Evidence of meeting #37 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was production.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Frigon  President and Chief Executive Officer, Dairy Processors Association of Canada
Dayananda  Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs and Member Relations, Dairy Processors Association of Canada
Duff  Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness
Gosselin  Executive Director, Novalait
Yule  Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association
Schmidt  President, Canadian Cattle Youth Council
Patterson  Executive Director, Canadian Sheep Federation
Lee  General Manager, Canadian Cattle Association

11:45 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

I think that Ontario has had a number of provincial initiatives over the years. Those programs have taken consideration from other provinces' initiatives. For example, during the BSE crisis, we had a set of programs and Alberta had a set of programs. We worked together in developing them, but they were somewhat unique.

It's the same with the ASRA program in Quebec. The Ontario risk management program kind of evolved out of that, in terms of some of the core funding, and then was adjusted to different datasets and things that we have available to us.

I think there are examples for everybody to learn from. The AgriStability program we have now was CAIS, which was the disaster program before it. It started in Alberta, then it came into P.E.I., and then we did it in Ontario. That was the first thing I worked on when I started with the ministry.

I think we've all collectively built on that initiative as time has gone by. There's significant infrastructure, from a staff and policy perspective, across Canada that works together very closely. It's just a matter of trying to figure out what fits best at any point in time.

Going back to my original testimony, the better the information and the wider the datasets we have, the better we can try to address those issues as time changes.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

Thank you very much, Mr. Duff.

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

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duff, first of all, thank you for being here today.

When it comes to risk management, there is a challenge that is too often overlooked: mental health, particularly that of our producers. In my riding, an organization cut field worker positions due to insufficient funding. There is often a game of ping-pong between the different levels of government over who is responsible. However, on the Ontario side, I see that you have signed a partnership with the federal government to provide mental health support.

Can you confirm for us how much funding you have secured from the federal government for this program? How does it work? Is there a way to improve it?

I'm also thinking about the Alto project. We know that farm workers affected by the arrival of this railway frequently consult with union representatives. Furthermore, demand is likely to grow, both in Quebec and in Ontario.

11:50 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

Thank you for the question.

Again, mental health isn't necessarily my area. I do know that it is a risk area that's continually identified in the sector. It comes back, even in the discussions about processing, certainty and stability, things that people can plan for and understand how they can work within the framework they have. I think there have been considerable amounts done in this country for primary producers from a mental health perspective, but in general, the dollars at play for most producers today are so large compared to when I started in the industry, or even in previous generations, that it's very daunting, and that in turn puts stress on it.

I think the degree to which we can provide tools for people to see the broader aspects of how they can run their business, plan their business and create information to proactively manage the comments around both risk and innovation...that is as big a risk management tool as AgriStability, crop insurance, etc., in the end, when we react.

Again, there have been significant efforts. Could there be more? Possibly, yes. I don't know enough about that area specifically to give you recommendations, but every producer is in a very precarious position at points in their career. I have experienced that myself on a bunch of occasions. It's something where the more tools you have in your tool kit to proactively deal with it, the better you can react. In my experience, that in turn reduces your mental issues, which ultimately puts you in a better place to be able to sleep at night.

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

Thank you very much, Mr. Duff.

To stay on time, because we have four witnesses in the next panel, I'm going to give the last round to Mr. Epp and Ms. Chatel at four minutes, if that's okay. It will take a bit of time to switch over.

We'll go to Mr. Epp for four minutes, please.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duff, you just mentioned the link between risk and innovation, and there's obviously a link between innovation and research. Given Ontario's huge budget surplus and OMAFRA's extra monies, would you be able to pick up the slack from the agriculture research station closures that are being done federally?

11:50 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

Unfortunately, you're asking the wrong person.

What I can do is advocate for the benefits of research and help to try to figure out how we transfer that research effectively to producers to help them innovate and manage risk on their farms. It is without a doubt the biggest thing for our sector. I grew up on a dairy farm and did grad work in dairy, etc.

