THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 9, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 8 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Rob Black, and I’m chair of this committee. I wish to welcome members of the committee, our witnesses, as well as those watching the meeting on the web.
I want to start by acknowledging that this land on which we gather is on the unceded, traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses today, I want to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator McNair: Welcome. John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Varone: Toni Varone, Ontario.
Senator Burey: Welcome. Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Robinson: Welcome. Mary Robinson, representing Prince Edward Island.
Senator McBean: Hi. Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: I want to ask all senators and our witness to consult the cards that are in front of you for guidelines on how to prevent audio feedback incidents.
I would like to remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid sentence and not to speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning. I will ask for your indulgence in that.
Today the committee is starting its study on the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 8 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
For the first panel, I have the pleasure of welcoming Ms. Shannon Nix, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Strategic Policy Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee. I will give you five minutes. At four minutes, I will put my hand up. At about 4 minutes and 50 seconds, I will put both of them up and you can try to wrap it up.
Your remarks will be followed by questions from senators. We will probably have 30 to 40 minutes for this panel. It may depend on the questions.
With that, the floor is yours, Ms. Nix.
Shannon Nix, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before this committee and to discuss the Budget Implementation Act as it relates to enabling future legislative reviews of Farm Credit Canada, or FCC.
I too would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Farm Credit Canada is Canada’s leading agricultural lender. FCC serves over 103,000 customers across the country and manages a loan portfolio of more than $57 billion.
FCC plays a critical role in supporting farmers, food processors and the entire agri-food value chain, helping to drive growth, innovation and resilience in one of our country’s most vital sectors.
The legislative framework that governs FCC has served both the organization and the sector well. It has provided stability and clarity, enabling FCC to deliver on its mandate and meet the needs of Canadian agriculture. However, it’s important to note that the last significant legislative reform of FCC was in 2001, nearly a quarter of a century ago. Since then, the world has changed dramatically. The sector faces new challenges and opportunities: technological transformation, climate adaptation, global market volatility and evolving financial needs. To remain effective and responsive, FCC must have the tools and flexibility to adapt to these realities.
As part of the 2023 Fall Economic Statement exercise reviewing financial Crown corporations, important work was done to assess the governance and accountability frameworks. That review highlighted that, unlike its counterparts, both Export Development Canada, or EDC, and the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, FCC has not been subject to regular legislative reviews to ensure its mandate remains relevant and aligned with best practices.
Both EDC and BDC undergo a review every 10 years, with their first review required within 5 years of the requirement being included in their enabling legislation.
Bringing FCC into line with these standards is about consistency, accountability and future readiness.
Regular reviews are not about fixing something that is broken. FCC’s legislation has served Canada well. In fact, FCC has continued to evolve and innovate over the years to better serve the sector. It has expanded its digital services, strengthened its risk management, introduced sustainability-focused financing options, enhanced support for young and beginning farmers, and recently committed to invest $2 billion by 2030 to advance agricultural technology innovation in Canada’s agriculture and food industry.
These and many other changes demonstrate FCC’s ability to adapt, but legislation must keep pace to ensure that FCC can continue to meet these evolving needs of the sector, remains aligned with best practices and is equipped to respond to future challenges and opportunities.
While the specifics and timing related to the first review are still to be determined, they will be set by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
The process will include engagement with farmers, industry groups and other stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives are considered.
Agriculture is a major contributor to the Canadian economy. By committing to regular legislative reviews, we strengthen FCC’s ability to support farmers and agribusiness for generations to come.
I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Great, thank you. We will proceed with questions now from senators. Senators, you have five minutes for your questions, which will also include the answer.
Senator McNair: Welcome again, Ms. Nix.
If the proposed amendment is adopted, which we expect it will be, could you go into a bit more detail about how the federal government would consult the agriculture and agri-food sector during its regular reviews that are now going to be legislated, along the lines of how often would these consultations take place and which sectors and stakeholders would the federal government consult?
Ms. Nix: Ultimately, the scope of the review itself is within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
Typically, these reviews involve consultations, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, with the sector stakeholders in order to ensure that we obtain a diversity of views.
In terms of the frequency, the amendment to the FCC Act would require an initial review within 5 years of the amendment being enacted, and then every 10 years thereafter.
Senator McNair: Regarding the timelines in the draft legislation, I was assuming there might be a process to keep FCC up to date, meeting on a more regular basis, or do you not foresee that at this time?
Ms. Nix: The provisions of the act, as I said, lay out the timelines in which we would be consulting with the sector in order to ensure that the FCC’s mandate remains relevant to the needs of the sector.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
To what extent will the federal government consult under-represented groups — in our materials we heard or read about under-represented groups, including Black, Indigenous, women and young producers — in its regular review?
Ms. Nix: Again, without having necessarily benefited from working through the scope of what the review might look like — and obviously, that is still to be discussed with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance — obviously, these are important stakeholders and important users of FCC services and programs. So they would be definitely scoped into the stakeholders whom we would consult as a part of the review.
