THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 6, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Rob Black, and I’m the chair of this committee. I would like to welcome members of the committee, our witnesses as well as those watching on the web.
I want to start by acknowledging that this land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I want to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator McNair: Good morning and welcome. John M. McNair from New Brunswick.
Senator Varone: Good morning. Toni Varone from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Burey: Good morning, Sharon Burey, Ontario.
[English]
Senator Robinson: Good morning and welcome. Mary Robinson, representing Prince Edward Island.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Before we begin, I want to ask all senators to check out the cards that are on your table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure that your earpiece is away from all microphones at all times, and don’t touch the microphone while you’re speaking. This helps us to make sure that the folks who support us are not harmfully affected. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on.
Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning. At the same time, they have to transcribe your questions and your testimony, so slow down.
Today, the committee is starting its Ag101 spotlight series — what a great name — which is something new for this committee. These spotlight briefings are meant to inform Canadians and committee members about select topics of interest in agriculture. Today, we’ll be hearing about the evolution of federal-provincial-territorial agricultural agreements.
From Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we have the pleasure of welcoming Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate; Francesco Del Bianco, Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate; and Marco Valicenti, Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate.
Thank you for accepting our request to appear before the committee. Together, you will have up to 20 minutes, followed by a myriad of questions, I expect, from this group.
Witnesses, I’ll signal when you have one minute left. It’s best to wrap up when you see two hands.
With that, the floor is yours, Mr. Jurgutis.
Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee to provide an overview of the evolution of federal-provincial-territorial agricultural frameworks, including their history, successes, challenges and constraints.
These frameworks represent decades of collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments and have been critical for supporting producers across the country and helping shape Canadian agricultural policy more broadly.
As you are aware, agriculture and agri-food is an area of shared jurisdiction in Canada. To date, the federal government has entered into five policy frameworks with provinces and territories, starting with the launch of the initial Agricultural Policy Framework in 2003, followed by Growing Forward and Growing Forward 2 in 2008 and 2013 respectively. We then launched the Canadian Agricultural Partnership in 2018 and are now in year three of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, also known as Sustainable CAP, which launched in April 2023.
Recently, we have begun the very early stages of preparing for the next policy framework for Canadian agriculture and agri‑food, which is expected to launch in 2028.
Together, these frameworks have defined how we invest in agriculture: from business risk management programs that stabilize income to cost-shared strategic initiatives and federal-only programs and activities that support market and trade development, drive science and innovation and enhance resilience. These investments are administered according to multilateral and bilateral agreements negotiated with provinces and territories, which allow jurisdictions to address diverse regional needs while supporting common outcomes.
Today, I will touch on four key themes with respect to the evolution of federal-provincial-territorial agricultural agreements: the major policy shifts between frameworks; the strengths and weaknesses of recent frameworks; multilateral collaboration in framework design; and, finally, how Sustainable CAP builds on the successes of its predecessors.
If we look back over the past two decades, each framework has reflected the priorities of its time while maintaining a consistent core purpose: ensuring the long-term growth, resilience and sustainability of Canadian agriculture.
The Agricultural Policy Framework was the first framework and responded to a shared government and sector need for a more comprehensive approach to agriculture and agri-food policy. It covered risk management, renewal, environment, food safety and quality and science.
Growing Forward emerged in the wake of a renewed focus on competitiveness, market development and other topics. It placed a strong emphasis on innovation, knowledge transfer and helping farmers contribute to society and adapting to consumer demand.
Growing Forward 2 sharpened that focus, introducing a stronger results-based approach and targeting investments in innovation, competitiveness and market development. It also sought to make business risk management programs more predictable and fiscally responsible, particularly following lessons learned from ad hoc support in earlier years.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or CAP, reflected a further shift — one toward public trust, climate resilience and inclusive growth. CAP also recognized the growing importance of science and data as a foundational element, promoting evidence-based policy and performance measurement.
Finally, the current Sustainable CAP marks a clear shift toward sustainability as a defining pillar of agricultural policy. This shift acknowledges the interconnected nature of long-term growth and competitiveness with environmental stewardship and social responsibility.
Each successive framework represents an opportunity to advance a renewed approach to support the sector. As such, it is critical to build on lessons learned from previous frameworks. Experience from previous frameworks has demonstrated that there have been both successes and challenges.
Growing Forward was strong in establishing a unified national policy approach. It improved coordination amongst jurisdictions and provided a stable base for programs like AgriInvest and AgriStability. However, its performance measurement systems were limited, making it difficult to fully assess the outcomes of investments.
Growing Forward 2 improved on that by incorporating clearer performance indicators and stronger accountability mechanisms. It also spurred innovation through increased industry-led research and adoption initiatives. That said, producers found that business risk management programs under Growing Forward 2 were sometimes too rigid and less responsive to emerging risks, such as price volatility and regional disasters.
The Canadian Agricultural Partnership brought important refinements. It introduced public trust as a priority, emphasizing transparency, food safety and sector engagement. It also supported value-added processing, encouraging greater integration across the agri-food value chain. However, CAP’s flexibility was sometimes a double-edged sword. While it allowed provinces and territories to tailor programs to local realities, it also led to variation that some stakeholders found confusing or uneven across the country.
Another recurring concern under CAP and earlier frameworks was the perceived complexity and administrative burden associated with accessing programs, which is something both levels of government continue to work on simplifying.
Sustainable CAP has taken those lessons to heart. It integrates clearer outcomes, shared performance targets and a renewed focus on collaboration. It also expands funding in key areas such as sustainability and sector resilience, recognizing that the pace of change in agriculture demands faster and more coordinated responses.
Not only have the frameworks evolved, but the partnership itself between federal, provincial and territorial governments has also matured.
In early frameworks, the focus was largely on coordination, ensuring governments could align funding to avoid duplication. Over time, that coordination has deepened into greater co‑development.
Today, framework negotiations involve shared policy design, data-driven decision making and joint performance measurement. We’ve moved from a model where the federal government largely set national objectives to one where provinces and territories co-lead the development of priorities based on regional realities.
