than as a coordinated tool box, which creates gaps, inconsistent incentives and uneven coverage across commodities.

The result at the farm level is declining resilience, tighter margins and rising stress, highlighting that a uniform, one-size-fits-all BRM approach is ill-suited to managing increasingly diverse and evolving risks. Industry’s message is not simply that BRM needs fixing; it’s that BRM must be reimagined as part of a broader Government of Canada approach that cuts across all government departments to leverage the full breadth of programs and incentives available.

Our vision is for agriculture to be treated as a national growth engine, one that strengthens food security, supports innovation and sustainability, creates value across the supply chain and expands domestic and global market opportunities. To do that, we are recommending that the next policy framework support four strategic priorities.

First, it should be designed to support growth across the sector by enabling investment and expansion rather than discouraging it. This will require federal investments focused on high-impact areas supported by policies across government to remove barriers and unlock scale. In other words, we will need to look beyond the borders of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at how we can support a sector development approach to growth that includes coordinated investment and attention across the Government of Canada.

Second, it needs to drive innovation by improving coordination and investment in new technologies from research to commercialization and adoption.

Third, it needs to support resilience through flexibility by creating more choice in risk management programs, including greater focus on prevention and adaptation versus solely ad hoc responses. Practically speaking, this means exploring innovative approaches and alternative service delivery models to supplement core risk management programs like AgriInsurance and AgriStability with more targeted program offerings.

Canada’s agricultural sector is diverse. A one-size-fits-all BRM approach no longer works for all producers. Some sectors still lack effective insurance tools, including areas like forage and livestock price insurance. Tailored solutions are needed that are better adapted to the unique risk profile of Canada’s diverse commodities.

Finally, the next policy framework needs to be anchored to the goal of efficiency by simplifying programs and embedding accountability to tangible, strategic outcomes. Producers are navigating multiple portals, reporting requirements and program rules across governments. Industry is calling for a single federal portal, streamlined delivery and a shift toward outcome-based performance measurement focused on productivity and competitiveness rather than participation numbers or administrative metrics.

In closing, we believe that the core question for this committee is not whether BRM should cost more or less but whether it is fit for purpose in the risk environment Canadian farmers now face. A modern BRM framework must work with, not against, growth and innovation, reduce reliance on ad hoc crisis responses, provide real choice and flexibility for producers, deliver better value for taxpayers and strengthen resilience across the entire agri-food system.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We appreciate the committee's attention to this issue and look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go online now with Keystone Agricultural Producers.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Colin Hornby, General Manager, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for the invitation to speak today on the topic of BRM programs within the context of the next policy framework.

My name is Colin Hornby. I'm the general manager of Keystone Agricultural Producers. We are Manitoba's general farm policy organization, providing a unified voice for all farmers on issues that affect agriculture, whether it be livestock, crops or specialty products, and everything else in between. We are also members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I'm glad to be here with some other prairie folks, as well, from SARM.

Manitoba farmers grow what the world needs. With the majority of our products destined for export markets, it's critical that any discussion around programs that aim to support ag production in Canada is focused on one theme: competitiveness. The majority of farmers sell into a global market and in many commodities are at its mercy. As mentioned previously, one in eight jobs in Canada is attributed to the agriculture sector, representing 7% of the GDP, so the direction of the next policy framework matters not only to farmers, but to the millions of Canadians whose livelihoods rely on this industry.

Before I give some recommendations on BRM programs, I want to talk quickly about the next policy framework and the six main areas of focus that we believe will make for a more proactive and effective framework.

The first is growth. Sustained growth in Canadian agriculture depends on expanding market opportunities, supporting value-added activity and enabling producers and processors to invest with confidence. The next policy framework must reinforce market development and diversification, both domestically and abroad, and support value chain approaches for processing. The government must also invest in their international presence in-market with trading partners to deal with non-tariff barriers to trade.

The second theme is competitiveness. Both cost pressures and structural barriers must be addressed to strengthen Canada's position as a reliable, innovative and sustainable supplier of goods. Prioritizing productivity enhancement, efficiency and value addition in eligibility criteria in any FPT programming is critical. This also includes ensuring that research investments maintain and focus on public good research, while supporting public-private partnerships for mutual benefit.

The third is resilience. This is to maintain a foundational objective of the next policy framework, and evolving business risk management programming to reflect today's risk profile, as discussed by the other witnesses, should be a part of it. Focusing on equity of outcomes rather than uniformity of programs will help farmers have options to tailor their risk management support.

The fourth is innovation. This must be elevated as a core pillar of the framework, including improved coordination between FPT governments and the private sector around a common vision for Canada's innovation continuum from research to adoption. Innovation outcomes should be based on collective, measurable goals.