Senator McNair: Has FCC consulted with those individuals or groups as of now? You have talked about evolving and adapting. Would that be part of the process?
Ms. Nix: Yes. I’m not aware of whom the FCC has been meeting with to inform their programming.
Senator Varone: Thank you for being here. There is nothing I disagree with in terms of what has been presented and what is in the BIA, but the money is allocated: $639 million. But when I add up all the numbers, it totals $653 million. I did it three times to ensure that it was not me. Are the numbers correct?
Ms. Nix: That is a good question, senator. I have not added up the numbers. That can be something that we would commit to coming back to you on because I don’t have an answer to your question today.
Senator Varone: It seems that through all the different programs, we’re spending more than what has been allocated. Having said that, if I can drill down to the Advance Payments Program, when I read the notes, it is to fund Natural Resources Canada for the creation of the Biofuels Production Incentive. Biofuels are the main ingredient to diesel, which allows the diesel companies to claim their diesel is clean. It is not clean; it is still dirty.
The point I’m getting at in terms of funding something that is not climate resilient, in fact, works the other way. I understand it from an ag perspective, but maybe my colleagues can help me to understand why we are funding things that are not exactly good for the climate.
Ms. Nix: The funding that was allocated to the biodiesel production incentive was allocated to Natural Resources Canada to develop that incentive, so it falls a bit beyond the scope of what I am able to speak to you about today.
Senator Varone: Just for my colleagues, biodiesel, or biofuels, doesn’t make up more than 5% of diesel fuel, and given that fact, you are still burning carbon at 95%. The question or observation I make is that it is not good for the climate in Canada. It’s just a question I raise.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Ms. Nix, for being here. I’m always happy when real policy and strategies come to this committee.
You outlined the reasons behind the alignment with the EDC and BDC, using those acronyms in terms of the timeline and the review. I wanted to go a bit further in saying that, considering the rapid pace of change in agriculture, is the 10-year interval too long? Do you think it is still too long? I know it is aligned, but I’m asking now in terms of policy and strategy.
Ms. Nix: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the last major revision to the FCC Act was in 2001. That is not to say that they haven’t been able to evolve despite not having that regular review. They have managed to invest in a number of different areas and keep their programming quite innovative to respond to the challenges that the sector is facing.
Whether a 10-year review period is too short or too long, I don’t know that I am really in a position to say one way or the other. We just simply looked at what was in the EDC Act and BDC Act and had the FCC mirror that.
Senator Burey: We’re in full support of that.
I have a quick question on the review of the report. This is the reporting to Parliament of the report. It says that the report must be reviewed by any committee of the Senate. I didn’t read that. I thought it was just the House. I didn’t want the Senate to be left out. So I have answered my question by reading it out loud. There you go for reading out loud.
Just changing topics a bit, in a recent The Hill Times article, Corey Ellis, CEO of Growcer, argued that food security and economic security are often treated separately in policy.
You are a policy person, so I am asking you. How will the mandated reviews of the Farm Credit Canada Act ensure that these two priorities are addressed together and aligned?
Ms. Nix: You had colleagues of mine as witnesses to talk about food security recently. As a department, we set the overall policy frame. While FCC is a separate operating organization, they do generally align their programming to the agricultural frame that is set by the department along with the provinces and territories. I see that as the overall frame that guides the FCC review.
Senator McBean: Hello and welcome here this evening.
The first half of my question you answered in your testimony, which was about how Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada interpret the purpose and scope of the proposed legislative review, but what specific outcomes does the department hope the review will achieve? Is there a goal?
Ms. Nix: Yes. I would say that the overall scope is still to be determined, but if you look at the recent reviews that BDC and EDC have done, it is looking to ensure that the offerings of both organizations respond to the needs of their clients.
Senator McBean: What are the outcomes? What do you want in your Christmas stocking?
Ms. Nix: Good question. I would see that there would be three tracks of potential outcomes. If we do the review and find that the mandate of FCC is responsive to the needs of the agriculture and agri-food sector, no changes are necessary.
The second scenario could be that we do the review, we find there are gaps, but they’re gaps that are within the existing legislation for FCC to respond to, and they make changes to address those gaps.
Third, we find that there are gaps, and FCC’s legislation needs to be adapted. We would work with them to make the necessary changes to their legislation so that they can better respond to the needs of the sector.
Senator McBean: Is there anything specific that you would hope to find in a review and that would be helpful?
Ms. Nix: I don’t think anything specifically. Obviously, the ideal is that we do the review and we find that FCC has the tools that it needs to be able to do what it needs to do. However, being able to undertake these reviews allows us to be sure that that is the case.
Senator McBean: How will Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ensure that the review captures the diverse financing needs of producers across the sectors, regions and different scales of operation?
Ms. Nix: That would come down to ensuring that we do comprehensive consultations with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure we get the diversity of voices.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Ms. Nix, I’m interested in understanding why there have not been legislative reviews to this point. Why is the expectation that it will not be completed for five years, which is 1,825 days? That seems like a long time.