Throughout the framework, federal-provincial-territorial governments meet one-on-one to discuss ongoing concerns and to share information. Both sides also work together in a series of federal-provincial-territorial working groups to maintain alignment on key issues such as innovation.
This evolution reflects the recognition that agriculture in Canada is deeply diverse — economically and geographically. From potato farmers in Prince Edward Island to cattle ranchers in Alberta, from horticulture in British Columbia to grain and oilseed producers in Saskatchewan, the sector’s needs are distinct. The partnership model allows those differences to be reflected in successive frameworks while maintaining shared national goals.
Producers and processors have also become more engaged in shaping the frameworks. Industry associations, Indigenous organizations and supply chain partners contribute to consultations, ensuring programs respond to what is happening on the ground.
In these ways, the federal-provincial-territorial partnership has evolved from managing programs together to co-creating solutions.
[Translation]
Now I would like to say a little more on how Sustainable CAP has built squarely on the lessons and successes of its predecessors.
The framework retains the proven core structure of cost-shared strategic initiatives, federally delivered programs and activities, and Business Risk Management programs.
Sustainable CAP commits $3.5 billion in funding over five years — an increase of $500 million over the Canadian Agricultural Partnership.
Of the $3.5 billion, $2.5 billion is in provincially or territorially delivered cost-shared programs that are funded 60% at the federal level and 40% at the provincial and territorial level, while $1 billion is in federally delivered programs and activities that are national in scope and funded and delivered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
These investments support five shared priorities: building sector capacity, growth and competitiveness; climate change and the environment; science, research and innovation; market development and trade; and resiliency and public trust.
These priorities build directly on the previous Canadian Agricultural Partnership but introduce stronger performance tracking and clearer links to environmental outcomes.
For example, through the Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program, provinces and territories can support regionally tailored projects that deliver measurable environmental benefits — like carbon sequestration and improved soil health.
Meanwhile, on the federal-only side, Sustainable CAP includes support for innovation through programs such as AgriScience and AgriInnovate, which are aligned with the government’s broader economic agenda.
The framework also includes a more robust results reporting strategy, including improved data sharing and a commitment to contribute to common, measurable outcomes over the life of the framework.
Before I wrap up I would like to turn to the Business Risk Management — or BRM — programs, which remain the backbone of every agricultural policy framework. The suite includes AgriStability, which protects against income declines, AgriInvest, which promotes proactive savings that can offset small income declines and that can be accessed at any time, AgriInsurance, which covers production losses, and AgriRecovery, which is a framework that provides a process to develop ad hoc responses.
These programs were created under the authority of the Farm Income Protection Act and are therefore not dependent on framework negotiations; however, we use the renewal of the framework agreement as an opportunity to bring parties together to make improvements and discuss evolutions in policy positions, which are then captured in the framework.
BRM programs aim to provide producers with a suite of tools to manage income declines, weather disasters and production losses. Over time, these programs have evolved in response to both producer feedback and fiscal realities.
By way of example, I will share the recent changes to the AgriStability compensation rates. The program offered a 70% compensation rate, meaning producers could recover 70% of their eligible losses.
In response to sector pressures, governments increased the rate to 80%, starting with the 2023 program year. This was a meaningful improvement to help producers manage financial risk.
More recently, for the 2025 program year, the rate has been temporarily increased to 90%. This change is aimed at helping producers deal with ongoing challenges like trade uncertainty and drought. Additionally, the payment cap has been raised from $3 million to $6 million, allowing larger operations to access more substantial support.
These changes reflect a continued commitment to adapting BRM tools to meet the evolving needs of Canadian producers.
The long-term direction is toward a more proactive, adaptive risk management system — one that not only helps farmers recover from shocks but also supports them in preparing for them.
[English]
In closing, the story of these frameworks is one of steady evolution — rooted in collaboration, guided by evidence and responsive to change.
From Growing Forward to Sustainable CAP, governments have not only invested billions of dollars through these partnerships but have also built a foundation of trust and cooperation that continues to serve the sector well.
As we look ahead, the task is to maintain that balance: to continue supporting growth, competitiveness and innovation while ensuring agriculture remains resilient, sustainable and trusted by Canadians.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll proceed now with questions from my colleagues. Senators, I hope you will have lots of questions for the folks who are with us today.
Senator McNair: Thank you for being here and for the last 10 years of collaboration with the provinces by working on many of these initiatives you’ve described.
Can you speak a little bit about how the business risk management programs are administered? Specifically, I’m interested in what the timelines are for farms hit by wildfires, for example — we just wrapped up our wildfire study here — or drought. I read somewhere in here that it’s within the same year of the loss, but how long does it actually take to get the money into the farmers’ hands? I assume it’s a relatively fast turnaround, but probably not fast enough from the farmers’ point of view.
Francesco Del Bianco, Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. There are a number of business risk management programs. The first is AgriInvest, which is essentially a savings account, and producers can withdraw the money at any time. There is AgriStability, which basically provides support for reductions in revenue or increases in expenses, and usually producers will file their taxes at the end of the year. That information is used in part to determine what a potential payment would be, but there are provisions under that program where we can provide advance payments earlier than when they file their taxes. There is a third program called AgriInsurance. If the wildfires, for example, destroyed some of their crops, they can be insured for the loss of what the expected yield was.
Finally, there is a framework called AgriRecovery, and you may have been alluding to that. It is often used to address wildfires. That program essentially addresses the extraordinary cost that producers incur to resume their operations. This is unlike the others in that it is a framework where we sit down with the affected province and the officials and assess the situation, and then if warranted, we’ll seek the authorities to put a program in place. The program will address that specific wildfire event and provide specific support for some of the expenses that the producers incurred.
We endeavour to do that as quickly as possible, but we have to get the authorities to put those programs in place — both the policy and funding authorities.
Senator McNair: Thank you. Yesterday, the budget came down. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will have to find savings by 2028. Do you expect this will impact any of the programs that we’re talking about today?
