Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Tyler Fulton]

To clarify the question, it is how we can improve integration with our American counterparts. It quite simply is a successful model right now.

We have scenarios where there are calves coming up in western Canada to be fed out in southern Alberta. Also, calves from Virginia are coming into even Quebec and Ontario to be fed out because there is an economic advantage in doing that. Those animals are fed out and then sent back to the United States because they have greater processing capacity that is underutilized in this tight herd situation which North America currently is in.

There are opportunities for us to improve that cross-border trade, but quite simply, we are at a stage with CUSMA where we need to focus on the big picture, and that is maintaining the free market reciprocal access, which both sides benefit from.

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

Mr. Heckbert, do you have any comments to add?

[Stephen Heckbert]

Yes, we find that price insurance programs are really one of the things that would be essential for us to improve our insurance programs. That's what's going to change things. Having price insurance is another tool that will give us a chance to tell producers that, yes, we already know the base price we will receive for our products, which will leave room for investment. All of that would be much more attractive. One of the things we would ask is for this to be included in future government programs.

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

Thank you, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to MP MacDonald for five minutes.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses who came here today.

Mr. Fulton, I'll start with you.

Market access is not lost on me. I come from an industry that gave up market access three times to conclude trade deals. At the time, we were told it was part of the greater good. However, in terms of the market access on the Mercosur deal, I don't know what the current level is, but I will say I have spoken to the Minister of International Trade and I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture. I think they're both aware of the concerns the Canadian Cattle Association has, so your voices have been heard. The deal isn't final. Where do you think that level should stay? Should it stay where it is today? There is beef coming in from South America now at a tariff rate quota. Could you comment on that?

[Tyler Fulton]

I think it would surprise many of you to know that approximately 30% of beef for domestic consumption in Canada is imported, even though our cattle industry exports half of what we produce. There's an acute shortage in a particular product, lean trimmings, where it represents a fit, a need, but the scenario that we currently find ourselves in is that there's not a tariff that is large enough to slow the flow of South American product. In fact, 40,000 metric tons moved from South America into Canada last year alone, with 70% of that paying a 26.5% tariff. Then when you apply a scenario where there's new tariff-free access, it quite simply doesn't address the elephant in the room, which is that they are already accessing the market freely with exceptionally large quantities.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That would only be more enticing with the high domestic prices in Canada today because of the herd decline that happened over the last decade.

[Tyler Fulton]

Yes.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You said producers are trying to work towards growing, so they're taking their dollars and trying to invest, and we have to protect that market in some way.

[Tyler Fulton]

Yes, providing South America with new access to Canada is an incentive to producing beef in South America. It obviously has the opposite effect here in Canada.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I have limited time, so I'm going to move quickly here.

You mentioned the livestock and cattle insurance. It's never been a popular program because provinces are rolling it out, and they have to have the premiums so high that producers don't take advantage of it. They self-insure. The younger producers obviously have challenges with self-insuring. For older ones like me, it's not so hard...maybe.

What do you visualize would work? A cost-share program with the federal government obviously on....

[Tyler Fulton]

A model that works is one that the crop insurance program uses, and that is a cost-shared premium of equivalent proportions that crop producers have, whereby producers still have the largest amount of skin in the game, but the federal and provincial governments come to the table to really modify that risk and reward scenario. I can't stress enough that it's really impacting land use. There's an incentive to produce crops on much of that marginal land that ideally would be most productive in livestock use.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'm sorry, but I want to get in another question for the Pork Council. I'm going to go quickly.

In Atlantic Canada, we don't have processing of pork, but there is a young, innovative couple in P.E.I. who have vertically integrated. BRM programs necessarily don't help them on the processing side today. Is there help? Can we modify the BRM program so that they'll address the processing side and the farm side of these vertically integrated operations that are raising pork and processing it?

A lot of this was brought on by the African swine fever virus, so they want to be totally secure.

[René Roy]

I'll start by saying that we believe that there must be programs for every part of the value chain so that we address the inherent risk of the sector. If we mix everything, it becomes hard to address the challenge. Investing in processing is absolutely necessary if we want to keep our ability to export meat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to the Bloc.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Yes. You're out of time.

Next we'll go to the Bloc for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fulton, in recent weeks, a number of beef producers have testified before the committee to highlight the extent to which risk management programs are not adapted to their production. For example, they mentioned forage losses, which are not compensated at the same level as other crops. Obviously, transportation costs can be enormous in slightly more remote regions, not to mention slaughter capacity. All of this has a long-term effect on beef producers.

On that issue, what reality are you identifying to help producers in regions that are a little more remote?

[Tyler Fulton]

There is an opportunity, in particular in Quebec, to increase beef production through much of the north, as we've seen in recent years, but also within the southern dairy operations, where there's the practice of beef-on-dairy, which is a trend that's meaningful and transformative for the whole cattle industry.

In particular, on the principle of remote farms, I think you need to come from a standpoint that they already have these other challenges, whether they be climatic or logistical, as you mentioned, so meeting the industry where they are is a critical principle. That is, let the industry, the specific commodity even, come up with the risk management solutions that make sense for them.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Petelle, you often mentioned that the various agencies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the pesticide regulatory directorate, take too long to assess products. The Carney government has announced that it wants to include food security affordability in food security legislation, which it believes could speed that up. However, at the same time, the government is announcing that it wants to cut 500 jobs at the CFIA.

How can we speed up product studies when jobs are being cut? Who can we trust?

[Pierre Petelle]

Thank you for the question.

In this area, there is always a way to regulate more and go further in everything we do. I think what has been somewhat lost in terms of regulation is the promotion of the economy, as well.

The challenge we've seen is that the regulatory environment has just added and added over the years, and there's been no looking back to ask if this burden is too much for the industry. Canada is a small market in the crop protection space. Even though we grow a lot of crops, it's still a small market. The companies that create these new genetics and new crop protection tools for the most part are global companies, and their capital is mobile, so we want to make sure that Canada is at the forefront.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

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

Go ahead, Mr. Bexte.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

Welcome, colleagues.

This is a very interesting and very important discussion. I'd like to say that maybe the elephant in the room is that the best business risk management program is the one that you don't need because you have a resilient industry. You have an industry that's healthy, profitable and able to withstand the natural shocks and the ebbs and flows of industry. That goes to the broader policy foundation that we have. It's been talked about a little bit.

I tabled Bill C-273, the farm act, to modernize or establish trusted jurisdictions to bring these products that we need into the marketplace to have a resilient industry.

Mr. Petelle, could you comment on what impact that may have?

[Pierre Petelle]

Yes, certainly. As I was saying in answer to the last question, our first objective is to have companies come to Canada first so that we wouldn't need to rely on other countries' approvals. We would have those companies knocking on our door and saying that our system is predictable, timely and it's a good market. We have farmers who are quick to adopt new innovations. That's the number one objective, to make sure, whether it's seed technology or crop protection, that all those new technologies and innovations come to Canada first.

There are cases where, for whatever reason, a product maybe has been approved in another trusted jurisdiction, and the likelihood of it coming here may be low. That's something where the approach that you're proposing might have some merit. You can rely on the regulatory approval of a country like Australia, for example. We've heard that the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Australia to push that even more. We see some promise there that could benefit both jurisdictions.