Agriculture Committee on April 28th, 2026

[William Huber]

I think some of these programs should focus on local markets, but at the same time, we can't ignore the bigger picture. It's sometimes the responsibility of our local municipalities and community leaders to enhance some of those initiatives and develop some of the programs. Both of them have to work together.

In Saskatchewan, we have 44% of the arable land, so it's a little different landscape from what we have in other parts of Canada. We concentrate more on the bigger picture, where we're exporting large amounts to other countries. These are some of the other places where we have to maintain food stability, not only worldwide but in our own country and our own jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We're going to go to the Conservatives for three minutes, and the Liberals for three minutes.

We'll go to Mr. Bragdon.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I have a couple of things. Obviously, there's been a lot of talk about potential disruptions, ruptures and whatnot regarding our biggest and most valued trading partner to the south. I know that in agriculture the relationship we have north and south of the border is particularly vital and important. With the efforts to diversify trade, which everyone thinks is great and wonderful, I think there are some concerns—and I'm hearing from producers in my area as well—that this relationship be prioritized and that any friction points be addressed.

One of the things we've heard is that, in the push to maybe move more of our products over to the EU, there's a big concern being raised about how the EU has a food and feed bill that will ban crops using some crop protections and will severely limit our ability to export into those markets or even not allow access for Canadian crops. There are already non-tariff trade barriers in place for beef and pork.

I'd like to know from your vantage point, Mr. Ross—and Mr. Huber can follow up—the concerns that you're hearing from your producers as they relate to the paramount importance of a relationship for agriculture and the trade going back and forth between Canada and the U.S., and the potential huge barriers that we face in gaining further access into European markets.

I'll start with you, Mr. Ross.

[Scott Ross]

That's a great question. I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Berrigan. He can answer on behalf of the CFA here.

[Brodie Berrigan]

First, with regard to Canada-U.S. trade, there's no doubt that the U.S. is Canada's largest market, and it very likely always will be. It's a very important market, our most important trading market. There are very practical reasons why we cannot diversify away from that market entirely. A lot of the perishable fruits and vegetables that we ship to the U.S. market simply cannot be shipped around the world in the same way. It's the same thing with a lot of cattle and livestock. We're so deeply integrated with the U.S. market that we cannot take our eye off the ball of just how important that market is, and it needs to continue to be a priority.

We do support diversification of trade. I mean, there are a lot of opportunities out there, both in expanding existing markets and in potentially breaking into new ones. The EU is a tricky one, for a lot of the reasons you just mentioned. In fact, we have been unable to fully utilize the market access that was negotiated through the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. Last I checked, I think we've utilized 0% of our pork access and a very minor proportion—a single-digit percentage—of our beef access to that market, which is largely due to non-tariff barriers to trade. It is probably one of the most significant barriers to actually taking advantage of the existing markets that we already have in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Liberals for three minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us.

Mr. Ross, I'm quite interested in the four points you raised in your remarks. Mr. Hornby, I'd say the same about the six points you raised. I don't have much speaking time, but I would like more details on those. I would therefore ask you to provide this information in writing.

We often hear that we need a risk management system that factors in new risks—especially on the international market, such as the significant costs that wars impose on producers. Another aspect is processing. How can we further innovate while supporting the entire supply chain, as was so aptly said?

I leave it to you to provide us with further details. I only have three minutes, but please feel free to submit your ideas to the clerk. They will be very helpful when we start drafting our recommendations, making them very relevant.

I'll start with you, Mr. Ross, but I'd also like to hear Mr. Hornby's thoughts.

[Scott Ross]

Thank you for the question.

I think that, when we look at value added in agriculture, it is unquestionably one of the opportunities we think we most need to seize here. Looking at that as a tool for building out both domestic markets and global markets is a critical through line we see across the board.

