It would likely put business risk management spending under the microscope as costs have soared in recent years, and the leaders of both major parties currently campaigning to be prime minister are talking about spending less.

“It is worth noting the cost of the BRM suite effectively doubled between 2019-20 and 2023-24,” said CAPI managing director and co-author of the report Tyler McCann. “The cost to Agriculture Canada alone for their 60 per cent is over $2 billion, most of that because of the increased costs of crop insurance.”

‘Sacred cows’

The report notes, however, that BRM programs are “sacred cows” that both farmers and politicians would like to preserve. It said the question is not just how much is spent but how effective it is spent.

“To the crop insurance cost, I think that the industry itself needs to understand that we’re living in a world today where the impact of the trade war that we’re in could do more harm to farmers than a drought does, but we have a significant substantial BRM program to respond to drought, but we don’t have a substantial program to respond to trade wars,” McCann said.

Federal agriculture spending flows through several channels. For example, the department itself had a budget of about $4.2 billion in 2024-25, but there are other organizations such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Pest Management Regulatory Agency that are funded through other departments.

McCann said the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership is usually referred to as a $3-billion program, but it’s cost-shared and doesn’t include the BRM suite.

“That ag policy framework is actually a $15-billion initiative, and probably on track to be more than now, because of the significant cost of the BRM suite,” he said. “I think we need to be more transparent and understand that there are significant implications of that spending.”

There are questions about the sustainability of the crop insurance program, although government rarely says that out loud, he said. The report said everything should be on the table for review, including the sacred cows and politically sensitive programs that are often off the table.

“This status quo bias can perpetuate inefficiencies and prevent the reallocation of resources to more effective or innovative initiatives,” the report said. “Audit reports consistently highlight problems and gaps, yet these findings often fail to translate into meaningful changes, instead gathering dust on shelves.”

How effective is the spending?

Despite this substantial support for agriculture stakeholders always call for more. A review would look at how effective the spending is rather than just the funding level.

The report, co-authored with Elisabeta Lika, suggests the review proceed the way it did during the Jean Chretien government of the 1990s when it applied a test across government to assess its role and value for money. This differs from the last review of the across-the-board cuts through Stephen Harper’s Deficit Reduction Action Plan completed in 2012.

The 1995 program review used six-test methodology to make decisions, beginning with the question of whether a program continues to serve a public interest. If the answer was no, it was abandoned or transferred.

If yes, the question became if there was a legitimate role for the government, followed by whether it should be federal or provincial government, if the activities could be transferred to the private sector, how it could be more efficient and finally, if the result is affordable within fiscal restraint.

McCann and Lika applied the six tests to several areas of agricultural spending, noting the challenges of federal-provincial-territorial relations and business risk management programs, along with what they called hidden complexities of the role of the department and public goods, climate change, market volatility and supply chain issues, and program cycles and performance measurement gaps.

McCann said a program review undertaken right away would allow enough time before the next version of the agricultural policy framework is negotiated and launched in 2028.

The authors reviewed AgriInvest specifically and found it probably doesn’t pass the public good test, he said, because it is intended to help producers manage small fluctuations that a typical business should be able to manage.

“Similarly the examination of on-farm programs (On-Farm Climate Action Fund, Agricultural Clean Technology Program) highlights potential duplication with provincial efforts,” the report said. “The lack of clarity between federal and provincial roles has increased as AAFC has shifted to funding more on-farm activities.”

But the historic practice is to let provinces lead, meaning the programs don’t pass the federalism test, McCann said.

Funding innovation

In the area of innovation, McCann said there is a strong case for government to fund it but in a different way.

“The last example we use is trade and market access. Given the climate that we’re in, if anything there’s a greater public role and opportunity to actually spend more in that space than they’re spending today,” he said.

McCann added the context of a trade war with the United States puts extra pressure on the need for review because everyone requires a clear sense of whether programs align with priorities, meet the test of the moment, or if governments are providing them just because they have been for 30 years.

“We don’t often have this conversation in agriculture and we do live in a reality where often the response is always, ‘we need government to invest more.’ I think there is a strong argument to be made for governments to invest more in the ag space, but I think before we do that we need to really look at what they’re spending today already and ask ourselves the questions around is it being spent the right way and are we getting the right result.”

He said typically the reviews happen behind closed doors and CAPI would like more of this discussion out in the open.

The post Policy institute calls for open review of ag spending appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The announcement came late Saturday afternoon, ahead of Sunday’s election call.

Agriculture minister Kody Blois said the agriculture sector is experiencing multiple challenges, including the 100-percent tariff on canola oil, meal and peas and 25-percent tariffs on some pork, fish and seafood products. There is also continuing uncertainty regarding what the United States might do.