Mr. Jurgutis: I can take a piece from the budget document that indicated that statutory transfer payments to provinces, territories and individuals were outside the scope of that review. Any additional questions as they pertain to the budget at this point would be something that would need to be referred to the Department of Finance Canada.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for being here this morning. I’m new to the committee, and I’m a city gal, so in understanding the risks and uncertainties that farmers face each and every day and each year, I just think they are so courageous. Recently, members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, were on the Hill, so I had a chance to meet with them. These are two questions that arose from my meeting with them.
One of the items we discussed was that they raised concerns that there is no guaranteed minimum under the Advance Payments Program, which creates planning risk at input purchase times. On a yearly basis, there is this lack of certainty of funding.
Would Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada consider pre‑approved minimum advance amounts — for example, a seasonal floor based on the previous year’s production to increase certainty at seeding? What plans are in place to address this concern?
Mr. Del Bianco: The Advance Payments Program essentially is designed to allow producers to market their grains at the most opportune moment. There is an interest-free portion that is usually $100,000 per year, but we have recently increased that to $250,000 for the 2025 program year and increased it to $500,000 for canola. Producers are able to secure essentially 50% of what they’ve planted, which essentially becomes the collateral for the advance.
If you plant $200,000 worth of canola, you can secure a $100,000 interest-free advance, which is repayable once you’ve sold that canola.
With regard to the program, the budget reconfirmed the $250,000 interest-free limit as well as the $500,000 limit for canola. That will give producers some certainty for the 2025 program year.
Senator Martin: I’m trying to understand their concern regarding just how that is processed. I don’t know where that uncertainty for them is. They mentioned that $350,000 was their request. Would you speak to that?
Mr. Del Bianco: Yes, thank you for the clarification. Under the legislation and the regulations, the interest-free limit is $100,000. For the last few years, the government has decided to increase that amount. Producers such as the CFA have requested that the $100,000 limit be increased to a higher amount on a permanent basis. The government confirmed in the budget that it will remain at $250,000 for the 2025 program year and $500,000 for canola.
Senator Martin: So it was not what they were asking for, but it is still higher than the $100,000. I understand. Whatever certainty or support we can give to our farmers is a good thing.
I have a second question. More than 90% of Canada’s renewable fuel imports are with the U.S., and roughly half of our total biofuel supply is imported, which the CFA highlights as a domestic processing and blending capacity cap. This is an opportunity to bring this industry back to Canada. What is the federal plan to increase the domestic biofuel feedstock processing and blending capacity and reduce reliance on U.S. imports? What is the timeline to do that?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question, senator. I can probably give a bit of a high-level answer. One thing that I would say is just within the budget that was tabled yesterday, there is mention as well about additional funds to go to Natural Resources Canada to help develop the biofuel sector. This is something that the government is very aware of and looking at as an opportunity to be able to have another source of revenue for inputs for Canadian producers, recognizing that we’re in a situation in which trading partners can sometimes create difficulties in terms of stability. This creates a domestic opportunity within Canada that then becomes essentially another source to sell into for Canadian producers.
As it pertains to some of the elements relating to the standards or how that works, it would be something that would be toward Natural Resources Canada in terms of the area of responsibility, but I can say that it is certainly an area that Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada is aware of, and we are looking for opportunities to help support the sector on biofuels.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for joining us on our learning journey. This is exciting for me because I don’t know much about your department or regulatory matters, so I appreciate it.
This morning, I was listening to CBC News Saskatoon, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, or SARM, was quite critical about the budget as it relates to agriculture. Essentially it said that the Prairies — or the West — received nothing and, in fact, received cuts. I’m curious to hear if you could highlight some increases that are relevant to Prairie farmers over the last couple of years, or tell us what you think are some budget gaps that need to be addressed for Prairie farmers.
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. As I said earlier, given that the budget was just tabled in Parliament yesterday, more detailed questions about the budget and the next steps at this point would need to be referred to the Department of Finance Canada.
I can say, though, that you would have seen within that document that there were a number of initiatives that were indicated, some of which had been previously shared with the public in terms of increases to the Advance Payments Program limit, for example, which Mr. Del Bianco mentioned. I also mentioned in my speech the changes to the AgriStability limit that have been included. The money going to biofuels is another example that was listed there. I would say also of interest for the committee to consider is that within this framework, there is money that goes toward the sector. It is more broadly within the department through other programs that we have at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other initiatives, including science activities that benefit the sector. There are also activities outside of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that have benefits toward the sector as well. I would say for some of those, in particular for the sector writ large, the budget also looked at improving things such as rail and ports to be able to get products to other markets.
Senator Muggli: That was one of their criticisms: There wasn’t enough for roads, rail or ports.
Mr. Jurgutis: Right, we’re aware of the concerns that have been there and aware that there are sometimes considerations to be had in terms of the reliability of the infrastructure as it pertains to being able to get products to other countries. Details of some of those things, I think, were provided in the budget, but more information about those would either be referred to other departments or, at this point, the Department of Finance Canada as it pertains to the budget.
Marco Valicenti, Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: One of the areas that was also highlighted in the budget was an additional $75 million for the AgriMarketing Program or from a trade and market development perspective, which all our sectors would benefit from. That’s to diversify our trade and look at new markets, whether that is in Asia, the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, et cetera. That was a big positive for the sector. I would say just in the context of what Mr. Jurgutis was talking about on science, innovation and the environment, there are lots of interesting projects being undertaken in the Prairies, especially in the context of breeding and animal health as well as plant health and agronomy with regard to increasing yield. We’re looking at it from a multi-lens perspective, so with marketing, science and some environmental practices, hopefully at the farm gate, they see improved sustainability in their practice. There is a mix of different lenses we can look at.
Senator Muggli: I think the anxiety today for a lot of producers is getting their product to market and the status of bridges. I can’t remember what the percentage is in Saskatchewan of bridges that now have weight limits or are on the verge of being shut down, but it is growing immensely. The roads are in pretty bad shape. That’s one of their big concerns for sure.