Two other ones to highlight are red tape reduction and outcome-based policy design. Regulatory burden, as the committee well knows, is consistently identified as a barrier to innovation and is something you have put forward in a report recently, in December. Prioritizing high-impact regulatory bottlenecks, rather than incremental changes, and reducing the administrative burden in funding programs should be a priority, including many of those recommendations you put forward in December.

When it comes to BRM programs, there are some specific recommendations I would also highlight.

On the advance payments program, we would like to see a permanent extension of the $350,000 interest-free portion and indexing of all future increases to inflation. Maintaining the payment cap of $6 million per program year as well is something we would like to see.

On AgriStability, we would like to see increasing the compensation rate to 90% permanently, as the recent increase is just for the one program year; increasing early payments from 50% to 75% to ensure better cash flow in challenging years; and increasing the trigger rate from 70% to 85% of reference margin.

On AgriInvest, we would like to see the agri-environmental risk assessment requirement, or cross-compliance, removed, which I can discuss more in depth.

We would like to see the establishment of an accreditation program for farm income tax preparers to reduce verification costs on BRM claims, and have all levels of government increase investment in extension and research to help prevent losses and reduce reliance on reactive BRM tools.

We would also like to see an impact analysis for the return on investment for BRM programs, specifically with AgriStability. Having robust data illustrating Canada's investment return for tax dollars spent on BRM programs would help reassure governments that farm support ends up increasing agriculture's contribution to the GDP and helps the Canadian economy at large. It would also complement the concept of unleashing agriculture, as referred to in the Barton report.

Thank you for your attention. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes.

Mr. Bonk.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

I'd like to start off by asking Mr. Huber some questions.

We're equidistant or we live about the same distance from the Indian Head research centre. It has been announced that's been closed. We're both well aware of the good work they've done there when it comes to things like zero till, with Guy Lafond and Jim Halford, who did that good work. It has basically had more impact, when it comes to environmental protection of agriculture or sustainability or carbon sequestration, than just about anything else that's been developed in agriculture, especially in Canada.

I was just wondering, since you represent a large organization made up primarily of farmers who are on the ground every day working in this field, how many of your members have reached out to you and told you they're happy that this research centre is closing.

[William Huber]

Not one of them has reached out.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I thought that might be the answer.

You mentioned AgriStability and AgriInsurance, and some of the ineligible expenses that producers aren't able to claim. Could you expand on that? We haven't heard that yet in this committee.

[William Huber]

We all know the rising inflationary costs that have been incurred by producers in the last number of years, especially in the last four or five. It's not all due to tariffs on aluminum and steel. Land rent, which was $25 to possibly $50 an acre five or six years ago, has risen to well over $100 per acre now. Those expenses aren't eligible. Some of our machinery repairs, like tires and engine overhauls, cost thousands of dollars. We can't use those as expenses for AgriStability.

It takes too long for these programs to react, too. We have producers in the west and west-central part of the province, as you're familiar with, Mr. Bonk, who have suffered through anywhere from five to nine years of drought. A lot of them are enrolled in some of these business risk management programs, like AgriStability, and haven't collected a dollar. We've since heard, in the last month, that Saskatchewan Crop Insurance is still working on 2024 claims. I mentioned in my comments that sometimes, before farmers would be eligible to collect some of this money or be entitled to it, the auction sale would be over and they would have left the industry.

I think it's important at this time in Saskatchewan agriculture, which has 44% of the arable land, that we make sure we can retain as many farm families as possible on that land. Without some kind of business risk management tool to sustain agriculture, it also reflects on food sustainability worldwide.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Could you elaborate on what you mentioned in your answer? We'll use the Palliser Triangle as an example. I believe they're in their seventh year when they would have triggered claims, but a lot of the people can't. Maybe talk about the reference margin.

[William Huber]

One of my colleagues here in one of the industry groups mentioned something about moving the margins up to 90%. I think that's important. Our provincial government in Saskatchewan has announced some of those things—a few more eligible expenses to reflect on the livestock industry—but we need those as permanent fixtures. Last summer, they increased it from 70% to 80% for some things, but those things need to be permanent. When you start losing 20% to 30% of your revenue, that's huge, especially in agriculture, where your profit margin is very slim. It's not like some other industry components that have 15% to 20% return on investment. Agriculture very seldom sees a return that big. I think those things have to be changed permanently.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We've had some talk here about AgriInvest. Currently, it's at 1% of sales. There's been some talk about increasing it to 3%. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[William Huber]

I think it should definitely be increased, because the point to collect is a maximum of $10,000, with $1-million equity in it. That has to be increased, too. If we take the price of farmland and our input costs, it's not even relevant to where it should really be.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

My next question is for you and Mr. Hornby. It's about cross-compliance.

A lot of farmers are quite concerned. As you know, farmers are probably the most green-minded people you'll ever find, because they rely on the soil health for their livelihood. They are worried about cross-compliance when it comes to regulations made in Ottawa, which don't reflect the realities on the ground. Can you expand on that?