What support is promised?

The support is coming through AgriStability, by increasing the compensation rate from 80 percent to 90 percent and doubling the $3-million payment cap for the 2025 year.

“To get money to producers faster the Government of Canada has also provided provincial and territorial governments with the option to proactively enter into an agreement to issue interim payments at a higher payment rate and initiate targeted advance payments in the event of tariffs, or for the hog sector in the event of African Swine Fever,” the news release said.

In provinces that adopt the changes producers who participate in AgriStability would be eligible for an interim payment of up to 75 percent of their estimated final payment.

The government said an administrator will be able to establish the targeted advance payments “where analysis shows that market disruptions have resulted in a sufficient loss to trigger AgriStability payments for a particular sector or region.”

Blois said China’s decision will have a devastating impact on farm families. He said the announcement is a direct result of advocacy from producers.

“I will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our producers and will defend the sector every step of the way,” he said.

APAS calls for swift action

On Monday morning, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) called for the Saskatchewan government to swiftly implement the changes to AgriStability and suggested further avenues for support.

While AgriStability offers whole farm protection, payments are often received long after significant financial losses have occurred. Saskatchewan farmers will potentially have to borrow a lot of money in the interim to manage critical cash flow due to these market disruptions,” said APAS president Bill Prybylski in a news release.

APAS said it has had discussion with the federal agriculture minister asking him to increase the Advance Payments Program interest free portion to $350,000 from $250,000. They also asked Blois to assess if AgriInvest can be used to give farmers access to capital.

The post Ottawa increases AgriStability compensation in face of Chinese tariffs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

I am a farmer who has been enrolled in the various business risk management programs for more than 30 years. I was engaged in the process when many of our current BRM programs were first created in the 1980s and 1990s, and was asked to chair the task force by Farmers for Climate Solutions.

I know BRM programs, and how essential they are to farmers across the country. The task force I chaired recommended these programs be strengthened to ensure they remain as climate change and extreme weather ramp up, and that farmers be rewarded for adopting practices that reduce their risk. The task force did not recommend eliminating, privatizing or weakening BRM programs, as the recent article falsely claims.

As farmers, we are on the front lines of climate change for three distinct reasons. First, the weather determines our production capacity, and we are now working with increased volatility in weather patterns.

Second, we oversee a large land base. While the overall outcome of climate change will be determined by the pace at which humans move away from fossil fuels, how land is farmed has tremendous impact on the pace of climate change.

Third, consumers and food processors are actively looking for ways to reduce emissions in their supply chains and grocery carts. Those demands are increasingly being pushed down the value chain to the farm gate.

Canada’s BRM programs make up more than half of total public expenditure in agriculture, and climate change is the single biggest risk faced by our sector. This reality means that we must look for ways to efficiently manage climate risk at farm level and to reward farmers for adopting risk-reducing practices.

This is what the BRM Task Force was created to do. We focused on AgriInsurance and AgriInvest, the two programs with the biggest potential to help farmers become more resilient.

For crop insurance, publicly supported production insurance that maintains its actuarial integrity is essential. It should not be privatized or weakened. We recommended reduced premiums for farmers who adopt practices that reduce risk, such as adding crops to their rotation or intercropping. We called for innovative new products like BMP insurance to make the adoption of those practices less risky.

The only area where reduced coverage was recommended was for newly converted land. The task force recognized that markets are the primary driver of the current pace of land conversion. However, to ensure that crop insurance does not further encourage this practice, it was recommended that newly broken lands or wetlands not be able to be insured for a period of time. Destroying wetlands, pushing trees and breaking new land remains a major source of emissions from agriculture.

We also recommended that crop averaging be made more readily available in all provinces. Crop averaging creates lower premiums for farmers while increasing coverage by insuring a basket of crops grown on the farm — the more crops grown, the greater the premium reduction.

This encourages more diverse rotations, which has been shown to improve resilience and reduce emissions. Crop insurance payouts become larger when there is a disaster, but modest failures may not trigger a payment. We’ve found this new approach to be a really effective, on-farm risk management tool for our farm.

The task force also focused on AgriInvest, which provides matching payments to farmers to use as they see fit to manage financial risk. Government is highly aware that AgriInvest is not meeting its mandate, and is seen by many in the sector as “free money” for farmers. There is considerable risk that governments might discontinue this program if it is not providing any obvious public benefit.

To protect the program by helping it meet its mandate, we recommended that a bonus be paid to farmers who complete a new climate module for the Environmental Farm Plan. After two years of bonuses, eligibility for AgriInvest would become dependent on completion of the module.

Tying AgrInvest to increased climate awareness is the best way to ensure that the program is not eliminated completely. It’s also important so that farmers have the information that we need to lead innovation in risk management on-farm.

