Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2026

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

Thank you so much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I'm going to use my chair's prerogative for a quick question for Mr. Sullivan.

From a lot of the testimony we've had from witnesses, there seems to be an appetite not just to tweak some of the BRM programs like AgriStability; there seems to be an opportunity for us to look at some real changes to these programs. We had Lysa Porth from Agi3 here on Tuesday. She articulated this as well.

Are you seeing that appetite with your clients as well, that the existing suite of programs doesn't just need tweaks, but there needs to be some fundamental change to it?

Would a pilot program be constructed over the next few years in time for the next partnership agreement? Would there be a lot of uptake on that?

[David Sullivan]

Yes, I would 100% agree that there's an appetite for it. Our producers are looking for risk management solutions that are currently not offered by the federal or provincial governments, so they come to us looking for those solutions. Unfortunately, sometimes those solutions are prohibitively expensive under the private scheme, because there's no subsidy, and we have to bear 100% of the risk.

We would be on board with a pilot project for next year, whether that's in a single province or across multiple provinces. We have coast-to-coast stability to service that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I would encourage you, Mr. Sullivan, and any of our witnesses, to submit the framework of what the pilot would look like in time for the next renegotiations in five years. Certainly, if you could submit that to this committee over the next few weeks that would be, I think, very helpful to all of us.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes, and we will get our next panel prepared.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call this meeting back to order. I know that Scott and many of you sitting in the back have been through this before, so I won't take too much time to go over the processes.

You will each be given five minutes to make an opening statement. We have Ms. Flies on Zoom.

Everybody will be given five minutes to make an opening statement, followed by some questions from our colleagues on the committee. Please unmute yourself when you've been asked to speak and then put yourself on mute when you are no longer speaking.

I'd like to introduce the witnesses we have with us today. From the Canada Organic Trade Association, we have Tia Loftsgard and Scott Shiels. From the Canadian Organic Growers, we have Gillian Flies, executive director of The New Farm Centre, and Katie Fettes, director of policy and research. From the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers—no stranger to us—is Richard Lee, executive director.

It's good to see you all.

We will start our first five-minute presentation from the Organic Trade Association. Scott or Tia, whoever is going to speak, please start your five minutes.

[Tia Loftsgard, Executive Director, Canada Organic Trade Association]

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Tia Loftsgard, and I am the executive director of the Canada Organic Trade Association, representing 7,500 organic operators across the value chain in a sector valued at $11.8 billion.

As we move towards the next policy framework, this is an important opportunity to ensure that the BRM programs better reflect today's production realities and contribute to the long-term resilience of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.

Reliable production is required for supply chains, as stable pricing and ensuring that buying Canadian is always the best choice for manufacturers and retailers looking to source organic products and ingredients. To bring this into focus, I'd like to introduce Scott Shiels from Grain Millers, who is also a board member of the Canada Organic Trade Association and who can directly speak to what this looks like on the ground and across the supply chain.

I'd be happy to answer questions afterwards.

[Scott Shiels, Grain Procurement Manager, Canada Organic Trade Association]

My name is Scott Shiels. I am the grain procurement manager at Grain Millers Canada, the largest organic oat miller in the world and the largest oat processor in North America. I also serve on the board of COTA.

What we are seeing on the ground is quite straightforward. We are losing organic producers and acres, and that is translating directly into lost Canadian opportunity. Across the prairies, farms are exiting organic production. Farmers who have been organic for 20-plus years are walking away. Some are retiring without an organic buyer for their land; others are being forced back into conventional production, and many of those are heartbroken doing it.

If we lose a reliable Canadian supply, we need to replace it, often through imports, and that creates instability all the way through, from farmers to processors, manufacturers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. That weakens our food system and erodes one of the most respected organic sectors in the world.

A big part of the issue is how risk is defined. Risk today is not about just yield. It's climate, input costs and market pressures. Organic producers manage risk differently. They rely on longer rotations, soil health and diversity instead of chemical inputs. That makes them resilient, but it also makes them look riskier on paper, especially in programs built for conventional systems that have more uniform yield and predictability.

We're also seeing convergence. Conventional producers are increasingly adopting cover crops and more diverse rotations to manage risk. The system is evolving, but BRM programs are not evolving with it.

AgriStability does not reflect organic realities like longer rotations and transition periods, which can lower reference margins and penalize producers. Organic farms face wider yield swings, sometimes in the 80-bushel-per-acre range versus 20 in conventional systems. Longer rotations also mean less consistent data. As a result, reference margins can be artificially depressed, especially during three risky transition years. Producers are effectively penalized for adopting more resilient systems.