Ms. Nix: The only thing that I could say in response is that clearly there was an oversight at some point. Many pieces of legislation have mandatory review periods put in, so oversight in terms of having that. It has to be done within five years. I don’t know that that necessarily means that the ministers would wait five years to undertake the review.
Senator Muggli: I would hope not.
In the review of the report, under section 3, it says that the report must be reviewed by any committee of the Senate or the House of Commons to which it is referred.
First, who makes that referral? How is that referred? Would you consider AGFO to be the committee that would most appropriately provide this review?
Ms. Nix: I am not entirely certain who ultimately makes that review. That’s a parliamentary recommendation. To my mind, the logical place for it to come would be to this committee.
Senator Muggli: It says that it must be reviewed by any committee of the Senate or the House of Commons. You are saying it would be a decision made by the House of Commons as to where it would be referred to?
Ms. Nix: Where it goes, yes.
Senator Muggli: I would make a recommendation that this would be a very good place for it to be referred to considering our capacity to do good study.
Will the review address potential impacts of climate change and trade disruption on the agriculture and agri-food sector? Would that be part of the scope?
Ms. Nix: I would definitely see that as part of the scope. The review is meant to ensure that, with all of these global changes, whether it is climate impacts or global trade or economic pressures, those all get scoped in. Yes.
Senator Muggli: Okay. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Senator Robinson: I want you to talk a little bit about how you are going to engage stakeholders. How do you envision that?
Ms. Nix: That’s a good question. Without the benefit of having worked through the scope with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance, I would say that, typically, in other legislative reviews that I have been involved in, there is some sort of discussion paper that is developed by the department, and we use that as a tool to go out and engage with stakeholders. What the balance of in-person versus virtual consultations looks like that will have to be determined with the minister. But the advent of virtual consultation does allow us to reach a much broader range of impacted stakeholders than we might have been able to do with just in-person consultations.
Senator Robinson: How will you identify the stakeholders with whom you will consult?
Ms. Nix: We, as a department, keep a tally of a broad range of stakeholders. We would obviously work closely with FCC as well to better understand who they see as the population of stakeholders that also utilize their services.
Senator Robinson: How long do you expect this engagement process to run?
Ms. Nix: The provisions require that, once the Minister of Agriculture makes public the fact that the review is under way, the final report needs to be tabled in the House of Commons within one year. I would see the consultations taking up a portion of that time, giving them time for further development of a report as well.
Senator Robinson: It is a big group to consult.
Ms. Nix: It is.
Senator Robinson: I’m wondering if you are aware of, or have had, feedback from stakeholder groups that might have spurred on this idea of FCC having a legislative review on a frequent basis or a regular basis.
Ms. Nix: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Robinson: No. Okay.
I am thinking about the Advanced Payments Program, which somebody mentioned something about. We know we have this deadline looming of April 1 with that $250,000 threshold of interest-free money. Do we know if there has been any commitment, or if there will be any commitment, or if there is any sense that that is going to be extended or adopted permanently? We have this ad hoc approach to it, which doesn’t lend to any sense of stability and predictability that we know that producers really want to have. Do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Nix: There is not much that I can say, other than it is the purview of the Minister of Agriculture to make whatever recommendation to the Minister of Finance.
Senator Robinson: Call Heath, okay.
Senator Varone: I’m going to go back to the money. In March, a billion dollars was given to Farm Credit Canada to oversee trade disruption, customer support program. How much of that money was used? Is this forming part of that budget, or is this added onto to that sum of a billion dollars that was given? If so, how much of that original billion dollars is still left, because the trade war isn’t finished.
Ms. Nix: I can’t speak to how much of the trade disruption money has been spent. FCC is an independent organization from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I don’t think I can answer that question specifically. I don’t think it has anything to do with what we’re studying today, which is just the amendment to allow for these regular legislative reviews, but that is not coming at the expense of the billion dollars given to FCC.
Senator Varone: Let me ask it backwards: Does the review extend to the monies being spent and being allocated as a budget item? Will the review include financial aspects, or will there be reporting on it?
Ms. Nix: Will the review look at how FCC has spent the trade disruption money?
Senator Varone: When you look at a five-year review — a consultation every 10 years — there are reviews within one year. Are you reviewing just the legislation, or the math that is included as part of that legislation that flows through the legislation?
Ms. Nix: We are looking at whether the legislation allows FCC to do what it needs to do to support the sector.
Senator Varone: Okay. My question, then, through you, Mr. Chair, is this: Where do we obtain those answers? The legislation is being improved, which I understand, but the more important question is how effective it is in terms of money.
The Chair: That’s not part of this, but that’s a good question. We may want to think about having FCC for one of our Ag 101s, and you could ask that same question.
The Chair: I have one final question, then. A review of this nature could increase the administrative burden on Farm Credit Canada potentially, and that may hinder the work they are currently doing to support the agriculture and agri-food sector. How will AFC ensure that, as FCC works through this review, it doesn’t impact their real work?
