Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Janice Tranberg]

I will start, Brad, and then you can add, if you want to.

Thinking about the earlier question on the price of beef, the demand for beef has also increased. We see strong demand in Canada and through exports, so we do recommend diversification. Travels around the world have shown that there is opportunity to increase the export of beef, for sure, but I also want to highlight that the U.S. still is and will probably always remain our biggest export market, so we cannot afford to ignore the U.S. Cattle cross the border regularly, sometimes several times in their lifetime, so being able to fluently move our cattle across the border back and forth is one of the most important things for us.

I can't give you a number right now; perhaps we will write in. I will say that there is certainly opportunity to increase exports and increase domestically as well.

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

Thank you.

The idea of growing our domestic market as well is interesting. If you have any targets you would like to achieve in terms of sector growth, please don't hesitate to tell us.

What would you need to reach those goals?

I have taken note of what you said about business risk management programming. Each of you has been clear that the programs need to cover all kinds of risks and ensure resilience, not just to climate risks, but also to trade and global risks.

I will now ask Mr. Camirand and Ms. Bergeron the same question.

[Guillaume Camirand]

If I may, I'll go a bit outside the scope of business risk management, or BRM, programs, since you were talking about being in a more strategic position. Access to markets and exports are important, but one goal is particularly important to the Coop Agrobio du Québec, and that is feeding our own population. For the past two years, we've been lobbying the institutional sector. Access to the institutional market for our own products is very important to me.

Aiming to supply the entire institutional market with Canadian products by 2030 is an ambitious plan. I'd say that a target of 50% could be set for 2030, and 100% for 2035. This goal is very important to us.

Everyone is talking about market access, but why not feed our own population? You mentioned it in terms of food security. There was a lot of talk about it a few years ago, after the COVID‑19 pandemic, but it's hardly talked about anymore today. All the talk is about prices. That's what we're seeing now. We can't gain access to institutional markets, because the focus is only on prices. What about quality? What about local or organic products?

We want to feed our own population healthy foods. If we want—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you. I hate to cut you off, Mr. Camirand, but we're 30 seconds over.

Now we'll go to Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here.

I'll start by giving the representatives from Coop Agrobio a few seconds to finish their answer.

Ms. Bergeron, could you please give your answer to the question?

[Marianne Bergeron]

Certainly.

First, it's important to understand that the organic sector is not the only solution; it's a complementary solution. Although demand for organic products is growing in Canada, the sector is not meeting domestic demand. If we don't do it, foreign markets will.

Second, the focus needs to be on value-added products, from an economic and environmental standpoint. Some products are hard to replace. If we focus only on grain products that are intended for animal feed, they are sent abroad. It's a large volume, but the products don't necessarily add value for our population or our economy. We need to shift our focus to value‑added products, like in the institutional sector, as my colleague mentioned. For this to happen, there need to be structures in place to make these products available.

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

I really like your goal of supplying the institutional market. I think we need to tackle this head-on. To add to what you just said, I would say that one of the overlooked aspects in risk management is precisely what you're doing, processing the resource locally and creating regional systems that enable production for local people.

How can the government support food processing businesses like yours?

Are we creating enough added value in our products?

Do government programs truly allow for investments and innovation?

[Marianne Bergeron]

It's very hard, especially on a small scale. Programs need to be adapted to businesses of all sizes, small, medium and large, not just large ones.

Facilities are also a barrier. Our country is big, and facilities are needed in the regions. For grain, it's often platforms of [Inaudible—Editor] grain that must be regionally available to make the distribution channels efficient and fluid. A healthy human body is more than just veins and arteries. It takes little [Inaudible—Editor] going to the cells. It's the same thing. We can't just have highways. It takes country roads and small roads. It's the same thing for our facilities. It takes facilities across the country that meet people's needs.

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

I completely agree with you. Dynamic land use and community engagement enable people to settle in our villages, live there and keep them alive.

On your website, you indicate that one of the current challenges for organic farmers is accessing seeds. We know that is a major challenge internationally, but especially in organic farming.

I'm proud to say that a seed producer who is a member of your cooperative, Mr. Pierre Gauthier, operates his business in Témiscamingue, in Laverlochère-Angliers. I love that you gave a little nod to Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

What elements should be prioritized to mitigate risks, particularly those faced by Mr. Gauthier in Témiscamingue, especially with respect to transportation costs, but also regional infrastructure?

