Agriculture Committee on April 30th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 33 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 would 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 and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will 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 our 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, 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. 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 try to manage the speaking order to the best of our ability.

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. Thank you for joining us here today.

From the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec, we have Catherine Lefebvre and Patrice Léger. From the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec, we have David Beauvais, who is the president. From the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, we have Catherine Lessard, who is the chair of the business risk management working group.

Welcome to all of our witnesses. Thank you so much, everyone.

We'll start with the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada for five minutes.

[Catherine Lessard, Chair, Business Risk Management Working Group, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Honourable members, I am here today representing Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, an organization made up of representatives from horticultural producer associations across the country.

According to Statistics Canada, since 2015, the profit margin for fruit and vegetable producers has shrunk considerably. For example, the profit margin for greenhouse growers has dropped from 9% to 5%. The situation for fruit growers is even worse: They have been operating at a loss for the past two years.

At the same time, the debt ratio for horticultural businesses has been rising over the past 10 years and now exceeds 30% for Canadian potato growers and greenhouse growers. We are therefore seeing a deterioration in the financial situation of fruit and vegetable businesses.

Why is this the case?

First, in the horticultural sector, there has been a rise in production costs, such as labour, fertilizers and interest expenses. The sector is unable to pass these increased costs on to the wholesalers and retailers who buy these products, which reduces profits, as I have illustrated. Added to this is an increase in the frequency and severity of climate-related crop damage. At the start of every season, producers invest a fortune without knowing what they will get in return for their products, due to market volatility.

Furthermore, Canadian fruits and vegetables compete with those from the United States and Mexico in both domestic and international markets. The United States has established a $3.65 billion direct payment program intended primarily for American fruit and vegetable producers. This is roughly equivalent to the total budget of our Department of Agriculture.

The protection offered by current risk management programs is inadequate in light of this worsening situation. In Canada, participation by fruit and vegetable producers in these programs is declining, despite increasing risks.

The costs of participating in AgriInsurance exceed producers' annual profits. Between paying an insurance premium and the certainty of producing at a loss, the choice is clear. That is, when coverage is even available. Crop insurance protections are often limited for fruits and vegetables, and there is none for greenhouse production.

The AgriStability program is not designed for the increasingly frequent catastrophic weather events. After two poor production years out of five, the program ultimately becomes useless. For horticultural producers striving to limit income fluctuations by diversifying their crops, the program is very difficult to trigger. When it does, the producer can expect a payment two years after the damage.

Finally, AgriRecovery initiatives are limited, ill suited, difficult to trigger and do not help the producers who truly need them.

In this context, and as part of the development of the next agricultural policy framework, we call for a better sharing of risks among producers, governments and buyers. Without this, producers will be caught in a spiral of bad years, debt, bankruptcies and the sale of land to field crop producers or, worse, to real estate developers. This poses a real risk to our country's food security.

How can we avoid this situation?

First, we need to strengthen all risk management programs by increasing their funding levels and raising government contribution rates.

More specifically, for AgriStability, we are asking to lower the trigger to a 15% decline from the reference margin, to revise the calculation of the reference margin to account for catastrophic weather events and to expedite payments.

For the advance payment program, we want the interest-free loan portion to be permanently increased to $350,000.

We also want the AgriInsurance program to be better adapted to the reality of horticultural producers by covering all fruits and vegetables.

Furthermore, the AgriRecovery initiatives deserve a complete overhaul.

Second, we want specific programs to support horticulture that allow us to compete with our neighbours. We also want additional investments in climate change management and mitigation, in innovation and in applied research, because that is also what helps reduce risks and program costs.

Every Canadian province has its own realities. It is essential to recognize this through flexible programs and the ability to implement specific agreements without having to obtain consensus from all provinces and territories, as is currently the case under federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

All of these suggestions should be viewed as investment opportunities for the Canadian government in a critical sector: Local production of the most important food group for the health of Canadians.

That concludes my remarks. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Beauvais, you have the floor for five minutes.

[David Beauvais, President, Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in the discussions as part of your study of business risk management programs in the Canadian agricultural sector.

My name is David Beauvais, and I am a dairy and maple syrup producer from the Estrie region, as well as the president of the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec, or FRAC. I have been involved with the FRAC for 10 years and have served as its president since 2024.

I am speaking to you today on behalf of the FRAC, which brings together nearly 2,100 members aged 16 to 39 who are passionate about agriculture.

We believe that farm succession is the primary risk to be addressed in the Canadian agricultural sector and that it must be integrated into the administration of risk management programs.