Ms. Nix: Senator, the review is actually conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in consultation with Finance Canada. So it wouldn’t necessarily impact the work of FCC. It will just simply have an impact on our work.
Senator Robinson: AFC has consulted with industry before, with stakeholders, quite regularly, and I’m wondering if you could speak to whether there is a mechanism that, after consulting with industry, you consult with them to see how they felt the consultations went. I imagine there is learning every time a consultation happens. I’m thinking about the Food Policy for Canada, which involved what seemed like 8,000 groups. I remember being in the big room, and there were 16 departments and government agencies, representatives, as well as industry. How do you eat an elephant one bite at a time, but once you have tried to eat the elephant, do you go back and say, how could we have done that better?
Ms. Nix: That is good advice for us to take on. It is outside of the scope of what we are talking about today. We are starting consultations for the next policy framework in the new year, so I will definitely take that back to the team as a useful best practice to employ.
Senator Robinson: There is a lot to learn there, because I like analogies and I feel that government, AAFC included, needs to act as the agent. A professional athlete needs an agent who helps that athlete succeed and glean all they can from their career, protect their reputation and make sure they are best positioned to get the most out of what they have. I look at producers and food processors, as we call agri-food, and government has a role to do that. Industry is looking to government to do that. Under your current minister, the climate is ripe for that to happen, especially with a prime minister who wants to build and wants to make such vast improvements in our exports, particularly outside of the U.S.
I would hope that we could seize that in this moment and that we could see work done in tandem instead of — historically there has been conflict between government and industry. We don’t have time for that anymore. I hope government takes a chance to look at how they can lock arms and work with industry walking forward. Thank you.
Ms. Nix: Thank you.
The Chair: With that, thank you, Ms. Nix, for your participation today. Your testimony and insight have been greatly appreciated.
For our second panel tonight, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I am pleased to welcome Stéphanie Levasseur, 2nd Vice-President of the CFA; and Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy. Stéphanie and Brodie, thank you very much for coming. On behalf of the members today, we do appreciate your time with us this evening.
We will hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators, for five minutes. Four minutes the hand goes up and at four minutes and fifty seconds, it’s time to think about seriously wrapping it up. I’ll signal when time is up. With that, Ms. Levasseur, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Stéphanie Levasseur, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Stephanie Levasseur, I am the Second Vice–President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and an apple grower from Quebec.
The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing more than 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada. Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector contributes $150 billion to GDP and supports 2.3 million jobs, making it a strategic driver of economic growth and rural vitality. We are present in every region across Canada.
We appreciate the committee’s focus on Division 8 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, which includes amendments to the Farm Credit Canada Act, and we welcome the chance to provide context on how these changes — and other measures in Budget 2025 — impact Canadian farmers.
FCC is a trusted partner and a cornerstone of agricultural financing in Canada. From our perspective, FCC is already doing an effective job at ensuring its programs reflect the sector’s evolving needs — supporting farmer resilience, competitiveness, sustainability, women in agriculture and specialized loans that help young farmers enter and thrive in the industry.
The recently introduced Trade Disruption Customer Support Program, which provided flexible funding options to help farmers navigate tariffs and global trade volatility, is a good example of FCC’s ability to pivot when the industry needs support.
Having said that, we think it is good practice to ensure that FCC’s enabling legislation is reviewed periodically, to strengthen FCC’s ability to assist farmers in staying competitive and resilient in the face of global and domestic market shifts and emerging challenges.
From our perspective, we would encourage building on the already strong portfolio of lending options that support young farmers and intergenerational renewal; innovation and technology adoption; as well as emergency loans and tools to assist farmers in times of trade or market disruptions.
Innovation is needed; measures should also be adopted to promote technology, and provide emergency loans and tools to help farmers during periods of trade disruption or to help them deal with markets.
Farmers today face unprecedented volatility — whether from global trade disruptions, climate-related risks, or rising input costs — and access to affordable, flexible financing is critical.
With that in mind, we also want to highlight several other measures in Budget 2025 that are important to our members. Budget 2025 signalled progress in recognizing agriculture as a strategic sector, and we commend measures such as investments in CFIA modernization to streamline trade tools and expand market access; the commitment to fund major infrastructure projects, which will improve supply chain resilience; as well as the re-establishment of the Accelerated Investment Incentive, providing enhanced tax treatment for capital investments.
These steps align with CFA’s priorities — investing in measures that support competitiveness and market diversification. However, we feel that further action is required in a number of areas.
The budget failed to raise or extend the interest-free threshold under the Advance Payments Program, which would provide immediate relief and predictability for producers.
As it currently stands, the temporary increase of the interest-free threshold to $250,000 is set to expire on April 1, 2026, after which it will revert back to the $100,000 interest–free level established in regulation. The often last-minute changes to the interest-free threshold create administrative burdens and financial uncertainty for farmers, making it harder to plan operations confidently.