Senator Robinson: I want to talk about our global situation. We all know that farmers who compete in commodity markets are price takers. To level that playing field, when we look at other nations we compete with on the global stage, have you done any analysis of how Canada’s business risk management suite of programs compares to other nations? I’m thinking, in particular, of the U.S. farm bill, wondering if you have looked comparatively at how we stack up in timeliness and predictability of payment. Within that, I would love to understand — and we probably don’t have time, so I would love a written submission — the steps of how a producer triggers and then receives the cheque. I would like an average outlay of what the timeline looks like.
I would also like to know — if we are looking comparatively at other nations — how does the extent of our coverage compare? What are the trigger levels? We have seen that 70% to 80% to 90% move, but how does that compare when we look at other nations? Overall, how does net income to Canadian farmers compare to American farmers when we look at programs like business risk management programs that are designed to see them through tough times?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you, senator, for the series of questions.
Senator Robinson: It’s only one.
Mr. Jurgutis: One large question. I will give a high-level answer.
Senator Robinson: And written submissions afterwards to give us more substance would be great.
Mr. Jurgutis: I don’t think we have the people at the table to get into the economic explanation with the level of detail that you are looking for. I will say, overall, one of the things to consider is that there are comparisons that get done in terms of how Canadian agriculture is situated in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, for example. It is not necessarily a case where it is easy to identify things to compare in a completely linear type of way because there are various types of supports that are provided in different types of ways to different producers in different countries. In the framework, there are also initiatives that fall under what we refer to as strategic initiatives, not necessarily just support-type programs but other initiatives that are available to help advance the sector through innovation, through marketing and other activities as well.
On balance, there are attempts to try to look at how Canadian producers fit into that frame. I would say, generally speaking, when you do those comparisons, you do find that we compare quite well in terms of how we support the agricultural sector in Canada and what we provide. I will say that some of those direct comparisons — and we hear that often from producers when something is introduced in the U.S. in particular, for example, and they ask for something in comparison — need to be provided in the broader context of all of the support and all of the other initiatives that must be considered within that context. Of course, one of the things to consider there is to ensure that we continue to stay within trade regulations and to not put at risk what we are providing to producers by having unintended consequences on a global trade scale.
Perhaps on the process or timeliness, I’ll turn to Mr. Del Bianco.
Mr. Del Bianco: As Mr. Jurgutis mentioned, there are ways to compare, but in terms of program payments relative to total income, we have that type of information we can make available.
Senator Robinson: What does it cost to deliver AgriStability? For every dollar that goes to producers in AgriStability, what were the administrative costs associated with that, and how do we compare to other competing nations? I appreciate it is so difficult to compare, because it is not apples to apples or potatoes to potatoes. It is very complex, but that is the task that you folks have to face. Because when we go to market to compete, the realities of the differences in compensation are what producers run up against. If you need to do a written submission, Mr. Del Bianco, on what those delivery costs are, I would love that.
Mr. Del Bianco: On the delivery costs, as you know, AgriStability is statutory, so the demand for payments varies by years. In absolute terms, the federal government delivers in Manitoba and some of the Maritime provinces. For B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, they deliver at the provincial level. It is roughly $70 million in total, which would represent approximately 20% of the amounts that are provided in terms of administrative costs as a percentage.
And then on AgriInvest, because it is a savings account, it is quite low. Crop insurance is per contract, but I can provide that information as well.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for coming and sharing this information. It is really valuable. First of all, I want to commend you for giving all of us the historical perspective and the evolution of how you developed your frameworks and your policies and the fact that you have gone from a top-down approach to more coordination and co-development at all the levels. I like the word “co-creating” things. I think lots of ministries could learn — I’m from the health field — from what you have been able to do. I hope we will get there.
My question is going to try to tie together some of the frameworks. I think you talked about that in your discussion in terms of the sustainability and innovation. How do you see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada integrating the One Health concept and framework throughout all of your policies and programs? All of you can answer that, if you would like.
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question, senator. As a starting point, the one thing that I will highlight is that this framework is one part of what the department does. Certainly, it is a big part of what the department does. However, in particular, we also have a large Science and Technology Branch that is quite engaged within the One Health concept, particularly as it pertains to working with colleagues in Health Canada and other departments. The considerations as to the science and research that are done is something that is integrated within that concept.
We also have considerations for ensuring animal health, for example. That’s done through a One Health lens. Partly, that is done within some of what is found within the framework, but other things are done outside that as well. For example, with regard to the concern for African swine fever which could potentially come into the country, a great deal of collaboration, initiatives and programs were put forward in preparation for that eventuality, and they were done through a One Health lens as well. That would be working with other federal partners and also with provinces and territories to prepare for that.
In terms of a greater degree of cooperation, one thing that did give us was to continue to have conversations about those issues and animal health concerns within that broader context of a One Health lens.
Mr. Valicenti: I would complement that by saying this: We are looking at the different lenses of One Health: animal health, plant health and antimicrobial resistance in that context. With Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, we are working as a consortium, which is going to be important, along with our provinces. That is one element.
The second element to note is that we also work in the area of food policy — whether we are thinking about school food infrastructure, which we supported over the last few years, or local food infrastructure, which involves looking at local needs and supporting communities. We are looking at it within the framework of the federal-provincial relations and also internally within the federal government by using a multi-department strategy. We just gave a couple of examples.
Mr. Del Bianco: In the case of the business risk management programs, they are there to support the producers to be able to produce, whether it is an animal or plant disease, but the focus is on ensuring the viability of the producers’ operations.
Senator Varone: I want to carry forward on a point that Senator Burey was touching on and that you guys touched on. It is about research and innovation. The Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or Sustainable CAP, as you said, invests in research, technology, improved crop yields, resilience against pests and climate change as well as developing new sources of food. Budgets are a zero-sum game. The more one area receives, it means the less there is for another area. Given global climate change, how is Sustainable CAP prioritizing the research initiatives between provinces and between issues themselves to ensure that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada remains resilient in the face of this unpredictable weather pattern we live in? Every day, I’m learning about new pests that are problematic.