AgriRecovery does not fully address the types of disasters organic farmers face. Pesticide drift from a neighbouring farm can jeopardize an organic producer's certification, and while compensation may cover immediate crop loss, it often overlooks cascading impacts: lost contracts, markets, premiums and losing your place in the supply chain entirely. From our experience, that has immediate consequences. If a contracted organic crop isn't delivered, we still have the commitments. We either find replacement supply, often at a higher cost, or we fall short. That disruption carries all the way through to the manufacturers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers who can no longer find Canadian products on the shelf. At that point, it becomes very difficult to rebuild those markets.

Organic producers often cannot get insurance that reflects the actual value of their crops. Pricing benchmarks are inconsistent and often disconnected from real contracts. We've seen cases in which a farmer was offered six dollars a bushel for insurance while their actual contract was nine.

Saskatchewan has the most organic acres in Canada and is one of the few provinces with a tailored insurance program for organic, which is arguably the best one. While this leadership is appreciated, only 29% of the one million acres cropped are insured, compared to 82.5% of the 40 million conventional acres. The lack of consistency and coverage discourages organic producers from taking advantage of the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance program. As a result, fewer acres are insured, supply becomes more volatile and planning becomes more difficult.

Our recommendation is to allow contract pricing to be recognized within insurance models alongside consistent market data.

Mostly, we do not need entirely new programs but targeted adjustments: an organic-specific crop insurance approach that reflects market prices, variability and contamination risk; improvements to AgriStability to better account for crop rotation and transition timelines; AgriRecovery updates to recognize certification loss as a multi-year risk; organic transition programs to support periods of increased risk; recognizing and investing further in science and research as core business risk management tools for proactive risk management; and better recognition of preventative risk management, such as diversification and soil health—not just reactive support—for a truly resilient sector.

These priorities align with the sector's organic action plan, which focuses on expanding domestic production to meet growing demand.

We welcome your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now move to the Canadian Organic Growers.

Ms. Fettes, you have five minutes, please.

[Katie Fettes, Director of Policy and Research, Canadian Organic Growers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Katie Fettes, and I am the director of policy and research with Canadian Organic Growers. I'm joined today by Gillian Flies, an organic farmer and director with COG.

COG is Canada's oldest organic and regenerative agriculture organization. Since 1975, we've worked with farmers, researchers and partners across the country to support resilient and profitable farming systems.

Canada's agriculture sector is operating in an increasingly volatile environment shaped today by climate change impacts, rising input costs, supply chain disruptions, geopolitical instability and difficult generational renewal. For these reasons, we believe resilience should be a core objective guiding the next policy framework and the evolution of business risk management programs. This means we need to shift from predominantly reactive risk management toward balancing with proactive risk reduction that helps farmers become less vulnerable to shocks before they occur and in the future.

An intentional focus on strategic supply chains in high-potential sectors can help accelerate agri-food resilience. Using organic agriculture and agri-food is one approach that offers certain opportunities in this regard. Research from COG's organic task force recently found that organic farming systems can embed risk mitigation directly into farm management in a number of ways, including through reducing dependence on external inputs and working on soil health.

Despite strong consumer demand, we continue importing the majority of organic products in Canada—CFIA estimates up to 80%—while competing against jurisdictions investing far more aggressively in growing organic production and markets.

There are also specific barriers to growth in Canada. During the organic transition period, farmers face management changes, yield variability, new costs and uncertainty before gaining access to organic markets. Much of this risk is currently carried by individual farmers alone.

At the same time, many organic and transitioning farmers face challenges accessing the BRM programs. Organic pricing, practices and transitions are not always well incorporated into program design. Canada cannot afford a risk management system that overlooks or unintentionally discourages farming practices that proactively reduce risk exposure and make Canada's food system more resilient and competitive.

I’ll now hand it over to my colleague Gillian Flies to share some examples from the farm.

[Gillian Flies, Executive Director, The New Farm Centre, Canadian Organic Growers]

Thank you, Katie.

My name is Gillian Flies. My husband and I own and operate The New Farm Centre, a regenerative organic vegetable and mixed livestock farm in Ontario, which we've also developed into a demonstration, research and education centre.

Over the past 20 years, we've built a successful diversified farm business supplying local and regional markets. On our farm, resilience means reducing dependence on expensive external inputs, building soil health and creating strong local economies and knowledge exchange networks.