The dairy sector has long understood the benefits with respect to research, and it has been a major driver of that sector, in addition to the stability that supply management offers. There are all kinds of other examples for it.

Again, I can't comment on how the money gets allocated.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

I'll ask for a comment from the Dairy Processors Association on agriculture research closures.

11:50 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Dairy Processors Association of Canada

Mathieu Frigon

We totally agree with what Élise presented earlier. Some of the decisions were unfortunate and had impacts on the Living Labs. Yes, we are totally aligned with what Élise presented earlier.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Thank you.

I'm going back to AgriStability and Mr. Duff. There have been calls, efforts or consideration given to simplifying the AgriStability model to go away from a margin model and look more at revenue, the revenue side only. Can you comment on that?

From my perspective, that doesn't address the cost side, and that's where a lot of the pressures are coming right now, from margins. Is the value of just considering the revenue side of the equation worth ignoring the cost pressures?

11:50 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

I think that one of the issues with respect to program design is ultimately what the objective of the program is. A revenue protection program has aspects already built into it with a margin program. The program started originally with a gross margin concept going back to NISA. We modified it going into CAIS, with production margin, for a reason. That was largely to try to provide more balanced support for small versus large farms, etc.

Revenue insurance is definitely worth considering. The reason is that producers don't feel that a margin-based program meets all of their needs. Whether that's true or not is really up to the individual, not to me as an analyst. I think it's worth looking into. There are costs associated with it for some commodities.

We have lots of data to estimate revenue, but for others, we don't. My experience would be that one of the things about revenue that's kind of interesting for a lot of commodities is that the yields are going up so significantly on a per unit basis for many commodities that it has a tendency to kind of offset the price declines you might see in certain scenarios, so revenue is different from price, which is different from margin, net income, etc.

Without trying to get into specifying the right policy, with better data and with more data you can have a look at those things in a more detailed way, and hopefully you can evolve your thinking as time goes by.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

I want to get to one last question.

Given the enhanced geopolitical risks that all sectors of our society, including agriculture, are facing, and the potential costs—we just talked about the impact of costs on a potential revenue program—one of the tools is reinsurance. This committee won't be surprised to hear that word come out of my mouth.

Is that a potential tool where we and the sector—both governments and producers—can offset some of those risks in future program design to stabilize both producer premiums, depending on the design of the program, and potential hits to government treasuries?

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

Can you answer that in about 30 seconds, Mr. Duff, if that's possible?

11:55 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

Reinsurance has a long history in this country. From the production insurance perspective, it has not been used in revenue or margin programs, to my knowledge. It does come back to whether the reinsurance industry sees it as a risk it's willing to take on and the degree to which government can make that cost-effective. It's not clear to me that this is true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be evaluated. I think it's worth looking into.

We've done it before, in my experience. We can evaluate it again and see where that goes from a cost-prevention perspective.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

Thank you very much, Mr. Duff.

Now we'll go to Madame Chatel for four minutes, please.

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for joining us for this important study.

Witnesses have told us that we need to be clear about the main objective of the upcoming policy framework. As I understand it, there are two main objectives. First, risk management programs must be able to meet farmers' needs and provide them with assistance when they face a shock, be it climate-related or market-related. I also understand that we must focus on risk prevention. We therefore need to innovate to prevent, in part, climate-related risks.

Mr. Frigon, you mentioned risks related to international trade. How could risk management programs be modified to better protect farmers against these risks?

11:55 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Dairy Processors Association of Canada

Mathieu Frigon

That's a good question. Producers are perhaps in a better position to answer.

As I said, I don't know how research could fit into risk management programs, but it's also a prevention tool, even if it's certainly a longer-term one.

However, when it comes to the farm itself and the tools that could be developed to reduce the risks associated with international trade, I'm less able to comment on that.

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

If you have any ideas, please feel free to share them with us in writing.