Mr. Valicenti: In the context of two different perspectives, there is the framework lens, which is Sustainable CAP, and the biggest pillar — I’ll call it our anchor pillar — is science and innovation. That is from the federal level — we have the AgriScience Program that spends about $325 million over that five-year span and has been fairly consistent — plus part of the strategic initiatives that the provinces spend in science and innovation. Our big players are animal health, plant health, agronomy and pest management. Those are the areas we want to focus on.
Senator Varone: Is that a partnership between the feds and the provinces?
Mr. Valicenti: That’s correct, although at the programming level, AgriScience has a Cluster model which has industry, academia and federal partners, including Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada. Half of our department is research. Our research scientists in this Cluster model are doing work in pest management or plant health for yield improvements with the sector. The industry is defining the priorities they want us to focus on, along with academia and universities. That’s really key. That’s the Cluster model.
However, I want to mention that outside the partnership, over the last four years, we have spent over $1 billion in the environment and sustainability space. That is with organizations such as ourselves delivering some of the sustainability programming, but we also have a term in government called the “further distribution of funds” where we provide funding to an organization that is closer to the producers to run some of these environmental and sustainability programs. It is both within the framework as well as outside the framework in the areas of science and innovation. We are very proud of that.
Mr. Jurgutis: As a department, we like to call everything “AgriSomething,” so it becomes confusing. AgriScience is within the federal portion of Sustainable CAP. In addition to that, there are things done through the cost-shared part, which are delivered by provinces. As I mentioned in the opening comments, the sustainability part of this framework was much larger. Not only the types of programs but also the types of initiatives and activities that were part of the framework that were agreed upon between federal-provincial-territorial governments meant that, for example, we were looking to increase the amount of funding to demonstrate that we were able to make improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was a target that was put into this framework with the understanding that it needed to drive the investments toward those types of activities.
Senator Varone: I have one follow-up: Are you able to monetize the discoveries? That means you have invented something that makes this crop resilient or this pest disappear. Is that a marketed technology worldwide, or do you keep it closed and say this is just for Canada?
Mr. Valicenti: We look at performance targets from a number of different perspectives. One is yield increases. Another is intellectual property patents. We look at how many qualified, talented researchers we bring through the system. There are multiple performance targets that we look at. That’s at the farm gate level. We also have science and innovation programming at the processing and manufacturing end as well for new technologies, clean technologies and game-changing technologies. We have the AgriInnovate Program, which is another program under the framework, which looks at upstream types of science and innovation.
Senator Varone: Is that made in Canada for Canada?
Mr. Valicenti: That’s correct. We only fund technologies in the AgriInnovate space that are new to Canada and sometimes new to the world. We call it game-changing technology. It’s very interesting.
Senator Varone: Thank you.
Senator McBean: This is a little different from where we have been going. What is the department’s strategy for attracting and retaining the next generation of farmers, particularly given aging demographics and the rising cost of farmland across Canada?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. Perhaps I will start with the fact that the framework is one part to be considered, and we’ll take that succession as an example. It has been raised as a concern. There have been recent changes, for example, to the capital gains tax and transfer within the taxation system from Finance Canada that create a more favourable situation to be able to have that transfer of wealth to future generations.
The other thing is that Farm Credit Canada, or FCC, for example, has also entered that space. They have offerings that they provide to be able to help within that space. It is one of the things in the broader labour context that we look at within the framework. We have had discussions within the development of this framework, for example, in particular to also allow provinces — for the programs that they deliver which we cost‑share — to be able to provide assistance in that space as well.
We do have initiatives to continue having conversations with our provincial and territorial counterparts about potential solutions. Things within the framework touch on it to a degree, but elements outside of the framework and even outside of the department are also starting to make changes within that space, recognizing the aging demographic and the need to consider what the next generation of farming in Canada looks like. The vast majority of farmland in Canada is still owned as a family farm model. We want to make sure the next generation of farmers can operate within Canada.
Mr. Valicenti: We also have programming within the framework to increase participation by under-represented groups, whether that’s youth, women or Black-owned and Black-led organizations. Some funding is available to support participation. Generally, we try to use tools like favourable cost-share ratios to bring some new entrants into the sector to participate in our programming and to offer new possibilities and options in that sector. We are looking at different lenses.
Senator McBean: This is 101. Is there such a thing as new farmers? It is always about capital gains and keeping farmers. I imagine the best farmers are the ones who have been farming for a long time because they know what they are doing. How do we also bring new farmers into that investment? Are there models to encourage people who want to start farming but have to start as a non-landowner?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. I can pick up on the comment just made by Mr. Valicenti. Some programs within the framework help with that and are intended to bring new entrants into farming through not just the available programming but also through assistance, education, understanding and providing assistance and also recognizing our strength in having a greater degree of diversity within that structure.
Also, the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act Program provides loans to help with exactly that type of initiative. We need to consider not necessarily just the intergenerational transfer but also, to your point, bringing new entrants into the farming space.
Senator McBean: Thank you. I just did a housing study where the goal is home ownership; there is also rental. Would the government ever consider owning the land? I guess it is like 101, Senator Robinson. Live and learn.
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. I would not anticipate that from a federal government perspective. Issues as they pertain to land are in provincial jurisdiction. When discussions centre around protecting farmland, the federal government must respect the division of authorities.
Senator Martin: My question is based on Senator McBean’s question about new farmers. One of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture representatives was a new farmer from the Yukon. Apparently, farmers in the Yukon do not have access to the Advance Payments Program. Are you working toward bringing them into that?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. We recognize that the model of activities traditionally considered as farming within Canada tends to not necessarily apply to territories or even northern parts of provinces. We are typically talking about raising livestock and growing crops, fruits and vegetables.
We are having more conversations, in particular with territories, to consider having harvesting and traditional foods within the framework. Some provisions and ability and flexibility exist for the territories to do that currently within the framework, but the structure of the business risk management programs in particular doesn’t necessarily lend itself to that now. In the case of the Advance Payments Program, the current model requires more thought.
