Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Mr. MacDonald, I'm sorry. Your time is up. It's five minutes in this round. Maybe Ms. Tranberg will have an opportunity to answer that question later on or submit her response on AgriStability to the committee.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It would be great if she could submit those answers. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Now we go to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes, please.

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

You are strict, Mr. Chair, but I respect that.

Mr. Camirand, Tyler McCann told the committee something especially interesting. He specifically said that the goal of agricultural risk management programs is not to generate growth, but to respond quickly when farms experience a shock, geopolitical, climate-related or otherwise, to support them so they can essentially get back to square one.

Take, for example, my region, which was hit by a winter freeze, droughts and forest fires. The assistance provided wasn't enough to cover the costs, given what the producer had to pay to make up for those shocks, and in my opinion, that means the program doesn't work, especially since the assistance was insufficient and took too long to arrive.

What should have happened is that the cheque should have gone out quickly to prevent producers from having to sell livestock, for example.

How do you think programs should work? What adjustments are needed?

[Guillaume Camirand]

On the sidelines of this meeting, we surveyed some members. We were told that you can't choose when a natural disaster or an incident is going to happen. It can happen on a weekend; it can happen on a holiday.

In 2026 we have very advanced technological tools. The response time could easily be improved if we were allowed to use that technology to demonstrate the effects and the reality experienced by the producer.

To get back to your question, I think we need to take a look at the current technological tools. This would make it easier to interview producers and understand their reality. As we know, we don't know when the effects will be felt. That is the recommendation I can give you.

You also mentioned a specific situation in your region related to wildfires. That's very important. It happened, and it was devastating. We're often told that there's a lack of cash flow, liquidity, for operations. This compensation must be quick and easy because producers are sometimes forced to sell their harvest to buy their seeds. If they miss the window to buy seeds and have seedlings on time, that's very problematic.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Camirand.

I appreciate that.

For our final round, we will go to Mr. Bonk from the Conservatives, please. You have five minutes.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm going to ask Ms. Tranberg a question about competitiveness.

Our system is very integrated with that of the Americans when it comes to feeding cattle, and as you mentioned, a lot of cattle cross the border several times in their lifetime. However, we are also in direct competition with our American neighbours, who are heavily supported in the States when it comes to business risk management solutions.

Can you explain a bit about the gaps that you see between us and the United States? Does this affect competitiveness in Canada?

[Janice Tranberg]

Yes, and thank you for the question. I'm going to wrap in a little of the previous question as well.

When we say that we're looking for AgriStability to be increased to $15 million, it's an astronomical number, and I understand that, but the realities of prices today really show that this is what is going to be required if a major incident happens.

The numbers that you shared, Mr. Bonk, show that exact situation. In cattle now, the prices are high, but the inputs are high as well, and feedlot producers aren't really making a huge profit off this.

A study from MNP several years ago really did show that it's not just the large farms that need an increase to the cap. It really is hitting even the medium-sized farms as well, because it does not take very long to hit $3 million. That study was done several years ago, and prices have just increased since then.

The question was.... AgriStability is one of the methods that they use, but as Brad alluded to, they do other things—contracting, using the basis—whereas in the United States in particular, their livestock price insurance program is subsidized, and they've seen producer usage rise to that and become very large.

When you compare livestock to crops, you see that we don't have crop insurance. We don't have a program that is comparable to crops, and certainly none that is comparable to those of our U.S. competitors. It is something that we've been asking for, and it would be a significant help.

It's two things: having subsidized livestock price insurance and raising the cap to a level that constitutes the realities of today.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'll ask a question now to Mr. Deleeuw.

My hat is off to you, because I understand this industry a bit. I've been involved in it for a while. I think these are the most risk-tolerant entrepreneurs in Canada, so my hat's off to you for taking this on.

I want to ask you about the livestock price insurance. We know it's not cost-shared, as crop insurance would be. Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve that program?

[Brad Deleeuw]

Thank you, Mr. Bonk.

If we were to look at how the U.S. has theirs structured, it's subsidized to a point, and then, if you want more coverage, it's on the producer. It's subsidized at an extreme failure, but to get higher coverage, the producer then has to cover part of it. It's often not—

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have a lot more questions for you, but I'm going to leave it there now.