There's no question that right now we have challenges in fully realizing our potential in that space. This again speaks to the need for an integrated whole-of-government approach to this issue, in that we really need to look at not only resilience in our sector with BRM as a primary focal point but growth and what conditions we need to advance there. This is why not just the framework itself but what goes around that is so vitally important. We need to see red tape reduction and continued regulatory modernization. In speaking with processors, more than anything we hear that our regulatory environment is the biggest impediment to growth and increases in that space.

Simultaneously, as Mr. Berrigan referenced earlier, tax incentives and other tools to incentivize investment in capital modernization are critically needed to create conditions for growth in that space. That has the potential to lift all boats and support farmers with more sustained diversified revenue, while at the same time creating an opportunity to innovate and to create tools and products that better serve global markets.

We can certainly provide more detail in writing, but from our perspective that is, for us, one of the fundamental pillars on which we need to focus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

Mr. Hornby, you have 20 seconds left, but I would also like you to send us a written response.

[Colin Hornby]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, we're definitely happy to provide more in writing.

I think the big thing is to understand that agriculture has changed, and that any business doesn't do the same thing for 20 years. We need to look at all of the programs we're offering. We need to look at the risks—they've changed, as was discussed in detail today—to make sure that the programs we have are being proactive and supporting producers. What are the goals? What do we want to achieve? What are the outcomes we want to achieve? We want to grow Canada's footprint on the global market. We want to strengthen our relationships in markets like the United States, which will always be our biggest trading partner.

I'm definitely happy to provide more detail to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today.

We will suspend for about five minutes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call the meeting back to order.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name or until you're asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by teleconference, click 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, 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.

I'd like to ask that all in-person participants consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table to help prevent audio feedback incidents, and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. 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 of business risk management programs in Canada’s agricultural sector.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

In person, we have Mr. Fagan, farmer and butcher from Beothuk Land & Cattle Company.

By video conference, we have Mr. Hebert, president of the Hebert Group.

Also by video conference, we have Mr. Lafontaine, farmer from Ferme Lafontaine-Noël.

You each have up to five minutes, and then we'll open it up for questions.

Perhaps we can start with you, Mr. Fagan, for five minutes.

[Nelson Fagan, Farmer and Butcher, Beothuk Land & Cattle Company, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

My name is Nelson Fagan, Jr. I own and operate a beef cattle farm, Beothuk Land & Cattle Company. I am also a butcher and operate under N. Fagan Meats in Conception Bay South, Newfoundland and Labrador. I also grow root crops. I am the first and currently the only registered pedigree Charolais cattle breeder in my province, which I'm quite proud of. They are my passion.

I sat as a chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador cattlemen's association for five consecutive years. I am a relatively small farm compared to others Canada-wide, but in our small province, I am among the biggest beef cattle producers in my area. I am a fifth-generation farmer and butcher, and I grew up on a family farm. I raise my animals from start to finish. I have an abattoir where I process my own animals, as well as prepare them for consumers. My operation truly is start to finish.

When I think of business risk management, I think about livestock insurance, forage production and natural disasters. Under the current provincial livestock insurance program, livestock is only covered for death or injury due to dogs or predators. As a beef cattle producer, I can say that dogs or predators like coyotes have yet to be an issue in the province. Therefore, this type of insurance does not benefit any beef producer in the province.

We need livestock insurance that will cover disease outbreak resulting in a major loss of the herd. We also need livestock insurance that would cover natural disasters, like wildfires, which have been more common in our province. For example, last summer, we had a forest fire break out on the opposite side of the highway, adjacent to one of our summer pastures, only six kilometres away. It was only by the grace of God that the wind never shifted and caused the fire to move in the direction of our pasture. Had that happened, it would have wiped out my entire herd and livelihood, with no protection. With the scale of my farm, there is no way to recoup the loss.