Senator Martin: We need to bring them in. They are farming.
Mr. Del Bianco: The Advance Payments Program is usually delivered by not-for-profit organizations, such as the Canadian Canola Growers Association. They administer the program on behalf of the federal government. There are 26 different organizations that deliver the Advance Payments Program across the country for a multitude of different crops and livestock. If there is demand in the Yukon, we can certainly work with the administrators to ensure advances are made available for the commodities they are growing.
Senator Martin: That would be very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: It is nice to see you. I also think Ag101 is great. We don’t get a lot of time to talk about what we are actually doing here. I’m also pretty new to this committee; I’m about a year in. I am not a city girl; I’m a mountain girl. I live in Banff. I would argue the federal government actually does help with housing but when it is on Crown land. We are very proud of that model.
My whole world has been in tourism. I find when I’m meeting with agricultural constituents and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I am quick to engage in this common conversation. Because of the industry, I know about ministries working in silos — no pun intended. You have all given examples that make me feel better about how you are working with other ministries. I do like to talk about the whole-of-government approach. It is interesting when you meet with farmers who are asking for budget for transport because that’s a huge concern to them. I see listed agriculture, immigration, transport, housing, health, employment, innovation and environment.
I guess this is a high-level, generic question. Sometimes I think the departments just don’t get it. Sometimes Transport says, “Well, I’m not in the tourism industry.” It’s just a common conversation. We’ll go at a high level around budget and legislation and policy. Help me feel better about the departments actually working together because the people we meet don’t believe that to be true. I don’t just mean in agriculture; it’s at a really high level.
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the very easy question, senator. We do collaborate at the federal level quite closely, and you named quite a number of applicable departments. That demonstrates the complexity of issues around agriculture and agri-food. Other areas of jurisdiction and areas of responsibility that fall to other departments are relevant, important and, in some cases, crucial to the sector.
Taking transportation as an issue, supply chain issues have certainly been a concern for the sector. We do work with partners, for example, at Transport Canada and other departments to understand the implications of the way things work now or potential changes in the agriculture and agri-food sector. Together, we look for opportunities to improve those things. As mentioned, in order to get crops and products to other markets throughout the world, a reliable system is needed to satisfy the requirements of buyers.
Opportunities exist, and there are a multitude of committees and groups and direct discussions and conversations that we have with other federal partners to look for opportunities to make those improvements. A large part of that is recognizing the economic driver of the agricultural sector within Canada and to say that certain improvements make it easier, recognizing not only some of the complexity and difficulties that farmers and agri-food processors might have but also that there is an opportunity within that from an economic point of view to help drive the prosperity of the country.
That is one example where that happens quite extensively, but there are a number of them. We have constant, continuous engagement both at the official level as well as among ministers.
Mr. Valicenti: If I may add another example, we deal a lot with the regional development agencies: ACOA, PrairiesCan, PacifiCan, FedNor, FedDev Ontario and CED. They recognize the expertise we have in the department, so if there are projects coming in from Saskatchewan or Alberta that are agriculture-related, they come to us and have part of that conversation. It would be their money in that project, but they would come to us and ask us to assess the technology, the partners, et cetera. There is great dialogue within that economic development lens just to give an example of regional development agencies.
Senator Sorensen: I’ll close by mentioning immigration, temporary foreign workers and housing in rural areas. I’ve read the budget. There is huge fear in your industry and in my industry, and I really hope that agriculture gets a stream of temporary foreign workers. I hope tourism does too, but I’ll stay on topic.
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. There is and has been consultation under way for a new agriculture and fish and seafood stream with the recognition of the need to ensure there is something specific and dedicated to the agricultural sector. Right now, temporary foreign workers are brought in through a number of streams within the system, so there is the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. There is a low-skilled stream as well as a high-skilled one.
There are provisions that have been in place to ensure the recognition that within the agricultural space, there is a requirement to have workers in that space. So that does continue, and that is another example of us working very closely with both Employment and Social Development Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. I get a chance to ask a question.
As you well know — and folks here know that I’d raise it — we tabled a soil health report a year and a bit ago. What changes have you seen in soil health issues and supports through the various frameworks that you’ve been involved in? This can be high level. Second, in your preliminary discussions leading up to 2028, are you hearing this is a bigger issue maybe because of our report?
Mr. Valicenti: Thank you, senator. We have been very active in following the report and in engaging with our stakeholders.
I spent the last two days in Ottawa with Cluster leads and project leads on that AgriScience project that I talked about. There were 50 stakeholders in Ottawa. One of the things we heard loud and clear from a sustainability lens and an environmental lens is not just to look at mitigation, but greenhouse gas mitigation was a focus. We want to take a more balanced approach, and they want us to look at the adaptation of soil, water and air. That is one of the areas in the context of how Mr. Jurgutis talked about the evolution of those frameworks in his opening remarks. We will likely see an evolution of the environmental/sustainability lens that will incorporate soil and other sustainability elements as part of that. I think the soil report will actually be a foundational piece for us as well.
On the science side, we’re seeing projects come in through that lens as well, whether it’s soil testing or looking at soil improvements or data. That’s a big issue: the data side. We are looking at more work coming in on the program side.
Mr. Jurgutis: If I can add to that as well, as Mr. Valicenti mentioned, we’ve already had conversations with provincial and territorial counterparts. We do this as a regular course of action regarding where this framework is at, and we start having ideas about the next framework. As Mr. Valicenti mentioned, that is something that has come from our provincial and territorial counterparts as well. Recognizing that foundational environmental aspect of farming to ensure the ongoing viability of farms into the future has been something that’s been mentioned, and soil is certainly one of those.
Within the current framework as part of the Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program, that has been a focus for a number of the provinces in terms of the types of activities that they are undertaking in that cost-shared space.
The Chair: Folks, I would call that a big win for our report right there. Thank you very much.
We can go over time because this is our time, and we do have an in camera session in a bit, but we have a bit of time. I’m going to say let’s wrap it up at no later than 9:20 a.m., so we have about 10 minutes. Let’s keep the questions short and snappy.
