Agriculture Committee on April 28th, 2026

[William Huber]

We have some of the best production land in Canada, and it's the newest land. Some of our farmland is only a little over 100 years old. That's when our ancestors settled there and broke the land. We have to make sure that the land is farmed properly.

We can talk about the research stations in Indian Head and Scott, where along with Jim Halford from Indian Head, they've developed programs on direct seeding and soil conservation. Those things are valuable in preserving our soil. We've almost eliminated soil erosion by wind and water from past years, from the 1930s and 1940s. We have to recognize some of the producers' achievements and innovations—people like Jim Halford.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

MP Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much.

To the CFA, are there any countries or any of our allies who have gotten it right and modernized in a way that our producers are asking for in Canada? Do you have any examples?

Actually, any of the witnesses can answer.

[Scott Ross]

Every context is different in agriculture globally. I don't think there's one foreign jurisdiction that says it has the mix exactly right so we can lift that for Canada's purposes.

When we look at some of our major trading partners.... The U.S., for example, has adopted a much more tailored approach to its management that targets individualized needs and focuses on developing products that are more tailored to the individual needs of some of the diverse segments of their industry. While I wouldn't suggest that the whole model is something we would lift, certainly there are elements of the responsiveness at the heart of that programming model that I think we would like to see adopted to a greater extent in Canada.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

In the European Union, with their cap, they have a stable baseline income for their producers. Do you think that's something that producers in Canada would be interested in?

[Scott Ross]

Again, I would say the context is so wholly different in the EU relative to Canada that it's hard to lift one isolated element of their programming mix and suggest that it would fit in the Canadian context. From our perspective, where we see a concern there is the relative net spend of the EU in their agricultural sector relative to Canada, where we are at a significant disadvantage. Saying that, I do think we are very focused on ensuring that we have programming that is focused on risk management rather than baseline income, but at the same time ensuring that it is looking at it from the stance of what risks farmers are currently facing, and whether the tools are currently responsive to those.

I think it is a very different context. We see a very different regulatory environment in general in the EU, but certainly the net spending is significantly different between Canada and the EU, and we do see that as a concern from a competitiveness standpoint.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Huber, I'm a big fan of Saskatchewan. I think it's one of the most beautiful provinces I've ever been in. I drove across Canada after university, and I'd never spent any time in Saskatchewan. I have a tremendous respect for the province as a whole, and for the producers there.

Do you know what the current enrolment is among your producers in any BRM programs, more specifically AgriStability?

[William Huber]

We've asked that question several times, and the number we get is that probably 20% of the producers are in it, but they don't base it on the numbers of actual farmers. They base it on the amount of dollars, or their eligible sales, so it's a different formula. However, we're losing participants, and every year there are fewer and fewer people signing up.

I know this from my farming operation. I have two sons who have basically taken over. I continually tell them to stay enrolled, keep paying their fees and make sure they're doing their books right, because someday we may get a payment if we're fortunate enough to get some changes made to this program. I say it would be pretty disappointing if they pulled out and the next year we see these changes, when it would have been beneficial to their operation.

The number is certainly declining.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you for that.

I farm, and I've never enrolled in AgriStability, because my dad didn't. We did for a little bit, but never qualified, so it became this burden. As you've spoken to, the margins are so incredibly slim.

We talk about this in the committee, and I did last week as well. People are so far removed from the world of agriculture and its lifestyle. They see the beauty of it, the commercials, and all these pieces about how their food comes to be, but they don't know the tremendous amount of loss and just how slim the margins are, and how some people are just holding on.

When we talk about modernization—and this can be for any of the witnesses—specifically what would the producers like to see? I know you spoke a little bit about one single system moving through. Is there anything else you'd like to elaborate on that would be helpful for the producers to be able to access these programs?

[Scott Ross]

I think it's important to note that we're not suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater here and getting rid of programs like AgriStability. I think they do work for some producers, and they work quite well. There's certainly room for improvement on eligibility of expenses, on timeliness and on understanding of the program, which is quite complex.

