Agriculture Committee on May 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before I continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to take a few moments to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name or you're asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'd like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select in advance the listening channel you need in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are joining us here today. Thank you for taking time to be here.

With us we have, from the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec, Sarah Delisle; from MNP LLP, Marvin Slingerland, vice-president, and Akaljot Singh Gill, director; and from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ben LeFort, senior economist.

You will have up to five minutes for speaking, and then we'll go into questions. We'll start with the members from MNP LLP.

You have five minutes.

[Marvin Slingerland, Senior Vice-President, Agriculture, MNP LLP]

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the committee's study on Canada's business risk management programs.

My name is Marvin Slingerland. Alongside me is AJ Gill. We are pleased to be here on behalf of MNP, one of Canada's largest advisers to Canada's agriculture sector.

MNP has served as a trusted adviser to agriculture operations since our founding in Brandon, Manitoba. Over the past 68 years, MNP has built a comprehensive agriculture practice, where today we work directly with over 30,000 clients across Canada. We serve these clients across our 178 offices from coast to coast. This work includes supporting producers each year in navigating BRM programs, filing thousands of applications and managing risk at the farm level.

Over the years, we have developed a deep understanding of what is working well within Canada's BRM framework and where targeted reforms are needed. This understanding has been documented in a paper outlining our observations and recommendations moving forward, which we are happy to provide to the committee.

Let me begin with a fundamental point.

Canada's BRM programs remain a cornerstone of agricultural policy, designed to support producers facing income volatility from external shocks. In our view, the core architecture of the system is sound, with the programs playing a critical role in supporting the long-term viability of farm operations across the country. Further, this strength lies in its margin-based foundation, particularly through AgriStability, creating an effective and responsive tool for producers.

However, what we have heard from producers, along with our advisers, is that the system has not kept pace with the realities of modern agriculture, and that is where reform is needed.

Producers frequently experience long processing timelines, sometimes receiving payments well beyond the point when they are useful for cash flow. There is also limited visibility into how payments are calculated, which creates uncertainty and contributes to the perception of the program as a black box.

More importantly, the sector has evolved. Farm operations have become larger, more capital-intensive and more complex, yet key program parameters have not kept pace, reducing the effectiveness of the support in some cases. In short, while the intent of the programs remains strong, their practical effectiveness has been constrained by outdated parameters and delivery challenges.

[Akaljot Singh Gill, Director, Agriculture Risk Management Resources, MNP LLP]

Good morning.

This leads us to our recommendations on how to improve Canada's BRM suite. These recommendations focus on strengthening, not replacing, the existing systems we have in place.

First, at a high level, we recommend maintaining a strong margin-based core program, with AgriStability remaining central to the BRM suite.

Second, modernize program delivery, including improving administrative efficiencies and accelerating payments.

Third, strengthen transparency and communication so that producers better understand program rules and outcomes and the policy's intent.

Fourth, ensure greater policy stability, moving beyond short-term adjustments in order to provide multi-year certainty.

Lastly, expand financial literacy supports so producers can fully understand and utilize available tools.

Taken together, these reforms are aimed at restoring producers' confidence, improving program uptake and ensuring that public investments are delivering meaningful impact.

To conclude, Canada's BRM programs are at a critical juncture. Producers are facing increased volatility driven by market uncertainty, climate pressures and rising costs. With targeted, evidence-based reforms, Canada can ensure that its BRM systems continue to support a resilient, competitive and sustainable agriculture sector for years to come.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. We will be pleased to answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec for five minutes.

[Sarah Delisle, General Director, Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

First of all, thank you for inviting the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec to take part in your discussions. Allow me to provide a brief introduction about our organization.

Founded in 1996 at the Canadian government's request to compensate for the termination of financial assistance for transporting grain from west to east, the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec is a non-profit organization that's been supporting the agricultural community for 30 years now.

Between 1996 and 2016, the council undertook over 20 federal programs and monitored 4,000 projects, thereby making a major contribution to the productivity of Quebec's farms, the adoption of sustainable agriculture, as well as research and marketing of agricultural products.

In 2017, the council refocused its work and is now directly involved in climate change mitigation in agriculture. Best known for its flagship Agriclimat project, the council has developed leading-edge expertise to address two key aspects of climate change mitigation: climate risk analysis and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on farms.

Since 2026, the council's team has been leading and supporting over 20 projects to assist with the implementation of on-farm measures and innovations aimed specifically at adopting these practices, thereby generating $3 million in revenue.

I'd also like to add that one of the unique advantages the council enjoys in Quebec is the presence of two major driving forces within the agricultural community: the regional federations of the Union des producteurs agricoles and its affiliated specialized production groups, as well as Via Pôle d'expertise en services-conseils agricoles, a provincial organization offering non-input-related services, particularly in the agro-environmental field.

Since 2017, the council has conducted in-depth work to identify risks and opportunities arising from climate change with agricultural producers from all regions and major production sectors, along with advisers and researchers. More than 100 discussion meetings have guided the council toward the importance of facilitating the adoption of practices through collective projects and toward the development of an integrated approach for the benefit of producers, namely the on-farm climate plan.