That’s if you have time.
Mr. Jurgutis: Of course.
The Chair: I should have asked that first.
Make them real quick questions, senators.
Senator McNair: Thank you again, gentlemen, for this Ag101. As you can see, most of us are at the 101 level. We do have a PhD student who has come in and audited the class today, and she is sitting down at the end. And the chair, obviously, is the professor.
I read that the Government of Canada announced an additional $75 million in funding over the next five years to AgriMarketing for the specific purpose of seeking to develop new export opportunities for Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers, and part of that is a reaction to the fact that nearly 70% in 2024 was sold to the U.S. and China.
What specific activities will Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada use this funding to undertake, what international regions appear to be most receptive to the exports, and what barriers do you expect the exporters will face in reaching these new markets? And just out of curiosity, how many agri-food trade commissioners do we currently have overseas?
Mr. Valicenti: Thank you very much, senator. As I mentioned earlier, the AgriMarketing increase of $75 million was highlighted in the budget. In the context of one of your questions on the locations, I think we would say the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and Africa are areas we’ve been hearing from stakeholders that would be key, although we would, of course, allow other opportunities.
To your question on activities, it’s promotional activity, increasing awareness of Canadian agricultural products abroad, trade missions and trade shows, just to give you a few.
I used to be a trade commissioner. I don’t have the exact number, but I think we’re about 20 funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, so it’s the department, but Global Affairs Canada also has a number — which is over 50 — that probably have 50% of their activities in the agricultural sector. Those are not paid for by the department, so we have a great contingent of trade commissioners. They help us and help the companies on the ground with some of the eligible activities I talked about, whether that’s trade shows or promotional campaigns, so we’re happy to see that funding come through.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. It’s rapid-fire time. Great to hear about the soil health study. I don’t think there should be any barriers to integrating many of those recommendations into your daily work and planning. You don’t need ministerial direction to do that. There are so many common-sense recommendations there, so I’m glad to hear that.
I have a quick question: Are First Nations farmers who farm on reserve lands eligible for the programs?
Mr. Valicenti: Yes, I’ll let Mr. Del Bianco speak to the business risk management. On the non-business risk management side, yes, absolutely. To the point of the opportunities to improve some cost-share ratios, we set aside $5 million specifically for Indigenous science programming to work with our scientists in the department.
We also just recently put forward a $5-million Prairie bison initiative. It’s starting in Saskatchewan but moving into, hopefully, Alberta and Manitoba. Yes, absolutely Indigenous groups are able to participate. We actually have the Indigenous Pathfinder Service that allows some of the Indigenous groups to come and talk to us, and we can support them by directing them to the programs and, even in some cases, supporting them in developing their applications. We are looking at and conscious of engaging with Indigenous communities across the country.
Mr. Jurgutis: Just to add to that, we have had much more extensive engagement and consultation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis groups over the last number of years, and we continue to do that. A big part of that is the assistance provided through something like the Indigenous Pathfinder Service, because a lot of the obstacles include not having been necessarily within the agricultural space, not having maybe the same level of understanding or exposure to how things work as well as not being able to have the same type of experience applying for or interacting with governments for programs.
This is the other thing I would say as well: In addition to the funding that has been mentioned by Mr. Valicenti, we’ve got some at the federal level. We have provisions that provide more favourable rates, essentially, which we give them in terms of participation in programs. But provinces and territories also have gotten into that space quite a bit as well within the cost-shared areas of the current framework.
Senator Muggli: I have a quick veterinary medicine question. We have a severe shortage of veterinarians across the country. Has there been any actions or planning out of your department around how we can get more veterinarians in this country? You must be hearing from farmers.
Mr. Jurgutis: That is a concern that has been raised. A couple of issues that we’re aware of are: attracting enough people into the agricultural space, so it’s large animal veterinarians versus a lot more veterinarians preferring to be in the non-large agricultural space as well as not necessarily in the rural space.
Senator Muggli: What I’ve heard from the University of Saskatchewan is there is a desire to certify internationally trained veterinarians who are sitting there with credentials, but there is not enough training space or ability to get them their credentials.
Mr. Jurgutis: That is one of the concerns that we hear as well. I wouldn’t necessarily have additional information to add to that other than we are aware of it and having conversations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as well as the work that they have more directly in that space as well.
Senator Muggli: I would encourage you to stay on that one.
Senator Robinson: I’m looking to build on Senator McBean’s question about how government can play a role in attracting new entrants and — to add to that — address succession, and I wrote my question before you asked your question, Senator Black. To me, succession is seeing land stay in production more than seeing a family. I am a sixth-generation farmer on my farm, and I don’t know if we’ll see a seventh, but I want to see our land stay in production. This committee did a soil study, and the outcome of that was this committee wanted to protect soil.
And if I think back to the Net Income Stabilization Account, or NISA, and the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization, or CAIS, program — everyone remembers those days — from my perspective, those were real use. They are like today’s AgriInvest, but a very different-looking system than what AgriInvest is. Those were used quite often as RRSPs, and what they did was they funded the retirement of a generation and made room for the next generation to come in at a less financially onerous position to take over the asset and keep on producing. Now producers have to look at funding their retirement more from the sale of their farm, their land, their equipment and their facilities. As we’ve seen the cost of land escalate and escalate — and I have to say that in recent history, land in my area that was traded at $2,500 an acre is now four times that — and if we look at the return on investment, the bottom line and the net revenue on farms, we have not seen a four-times increase in that by any means. And we have also seen crazy rises in farm inputs, in risks and in the cost of recovering from a tornado ripping through and destroying hundreds of thousands of trees, which happened on our farm with Hurricane Fiona. In all of that, it can be really hard to pencil out the investment. If you are going to grow potatoes in P.E.I., given we have a mandatory three-year rotation, you are going to need 1,500 acres of arable land, and if you’re spending $10,000 an acre for that land, how are you going to pencil that out? Can you comment on that?