Furthermore, there was a lot of emphasis on the need to crack down on foreign labour and set immigration targets, but a lack of recognition of the chronic labour shortages facing the agriculture sector, a critical vulnerability in our food supply chain.
Finally and most importantly, we believe that Canada needs a focused plan to make agriculture and agri–food a national priority, with clear targets for innovation, investment, value-added processing, exports and labour stability. FCC is a key enabler in our sector, but they are only one player. We need to see a whole–of-government approach — where food security and agricultural competitiveness are embedded in legislative and regulatory reform across departments and agencies.
With the right financial tools — efficient regulation and targeted infrastructure investments — we can support the food security, sustainability and economic growth objectives that will benefit all Canadians. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Thank you, Mr. Berrigan, for taking credit for the overrun. The hand is very unnerving to witnesses. We had one panellist who said, “I didn’t get the hand,” and she was quite excited about it.
The AgriMarketing program supports targeted activities, such as trade missions and market research, with the goal of increasing Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports abroad. With the new funding that’s been committed, the government has indicated that it intends to expand the program into high-growth areas in Africa, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.
I’m curious, from your view, which new market should Canada target with respect to agriculture and agri-food trade?
Ms. Levasseur: Any that are willing to have us, I would say.
It’s always a long process to get access to a new market. Any help that we can get from the federal government on those missions to open new markets is always very precious.
Brodie, maybe you can help about more specific targets or markets?
Since we’re having issues with our next-door neighbour and China, especially, that has repercussions on exports that we used to have like canola or pork. Anywhere we can expand trade would be of great help. I’ll let Brodie continue on that.
Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the question.
Market diversification is obviously a major priority for the Government of Canada right now, and it certainly is for our members. There are a couple of different ways that you can approach it. It’s funny because we’re here studying FCC and the FCC Act. Farm Credit Canada just recently published a study — or one of their thought pieces — not that long ago, actually, on how we could see a $12-billion boost by diversifying markets away from the U.S. economy. They pointed to a few different areas in which you could do that: expanding internal trade within Canada, looking for new external markets and leveraging existing free trade agreements we already have to maximize potential market opportunities.
Another thing we need to focus on is not just looking for new export markets but how we can invest in our value-added processing sector at home to transform the raw commodities we produce here in Canada into value-added products that can then go to existing and new markets around the world at that higher price point and with higher value.
Looking outward to other potential trading partners, they are looking to our existing trading partners to look at how we can expand our trading opportunities. We need to look internally into our own economy, supply chains and production system, and invest in value-added processing in a way that will support our broader growth objectives.
One other point I would add is that there are many other stakeholders in the agriculture sector who have a lot to say about specific countries we should be exploring for expanded export opportunities.
There’s only one I will speak to, because we’ve taken some steps recently to advance our bilateral relationship with them: the Government of Mexico. I know we have a very established relationship; it’s a priority for the Government of Canada.
We were in Mexico City about a month or so ago and facilitated a discussion among a number of Mexican industry leaders on how we can expand our bilateral trading relationship. Those are the types of opportunities we want to continue to explore in the future with other potential trading partners.
Senator Muggli: Thanks for being with us tonight.
I was thinking in the previous panel about the requirement in this legislation to enact a review within five years. I’m also thinking about the Trade Disruption Customer Support program.
If the review doesn’t happen for four and a half years, is that too late for considerations that may need to occur in relation to the Trade Disruption Customer Support program? Are there issues with that program that a review would benefit in terms of urgently needed changes as our evolving situation unfolds?
Ms. Levasseur: A review is one thing, but the legislation still has to be agile to be able to adapt to circumstances that come up. You have to be able to do something with your legislation, like they’ve done with this program, without being in the process of a review. The review should be like the umbrella exercise to make sure that we’re still on the right track, but you need to maintain legislation that is agile enough to be able to adapt quickly when events occur.
Mr. Berrigan: It’s hard to speculate about what could happen. I hesitate to do that.
Senator Muggli: Is there an issue with that part of the program that would benefit from a review, given the current context of trade disruption?
Mr. Berrigan: Not that I’m aware of. It’s a fairly new program. From our perspective, we see that as a good example of how responsive FCC has been to the evolving needs of the agriculture sector.
We’ve obviously had some issues with our largest trading partner south of the border, whom we can’t forget when we’re looking at market diversification. We can look at other markets, but we can’t forget how important the U.S. market is — responding to the earlier question as well.
FCC is doing a good job, from the CFA’s perspective. We have not heard any concerns from our members about their ability to connect with our stakeholders or connect with us. We have seen multitudes of examples of a number of initiatives that FCC has brought on board recently, and is bringing on board right now, that are responding to the priorities we’ve identified at the CFA, and the Trade Disruption Customer Support program is one of the latest examples, I would say.
Senator Muggli: Can you think of any particular theme that if the stakeholders were to say, there are issues about FCC that just have to change, what would they be? What’s the most common rock in the shoe?