In August 2023, we experienced three major storms in one month on our farm, including one rain event with over three inches in under 30 minutes, but because of our soil health and structure, the water soaked into our fields in under an hour, which allowed us to harvest our crops while neighbouring fields experienced severe damage or total loss. We're also less exposed to input price shocks because we rely far less on external inputs, including purchased fertilizers and pesticides.

Right now, when many farms are facing skyrocketing input costs and supply challenges, our production costs have remained relatively stable, but achieving this has taken us 20 years. We took on the risk of adopting new practices ourselves, often without adequate access to capital, technical support, research or risk management, which all would have accelerated the process.

The reality is that farmers no longer have 20 years to respond to today's uncertainties. We need fast and effective resilience measures now. That's why, at The New Farm, we have focused on mentoring, training and supporting farmers through The New Farm Centre, but we can't do it alone.

Thank you.

[Katie Fettes]

Thank you, Gillian.

To close, as you look towards the next policy framework and evolution of BRM programs, we recommend five priorities.

First, recognize resilience, broadly defined as a core objective of Canada's agriculture policy framework; second, ensure BRM programs are accessible to diverse sectors and production systems, including by consistently accounting for organic prices and management practices; third, de-risk the organic transition period by providing targeted transition support and technical assistance to producers; fourth, invest in research, advisory services and farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange networks so that producers have access to regionally adapted expertise and stronger long-term Canadian research capacity; and fifth, strengthen domestic organic processing capacity and supply chain infrastructure to support market access and development for farmers.

The strongest risk management system will be one that is integrated across policies and programs and couples responsive support with longer-term resilience-building measures. Organic agriculture offers Canada one practical, market-based and scalable pathway to help achieve that, and these recommendations are aimed at making this pathway available to more Canadian farmers to participate in the opportunity.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

We will now go to our final presentation, from Mr. Lee of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.

[Richard Lee, Executive Director, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I'm here today on behalf of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, representing a sector that plays a critical role in Canada's food security, export competitiveness and rural economies.

Ontario's greenhouse vegetable sector is a major contributor to Canadian agriculture, producing fresh food year-round, supporting thousands of jobs and serving both domestic and export markets. However, Canada's business risk management programs have not kept pace with the realities of modern agriculture. They were designed primarily to address traditional risks, such as yield loss and weather events.

Greenhouse production is fundamentally different. Our operations are capital-intensive, year-round, technology-driven and integrated into North American markets that are highly dependent on global inputs and market conditions. As a result, greenhouse growers face significant risks that are not effectively covered under current BRM programs. While the sector has evolved, the risk management system has not.

Today's risks are not primarily about crop failure. They're about business disruption. Here are a few examples that highlight the risks greenhouse growers face.

One is trade volatility. Our sector is deeply integrated with the United States, with over 85% of our production destined for U.S. markets. When tariffs or trade barriers are introduced, even temporarily, they can quickly disrupt markets. Because our products are highly perishable, we are limited in identifying alternate export markets, storing them or waiting for conditions to improve. In just days, growers can face oversupply, falling prices, product loss and food waste.

Another is energy cost exposures. Greenhouses rely heavily on energy for heating, lighting and climate control. When energy prices spike, the impact is immediate and significant, yet current BRM programs offer little support for managing this type of input cost volatility.

The third risk is labour disruptions. During the pandemic, our sector faced significant labour shortages, including delays in the arrival of temporary foreign workers and increased operating costs due to testing, isolation requirements and housing restrictions. This exposed how fragile our labour system can be. Growers adapted quickly to maintain food production, but these disruptions created financial strain that was largely outside the scope of existing support programs.

There are also plant health, production and pest risks. Greenhouse production involves long-term high-value infrastructure. A single pest incursion can shut down operations, trigger crop destruction and disrupt market access. These risks do not stop at the border. They require a coordinated North American approach to prevention and containment that will protect investments and maintain supply chains.

This is not a gap that can be fixed with minor adjustments. This is a structural issue. Canada does not need incremental improvements to BRM programs. We need a modernized system built for how agriculture operates today and will operate in the foreseeable future.

Canada's risk management framework must evolve to address business risks, not just production risks; respond quickly, in line with perishable supply chains; support high-capital investments; reflect global market exposures; and integrate risk related to trade, energy, labour and plant health.

On behalf of our growers, we are calling for the following: Extend AgriInsurance to include greenhouse crops, with criteria that reflect controlled environment production; improve AgriStability and AgriInvest to provide more predictable, timely and scalable support; strengthen AgriRecovery to ensure rapid response to non-traditional risks; modernize plant health risk management, particularly CFIA capacity and compensation tools; and advance a coordinated North America strategy to address pest risks and protect integrated markets.