This is all the more urgent given that $50 billion in agricultural and agri-food assets will be transferred in Canada over the next decade.

Among the factors hindering the smooth transfer of farms is the difficulty of accessing quality land at a price that allows for farm profitability. Land prices are 10 times higher than they were in 2000. In 2024 alone, the increase was 12.5%. The agronomic value of the land has not kept pace with the increase in market value.

Furthermore, Canada has a generational renewal rate of 24%, a sharp decline over the past several years. In 20 years, the number of young farmers has fallen alarmingly. These findings are all the more alarming as the consequences of climate change and the current geopolitical climate intensify. Risk management programs must take this situation into account.

It is therefore necessary to implement coherent policies and strengthen the effectiveness of programs, their responsiveness and their ability to mitigate risks for new-generation agricultural businesses.

In particular, we propose establishing patient capital as a solution given the risks threatening the next generation of farmers. This capital would be available to producers under the age of 40 who have been established for less than 10 years. It would offer financing of up to $1 million for the purchase of land, with a low, fixed interest rate over 40 years and a 5% down payment.

Among those who still dare to venture into farming, nearly half must hold a job off the farm to make ends meet, while trying to access land whose price continues to rise and does not reflect its agricultural value.

With this in mind, patient capital is a risk management tool that we encourage you to adopt. It is a long-term loan for projects requiring significant investment, such as a farming business.

In conclusion, the risks threatening the next generation of farmers go far beyond climate change and the geopolitical context. It is the conditions for establishing a farm and the renewal of transfers, among other factors, that constitute the risks facing the next generation. The long-term loan helps reduce uncertainty regarding financial fluctuations and constraints. It also allows for better planning of investments and repayments for the next generation.

Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll go to the Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec for five minutes.

[Catherine Lefebvre, President, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec]

Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, good morning.

Yesterday as today, agriculture is one of the main pillars of the Canadian economy. It is also a high-risk activity. Market gardeners must regularly make decisions taking into account farm-gate prices, which are more volatile than ever, increasingly unpredictable weather conditions, and a global market influenced by geopolitical risks and government support provided to producers in competing countries.

The efforts made by local producers to comply with a more restrictive regulatory framework and higher private standards are creating increasingly unsustainable commercial pressure.

As a price taker in the vegetable sector, Canada must continue to invest in programs that strengthen the capacity for proactive risk management in an increasingly uncertain and complex business environment.

Public support for agriculture in Canada remains lower than in many comparable countries. The international average is around 2% of government spending, whereas Canada currently allocates less than 1%. In a context where climate, economic and geopolitical risks are intensifying, this gap is no longer sustainable.

Canada is vulnerable in terms of food sovereignty and fresh vegetables. Ontario and Quebec alone account for more than 80% of production volumes, and this proportion is concentrated in just a few regions. While regional characteristics reflect this reality, they must also be reflected in the range of business risk management programs offered, which must be better adapted to regional realities and market conditions.

Moreover, in the local market, it is important to note that Canadian food retailers have developed business models based on shifting risks and costs onto vegetable growers. Consequently, large publicly traded companies are placing an unreasonable economic burden on family-owned SMEs.

For the period from 2021 to 2023, the profit margin of Quebec producers, both before and after program payments, declined across all categories. The decline is particularly pronounced among small businesses. At the same time, from 2017 to 2023, the debt ratio of Quebec vegetable growers rose from 24% to 27%.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin, General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec]

Today, provisions addressing environmental issues are of critical importance, as climate change poses the primary threat to Canadian agriculture. Market gardeners must cope with more frequent and intense weather events, whether it be drought, as was the case last year, or the extreme rains and late frost of 2023.

At the same time, pressure from crop pests is increasing, given the presence of new pests and growing resistance to pesticides. Moreover, when it comes to risk management, the pesticides regulatory directorate plays a vital role.

We are taking this opportunity, once again, to call for greater collaboration from this government body. It must demonstrate greater responsiveness in the current climate context.

In conclusion, by emphasizing prevention and preparedness, we will increase resilience and adaptability while mitigating the stress caused by uncertainty. Essentially, investing in prevention and risk reduction strategies boosts productivity, profitability and the adoption of innovative technologies and practices.

Given the uncertain geopolitical context and climate change, vegetable growers need flexible programs more than ever.

Here are our recommendations.

We recommend increasing agricultural investments to 2% of public spending. This increase should primarily be used to strengthen business risk management programs.

We recommend improving the AgriStability program. The current trigger threshold does not adequately cover the losses incurred by businesses. We recommend raising this threshold to 85% of the reference margin.