Mr. Duff, you said that AgriStability started first at the provincial level. This committee heard that this is one of the main programs that would need reform in order to be more relevant or to protect better with the risks that we are all trying to help our farmers overcome.

Exactly what changes to this program do you think are needed to make it more relevant for our farmers?

11:55 a.m.

Chief Economist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness

Stephen Duff

Again, AgriStability has been the core program. It's a whole-farm, margin-based program that has had different iterations. It started out as a 70% coverage program in 1998. I was one of the people involved in the design. It has ended up that, in the middle of all of it, we had 100%, 85% and 70% through the case years.

It goes back to what the objectives are. I'm not here to comment on what the objectives are and what they might be. What I know is that different farms and different commodities face different risk profiles, so the idea of trying to help people protect is a function of what their circumstances are. Many people, even in the same industry, even neighbour to neighbour, have different profiles, and that's often one of the challenges in the sector, being able to provide fair and equitable support.

On AgriStability specifically, a lot of information is needed to help people better understand how it fits for them rather than thinking it doesn't work. Again, I'm not saying that it works for everybody. I can tell you that from experience. However, if we're going to try to improve the management, people need to have a more holistic approach to it: What do I contribute? What does government contribute? What does industry research contribute? Bring that all together. There are ways to do that. It's not without effort, time and money, but there are ways to do that, in my opinion. Again, I think those are some of the steps you have to take to move forward.

Noon

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

Thank you.

Ms. Gosselin, I don't think you'll have time to reply to me, but I would appreciate it if you could submit your response to the committee in writing.

I'd like to know how the next strategic framework could better support innovation from a risk prevention perspective.

Thank you.

Noon

Executive Director, Novalait

Noon

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

Yes, if you can submit that in writing, that would be very helpful.

I would ask Madame Gosselin if she could submit in writing as well, and maybe also the dairy processors. Both of you said that the benefit of supply management is stability, but I've received a number of calls from dairy farmers, in particular, who are struggling. I happened to look up the statistics this afternoon from the AAFC.

The number of dairy farms has reduced from just over 12,000 to just over 8,000 over the last decade, so I'd be curious, from your points of view, if this is an issue of consolidation. Why are we seeing an industry that should be stable...? Is there something that we're missing in the BRM programs? What would be the reason for this decline in the number of dairy farms when we should have stability as a result of the framework of this program? I'm curious about your perspectives on that, if you don't mind submitting them to the committee.

Thank you very much for that. I will now suspend for five minutes to switch over to the next panel.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow

I call this meeting back to order.

I know most of you have been with us before, but just in case, for those who may be unfamiliar.... We do have a couple of witnesses on Zoom today.

I know, Ryder, you've been with us before, for sure, so you know how the Zoom works.

I want to try to get through this as quickly as possible to make sure that we can take advantage of our witnesses who are here.

Those of you who are here, on your panel in front of you, you can pick the language in which you are most comfortable to ensure that you are able to follow the proceedings. Those of you on Zoom, just remain on mute until you are speaking. When you are done speaking, please go back to mute.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee on September 18, the committee is resuming its study on business risk management programs in Canada.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses on this panel. From the Canadian Bison Association, we have Scott Yule, executive director. From the Canadian Cattle Association, we have Ryder Lee, general manager, via video conference. He is joined by Brayden Schmidt, president of the Canadian cattle youth council. We also have Corlena Patterson with us again today from the Canadian Sheep Federation.

I misunderstood. Ryder and Brayden are both representing the Canadian Cattle Association. You can ask questions of either one, but they'll be giving only one presentation.

We will now begin with Mr. Yule of the Canadian Bison Association for a five-minute presentation.

Please go ahead.

Scott Yule Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Canadian bison industry, the challenges our sector faces and the importance of effective business risk management programming for agriculture.

