Agriculture Committee on April 30th, 2026

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

Thank you.

Thank you all for being with us today. This is a hot topic that you talk about regularly. It's important to have the opportunity to take a broad look at these programs and hear your recommendations.

I'll start with Mr. Beauvais.

In your opening remarks, you said that business transfers should be integrated into the business risk management programs. You gave an example about funding. Do you think that should be part of the business risk management framework, or do you have other ideas in mind to integrate the next generation into the business risk management programs?

[David Beauvais]

You kind of answered your own question: We could act on two fronts.

In terms of each of the risk management programs, in every aspect of agriculture, the next generation is more at risk from the outset, because they have less cash flow and less credit history. We have to keep that in mind.

Next, in terms of the example I gave of the low-interest loan program, it doesn't necessarily have to be part of the risk management programs. We do have a tool on the federal side that works very well, but the government could add that string to its bow.

We can work on both fronts.

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

Thank you for the clarification.

If you have specific recommendations on how risk management programs could be adapted to the reality of the next generation, it would be good to send them to us in writing so that we can include them in the report, because supporting the next generation is particularly relevant.

I'm going to turn to the representatives of the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec.

In general, I think produce growers are facing even more challenges, from a climate and geopolitical standpoint, than other producers. Could one of you explain the specific risks they face?

How can we ensure, through risk management programs, that produce growers are better supported and made more resilient?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

I can give you an example. In 2023, fruit and vegetable producers in Quebec had a rather difficult year. There was drought for part of the summer. Then there was torrential rain. A lot of people had to trigger the AgriStability program. Because of the way these programs work, when there are two bad years in a row, they don't kick in anymore, because our reference margin, which is an average of the last five years, is too low. AgriStability is one of the programs that should be adapted as quickly as possible, because it should be the first program triggered to cover such losses.

That same year, we also used AgriRecovery, and it was 18 months before producers received a penny from the initiative.

These are all programs that need to be reviewed as quickly as possible, as Ms. Lessard mentioned, given the climate change we are currently experiencing. These are underutilized programs, because the criteria are wrong and they don't kick in.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

Urgent action is needed. Earlier, you were told about the pressure on corporate profit margins. I have three figures for you.

In Quebec, between 2018 and 2023, profit margins for small produce businesses fell from 18.6% to 8.5%. For medium-sized businesses, they dropped from 21.4% to 9.8%, and for larger businesses, from 16.7% to 11.3%. We see that the increase in costs compared to the sale price at the farm gate means that profit margins are declining and the pressure limits the farms' ability to invest.

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

Ms. Lessard, you were the first to mention that AgriRecovery initiatives need to be completely overhauled.

This week, at our last meeting, we had a witness from the Hebert Group, Mr. Kristjan Hebert, who said that if the other risk management programs were more flexible or responded better, we probably wouldn't need to use AgriRecovery.

Do you share that view?

[Catherine Lessard]

It all depends on how the other programs are changed, but I would say that, initially, if the other risk management programs, mainly AgriStability and AgriInsurance for crop insurance, were able to better manage catastrophic events, it would indeed allow businesses to continue financially.

Now, how can catastrophic events be taken into account? One way is to ensure that, in future years, producers don't have to pay for climate-related damage that they have nothing to do with. Currently, for both AgriStability and AgriInsurance, producers who experience climate effects on a number of occasions are at a disadvantage. In the end, there is no safety net at all for these businesses.

To answer your question, yes, it is possible, but it all depends on how it is done.

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

You all also talked about reaction time and program responsiveness. In a few recent cases, including in British Columbia, we've seen that preliminary payments can be made through AgriRecovery based on an assessment, meaning 80% of assessed amount, for example. Those programs could be rolled out very quickly.

Do you think that's a model we could use in other programs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry, but we've run out of time. I apologize. I gave you an extra 15 seconds.

Next, we'll go to the Bloc for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beauvais, thank you for accepting our invitation. I think the voice of the next generation is particularly necessary, especially when we're talking about programs that cover the whole issue of security and the capital you need.

When we talk about risk management, the first major risk is the risk of losing expertise in the farming community, meaning that young people like you can't necessarily access the land.

Do you feel that it is currently easy for the next generation to access land and programs?

You suggested that a patient capital program be set up. Can you tell us more about that?

[David Beauvais]

To answer the first question, I would say that, no, it's not easy to access land. Even for a producer who has been established for 20 or 30 years, it's not easy to get access to land. For a young person coming out of school, who doesn't have a lot of experience and credit history, given the price of land today, it's not easy, and even impossible for most of the next generation.

That is why we are asking for broader support programs for the next generation. It's so that farm businesses can be transferred and there can be a multitude of farm businesses, not just three or four farms with millions of hectares.

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

One thing I'm wondering about is the fact that agriculture is also becoming a big business, with sole proprietors who own very large tracts. That's the American model, basically, which we're seeing more and more.