With regard to payouts for our current livestock insurance under the provincial government, I reviewed the numbers and the payouts for beef cattle in 2026-27. For grade and registered bulls and cows, it ranges from $400 to $650 per head. For grade and registered heifers and steers, it is from $200 to $400 per head. For grade and registered calves, it ranges from $70 to just $100 per head. Even if this insurance policy were to cover things outside predators and dog attacks, it would not be worthwhile for me to invest my time and money into this, with today's cattle markets. For example, AgriInsurance would give me $650 to buy a breeding bull, but a breeding bull at today's price is $7,500.

With regard to forage production, my situation is a unique one for my area. I do not grow my own forage. I rely on purchasing the surplus hay from a network of my fellow producers. When it comes to climate risks, like droughts, which much of Atlantic Canada experienced last year, hay production is halted. This winter, under SCAP, the province introduced the AgriRecovery forage assistance initiative. I was unable to apply to this program. It was announced a few days before the deadline for the hay to be purchased. With so many producers searching at the same time, it was scarce to find. The biggest issue with living on an island is the transport cost. It was going to cost me more to transport the hay than the purchase price of the hay.

I’m sure that our issues may differ from the rest of the country, but in our province, we are all facing the same challenges in the beef industry.

Thank you for having me speak. I greatly appreciate the opportunity, and I hope that you will take these topics into serious consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your time.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Lafontaine for five minutes.

[Éric Lafontaine, Farmer, Ferme Lafontaine-Noël, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Éric Lafontaine, and I am a cattle producer in Dupuy, Abitibi-Ouest, on the Lafontaine-Noël farm—a family farm that has operated for over 100 years. My spouse and I have been co-owners since 1993, and we own a herd of approximately 300 cows. Our daughter now wants to carry on the work that my family has developed for generations.

I am here today to tell you about a catastrophic situation that occurred in 2023 and which, three years later, continues to profoundly affect my farm and many producers in my region.

First, in 2023, we had an abnormal winter: there was little snow and a lot of ice very early in the season. That weakened our pastures. Then, the forest fires in Abitibi and Northern Quebec forced the urgent evacuation of our herd of about 800 head. Finally, there was a historic drought, which resulted in a water deficit of 220 mm—a level never seen before. Even the region’s most long-standing producers had never seen anything like it.

The consequences were devastating for every producer in the region. After an initial hay cut that was already very poor, it was impossible to harvest a second crop of hay. To adequately feed our livestock, we were forced to use our hay reserves to feed the cows on pasture and then to purchase enormous quantities of hay from other regions at exorbitant costs.

Producers estimate their yield loss at approximately 70%. However, the Financière agricole du Québec, as part of the crop insurance program, assessed losses at 36% on average, which means a compensation shortfall of approximately 34%.

I want to make this clear: The system could have done better. This is not a technical issue; it is a matter of choice.

When the gap between the actual situation and the recognized data exceeds the established framework by over 15%, the Financière agricole has a duty to compensate insured producers. Three years later, the impact on our business is still being felt, because the entire income protection system failed to meet our needs. With our current resources, it will take us at least six to eight years to return to the levels we had before 2023. We may never be able to make up for this lost growth, which could affect the next generation of farmers. I want to make it clear that our situation is far from unique. Indeed, many of Abitibi's producers find themselves in the same boat.

One essential point must be understood: hay is the foundation of our production. In our business, more than two-thirds of our expenses go toward forage crops. We are just as much forage crop producers as we are beef producers—if not more so. Yet it is precisely these crops that are the least protected by the insurance program, especially when compared to grains, which are often fully covered.

Climate change is increasing our risks. There is more at stake than just a bad year; it is the very survival of our farms. In practical terms, one-size-fits-all solutions in farm risk management programs must end. We need greater flexibility and we need to provide for genuine exceptional measures. Programs must be adapted to regional realities and ensure fairness on a national scale. Finally, in exceptional situations, more on-site inspections are needed, because, all too often, the way data is interpreted does not reflect the reality faced by producers. That is the crux of the problem.

