Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Colleagues, I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on June 18, 2025, pertaining to the meeting today, I wish to inform the members of the committee....

No, we don't have substitutes today. We're all good.

We have quite a few witnesses who are online today. Some of them have been with us before, but for the benefit of those who have not, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and on the Zoom application. I would ask all in-person participants, though we don't have any for this portion, to make sure they get my attention before they speak.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name or until you are asked a question directly by a member. For those who are participating on Zoom, please click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. That is especially important for Mr. Lemire. He can be a bit of a challenge at times.

I'll give a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair, please.

Witnesses, everyone will have five minutes for opening remarks. I'm going to raise my hand when you have about 30 seconds left to signal that you should wrap up your comments to make sure you are on time.

Our meeting today will go a bit over time. We have some committee business, so I want to make sure that we keep our witness time on schedule.

In our first group this morning, from Coop Agrobio du Québec, we have Guillaume Camirand, general manager, and Marianne Bergeron, manager of organic seeds research. From Global Ag Risk Solutions, we have David Sullivan, executive vice-president, and from the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we have Janice Tranberg, president and chief executive officer, and Brad Deleeuw, chair of the board of directors. Thank you very much for being with us today.

We will start with Coop Agrobio du Québec with five minutes for whoever wants to kick that off.

[Guillaume Camirand, General Manager, Coop Agrobio du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, my name is Guillaume Camirand, and I am the executive director of Coop Agrobio. I'm accompanied by Marianne Bergeron, manager of our seed and research sector.

We are testifying today on behalf of Coop Agrobio, a co-operative of more than 150 organic grain producers in Quebec and eastern Ontario generating over $12 million in revenue. Our members farm more than 100,000 acres using organic methods on farms of all sizes located throughout the region. Over the years, we have built a relationship of trust with farmers by developing services tailored to their actual needs, visiting them on their farms, and helping them make important decisions. Our expertise is having our finger on the pulse of organic grain production in eastern Canada.

As a co-operative, our role is to help our members reduce their risks, offer them suitable seed solutions, support them in marketing their harvests and facilitate the marketing of their processed organic products. We see the agricultural sector as a living system where each farm plays an important role in the overall balance of the sector.

The organic sector should be viewed as a preventive measure in long-term risk management. Through its farming practices, organic farming reduces dependence on inputs, improves soil health and promotes the diversification of production systems. It also creates both economic and environmental added value in a growing market. In short, it's a winning model for the environment, the economy and people.

However, we must be clear. Although they're very beneficial, organic farming practices involve increased risks: seeds are not protected by insecticides or fungicides; the genetic processes used are sometimes outdated or poorly suited; natural fertilizers are less targeted than conventional fertilizers; weed control relies on mechanical interventions that depend on weather conditions; and marketing is less standardized. In concrete terms, even the best organic producers have less control over certain key factors than conventional producers.

However, there is a lot of innovation, as evidenced by new practices and new crops. However, this innovation, supported by farmers, increases uncertainty and must be supported by well‑adapted programs.

Quebec is now a leader in organic agriculture, accounting for nearly half of Canada's organic farms. This is no accident. The growth observed between 2015 and 2020 coincides with the implementation of structured programs like Prime-Vert, support for the transition as part of the organic sector growth strategy, and the adaptation of programs through Financière agricole du Québec.

Another distinctive factor in Quebec is access to a network of independent agronomists specialized in organic production. This support helps producers to make informed decisions and innovate in a calculated way. It is a major lever for progress while limiting on‑farm risks. This agronomic expertise helps avoid many mistakes that are often costly.

[Marianne Bergeron, Manager, Seed and Research, Coop Agrobio du Québec]

In terms of the main challenges, it's important to understand that they are intensifying and affect all producers, not just the organic sector. We're facing extreme weather conditions, unstable markets and a significant rise in costs, in a context where many farms are already heavily in debt.

These financial and operational pressures take a toll on producers' well-being. In this context, risk management programs are especially important. However, they are often ill-suited to the realities on the ground.

Under AgriStability, for example, program support is difficult to trigger. The calculation based on historical data penalizes farms that are growing or transitioning. Therefore, the thresholds need to be lowered to better reflect the actual growth trends of farms.

AgriInvest, for its part, is simple and appreciated, but the returns are too low in the current inflationary context. Raising the contribution rates would make it a more effective tool.

As for crop insurance, the insured value is often lower than the real organic market value, hence the importance of being able to insure at actual contract value.