Saying that, I think what we would like to see as a sort of evolution of these programs is a movement to start crowding in other options and allowing farmers to have more choice and flexibility in terms of what suite of tools will serve their individual operation better. That can be in AgriStability or AgriInvest—the current tools—or it can be an opportunity, a missed opportunity currently, to advance innovative program solutions that are either public sector in nature or public-private partnerships with farmers to look at some of the targeted risk exposure areas where we are not seeing equitable support.

Price insurance was one point we referenced at the front end. Certainly we are seeing rising concerns around access to farm business insurance, for example, and accessibility concerns there. I think that, more than anything, creating a space that allows the private sector to see a role in supplementing what we have is critically important. That requires supports like catastrophic risk coverage, because that is often a point of concern for private sector entrants. The cost of systemic risk is just so great that it puts them out of the market altogether.

Just creating that space for innovation and more options for farmers to pick and choose is really at the heart of what we think needs to happen over time in this programming suite.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Huber, would you like to comment?

[William Huber]

Yes, I would.

We have a program in Saskatchewan that's available in Alberta and some of the other provinces that are involved. It's at Saskatchewan Crop Insurance. That program works very well. It's time-sensitive. If you have a yield loss on a certain crop or variety of crops, you put in a claim. Your claim is reviewed within days and you have a cheque in the mail. Those things are so important.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of AgriStability or AgriInvest. I'm saying that we can make them better. There's an old saying, “If it's not broke, don't fix it.” This program needs some repair. It's not totally collapsed, but we need to make changes to it so it's more time-sensitive and more expense is allowed, so that producers have an opportunity to get some support to help them maintain this.

We have to realize that family farms in the province of Saskatchewan are so important to our industry and to the growth of productivity. They contribute to our GDP. We really have to be cognizant of those things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to the Bloc for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses.

I will begin with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Last week, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, told us that, all things considered, risk management programs were generally working well, but that the problem was clearly a lack of funding. Canada has invested very little in agriculture, unlike many other OECD countries. The UPA suggested that Canada allocate 2% of its budget to agriculture. Do you think that 2% should be subject to a measure like what we see, for example, on military spending?

I had a meeting at my office this morning, and we were even discussing a recognized national strategic pillar that is identified and part of the Canadian conversation.

What do you think of the notion that the government has an obligation to invest a percentage of its budget in agriculture?

[Scott Ross]

Thank you for the question.

As a starting point, I would say that one of the critical elements we want to see in the next policy framework is the setting of ambitious targets for our sector. This includes focusing on our sector as a national growth engine. In doing so, we have to talk about the relative level of investment we need. As I flagged in my earlier response, there is no question that Canada is facing an uphill battle in competing globally in the agri-food sector, due to the level of support we see some of our major trading partners providing.

At the end of the day, for business risk management specifically.... These are statutory programs, so the focus is on getting the program mix right. The budget will follow, because it will be responsive. It's that responsiveness we see at the very heart of the BRM conversation, specifically.

I don't know, Brodie, whether there is anything you would like to add to this.

[Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

One of the main points we're trying to get across in our advice around the next policy framework, as Scott mentioned in his opening remarks, is that it needs to be looked at from a whole-of-government approach, not just Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. That means really leveraging some of the investment tools that exist in other portfolios across this government. Infrastructure funding, for example, would support more proactive investments in water management, which would go a long way in preventing a repeat occurrence of certain types of negative effects on farms related to drought, etc. I think we also need to be looking at tax incentives to support growth and investment in this sector, and at streamlining regulatory burden to support investment in value-added processing.

All these things need to be looked at in a coordinated fashion as part of a whole-of-government lift toward supporting the agriculture sector and Canada's food security, in particular.

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

You partly answered my next question, but I'll ask it anyway.