Could these risks be shared? Could a little bit of collective action help out?

[Marianne Bergeron]

Absolutely, the Canadian seed production system is very complex and is difficult to navigate, especially since it's monopolized by large companies. As a result, it's very difficult for small businesses to be profitable. It takes a lot of creativity, but we need it to be resilient.

For our part, we import seeds from Europe for corn to avoid North American contamination. These efforts require a tremendous amount of time, money and resources. We need companies like Coop Agrobio that are dedicated and committed to doing that. They support producers. A cooperative is a type of social economy enterprise that sometimes make decisions for the common good, not just for economic gain. That too is another factor, making room for the social economy.

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

I don't want to say it too loudly, but eastern Témiscamingue might just be the place with the most organic arable land potential in the world. I'm sure you know that there's potential in the regions, but infrastructure is needed.

Ms. Bergeron, I particularly appreciated that you spoke in your opening remarks about the diversity of our agriculture as an asset for resilience. I share that assessment because we need family farms, organic farms and large farms. That requires flexibility, especially in programs.

In your opinion, how should that flexibility be determined? At the regional, provincial or federal level?

How do we build that flexibility into the programs?

[Marianne Bergeron]

First, it's important to keep pace with the evolution of our crops. Our producers are innovative when it comes to all kinds of emerging crops and practices. That said, when a new crop emerges, it shouldn't take the government 10 years to offer a program that supports the crop, because during that time, some producers may have worked themselves to the bone and made financial commitments. Programs therefore need to keep up with crop diversification and new practices in real time. Establishing a new crop in Canada, like winter wheat, shouldn't take so long.

That's just one of many examples.

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

I have one last question to ask you, very quickly.

We have talked a lot about budget cuts in research.

The committee has taken a position to invite the government to review—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Monsieur Lemire, I'm sorry, but your time is up. To start another question would take you well over time. If you can save it for your next round, it would be much appreciated.

We will now go to our next round. We'll go back to the Conservatives.

Mr. Bonk, you have five minutes, please.

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

My question would be for Mrs. Tranberg.

We've talked quite a bit in the past about geopolitical implications in the cattle business in Canada when it comes to international trade and some of these international trade agreements that the Liberal government is pursuing. The big one right now that everyone is talking about is the Mercosur trade agreement.

Currently, in the Mercosur countries, I believe we're only allowed about 1% access to their markets, yet their exports to us have increased by 238% in a four-year period, and 70% of that is coming into Canada at a 26.5 tariff rate. It's doing nothing to slow down the imports.

We have lots of concerns, such as phytosanitary concerns and animal health concerns. Can you maybe highlight a bit of that? What are you hearing in your industry, from your members?

[Janice Tranberg]

Absolutely. I'll start, and I'm going to turn it over to Brad too.

When I talk to my members and I ask them what the thing is that keeps them up at night, it certainly is the possibility of a foot-and-mouth disease incident, an outbreak that could possibly happen. We have seen more outbreaks occurring in Europe, in Greece now, in China, so it is increasing. We know that in Brazil, for example, there hasn't been a recent.... I think it has been 20 years since the CFIA has gone back and reviewed its processes. We know that it isn't as stringent as we are when it comes to these controls. That is, truly, one of the biggest fears: that we import beef and we increase the disease.

The other thing you have to remember is that our neighbours to the south—the U.S. is our biggest market for beef—are also very concerned about these things, and they're watching Canada. We're in a crucial time right now with our CUSMA renegotiation. Anything we might do to possibly cause some concern in our U.S. neighbours is another area that very much concerns us.

As I mentioned, the third piece—and sorry, Brad, now I'm taking over here—is that we have to rebuild our current herd. How are we going to do that if we're continually undercut by this lower-cost beef coming into our country?

Those are our bigger concerns.

Brad, maybe I'll ask you if you want to make some comments on how FMD could potentially impact your farm.

[Brad Deleeuw]

Thanks, Janice.

Yes, the biggest risk that we see is disease. You see it more often, where it's in other livestock, that disease is probably the crippling one.