The CBA represents bison producers and industry partners from across Canada. The Canadian bison industry is a uniquely Canadian success story. What was once a species on the brink of extinction has become a sustainable livestock sector that contributes to quality food production, rural economies, indigenous partnerships and environmental stewardship. Canadian ranchers have played a massive role in bringing back the bison, and together with marketers and industry partners, they have created increasing demand for the low-fat, high-protein, delicious meat.

As a keystone species, bison production also aligns well with environmental and grassland conservation goals. Bison utilize native grasslands effectively and efficiently, support biodiversity and are well adapted to Canadian agriculture.

Canada is recognized globally for producing high-quality bison genetics and premium bison products. Bison meat is more available to the Canadian consumer than ever before. Last year Canadian federal plant processing increased to the highest volumes in over a decade, which resulted in a decrease in animals going live across the border—the U.S. being the largest bison market in the world.

Despite its strengths and positive developments, it also faces several ongoing challenges.

Two years ago, 80% of marketed animals went to the U.S. That reduced last year, as I said, with the increase in.... Processing here in Canada was reduced to about 50%, but the U.S. will always be our largest market. As such, trade impediments to the U.S. would create significant challenges to the industry. Other than the EU, Australia and the U.S., we lack export markets. We would appreciate a small mindset change when trade negotiators are working on other markets to include bison in the red-meat discussions. Quite often we hear about the expansion of beef into different sectors and different countries, and it would be great if we just changed our phraseology a little bit to include bison.

At the same time, a number of factors have contributed to a reduced supply, so we're challenged a bit in that regard. Farmers are retiring, and consolidation is happening. A number of years of drought have contributed to the sell-off of animals. Bison live on pasture, sometimes up to 365 days a year, and bison ranchers are typically low-cost producers and don't typically buy feed. Demand has outstripped supply. To be frank, we need more bison.

Another challenge is that because the industry is relatively small, it does not always fit neatly into agricultural programs and policies that were primarily designed around larger commodity sectors. This can leave bison producers underserved and overlooked.

The sector faces market volatility. Bison production cycles are long, and rebuilding herds after downturns can take years. Producers cannot quickly increase production in response to market demand the way some other livestock sectors can. At the same time, as mentioned, the industry remains heavily dependent on export markets and vulnerable to disruptions in international trade, transportation and consumer demand.

There is also tremendous opportunity. Consumer demand for meat continues to grow, particularly amongst consumers seeking nutritious, sustainably raised protein. With the right support and policy environment, the Canadian bison industry can continue to expand and contribute to Canada's agricultural economy.

That brings me to business risk management programming. When you talk to producers, the one that comes up most quickly is AgriStability. These programs are critically important tools for agricultural producers, including bison producers. Utilization amongst our producers is low, though, due to ongoing concerns regarding accessibility, predictability and effectiveness for sectors like ours.

Again, bison production differs from many other livestock sectors, because of longer production timelines, smaller herd numbers and unique market structures. As a result, some BRM program calculations and reference margins do not always reflect the realities of bison operations. Producers can experience significant losses before support is triggered, and payments often arrive long after the financial damage has occurred.

The CBA encourages government to continue improving AgriStability so that it is more responsive, bankable and reflective of actual risk. Timely interim payments, simplified administration, and program design that recognizes our sector would be greatly appreciated and would improve confidence.

Also, livestock price insurance is not available for bison, as it is for our friends in the cattle industry. Our understanding is that this is because of limited pricing data for bison. While we don't have a futures market and the resources for sophisticated pricing models, we have seen, actually, that bison and beef prices are highly correlated. They move in similar directions at similar times, particularly in recent years. We wonder if there are opportunities to work with some of that data to support price insurance.

In closing, the Canadian bison industry is resilient, innovative and deeply connected to Canada's rural and environmental landscape. Our producers are committed to supplying high-quality food while stewarding the land for future generations. With practical policy support, fair access to risk management programs and recognition of the unique nature of our sector, the Canadian bison industry can continue to grow and contribute to Canada's agricultural success.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to questions.