Business risk management programs have never been static. They must evolve as new risks emerge. Our programs must change to meet the challenge of climate risk. The best way forward is through open dialogue based on science, data and the real-world experience and innovations of farmers.

The post Comment: Protecting our farms for the long term appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Following meetings this week in Saskatoon, federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau and her provincial and territorial counterparts on Friday mapped out the bones of their next five-year ag funding framework, to be called the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

“As the provincial-territorial co-chair, we are pleased with the increased funding all parties have committed to today,” the ministerial co-chair, Saskatchewan Ag Minister Dave Marit, said in a release. “I believe we have found the proper balance between economic and environmental objectives to ensure our industry remains globally competitive.”

Where the current five-year Canadian Agricultural Partnership — agreed upon in 2017 for the 2018-2023 period under Bibeau’s predecessor Lawrence MacAulay — committed the feds and provinces to $2 billion in funding for cost-shared programs, the new partnership deal will raise that figure to $2.5 billion, up 25 per cent.

RALP

Part of the thicker cost-shared envelope — $250 million — will go to fund a new Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program (RALP), which is meant to support ecological goods and services provided by the agriculture sector.

The ministers “agreed in principle” on that program, with details to come later, though they said it will be administered by the provinces and territories, based on “nationally consistent principles (and) tailored to regional needs and conditions.”

Existing programs that “respect the guidelines” for RALP, such as Prince Edward Island’s Alternate Land Use Services (ALUS) program, Quebec’s Programme de Rétribution des pratiques agroenvironnementales, and Manitoba’s Growing Outcomes in Watersheds (GROW), will be “able to benefit from the new federal funding,” the federal government said in its release Friday.

AgriStability

The new partnership also commits the feds and provinces to boost the compensation rate for the AgriStability ag income stabilization program to 80 per cent, up from the current 70, which is expected to provide another $72 million per year for enrolled farmers.

Under AgriStability, a payment is triggered when a participating farmer’s production margin for a given program year falls more than 30 per cent below their reference margin. Under the current framework, AgriStability covers 70 per cent of the farmer’s decline beyond that 30 per cent mark.

That said, the ministers added Friday they’ve agreed to “continue to work, and consult with industry, on a new AgriStability model that will be faster, simpler and more predictable.”

The governments taking part in the ag policy framework said they’ve “identified key changes” to improve AgriStability and plan to “further analyze and implement this new model while ensuring a smooth transition.”

As for other business risk management (BRM) programs operating under the partnership, the ministers committed to a one-year review on “how to integrate climate risk and readiness” in those programs.

Under that review, the provinces would identify “potential incentives” and then launch a pilot for producers who adopt environmental practices that also reduce their production risks.

The ministers also agreed that in order to receive a government contribution to their AgriInvest accounts, farmers who have allowable net sales (ANS) of at least $1 million will need to have an agri-environmental risk assessment (for example, an Environmental Farm Plan) in place by 2025.

The ministers noted the BRM programs will still “continue to focus on production risk.”

‘Results strategy’

The ministers also said they agreed on “the need for a more robust results strategy” for the 2023-28 partnership, which will involve “improved data sharing, results reporting, and a commitment to contribute to common, measurable outcomes” over that time.

Those outcomes include reduction in the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions by between three million and five million tonnes; $250 billion in ag sector revenues and $95 billion in sector export revenues by 2028; and a measurable increase in funded recipients who are Indigenous Peoples, women and youth over that time.

The ministers noted Quebec is “already implementing policies and strategies to provide targets, indicators and accountability processes that meet the priorities and objectives set out in this agreement” and will not be subject to the framework target’s commitments but rather will “contribute to collective results” through its own targets and accountability mechanisms.

Fertilizer emissions

Curbing the ag sector’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fertilizer was a sore spot among participating ministers. In their joint release, they said they “discussed the importance of ensuring that efforts to reduce emissions from fertilizer or other agricultural sources do not impede Canada’s ability to contribute to domestic and global food security, now or into the future.”

The discussions, they said, also “mentioned” ongoing consultations undertaken by the feds to develop “voluntary approaches” to achieve Canada’s target of reducing absolute GHG emissions associated with fertilizers by 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030.

That 30 per cent target was first laid out in the federal climate plan in late 2020. The ministers said Friday it was “reiterated” at their meeting that the 30 per cent target “applies to emissions and not fertilizer use.”

However, Marit, in a separate release, said his government is “really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” adding the Trudeau government “has apparently moved on from their attack on the oil and gas industry and set their sights on Saskatchewan farmers.”

Marit and his Alberta counterpart Nate Horner, in a joint statement Friday, said the provinces had “pushed the federal government to discuss this important topic, but were disappointed to learn that the target is already set.”