Back to Janice's comments, access to the U.S. is probably number one and number two, also, foot-and-mouth disease, whether it's losing market access or losing the inventory that we have.

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

We've also heard instances of reporting in South America, for example, with BSE, in which it has taken over a year to adequately be reported, whereas in Canada, it's within days. There's a big difference in our animal health reporting system, as well as our traceability system, and I wanted to highlight that.

Maybe I'll go now to Mr. Deleeuw, if I could, on some of the BRM tools that we have.

I just did some quick math. At a capacity of 30,000 head, if you're paying $3,500 a head to fill your feedlot, we're talking a significant amount of capital that's required to operate your company. With the current BRM suite that's available, does that help mitigate risk when you're talking to your creditors or your financers? If they're asking if you have a backstop, are you comfortable providing them with the BRM tools that you have at the moment?

[Brad Deleeuw]

The BRM programs, as I've mentioned before, assist our business, but they're not.... You've done the math, and we have to have other hedging and risk things in place. As I've said, they're not unuseful, but I feel that they need to be looked at again.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonk. I appreciate that.

Now we will go back to the Liberals. We have Mr. MacDonald for five minutes, please.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

We've been tasked with trying to take a look at BRM, and we've been hearing from different witnesses. One evolving theme is the realities producers are facing. The BRM programs that are in place now aren't keeping up with those realities and a lot of things, such as severe weather, droughts and floods. The programs need some design change.

I'll ask my first question of Mr. Sullivan. I'm going to reference forage insurance. It's offered in most provinces in Canada through the AgriInsurance program. There are different parameters in every province, I think. I don't think it's the same everywhere.

In my province, in Prince Edward Island, we had severe drought and heat this summer, and forage insurance is triggered by rainfall, so even if you did trigger on the rainfall parameter, the heat was so extreme that it kind of got watered down. In essence, a lot of people didn't get payouts; their quality was very poor, and their yield was way down.

Is there an opportunity for what you presented, private and public partnership, that could take more parameters into the evaluation? Quality is the biggest thing in all feed production. Yield can't be the only deciding factor. I just want you to comment on that.

[David Sullivan]

Thank you for the question.

What you're describing is exactly where private insurance is best suited to fill the gap. The risk in P.E.I. is different from the risk in B.C., which is different from the risk in Manitoba. Even in Saskatchewan, the risk is different between Swift Current and Nipawin. Designing a product with the producer in mind, using the real perils that occur in that area for that farm.... Private insurance is nimble enough to design those products and react to the needs of the farmer.

We designed a forage insurance product that was basically looked at by Saskatchewan Crop Insurance. They chose not to use it, but it would have done exactly what you're describing. It took into account more than just rainfall. It took into account 14 different factors and created an index for that farm. We were able to do it much faster than the public programs because we're not saddled by as much bureaucracy and waiting for permissions. We can innovate, do things quickly and get those things into the marketplace very fast.

A risk such as that is exactly where private insurance can adapt, but we will never come to P.E.I. because that market is too small to risk building a product and creating distribution if there isn't a pull-through mechanism of using public dollars to backstop the risk and to subsidize the premium. It would be very expensive being a private product without any public dollars attached to it. In a province as small as P.E.I., we'll never bring that product to the market without the public support.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Would you say that the public part is at a baseline and then your private insurance would be above that? How would that function?

[David Sullivan]

The best way to do this would be for the public programs to take a catastrophic risk layer. Essentially, if we imagine a product in a geography, the catastrophic loss being covered by the federal government in the province would mean that you do not need to get the producer to pay for that portion of it. Then, we use private reinsurance to backstop the working layers.

By doing this layered approach, we can make the product affordable for the producer but also not take all the risk on the taxpayer and use that private capital to move capital into Canada from around the world.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I have a question for Mr. Deleeuw or Ms. Tranberg. Our federal government is committed to reducing our operating costs. We have a three-year plan to balance our operating budget. When you look at the BRM programs, you recommended permanently increasing the advance payments program amounts to $350,000.

AgriStability seems to be the program that's least understood or subscribed to by farmers. I'm not sure what the problem is. I've heard a lot of comments about the timeliness of payouts and the triggering mechanism. There are a lot of things wrong with AgriStability, but I heard you say that AgriStability is important to the—