I'll ask some questions of Mr. Sullivan at GARS. I'd like to ask you about cross-compliance. We've heard a lot of negative talk about cross-compliance when we talk to stakeholders, and they're not that impressed with some of the programs coming out, with all of these strings attached. Can you maybe explain what you're hearing from your clients?

[David Sullivan]

Thank you for the question.

I think our customers, and my friends and family in the industry, are afraid of cross-compliance being built into the crop insurance programs—AgriStability and AgriInvest—because they see it as the thin edge of the wedge. Tying environmental farm plans...is a sign that the dollars will be tied to your ability to meet the criteria under some other program.

We believe that the—

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Could I interrupt you there? I have one more question, really quickly. My time's running out. It's on reinsurance. Could you explain a bit about how reinsurance could help the federal programs when it comes to spreading risk?

[David Sullivan]

We use international reinsurance to backstop our private programs right now. The federal government could do the same, basically taking those catastrophic risk layers and off-loading them on to the international market. It de-risks the government from having to take on all of that risk during a large systemic risk.

Canada is a great place to do business. Reinsurers look to do business here, but the programs are very limited because very few crop insurers and the federal government take part in the international reinsurance market, taking on that catastrophic risk.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks, Mr. Sullivan. We have to cut you off there. We gave you a little extra time to try to explain that.

We now go to our final round.

Ms. Mingarelli, you have five minutes. Thank you very much.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all the witnesses. I thank them for being here today.

My first question is for you, Mr. Camirand and Ms. Bergeron.

To what extent do business risk management programs support innovation and research in sustainable and organic agriculture?

[Guillaume Camirand]

Ms. Bergeron, I'll let you answer the question.

[Marianne Bergeron]

Currently, the programs support rather conventional agriculture. When you get into unconventional production, long rotations, novel crops and such, there is much less support. Programs are designed for conventional crops, but as soon as you move away from that, they're difficult to insure.

This means that innovation is very difficult and is often the producers' responsibility.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

What role should the federal government play to better align business risk management programs with environmental objectives?

[Marianne Bergeron]

First, they should support tomorrow's crops, such as cover crops that can be grown in the winter. A number of winter crops are not insurable, or are insurable under certain conditions.

Second, novel crops and those with long or different rotations could also be more insurable.

Third, there could be more subsidies for crop associations and equipment that reduce input costs through mechanical interventions or new techniques.

[Guillaume Camirand]

We've talked several times about better adapting programs to producers. I also think the role of the federal government could be to adjust and keep up with change better, particularly by accelerating the census process to better understand businesses. In fact, it's been said a number of times that changes are happening more quickly, not just environmental changes, but also policy and financial changes. As a result, it's really important to gather information more often, to adjust and get to know businesses.

I believe the programs can be adequate, but I think a better understanding of who's using the programs may be needed to apply them more effectively. I don't know if that makes sense. I think we realize that the programs aren't moving quickly enough given what we're seeing on the ground. That's something that stands out that we've been told repeatedly.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you very much for your answers.

I'm now going to turn my questions to the National Cattle Feeders' Association, so Mr. Deleeuw and Ms. Tranberg.

How do trade disruptions and export market fluctuations impact your risk profile today?

[Janice Tranberg]

Maybe I'll start. That's a very broad question. There are many ways that I could answer it.

One of the big ones is making sure that we have, as I said, open markets between the U.S. and Canada. That would be our number one priority.

We believe in diversification, but when you particularly look at the cattle-feeding sector, we are mostly dealing with live cattle, and diversification becomes difficult. How do you move live cattle around the world? That's why the United States is probably our number one concern and our biggest focus.

I'm not sure that I answered your question.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

That was great. Thank you.

How much time do I have left, Chair? It's 30 seconds. Okay.

Further to my first question, should BRM programs incorporate mechanisms to respond to trade-related risks?

[Janice Tranberg]

Well, we recently saw a big risk with all of these tariffs being placed by the United States—or potentially placed by the United States. That was going to have a major impact on our markets.

It would be good to see something that is not only production-related but also market-related. I guess my answer would be yes.