Mr. Jurgutis: I’ll make an effort to respond to that. It is something that is recognized as an issue and concern. Certainly, as you’ve mentioned, land prices in particular, equipment and rising input costs are very real considerations. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to the types of programs or initiatives that we have within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Farm Credit Canada has also gotten into that space a lot more as well.
We’ve also got the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act Program that helps in these areas. What we have seen is that there has been a decrease in terms of the number of farmers in the country, but we’ve also seen that a lot of that is there’s been an expansion of the size of farms. Where there is growth that occurs, it’s potentially more applicable to certain types of farming than it is to others. In the Prairies situation, in some ways, that economy of scale is easier to do than perhaps what you’re saying in something like potato farming and the implications there. That’s something that we recognize.
Certainly, AgriInvest is one of the programs heavily used by the sector and is seen or drawn upon as another way for farmers to be able to have money that they could use post-farming or into retirement.
Senator Robinson: How would we compare the AgriInvest investment by government to NISA or CAIS?
The Chair: You have 30 seconds.
Senator Robinson: A written submission would be great.
Mr. Del Bianco: AgriInvest has decreased over time. Numbers in terms of comparisons to something that was 30 years ago versus today would require more time.
Senator Burey: How specifically is Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada addressing mental health challenges among producers? Also, parents and kids are watching, and I’m a pediatrician. Are there programs in schools for kids with innovation and science?
Mr. Valicenti: On mental health, earlier this year, we launched the Producer Mental Wellbeing Initiative where we asked groups — I’ll say it’s from a community lens — to come forward with ideas that can be scalable across the country. We started with 75 projects, and we’re down to 20. They’re really, really impressive across the country, and we’re looking at hopefully having a winner announced within the next 18 months to 24 months. But we did want to put additional dollars in that space. We have also funded conferences to bring some of the experts from around the country together to talk about options at the community level and health level.
Although to Mr. Jurgutis’s point, we do want to ensure that jurisdictional space for the provinces on health. We are doing the work and have this wonderful initiative that we hope to come to fruition in the next 18 months.
On promotion, we did recently have an agri-awareness campaign, run by the sector to promote agriculture, food and a bit of tourism as well, so we’re looking at opportunities to continue that space with our agricultural organizations, and we have a program that allows for some of those eligible activities in Sustainable CAP.
Mr. Jurgutis: Just to quickly add on mental health, as Mr. Valicenti mentioned, it is a provincial jurisdiction, so we work closely with our provincial counterparts. A number of provinces also have initiatives that they’ve got within their province, and Farm Credit Canada also plays within that space as well, so there are a number of activities, promotional awareness and support initiatives that are under way. What we try to do is have a coordinated approach to ensure that there is as much available to farmers within that space as possible.
The Chair: Thank you for all you’re doing in that space.
Senator Varone: After my colleague stole my question, I will ask it in reverse.
Save and except for my esteemed colleagues here who are part of the farming community, most farmers are not politicians, and when we get caught up in the global warfare of trade, how do we come out the other end? Are we worried about other emerging countries stealing our lunch with respect to markets? I look at China which stopped buying canola because we prevented them from selling EVs in Canada, so they went to another country and have heavily invested in that country to produce canola.
When I look at the global market, are we worried about unfair trade practices coming at our farmers?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. I can provide a high-level answer, and certainly we have people with a much greater degree of expertise in the department who can get into more detail.
That is one of the reasons we are looking to have a greater degree of diversification in trade. That includes standing up the Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office, for example, to be able to make connections and try to get into other markets, recognizing that we’re in a situation currently — and we expect it to continue forward — of global instability within the trade space.
For most of our commodities, while we have traditionally relied upon the U.S. and China as two major markets, the reality is that although we still need to provide to those markets, we need to look for alternatives for crops and other products that we produce within the country so that when those things happen, we have alternatives.
For example, in certain programs we have, when some of these things happen, that is part of the reason we provide additional supports in recognition of the difficulties those create. It is not necessarily such a simple task to be able to pivot that quickly to another market when the market you have relied upon has been closed.
It is a combination of efforts. It is working very closely with Global Affairs Canada on these issues. It is looking to make connections and open up markets in other parts of the country so that we have other routes and avenues. It is ensuring that we have the infrastructure within the country to get to those markets, and it is providing the additional supports when those things happen to ensure that producers have what they need to get through that as we look to pivot or recuperate from some of those instances.
Mr. Valicenti: Also, the longer-term funding we mentioned before helps in building those new relationships, which is critical to increase trade and diversification.
Senator McBean: On pivoting — and going with the question — sometimes when one door closes, another door opens. With the demise of USAID, the Americans stopped buying our products, but they also stopped supplying products overseas. In 2020, the U.S. government bought $2.1 billion in food aid from American farmers. Recently, purchases and shipments of U.S. food aid worth over $340 million, including rice, wheat and soybeans, were paused.
Is there any opportunity for Canadian agriculture to be filling the gaps in food provided to countries in Africa and other areas?
Mr. Jurgutis: Thank you for the question. I can provide a high-level answer and see if colleagues want to add. We do have people with a greater degree of expertise who can provide more detailed information as you continue your journey on Ag101.
That is certainly something that is looked at. The way you phrased your comment, senator, was of one door closing and another opening. It is about looking for those types of areas that we can try to get into as others potentially vacate it. It is looking not just at the traditional types of markets we’ve had but also, with greater global instability in the trade space, identifying the areas where we should be moving to.
As a department and in cooperation with Global Affairs Canada and others, that is one of the areas that we’re looking to make greater strides into.
The Chair: Mr. Jurgutis, Mr. Valicenti and Mr. Del Bianco, thank you very much for being here today and for your participation. The information you provided has been very insightful. As you can see, we had an hour and a half of questions. Thank you for contributing to our learning journey; we appreciate it. I like those words, Senator Muggli. Thank you for being our test case. I think this is going to go over well, based upon the learning from today. We shouldn’t plan anything in the second panel, because we have more work to do, folks, when we continue in camera. Again, gentlemen, thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)