Greenhouse agriculture represents the future of food production in Canada. Our processes are efficient, sustainable and capable of delivering year-round supply, but they are also increasingly exposed to risks that current programs do not address. If we want this sector to continue investing, growing and contributing to Canada's economy, we need a risk management system that reflects today's realities, not past models.

We have an opportunity to build a system that supports innovation, protects investments and strengthens Canada's food system. We look forward to working with government and industry partners to strengthen Canada's agri-food system. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

We have heard great testimony from our witnesses, and everybody stayed pretty much right on time, which is a bonus for us as well.

We will now go to questions from the committee members. We will start with the Conservatives.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Scott Shiels.

I'm a former oat producer. You caught my attention when you spoke....

Can you hear the interpretation?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

We can pause if we have to.

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

Can you hear me? Can you hear the interpretation?

Perfect.

I used to be an oat farmer. I liked that crop for its properties, among other things. You raised a bit of concern for me because oats, especially organic oats, are used in Canadian cookies and oatmeal. I think Canadians are happy to know that it's a healthy grain for them.

Can you explain the current problem with oats? Is there a risk of losing a lot of organic oat farmers?

[Scott Shiels]

Right now, we are seeing a reduction in acres that is causing us to look elsewhere for product. We don't import a lot into Canada. It's rare. Looking at our North American market, a lot of the time.... They're importing in the U.S., and in Canada, we see this in the production of food products that we then bring back into Canada.

The issue we have, and one of the things we're really pushing for, is support on transition and those kinds of programs to stabilize our production in Canada. We have a lot of organic oat acres, especially out on the prairies. Given that it's our primary product at my company, we'd like to see more grown here. Canadian farmers grow everything better than anyone else. We like to see it grown here as much as we can.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Katie Fettes.

You said that investments are needed in research. Research centres have been closed in Canada. Did any of those centres do research that was helpful to you? How could the remaining research centres assist you?

[Katie Fettes]

Yes. The loss of research capacity across Canada in the recent cuts really concerns the organic sector. The organic producers rely very heavily on public research. There was applicable research being done at centres all across the country. Losing that capacity risks our competitiveness of production.

One piece that concerned us in particular was the loss of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current centre. This centre remains fully operational, so it's not necessarily a facilities-based cost-saving measure. It was providing applied research in a 20-year historical benchmarking dataset on how to conduct organic production in the prairies—resilience-building measures, new practice adoption, variety development and those sorts of things.

We really appreciate the report that came out from the committee yesterday and the recommendations as far as the research cuts go, particularly those requesting the government to reconsider the decision to close that research program. We need long-term and increased research capacity if we're going to meet our increasing demand.

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

Do you find it important to keep the research that has been done, even if it is not finished, and not to destroy it? We don't know what might happen. Maybe in five or 10 years, research could resume based on what's already been done. Is it important to keep it somewhere, in a library or elsewhere?

[Katie Fettes]

Yes. Continuity is really important. This dataset, for example, at the Swift Current centre is a nearly 20-year historical dataset, with very meticulously planned year-to-year long-term rotations. If we stop that program, we lose the historical dataset. It will effectively need to start over.

It's important to make sure that we maintain and continue the research in the future, but it's also important to ensure continuity in the meantime.

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

I have one last question to ask you, Ms. Fettes.

You said that other countries invest more money than Canada in research or organic farming. To what extent is that the case? Are we talking about 10%, 15% or 20% more, or are the investments even more significant?

[Katie Fettes]

We found in our recent report, the organic task force report, that the United States, for example, is spending eight times more per acre per year than Canada on organic food and farming programs. This includes longer-standing research programs such as the organic research and extension initiative in the U.S., which is a critical part of supporting producers, but also more recent programs, including the organic transition initiative, which is focused on transition support for producers, some transition insurance incentives and market development. We found, on the same note, that the EU is spending 200 times more than Canada on average, and it goes from there.

These are all direct competitors with our producers, so it's a competitiveness issue for sure, and that's why we think transition support is really important to help our farmers here in Canada.

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

Mr. Lee, you spoke about energy and labour issues.

We know that many temporary and seasonal foreign workers come here to work in greenhouses. Could a Canadian program like Canada summer jobs prioritize hiring young Canadians, particularly in the agriculture, greenhouse or vegetable production sectors, to at least provide work experience and perhaps one day have more Canadians interested in doing that work?