For several years now, extreme events such as forest fires, droughts and floods have been on the rise. On top of those, we are currently experiencing global uncertainty because of conflicts such as those in Ukraine or the Middle East. We often get the impression that each event requires a special program, when insurance programs should already be addressing these needs. All of this contributes to the uncertainty.

In your opinion, which agricultural programs should be expanded to respond to these new challenges? Should we instead create an agricultural program that allows for nimble and rapid responses in the event of disasters or global uncertainties—which are becoming increasingly frequent and therefore predictable?

[Scott Ross]

Again, thank you for the question.

I would say that, at the front end, we do need to take a very close look at our disaster response framework, AgriRecovery, and look at how we can make that a more timely, consistent program for farmers who are operating in times of great duress, when they require this support and are uncertain about what kind of data is required, when a commitment will be made as to programming and who will be eligible for support.

The case I cite regularly is the drought in 2021. We saw the U.S. administration provide very timely support quickly. In many respects, we were behind the eight ball. What we saw as a result of that were significant feed shortages in western Canada competing with farmers in the United States who already had guaranteed consistent support available to them. We very much need to look at how we can adopt a more off-the-shelf, timely response in those very dramatic situations.

By extension, that goes back to the question of an integrated suite of programs. If that is the case, what do we have in that space? How can we then look at ensuring that products like AgriStability are better understood and have the buy-in so that they are there and are more timely, through increases to interim payments and the like? I would suggest that at the heart of it, the concern is around making sure that we can respond quickly and appropriately to ensure that farmers have the confidence that support will be there when it's needed.

To Brodie's earlier point, I think the critical element in this is also that we see, between these extreme weather events, that whole-of-government approach to mitigation. It's not entirely in the agri-food budget or space that those measures are needed. We need infrastructure investments. We need a long-term vision around research and innovation that can support us in those same spaces. It really is a conversation that starts in the disaster framework but extends to a much broader whole-of-government approach around how we build in more resilience up and down our value chains.

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

In my region, transportation costs are a barrier to agriculture. Shipping a load can easily cost $3,500, whereas in a region closer to major urban centres, it’s around $700.

Should transportation costs get more recognition for our producers in remote regions?

[Scott Ross]

In general, yes, I think that in every respect what we want to see is programming that is more responsive to the actual realities lived by farmers and that is responding to those concerns. Whether that's one program that exists already or a more tailored new approach, we just want to make sure there's space for those conversations and a continued review and evolution of the programs to continue responding as we see certain areas such as transportation and freight costs rise as a point of concern for farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Epp.

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

I'll deal with the CFA.

The present APF has five pillars in it. Obviously, we don't know exactly how many pillars will be in the next BRM, which is the subject of this debate.

Cross-compliance has come up. The CFA represents a number of organizations. Do you have a firm stand on cross-compliance between BRM and some of the other initiatives of government?

[Scott Ross]

Yes, we do. In simple terms, we are struggling to maintain participation in critical programs for farmers who need these tools when situations arise. They require them. Any barrier to entry, whether through cross-compliance or other measures, just creates an uphill battle for programs that are already struggling to get producers engaged. We are opposed to cross-compliance.

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

Thank you.

We've heard testimony at this meeting today that AgriInsurance is well supported and works well, etc., and AgriStability does not. Would you agree with the following two statements? Over time, AgriStability has moved from a stabilization program, its original intent, to more of a disaster response and, quite frankly, it's not working there. Also, what your producers are saying—what I'm hearing from your testimony—is that they're not looking for tweaks. They're looking for a major overhaul.

[Scott Ross]

On the first point, there's no question. There was an explicit change made roughly after 2013 to move away from income stabilization to disaster programming, but in saying that, I think there's still an immense misunderstanding and lack of clarity. One of the things we see as central in moving forward is a common understanding about what these programs are doing. There is no question right now that this does not exist at the grassroots.

On your second point, could you repeat the question? I didn't quite capture it properly.