Yield averages are also becoming less and less representative, particularly when losses accumulate owing to weather conditions. The result is a decrease in historical yields, which reduces coverage at the very time when needs are increasing.

In some cases, producers face a double penalty: less protection at a higher cost.

There still isn't sufficient support for the transition to organic farming. Targeted support during these critical years is essential.

Finally, agronomic support is a major lever. Independent specialized services must be maintained and strengthened, and this model should be developed elsewhere in Canada. In addition, coverage is often individual rather than collective, which shifts more risk to producers and moves away from the principle of pooling.

The complexity, deadlines and lack of predictability also limit the use of programs. The process needs to be simpler and faster.

In conclusion, producers are ready to innovate, take risks and meet the demand of a growing organic sector.

We would have liked to propose simple, uniform solutions applicable to all systems across Canada, but the reality is that Canadian agriculture is profoundly diverse. This diversity is the very foundation of our resilience. Our agricultural sector needs to be viewed as a living system, a collection of different farms that form a healthy and strong system.

It is essential to have flexible risk management programs that can adapt to these diverse realities.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Sullivan from GARS for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[David Sullivan, Executive Vice-President, Global Ag Risk Solutions]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation.

I'm here to make a structural argument that Canada's BRM framework has begun to recognize private insurance, most recently through the 2020 AgriStability amendment, but does not yet currently extend the federal risk backstop or premium subsidy to qualified private products, even when they cover risks that the public products do not. The risks that the public programs do not cover are widening, and the next FPT framework is the moment to address it through partnership with provincial Crown corporations, not replacing them. I will close with three recommendations for the committee's consideration.

Global Ag Risk Solutions is a Saskatchewan-based crop insurance company. We are fully private, and over 15 years, we have paid nearly half a billion dollars in claims to Canadian producers. We've channelled international reinsurance capital into Canadian agriculture and introduced product innovations in margin coverage, parametric heat coverage and integrating with the Crown corporation's yield coverage.

The risk that Canadian producers manage has changed dramatically. Our customer data shows that the break-even in western Canadian grain farms has more than doubled in the last decade, from approximately $250 per acre to now over $550 per acre and rising. At the same time, trade tariffs, market disruptions and geopolitical risks have never been more volatile, and farms have grown to a scale at which an off-farm job in the winter can no longer fill the risk gap that it could a generation ago.

Private insurance is already part of Canada's BRM landscape in hail and livestock price insurance and margin and parametric coverage offered by GARS and others, and the public framework itself is under strain. AgriStability participation has fallen to below 30% today.

AAFC's own evaluation concludes that the program's “current design and delivery favours larger operations and sectors with narrow margins” and that the complexity “is a major barrier to participation”, particularly for smaller producers.

AgriInsurance covers approximately 73% of the value of Canadian crop production, but there are significant gaps in horticulture, livestock, aquaculture and small mixed operations.

The next FPT framework, taking effect in 2028, is the moment to address this. I will propose three recommendations for consideration.

First, amend AgriStability to permit producers to elect enterprise-level accounting, separating grain from livestock margins, which would allow producers to choose the option that best fits their operations and won't penalize them for diversifying. I also believe that we should introduce a lag year rather than using the current year or developing the reference margins, and we need to simplify the program. This addresses the structural failures that AAFC has documented in its own evaluations. Whole-farm averaging prevents triggering on diverse operations, and complex margin calculations that are not known well into the program year disincentivize participation.

Second, I believe that we should establish a federal reinsurance backstop to approved private BRM products on equivalent terms to the public crop insurance with rigorous federal approval criteria. This would allow for a portable premium subsidy, so producers could direct their existing subsidy entitlement to whichever approved product, whether that's public or private, best fits their operation.

Third, I'd argue for establishing a structured pathway modelled after the U.S. Federal Crop Insurance Act, section 508(h), by which a qualified private insurer may submit new BRM products for federal approval, premium subsidy and backstop, with approval weighted towards products that extend coverage to underserved risks, sectors and regions.

I want to be clear that this is not a submission that is proposing the displacement of the provincial Crown corporations. It is not a removal of the public option. It is also not a reduction in existing subsidies. It is a recommendation that is in partnership, not replacement.

The U.S. has operated with a public-private system for decades, and their industry continues to flourish. While it has its flaws, their framework now insures over 130 unique agricultural commodities with 12 private insurers under federal rules, with the federal government acting as the reinsurer and regulator.

The structural question this committee faces is whether Canada's next framework should permit and incentivize private innovation within the publicly supported system or continue to leave that capacity outside the framework.