The beef industry needs breathing room. The average age of producers is high, and if we want to attract the next generation, the industry must become attractive again. Current prices are good, but we cannot fully take advantage of the cycle. The catastrophic situation in 2023 meant we missed out on a favourable economic cycle, and this setback continues to hinder the development of our businesses today.

Finally, I want to remind everyone that providing adequate compensation to farmers is not an expense; it is an investment that will be recouped, in the medium term, through tax revenue, but above all through stable and sustainable economic benefits in rural areas that, very often, rely heavily on their agricultural production.

In closing, I ask one simple thing of you: give us tools that match the risks we take. That is how we will be able to protect our farms, support the next generation, and keep rural areas vibrant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Hebert for five minutes.

[Kristjan Hebert, President, The Hebert Group of Companies Ltd., As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the invitation to discuss BRM. I appreciate your patience with virtual attendance, as my seeders are literally driving by my office window right now, starting to plant our farm.

I'm here representing the Hebert Group, which includes a family farm called Hebert Grain Ventures. The first crop of 320 acres was planted by my father Louis and my mother Karen in 1978. This spring, in 2026, we'll crop 42,000 acres. We also have an agriculture risk finance company called Maverick Ag, which deals directly in BRM and finance management. One of our favourite offerings is executive education for farmers through a program called “Farmer Coach”, which helps with farm management learning.

I like to joke that I'm a recovering accountant. I'm a CPA by trade, so I'm addicted to numbers and data. I spent quite a bit of time in BRM, and I am a former chair of Global Ag Risk, one of the few private crop insurance options in Canada.

I'll focus on grain farms, as that's what I understand best.

The average cost of production on a grain farm in Canada has increased from around $250 or $300 an acre 10 years ago to between $550 and $600 an acre in 2026. On top of the doubling of the risk farms take every year, we can see that policy risk in the last five to seven years has been one of the biggest challenges. For example, canola tariffs dropped revenue by between $120 and $150 an acre in a three- to four-month period this winter. That's just easy math: three dollars a bushel times 40 to 50 bushels an acre. Considering that the average grain farm is targeting a profit of around $50 an acre, a trade policy can thrust them into a loss, with no management option for the farmer.

Diesel fuel, obviously because of the Strait of Hormuz and our neighbours to the south, has varied in the last three months from as low as 81¢ a litre to $1.50 a litre. Depending on cash flow, storage and the timing of planting, farms can be fairly handcuffed on their costs. I could give the same example with fertilizer. Timing and cash flow have become of the utmost criticality when managing the farms specifically with these policy risks.

I would urge government not to focus on just food security at this point in time. Instead, look at a national agri-food strategy that focuses on economic impact, global food security, national food sovereignty and, most importantly, productivity and resilience. It really is agriculture and food's time to shine and be a solution to our lagging productivity and economic growth compared with some of our global partners.

Obviously, a key part of this strategy will be BRM. FPT discussions are starting this summer on new BRM programs, so I'll provide a few high-level comments on each program and welcome any questions afterwards.

AgriInsurance crop insurance is one of our staples. We need to look pretty strongly at interprovincial consistency, how some of the rules are applied and the separate rules in different provinces, such as separate contracts for locations and grandfathering in previously paid premiums. It's probably about time to look at the subsidy, realize what it's actually costing the Canadian taxpayer and ask whether we're getting the results we want from the program.

This is not a welcome opinion among some of my farm peers, but I think we should get rid of the $10,000 matching and turn AgriInvest into a tax-deferred, income-smoothing account so that when farmers put money in the account, it's a writeoff, no different from what we do now for buying fertilizer or cattle. When we take money out, it's income. That could help farms manage their taxes and let government know how the industry is performing. It would also help reserves and banks.

I'm a huge fan of AgriStability. I think it's the best program the government offers. I realize that's not a widely held opinion. The accounting industry has not helped the government's ability to implement AgriStability. The accounting industry tends to cause issues of timing and slowness of payments. There are a number of things I would change in AgriStability, such as eliminating caps and allowing enterprise accounting.