Mr. Berrigan: There are no rocks.
Senator Muggli: Our work is done.
Ms. Levasseur: We have other issues.
Mr. Berrigan: We have other issues.
Some of the areas that FCC has been investing in lately — a lot in young farmers, a lot in innovation, tariffs with that program you just mentioned, senator — are areas that are clear priorities for our members. We would like to see more of the same.
It’s good governance to do these types of regular reviews. As far as we’re concerned, there may not be an issue here. There’s no problem, from our perspective, that needs to be solved with this legislative review, but it is part of good governance and due diligence to undertake these reviews on a regular basis, which is what’s happening here, and we’re supportive of that.
Senator Muggli: Are there any thoughts about this committee taking on that ongoing review role of this report that will be generated?
Mr. Berrigan: I have a thought on that, absolutely.
First of all, yes, certainly. It’s an important role for this committee to review the update on the FCC legislation.
We would actually like to see the mandate and the scope of this committee go even further, to be honest with you. There are many initiatives in the Budget Implementation Act that touch on issues that are extremely important to the agriculture sector, which we would like to see studied at this committee because of your perspective on agricultural issues. Some of the things that come to mind are infrastructure investments, innovation programming and the Red Tape Reduction Act, which is a really good example. These types of horizontal issue touch a number of different departments and portfolios.
It’s unfortunate that committees like this one aren’t given a mandate to review those from an agricultural perspective. So I would like to say, yes to that and more and more and more.
Ms. Levasseur: Labour is another one.
Senator Muggli: Thanks.
The Chair: Thanks for suggesting more work.
Senator Varone: My question is for you, Stéphanie.
With respect to all the things that are being done right, you talked about Budget 2025, and, Mr. Berrigan, you went through it as well. I accept that. But then you touched upon what the failures were, as you see it, for this budget. One was the interest-free threshold. Just knowing our cousins south of the border and how they deal with trade, whenever you make anything interest free, how do you reconcile the contradiction of unfair trade practice? That’s what they’ll throw at you. As of yesterday, President Trump said he is going to target fertilizer from Canada. There is a balancing act when you speak about what you call a failure, but if implemented, could lead to a catastrophic event south of the border because that’s what they’ll pick on as a subsidy. How do you balance that world?
Ms. Levasseur: I didn’t call it a failure. I would call it more of a missed opportunity.
The Advance Payments Program has been in effect for dozens of years, ever since I can remember being on the farm. We used it for at least 40 years, and it was there for many years before that. It hasn’t raised any red flags in our different boxes at the World Trade Organization, or WTO. I don’t think it would pose a problem because it’s already in place at $100,000. That threshold was set many dozens of years ago. Forty years ago, when my parents started the farm, that’s what the threshold was. We’re far away from the realities of what a farm had to deal with 40 years ago. The threshold being raised to $250,000 or $350,000 is just resetting the mark so that it is up to date with the costs of production and the cash that has to come out on the farm early in the year.
Senator Varone: How is it being used against you? I’ve heard more than once in trade dialogue that the Canadian government unfairly subsidizes certain aspects of our economy through trade. We’re not talking about the WTO. We’re talking about another individual down south.
Ms. Levasseur: Yes, one who forgets about the WTO in many instances.
As I said, it hasn’t raised any issues, to my knowledge, before. Unless, Brodie, you have something else, I don’t think it was ever a red flag on the trade issues we have with other partners or the U.S.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. You raise an important point, which is the unpredictability of the U.S. administration on trade-related issues. Fertilizer tariffs are a very good recent example of that.
Stéphanie is absolutely right, though. The Advance Payments Program, or APP, interest-free threshold has been higher, as high as $350,000. In August or September, it was temporarily increased for the canola sector, up to $500,000. I think this is small potatoes for the U.S. administration. There are other broader concerns they might have around Canada’s suite of risk management programs, but we are — I know you said that’s not an issue that you’re necessarily pointing to — well below the threshold for amber box spending on those types of income support programs in Canada. Canada is a bit of a Boy Scout on that, to be honest with you, internationally, compared to a lot of other countries. There are many other targets that the U.S. administration has in the context of trade. I don’t see APP as a high risk. That would be my assessment, anyway.
Senator Varone: No one thought fentanyl was going to be a high risk either because none of it comes from here and goes to the U.S.
I want to know if it is a balancing act for government in terms of creating that suite of policies. Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here. Thank you for your expertise.
You are the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I heard you, Mr. Berrigan, say that you’re happy with what FCC is doing in terms of the changes to the legislation. Maybe, Ms. Levasseur, you can probably answer this. Under the budget’s gender and diversity impact summaries, the following is noted about the legislative amendments to Farm Credit Canada. In sum, it’s really saying that traditionally, under-represented groups such as women, youth, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and Black and racialized entrepreneurs may particularly benefit from legislative reviews to better aid Farm Credit Canada align its activities with their needs.
How does your organization interface with that? Is it just the traditional agriculture producers, or do you reach out to new entrants?