We recommend reviewing the AgriRecovery framework. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and their financial repercussions are immediate. The implementation timelines for these initiatives are long and cumbersome.

We recommend making the AgriInsurance program more flexible. Agricultural realities vary from region to region. It is therefore crucial to give provinces the necessary latitude to adapt crop insurance coverage to the specific risks their producers face.

Finally, we recommend increasing financial support for research and technology transfer. Climate change requires significant adjustments to agricultural practices.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

First, we'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes with Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Lessard.

Corporate risk management programs were established through international agreements to avoid directly subsidizing agriculture. They have been used indirectly. I believe that Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Please stop, Mr. Gourde, just for a minute. We've lost translation.

Could we try a test?

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

Is it working now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Yes.

Monsieur Gourde, I will go back to the beginning. I'll start your six minutes again.

Go ahead. Start again, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Risk management programs were put in place so as not to directly subsidize agriculture. Canada has proven its good faith to its partners in other countries. However, Ms. Lessard, you said that the Americans subsidize the vegetable sector directly or indirectly. I would like you to tell me a little more about that. If we prove our good faith and our competitors do not, we could do something about it.

[Catherine Lessard]

Indeed, through their Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops, or MASC, program, the United States provides direct support to producers of vegetables, fruits and other specialty products. From what we understand, equivalent support would not be permitted in Canada under our currently negotiated agreements. We are already at a disadvantage compared to the United States in terms of our ability to support our agricultural sector.

Among the producers I represent, there is significant frustration regarding this. We are unable to compete with our American counterparts and this is causing major problems. We have proven ourselves, we have been good players, but this has clearly hurt us from a competitive standpoint compared to the Americans.

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

Being good players is currently working against us. I'm thinking of our agriculture compared to that of partners who aren't good players. If there were similar programs or if we were transparent in telling the Americans, for example, that we're going to do it too, since they're doing it, would that help you a lot?

[Catherine Lessard]

There is no doubt that direct support programs for the fruit and vegetable sector would help our sector.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Lessard.

My next question is for Mr. Beauvais.

You mentioned a patient capital program, specifically a $1 million loan at a very low interest rate over 40 years, to purchase farmland.

Could you tell us a little more about that? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

[David Beauvais]

Basically, we believe that the government has little or nothing to lose by investing in farmland that will always remain in Canada and be used to feed Canadians.

Granting a loan would not be very expensive if we take into account the potential return on investment. Furthermore, it would provide financial security for the next generation of farmers, because they would know what payments to expect for the next 20 or 30 years. One of the major risks regarding the renewal of transfers is the cost of interest, and the cost of interest in 5 or 10 years. Having a low, fixed rate would therefore be very reassuring.

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

It is perfectly legitimate for you to ask for that.

In fact, this is not unprecedented. I remember when I, too, was part of the next generation and took over my father's farm. Back then, Farm Credit Canada would provide a loan for the purchase of land, and their interest rate was 2%. The program later expired, but at least I had two or three years of it. At the time, it was a 30-year program. Now, you mentioned 40 years, which is a normal period. The number of years could vary. In short, it existed.

Back then, interest rates were much higher than they are today. They were 8%, 9%, 10% or 12%. That said, the ability to buy land at a 2% interest rate benefits farmers, not speculators. That's important to say here. It would help a large number of young farmers buy land from a neighbour or land that is not too far away. Otherwise, there comes a time when the land goes to people who don't necessarily intend to farm it. In addition, it doesn't necessarily guarantee self-sufficiency for farmers on their land.

Is the importance of self-sufficiency in feed and grain crucial for the next generation of businesses?

[David Beauvais]

Yes. A few years ago, we consulted the members of our federation on this. There are other possible models, such as leasing, but the vast majority of our members, 72%, wanted to own their farm.

We also have to be careful. We're talking about a program that offers a low, fixed rate. Exactly as you mentioned, it has to be limited to a group of producers, meaning next generations or people who are more at risk. If this kind of loan is granted to all producers, it will lead to speculation. The price of land will then go up, it will no longer be accessible and we won't get the necessary relief. In short, this program needs to be properly targeted.

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

Mr. Beauvais, you said that the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec had 2,100 members aged 16 to 39, whereas there are 42,000 agricultural producers in Quebec. You're kind of the last of the Mohicans. Should we sound the alarm? It seems to me that there aren't really a lot of you to feed 9 million Quebeckers.

[David Beauvais]

It's true that there are few of us, but we are passionate and dynamic. Yes, we need support, because it's increasingly difficult. I think that every generation of farmers has experienced difficulties, but now the challenges before us are getting bigger.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Next, we'll go to MP Dandurand for six minutes.