I have a transformative-change idea: a private-public voucher system.

For BRM, I would strongly urge you to look at the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act program, which has government-backed loans to 95% on a $500,000 max. This should be adjusted and tied to new BRM talks.

I truly believe we have a succession and transition opportunity, not a problem. However, a number of tax things put in over the last decade have made it very tough. We need to look at capital gains, the 21-year trust rule, taxable capital, corporate partnerships and section 85 expansion.

Thanks for your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.

I'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. Lafontaine.

If I understand correctly, during past events—namely the drought in 2023, the fires, and the loss of forage—the risk management program did not work for you. You suffered a massive loss of forage, given the size of your herd. To feed 300 cows, you probably need around 2,000 tonnes of forage per year.

Please explain your strategy. Indirectly, your strategy may have actually worked against you. The program is so broad that you have to suffer a significant loss of income for it to apply. On the other hand, according to the program, a loss of forage isn't considered a loss of income, because you still sold animals—and you may even have sold more due to the lack of forage.

Please explain what happened on your farm so we can fully understand.

[Éric Lafontaine]

Actually, the drought occurred at the beginning of the season. In Abitibi, we're used to having more water, and at the start of the season, we had no water at all. We thought it would rain at some point, but there was no rain. We had to use the hay we were harvesting to feed the pasture animals. In the end, we still had to buy quite a lot of it. We managed to find some in Témiscamingue. What we needed was money to buy hay during the summer, during the harvest, because we knew that everyone in the region, everyone in Abitibi, needed to buy hay. At that point, we did pressure the Financière agricole du Québec to try to get advance payments, but there was a long wait. We received the first payment in August. When you know that everyone wants hay, you have to act quickly.

As for the decrease in our herd, we had 350 cows; we sold about 50 of them to make it through the winter with the forage stocks we had and managed to secure. However, that's catching up with us now, because we have 50 fewer calves to sell, which is another loss of income. We haven't received much compensation. At the same time, selling off the herd means that today we have even less income.

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Gourde.

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

We understand that transportation costs are not necessarily included in the compensation for hay. You mentioned Quebec’s hay crop insurance. I'm quite familiar with this program, as I am also enrolled in it.

When it comes to risk management, the federal program factors in the average financial viability of the farm. However, it does not factor in the weather-related issues your region experienced in 2023. Would there be a way to determine a specific amount at the regional level? As you say, the fact that it was impossible to buy hay from a neighbour—because they needed it just as much as you did—must be taken into account. You had to go further afield to buy it. The price of hay had gone up somewhat, and transportation costs were very high. It would be even worse this year. Could there be a way to consider this a regional climate-related issue?

[Éric Lafontaine]

Actually, there is the AgriRecovery program, but it often comes into play a bit too late in the process.

We met with Minister MacAulay at the time, and he told us he couldn’t do much about it. All he could do was talk to Minister Lamontagne, who could provide compensation through the Financière agricole du Québec. I feel like I’m paying a hefty premium for crop insurance. We really wanted the crop insurance to compensate us, but we were never compensated for the full extent of our losses.

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

When you met with the minister, he told you he couldn’t do anything. Perhaps he hadn’t turned to the right person. I recall that in 1984, under Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government, there was a widespread drought in Quebec and the government took action. It provided financial assistance to all producers to compensate for the lack of forage, both those who were insured and those who were not. So it was possible for the government to do something. You received a negative response, but I find it hard to accept that the current government did not want to help you. The programs exist. It doesn’t want to change them. It would have been possible to create an ad hoc program to help the region, to help you, but that wasn’t done. What you’re telling us is that the current government, unfortunately, didn’t do anything.

[Éric Lafontaine]

That's exactly right. I can't say otherwise.

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

Thank you.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?