I look forward to the committee's questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. You even left some time on the clock.

I don't know if Ms. Tranberg will want to steal your 30 seconds, but I will now turn it over to the National Cattle Feeders' Association for five minutes, please.

[Janice Tranberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you.

On behalf of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we're pleased to share our perspective on business risk management programs in Canada, programs that now must be responsive to profoundly different realities, including changes in geopolitics, global trade, costs, risks and innovation.

NCFA is the voice of Canada's cattle feeders. These are beef farmers who bring calves on to their farms and modify their diets from grass to a high-energy feed to propel weight gain, thus using less water and producing less methane over a shorter period of time. Feedlots vary in size, but they remain family operations. They often involve multiple family members and generations. Feedlots provide significant economic benefit to the communities across Canada while making large-scale contributions to food security at home and around the globe.

Today we look forward to discussing how BRM programs work for feedlots and to highlighting the profound impact that a catastrophic event, such as a foreign animal disease outbreak or climate event, would have on producers and consumers. Cattle feeding operations are located across Canada, but a large portion of them are concentrated in Alberta, where the economic output from cattle feeding is $1.8 billion. For example, if foot-and-mouth disease hit a concentrated area in southern Alberta, such as Picture Butte, we could see almost 25% of beef production taken out of Canada. This would have a profound impact on producers, processors and consumers.

Foreign animal diseases and plant diseases loom closer while natural disasters, including floods, drought and wildfire, are landing more consistently on our farmers' doorsteps. Input costs and risks have grown significantly. We need our BRM programs to keep pace with this reality now, not when a crisis hits.

[Brad Deleeuw, Chair of the Board of Directors, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thanks, Janice.

I'm Brad Deleeuw, chair of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I operate and am a partner in a family feedlot in southern Alberta, near Lethbridge. I started working with this family 15 years ago. Over the years, they have brought me into the family business as a shareholder.

We currently grow 4,000 irrigated acres and have a capacity of 30,000 head of cattle. Business risk management programs have assisted our business over the years. Modernization of BRMs can include changes to existing programs, but we must also be open to the possibility of entirely new programs.

When modernizing BRM programs, NCFA asked the government to acknowledge that one size did not fit all commodities or all operations within the same commodity. There are gaps in the current suite of BRM programs that work for livestock production. Current programs are not flexible, straightforward, bankable or timely. As well, the approach of global competitors to risk management is changing.

NCFA recommends a number of changes: Pilot a whole-farm revenue insurance program. Increase the AgriStability cap from $3 million to $15 million, with reviews of the cap every five years. Make livestock price insurance a permanent, subsidized and national program. As well, permanently increase the advance payment program interest-free portion to $350,000.

I want to speak specifically to the AgriStability program, as it is currently the only potential tool for Canadian cattle feeders. For over 20 years, the AgriStability payment cap of $3 million remained unchanged. NCFA acknowledges that the government doubled the cap to $6 million for the 2025 program year, but this increase must be larger and permanent.

Feedlots are large in size compared with other livestock operations, and thus they reach the $3 million or $6 million payment caps very quickly. This leaves farm families shouldering tens of millions of dollars in potential risk and loss.

A 2023 study conducted by Meyers Norris Penny found that AgriStability coverage had decreased by two-thirds since 2013. Taking this into account, and the fact that there have been no permanent adjustments to the cap from 20 years ago, NCFA recommends that the AgriStability cap be increased to $15 million, with a consideration to review the cap in five years.

Again, thanks for your attention today. We look forward to a good discussion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Brad. It's good to see you as well.

I will now go to questions from the committee members.

We'll start with the Conservatives.

Mr. Gourde, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Guillaume Camirand or Marianne Bergeron.

You said that risk management programs were poorly adapted to organic producers. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[Guillaume Camirand]

I'll start, and Ms. Bergeron will add to my response if needed.

In terms of crop insurance, one major problem we've seen is the four-contiguous-hectare requirement to be able to claim damages. If a producer doesn't have four contiguous hectares that are damaged, the program will not cover it. We see this on a fairly regular basis. For example, if a farmer has two separate areas of three hectares each. Together, that makes six hectares that are damaged, but since the two areas are not connected, it doesn't qualify. It's a pretty simple thing, I'd say. This is an improvement that could be made and that would be greatly appreciated.

Ms. Bergeron, I don't know whether you would like to add anything.

[Marianne Bergeron]

Something unique for the organic sector is the pricing structure. Often, the prices in contracts signed by producers are not recognized by insurers.