Ms. Levasseur: Women are there. I’m there, and the first vice-president is also a woman. We’re getting there.
We do have a seat for young farmers at the table. Lately, we also struck a partnership with the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture & Food. They come to our board meetings as observers, and we have frequent discussions with them on how to help them achieve projects that they have to set up commercial agriculture in their communities. That’s part of what we do with them.
We have somebody from the Yukon. He’s not Indigenous, but some of his colleagues are. That’s also a way for us to reach out.
We have no other specific programs for other groups. But certainly, women in agriculture and young farmers and the Indigenous groups are part of the table.
Senator Burey: I’m sure that they would be reaching out to these other groups, but it was specifically said that this was one of the reasons for making the review — that other groups needed to be included in their policy.
Ms. Levasseur: Yes. But FCC also has programs that target youth and women and specific groups. There’s always room for improvement.
Mr. Berrigan: Absolutely.
Senator Robinson: I’ve seen how the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, or CAHRC, has identified under-represented groups in agriculture, and they have a project on the go there. They’re an organization that your organization is aligned with, which is doing good work to help address some of those gaps in agriculture. We’ve certainly heard that with the labour shortage in agriculture — and that’s where CAHRC came to — a whole untapped source of labour was identified that agriculture should be looking to work more with.
Didn’t your organization do a pilot project on women in agriculture, trying to develop a project to be able to roll it out in other communities? Yes. There’s some interesting work there that we could hear more about in a written submission.
Ms. Levasseur: Farmers of Quebec came and presented at CFA earlier this year.
Senator Robinson: That occurred in Prince Edward Island too, I recall.
I was wondering about something you said, Mr. Berrigan, about red tape. It got me very interested. I recall something about a proposed bill. I wonder if you could give us insight as to how we might pursue that red tape reduction aspiration from a production point of view.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for the question, senator. I did raise it in my earlier remarks. There is a red tape reduction review. There is a Red Tape Reduction Office that has been established at the Treasury Board Secretariat. We met with them, as well as a number of other agriculture stakeholders and members of the Treasury Board Secretariat today, in fact, to talk about exactly what is going on in their work and to advance some of our objectives on regulatory modernization in the agriculture space.
The most recent bill that you are potentially referencing would have been around leveraging already advanced regulatory approval processes in trusted jurisdictions. Like-minded countries have established, reputable, science-based regulatory frameworks and have already done the heavy lifting on some products that are important for the agriculture sector to remain competitive in the international marketplace. I’m thinking about feed additives, veterinary products and those types of things.
We have made the recommendation in our own submission to the red tape reduction review process, as well as in our most recent budget submission, that we would like to see something like that introduced. Essentially, you would be leveraging review processes already under way or leveraging the progress made in trusted, like-minded countries on regulatory review processes in Canada to expedite the approval process here.
That is one of the themes of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s red tape reduction review right now: efficiency and productivity. There is a lot of potential alignment there. We made a submission through that process to the government. We learned today there is an active consultation now that closes at the end of February. So we are likely to, once again, reiterate some of our priorities under that process.
We’re very happy that this is a focal point for the Government of Canada right now, and we hope in earnest that it translates into some meaningful outcomes for farmers.
Senator Robinson: Thank you for the answer. We used to brag in Canada that we were the fifth-largest exporter of food in the world, and then we have slid to seventh, and I understand ninth is just around the corner for us. To me, that’s an issue of productivity and competitiveness, and you were saying that we need to see improvements in infrastructure, innovation, red tape reduction, labour and all of these things.
I wanted to just spend a minute on the 100,000 versus the 250, versus the 350 versus the 500 for canola that we saw recently on the Advanced Payment Program interest-free threshold. It is my understanding that those numbers are old — to your point, Ms. Levasseur — and that we have not seen our BRM program in APP keeping up with inflation or the cost of production. You probably don’t have the answer now, but maybe you could send us the details on what kind of investment we have seen in our government to keep up with that, because not only have we seen an increase in the cost of production, but we have also seen a forced amalgamation in farm size. We are seeing larger farms that need more money to operate.
The Chair: Do you want to respond or will you be sending something or both?
Ms. Levasseur: Thank you for the question. We will get back to you with more details.
We see it across the board that budgets don’t follow inflation anywhere, and provincially it is the same. So it is a problem that we have to deal with at all levels.
It is becoming more and more important to be able to bring those programs up to par because the inflation is growing faster than whatever comes from the help programs.
The Chair: Thank you. Second round.
Senator McNair: I have a comment first: In a sense, you are doing a customer survey of FCC for us. I appreciate the comments. You are saying they are doing an effective job, they are adapting and evolving to meet new challenges, and probably, most significantly, none of your members have significant concerns about FCC. Thank you for that.
Just to step back to the discussion we had about the good discussions in Mexico a few weeks ago down there. We have heard in this last week about a trade mission that is going to be led by Minister LeBlanc down there. Will you have members on that trade mission?