This plan allows producers to access climate information specific to the exact location of their operation, notably through close collaboration between the council and Ouranos. With the support of an adviser certified for this tool, producers analyze the risks their operation might face and prioritize the measures they need to implement. Next, their carbon budget is calculated using a methodology that accounts for greenhouse gas emissions over a given year as well as the carbon sequestered in their soils and agroforestry systems. Producers evaluate the levers for reducing their carbon footprint through specific on-farm actions. They receive a comprehensive action plan tailored to their operation that enables them to combat climate change.

Here are some results we've obtained through our work at the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec: we've raised awareness among more than 7,000 producers through the Agriclimat project; we've greatly contributed to the Racine d'Avenir and Lait carboneutre living labs; we've rolled out the Agrisolutions climat program; we've developed the on-farm climate plan and Agriclimat platform; we've supported 80 certified agricultural advisers in developing on-farm climate plans; we're carrying out ongoing innovation projects in dairy, beef, sheep and egg production, as well as those in cranberry, strawberry, raspberry, processing vegetable, field crop, forage crop production, and more; we've established the Agriclimat network, where 500 produce growers and stakeholders share a common interest to accelerate climate change mitigation; and we've provided agronomic training on combatting climate change in cattle, swine and forage production.

Based on close to 10 years of experience developing and carrying out climate change mitigation projects, the council would like to offer two broad observations.

The first is that agricultural producers are more concerned with measures they need to take to adapt to climate change than those focused solely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly due to economic considerations, the sustainability of their operations and the resulting co-benefits.

The second is that the factors facilitating climate adaptation are access to cutting-edge agronomic support, the presence of a knowledge transfer network, participation in collective projects and financial assistance allocated for adopting practices, all provided that an operation is in a favourable position financially, in terms of human resources and structurally.

Given the quality of past discussions regarding risk management programs, as well as the work of the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec, I propose that we focus our discussion on the measures to be taken prior to these programs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for five minutes.

[Ben LeFort, Senior Economist, Ontario Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to address the study on business risk management programs in Canada's agricultural sector. My name is Ben LeFort. I am a senior economist at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

OFA proudly represents more than 38,000 farm family members across Ontario. Our members produce over 200 commodities, and OFA advocates for an agri-food sector that drives over $50 billion in provincial GDP and sustains over 750,000 jobs.

The primary message we bring to the committee today is that the risks Canadian farmers face have increased dramatically both in the severity of the risks and in the types of risks, and that these risks are unlikely to go away anytime soon, which means that we need new investments in our risk management programs to help farmers navigate this increased risk.

Historically, agricultural risk was viewed through a more narrow lens of more episodic, isolated events. Today, producers are battling the compounding impacts of climate change, and severe weather events are much more routine rather than rare. Farmers are highly exposed to uncertain trade policies, restricted market access, increased volatility and geopolitical shocks. Because agriculture is a deeply interconnected global industry, any international instability—whether it's the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the conflict in Iran—always hits the agricultural sector.

We are living through this right now and navigating through energy and fertilizer price spikes. When you combine these elevated input costs with elevated interest rates and mounting farm debt loads, the result is a squeeze on producer margins. Farmers are price-takers. They have no ability to pass these costs along to the consumer. Every single external shock is a direct hit to farm profitability.

Our latest farm business confidence survey paints a stark picture of this reality. When we look at the producers who rank “improving risk management programs” as a top policy priority, their economic outlook is overwhelmingly categorized as “not so confident”. The compounding risks they face have frozen investment, with the majority of respondents telling us that their growth plans are simply to maintain the status quo rather than expand their operation. They tell us every day that they are being weighed down by rising input costs, escalating insurance premiums, heavy tax burdens and commodity price volatility.

The modern risk environment and the margin squeeze that farmers face require enhanced public investment. In light of the financial squeeze farmers face, further investments on key risk management programs, such as AgriStability, are necessary for farmers to have the confidence to make further investments in their business and to help the sector and the country reach their full economic potential. While we applaud many of the recent improvements to the AgriStability program—such as the removal of the reference margin limitation provision and increased compensation rates—we hear consistently from our members that their number one priority within that program is to restore the payment trigger of the AgriStability program to 85% of historical reference margins.

Furthermore, we greatly appreciate the government's flexibility in adjusting the interest-free limit under the advance payments program over the past number of years. However, as we all know, the geopolitical risks and the increasing input costs farmers face are likely a permanent new reality. This is why OFA continues to advocate to change the program guidelines to permanently increase the interest-free portion of the advance payments program to $350,000.

To truly help farmers navigate this period of uncertainty and financial pressure requires a whole-of-government approach that links policy tools across the entire Government of Canada, not within just one ministry or department. The Canadian agri-food system, encompassing both primary agriculture and value-added food processing, is an undeniable economic powerhouse for Canada. It contributes over $150 billion to our national GDP, and it helps sustain over 2.3 million jobs. In fact, food processing now stands as Canada's largest manufacturing sector in both GDP and employment.