I'll give you a simple example. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a producer can sign a $3,000 contract for hemp production, but it's only insured for $1,000. It's easy to see that there's a significant gap.

I can give you several examples for various crops where the gaps do not reflect the value that appears in the producers' contracts.

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

I'd like you to send those examples to the committee for the rest of our study.

You said that the AgriInvest program was not strong enough. Can you tell us about the current context and the amount you'd like to see?

[Marianne Bergeron]

If you ever need clarification, do not hesitate to ask us.

From what I understand from producers, they are currently insured at 1%, whereas they were insured at 1.5% in 2013. They're therefore asking for an increase to 1.5%.

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

You also said that the transition period before a field is considered suitable for organic farming was poorly supported.

Can you tell us more?

[Marianne Bergeron]

Yes. We understand that a producer who decides to become an organic producer cannot do it overnight. There needs to be a three‑year transition period. During that period, a producer follows all organic practices, including the use of seeds, crop rotation and no use of inputs. They face the risks, but they don't get the price for an organic crop. This means that, even though those three years are extremely risky, especially since there's a huge learning curve for organic farming in most cases, it's not applicable. It's not like flipping a switch. You can't switch from traditional farming to organic farming just like that. There's a transition. It's a learning process, and it comes with its share of risks.

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

There are young producers who start out farming organic vegetables on small lots because they have trouble accessing land and soil. They also prefer local distribution. I'm talking about two or three acres.

Do these people really have trouble obtaining crop insurance? I'm asking because you said that producers have difficulty when it comes to larger areas. Are these ones eligible?

[Marianne Bergeron]

We represent organic grain producers, not vegetable producers. For grain, farm sizes vary a lot. We're talking about farms ranging from 50 acres to 7,000 acres. We aren't able to answer a question about produce growers.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is for you, Mr. Deleeuw. You talked about policy risks. Do you currently need to take Mercosur into consideration in risk management? Would a 15% drop in beef prices in Canada following a policy decision be covered under existing risk management programs?

[Brad Deleeuw]

I'm thinking through the question.

Of course, it will affect.... I don't know what the immediate impacts of it could be and how quickly that comes through.

[Janice Tranberg]

Maybe I will step in.

One of our big concerns, as we mentioned in our discussion, is that there is one particular area in Alberta that, quite honestly, has 25% of all of Canada's fed cattle production. If an FMD crisis hit this particular area, a huge percentage of production would be completely wiped out. We are very concerned that Mercosur doesn't have the same level of disease controls as Canada. This is our biggest concern, for sure.

When you talk about prices.... We are trying to rebuild our herd. We have had years of drought, which has diminished the herd. If we get severely undercut, we will never be able to rebuild the herd, and over the long term, prices will remain high. This is really about helping Canada re-establish its beef production market.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Ms. Tranberg.

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Now we turn it over to the Liberals and Madame Chatel for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I welcome all the witnesses participating today in this important study. Each one of you has mentioned different improvements that should be made to the risk management programs. Feel free to submit them in writing to the clerk if you wish. We will take them into account in our report.

I have a more strategic, higher-level question. When our Prime Minister was in Davos, he said that a country that cannot feed itself or its people has few options. Right now, Canadians are talking a lot about food sovereignty. We on the committee are very pleased to hear people increasingly talking about agriculture and agri-food as strategic sectors, a bit like national defence.

If you wanted to be ambitious in your sector, what would you propose as a target? For example, one of the targets the Prime Minister talked about was doubling our non-U.S. exports and diversifying our markets. In terms of investment, the UPA and others say that all levels of government should spend 2% of their revenues, of their budgets, in the sector. There are several ambitious targets. I would like each of you to take turns sharing what your ambitions are and how to measure them. It's a big question, so if you need time to think about it, you can respond to us in writing later.

Mr. Sullivan, do you have a response?

[David Sullivan]

I can speak only for my industry and my customers on the grain side.

Our industry is facing an economic crisis created by the war in Iran, which is raising fertilizer prices. This is going to impact the bottom line of these western Canadian grain farmers. The goal for us is.... Trade diversification is important, but all things become subject to the economic viability of these farms. Without true change to the BRM programs, there will be further consolidation of farms. Farms will go out of business if we don't see some rapid changes to the existing programs to make all of those goals achievable down the road.

We need those farms in place. We need small family farms to be viable, as well as medium and large farms. We want to make sure that is supported through public and private programs.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll now ask Ms. Tranberg and Mr. Deleeuw.