Ms. Levasseur: I will let Brodie answer. He is usually the one who goes.
Mr. Berrigan: Thank you for that question. CFA doesn’t generally participate in trade missions. Usually, it is our commodity members, or non-members within the agriculture sector, who would be part of those missions.
The exception was with our trip to Mexico about a month ago. The CFA does work very closely with other farm groups around the world, in fact. One of the strengths recently during all of this trade turbulence has been our ability to reach out to the national farm groups in other countries. In this case, it is CNA — don’t make me spell that out for you in Spanish because I’m not sure that I would succeed in that. They are the CFA equivalent in Mexico. We co-chaired that meeting.
One of the things that the CFA does is facilitate. We bring the other groups together, and then they will address, in a bilateral way, some of the specific trade opportunities or barriers that are facing those specific commodities. The three themes that came out of that discussion in Mexico about a month ago were regulatory cooperation, innovation and market access.
The Canadian Cattle Association will meet with their equivalent and look at areas where they can expand or address some of the issues in those three areas. The same thing applies to greenhouse horticulture, the pork sector, et cetera. We will play a facilitation role working with our counterparts through that. To answer the question directly, we generally don’t participate directly in trade missions.
Senator McNair: Thank you for reminding us about the work you are doing to bring people together and start that dialogue. That is so critical.
Senator Robinson: I want to ask your opinion about the review process. It is not so much focused on what is the topic here, which is FCC, but just generally, how effective do you think AAFC is at engaging with stakeholders in agriculture and coming up with mechanisms that gather valuable and insightful feedback that will actually help inform whatever policy or decisions they are going to make? Are there things that they could be learning from previous consultations they have done?
Is there a mechanism there for you to give feedback to them on that? Could it be improved? If you have comments in addition to what you share verbally before the two hands go up, please send us some comments in writing.
Ms. Levasseur: They do have some process of consulting. They have NPAC, which is the National Program Advisory Committee, which was supposed to happen today and tomorrow, but it was cancelled at the last minute.
Senator Robinson: Is that for the review?
Ms. Levasseur: Yes. It is mostly on BRM, the business risk management programs. They have producers from every province who sit on that committee to review.
They have been better in the past. I remember big consultations when the — what do you call it in English? That five-year —
Mr. Berrigan: Yes, the five-year agriculture policy framework.
Ms. Levasseur: Yes, the framework. They used to have big consultations all across the country when that was to be renewed. It is going to be renewed in two years. But that has fallen by the wayside. We haven’t seen that much consultation in the last few years — I would say the last two frameworks.
Mr. Berrigan: It is ramping up now, but yes.
Just to be clear, Senator Robinson, was your question about AAFC consultation, FCC or both?
Senator Robinson: My question is about AAFC.
Mr. Berrigan: AAFC.
Senator Robinson: How well do they dovetail? How well do they work with industry to get the information? As I said in the last panel, they should be agents to help unleash the potential that we see in agriculture.
Are there good mechanisms in place for feedback, for that symbiotic relationship, or could that be improved?
Mr. Berrigan: There is always opportunity for improvement on engagement. What is critical there is the quality of engagement that happens. There are many different mechanisms through which the Government of Canada, and AAFC in particular, consults with the agriculture sector. There are very informal consultations and engagement.
Frankly, we speak with them all the time. We had calls with the secretariat responsible for a lot of environmental programming at AAFC yesterday. We talk to them all the time, every week, on an informal basis. We have a good relationship with the department.
There are formal Government of Canada consultations. On a specific initiative, they will launch it and, within a certain time frame, they’ll entertain submissions. It goes into a bit of a black hole. Then you find out what comes out at the other end of it.
Then sometimes there are more dedicated engagement opportunities in which there is a roundtable. There is a terms of reference and a mandate, and they will do it. It is a bit of a mix.
It is important to talk about the agriculture policy framework that is starting to ramp up. There was a formal consultation launched on that just recently, which we absolutely will be participating in. That’s a very important one for the agriculture sector and a very important one for the CFA. I hesitate to go on, because I see the hand.
The Chair: Thirty seconds.
Ms. Levasseur: Sometimes it is hard to see how it actually translates into anything, so have we been heard or understood?
Mr. Berrigan: One of the challenges we have — because we have to take a bit of ownership for that too in the agriculture sector — is that it is a very diverse sector. There are many players.
One of the things in which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been trying to play a more concerted role is to determine how we — again, back to that facilitation role — bring people together, and how we work together with other agriculture associations to have a common perspective on some of these consultations. It is challenging, if you put yourself in the Government of Canada’s shoes, to influence meaningful change and to introduce new programs or policies, if there is not consensus in the sector on a particular area. That’s something we collectively need to work on —
Ms. Levasseur: And it is improving.
Mr. Berrigan: — that the CFA is seized with, and we hope to continue to do.
The Chair: Thank you.
Seeing no other questions, thank you both for your time and your contributions to this session. We appreciate it.
(The committee continued in camera.)