How can we ensure that there is still room for family-based, human-focused and local producers?

[David Beauvais]

We need to support them. If we don't support them through programs, whether it's risk management programs or loan programs, for example, we won't have continuity.

I see it with my colleagues in the next generation. Sometimes, the choice is quite simple: Are we going to go into a very risky environment, where there are very small margins, or are we going to leave agriculture? Some of my colleagues are choosing to give up farming because it's too risky. We need to support agriculture.

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

For a young person, the first few years are always necessarily the hardest. Part of that is learning and part is capital. It takes a fair amount of money to buy land. Let's say that if a producer has bought land for $1 million, it's mostly in the form of a loan. They have to invest in order to start production and buy equipment. If an extreme weather event occurs, the insurance programs will be triggered, or perhaps not, but you still have to pay a deductible, in addition to waiting several months before you get the necessary assistance.

How do the programs adapt to the reality of a young person taking risks and who is much more at risk because of their financial commitments?

I would like to add that there is also the whole issue of animal welfare, which we are talking about more and more and which is a source of pride for Quebec and Canada. We're talking about loose housing, for example. This week, I met with egg producers whose chickens are free-range. All that requires new investments, which are harder for the next generation to make. I know that the programs aren't able to meet their needs.

Is that a problem for you?

[David Beauvais]

Yes, it is a problem.

As I mentioned earlier, liquidity is one of the biggest challenges for the next generation. Young farmers have little credit history and are often small businesses. If a program takes six months, a year or two years to trigger repayments, the lack of liquidity constrains the next generation and prevents its investments and development. If the next generation of businesses is waiting for a cheque, they can't regrow their herds. It's a vicious circle.

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

You told us about claims that were very well formulated and that, in my opinion, are a minimum or a threshold that a government can easily meet.

The Union des producteurs agricoles told us that a minimum percentage based on gross domestic product should be invested in agriculture, a bit like for the military. In my opinion, these investments should focus on the next generation.

We just had an economic statement. I'd be curious to hear your opinion on it. Are you satisfied with the measures in it?

What you just mentioned to us in your opening remarks is a minimum, in my opinion, that is easily achievable for a G7 country.

Do you feel that Canada is being stingy with you?

[David Beauvais]

There's always more that can be done, for sure. Investing in agriculture means investing in land use, health and many other things. Investing in the next generation is exactly that.

Indeed, we find that less than 1% is too little for everything that agriculture can contribute to Canadian society.

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

In closing, can you tell us a little about the psychological state of the next generation? Do you feel that young people are facing the future with confidence or that we may see a loss of interest in the coming years?

[David Beauvais]

I've been involved at the provincial level with the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec for about 10 years. For the past two to three years, I've been burning out a little from all the added stress. We are young, we are passionate, we are a bit crazy, but I hear a lot more about burnout now and that worries me.

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

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Beauvais. It's very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll go to the Conservatives for five minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, guests.

I'll give you a bit of background. I really do miss these discussions. I used to be the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers out of Manitoba, and I really do miss them, especially from Quebec. You guys can just light things on fire as far as farm policy goes, so congratulations.

I'll focus on the vegetable growers today, Catherine.

I was just admiring.... They refer to it as a suite of programs. I was just looking through them. According to our report here, there are 11 different programs for agriculture, and the federal government says, “Here's how we're looking after agriculture.” There are 11.

The first question I have is this. What are they really trying to focus on? What is the federal government really trying to focus on here when it comes to business risk management programs? I think it's way too much. What problem are we trying to fix? Are we trying to fix crop insurance, when someone has lost their crop and that's gone south, or is it their business in general, when they have too much debt? They're both interrelated, but with the programs right here, right now, I can honestly say that I've never seen such a mishmash of things just to try to make everybody happy.

Catherine, could you comment briefly on that?

[Catherine Lessard]

Regarding the programs, yes, there are a lot of them. I would say that, for farmers, not all of them are equal or have the same level of interest.

We were talking about AgriStability. We mentioned it. It's really the basis of what we call business risk management, because it makes sure that there is a margin at the end of the year and that this margin remains quite stable. I think this is exactly where we want to go with these business risk management programs. It is to make sure that the activities of the farms can continue over time and that they can face these increasing risks and maintain their profitability and their businesses in the long term to make sure that Canadians still have food available for them.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I still have way more questions for you.

That leads into AgriInvest. I don't know where your organization is on that. I farmed back when it first came in, and then we got rid of it, but I always thought that it was such a great idea, because each individual farmer knew what his risk was. It was kind of a partnership with the government where you could put money away for a rainy day and yet it was self-incentivized. You wouldn't abuse the program. You'd only collect.... It's sort of like a real insurance program.

Does your organization have a policy on that? You can just answer yes or no.

[Catherine Lessard]

We support AgriInvest—