As we approach the next policy framework, we ask that the government recognize agri-food as a core strategic industry of national importance to our economy. Supplementing increased NPF funding with further infrastructure programming to help get agri-food goods to market, growth-oriented tax policies and a focus on expanding our domestic processing capacity will ensure that we value-add our raw commodities here at home, insulating Canadian farmers from international volatility and securing Canada's food sovereignty.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. That was perfect timing.

We'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes.

Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'll begin with a short question and ask for a quick response, please. The present APF has five pillars. Obviously, this study deals with business risk management. The last APF introduced the concept of cross-compliance between one of the elements of BRM and other programming in the other pillars.

Mr. LeFort, have your OFA members been lobbying you for increased cross-compliance in the next APF?

[Ben LeFort]

No. That is not an issue our members have wanted us to pursue. In fact, it's the opposite. We have heard feedback on the cross-compliance issue of linking AgriInvest to an AgriRisk assessment, but in our members' view, that is an unnecessary step. Any additional cross-compliance in that way would not be viewed positively but rather as more red tape and difficulty in accessing the programs.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

To the clients of MNP, I'll ask a similar question.

[Marvin Slingerland]

Our comments would be similar. If the number one goal of the program is to get people enrolled in the BRM suite of programs, cross-compliance just adds a further complication to enrolment. Let's keep it easy to enrol and address other issues via other means.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

In your testimony, Mr. LeFort, you referenced that the risks were climbing. You're not the first witness who has come to this committee identifying that as agriculture and agri-food processing goes forward. With that, and with the BRM programs being cost-shared, the logical outcome of that is increased costs for both producers and governments. We heard testimony today that AgriStability, the margin-based program, should remain front and centre as a way to address increased volatility, particularly in costs.

It will come as a surprise to no one that I'm going to introduce the concept of reinsurance as a potential tool to address, especially, the volatility and the increased costs, going forward.

Do you have any comments, Mr. LeFort?

[Ben LeFort]

Our members are certainly open to any additional tools outside the core program to reduce risk and reduce the costs of these programs while increasing the efficiency of them. They do maintain, though, that those further investments in the core programs are critical.

You're right to raise that the increased risks that the industry faces are an additional cost to the industry and potentially increased spending through both levels of government, as they are cost-shared programs. Anything we can do to support producers while reducing the cost is worth looking into, absolutely, but we would maintain that those increased costs within the program are a worthwhile investment, given the magnitude of the economic impact the entire sector has on the Ontario and federal economies.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

The same question goes to MNP.

[Marvin Slingerland]

There are over 300 published commodities in Canada. We believe AgriStability is the best program to react, whether it's to a drop in revenue, an increase in production costs or a loss of production. We've seen AgriStability help clients with trade issues, avian influenza, floods in B.C. and widespread drought in the Prairies. Our opinion is that it reacts fairly to widespread perils. We have seen issues with reinsurance in some regions where programs have been rolled out, and after a year the programs have disappeared due to the cost of reinsurance via private insurance companies. AgriStability provides a long-term solution for producers with stability.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll stay with MNP and AgriStability for the moment. In your testimony, you said it is the “core” program and that it needs to remain so going forward, yet over time the participation has gone down and down and down. You addressed some of those concerns.

Let me go to the concept of a national framework of AgriStability as a plug-and-play model, where regional programs plug into it and either producers have more choice, be it private or public, or they choose to participate and the costs and revenues from those other programs are taken into account or imputed in a national framework. Obviously, for reinsurance to work in that program, the program would have to be morphed into an insurance-type program as opposed to a purely margin-based, virtually government only, cost-responsive program.

Can you comment?

[Akaljot Singh Gill]

I would say there's room for the reinsurance programs to play a role, obviously, but they cannot be the main sector. The rationale behind it is that the number of different commodities we can protect through the AgriStability program is just not feasible for the insurance programs or the crop—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I want to separate reinsurance from AgriInsurance. Reinsurance operates in the background. It is not a—

[Akaljot Singh Gill]

When you say reinsurance, do you mean through private insurance, or are you talking about the whole farm insurance of the federal government?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Just like the AgriInsurance programs at the provincial level are using reinsurance, there's the possibility of it being used in federally and provincially delivered programs in the background, so it's not client-facing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Give a very short answer. You have 10 seconds.

[Akaljot Singh Gill]

There are two concerns with that.

One is that the coverage level obviously decreases, because your perils are going to be covered right on the farm, whereas AgriStability covers your perils all the way until your product is sold. Given the current circumstances—geopolitically and all that kind of stuff—it's not just the risk on the field that you're trying to cover, but also what happens after you've taken the product off and put it into your bins and all of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

Go ahead, MP Mingarelli.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lefort, my questions will be for you.

Many farmers in my riding of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland are members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I would first like to address the issue of business risk management programs.

You're asking that the payment trigger for AgriStability be restored to 85%. In practice, why is the current threshold insufficient?