The commitment to future consultations, Marit and Horner said, is “only to determine how to meet the target that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Bibeau have already unilaterally imposed on this industry, not to consult on what is achievable or attainable.”

“The federal government needs to be true partners, rather than simply imposing targets that make it harder,” Ontario’s Agriculture Minister Lisa Thompson said in a separate statement, adding the provinces were “disappointed by the lack of flexibility and consultation regarding the federal target.”

Reaction

The Canadian Cattle Association, in a separate release late Friday, said with the new framework’s increased funding envelope, the beef cattle sector “is now better equipped to deliver on some of the ambitious environmental and productivity goals as set by the national beef strategy partners.”

“Today’s announcement is a recognition that the (ag ministers) heard our concerns,” CCA president Reg Schellenberg said in the release.

The CCA hailed the RALP program announcement as “a welcome investment for beef producers who perform these services as a byproduct of raising beef” and noted the increase to the AgriStability compensation rate has “long been advocated for by the beef sector.”

Bill Campbell, president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, said the group “remain(s) concerned with the increase in GHG reduction targets… This will need clear and transparent data sources and measures, but we have yet to see which data and life cycle analysis will be used to determine these targets.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Ag ministers lock in next policy funding framework appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

At the online federal-provincial-territorial agriculture ministers’ meeting on Friday, federal Agriculture Minister Marie Claude Bibeau proposed dropping AgriStability’s maximum reference margin, and increasing the compensation rate from 70 to 80 per cent retroactively this year and for calendar 2021 and 2022.

“Taken together, these changes would increase the overall amount AgriStability pays out to farmers by 50 per cent,” the federal government said in a news release.

Like other provinces, Manitoba is studying Bibeau’s proposal, which would cost the province at least $15 million more a year, Pedersen said.

But what Ottawa is offering farmers might hurt them more in the long run, he added.

At the meeting’s close Bibeau said farm support “payments are going to rich farmers only,” according to Pedersen. He interpreted that to mean under the next five year federal-provincial Canadian Agricultural Partnership, due to begin April 1, 2023, Bibeau’s plan is to cut spending on other farm support programs, including AgriInsurance and AgriInvest.

“(T)he federal government seems to have implied they are putting out something now but they are going to claw back the money later and that’s our big concern,” Pedersen said. “We want to look at the long-term stability of farm programs to make sure that they are bankable, that they are timely and that they work for the farm community.

“Be careful what you ask for…”

The federal government’s AgriStability proposal shows it wants to invest in farm supports, not cut them, a spokesperson from Bibeau’s office stated in an email Tuesday.

“She has put a concrete offer on the table for the provinces to consider,” the official wrote. “She is trying to find a national consensus to boost the amount AgriStability pays out to farmers by 50 per cent for 2020 and ongoing.

“Formal consultations on the direction of the next policy framework have not even started yet, and it is far too early to imply anything otherwise. All levels of government have a chance to listen to farmers today and step up to meaningful and immediate reforms that will significantly improve the lives of farmers.”

While Pedersen said Manitoba will closely review Bibeau’s AgriStability proposal, he’s also asking farmers to consider four other options, including a margin-based insurance program that could replace AgriStability.

Details need to be worked out, but farm income could be stabilized by insuring farm margins with governments and farmers sharing the premium costs, Pedersen said.

Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) wants to see more details before endorsing that plan, president Bill Campbell said in an interview.

Bibeau’s AgriStability proposal looks promising, he added.

“I think if some of the issues were addressed and fixed it wouldn’t necessarily be a broken program,” he said, in response to Pedersen’s critique of AgriStability.

Canadian farmers have been advocating for AgriStability improvements since 2013 when the Harper government changed it. Campbell said he’s frustrated Ottawa’s proposal took so long.

“Nobody could counter-offer or object until something was on the table,” he said. “Now it’s going to take another three or four months to figure it out.”

Agriculture can play a role in boosting Canada’s economy post-COVID, but the industry needs income stabilization to realize its potential, Campbell said.

Check out the Dec. 10 issue of the Manitoba Co-operator for more details on this story.

— Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at Miami, Man.

The post AgriStability proposal could have hidden cost, Pedersen warns appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The first meeting of the current parliamentary session was held on Oct. 8, the latest since July.

It was then MPs were concluding the work they had done studying business risk management (BRM) programs. Between February and July, over the course of seven meetings, members of the committee heard testimony from about 45 stakeholders.

The work was valuable because it allowed lawmakers to hear directly, in a public forum, from just about every sector.

Work of the committee led to the release of data showing the majority of farmers have minimal amounts available in their AgriInvest accounts, which ran counter to messaging from the federal government.

In June, MPs on the committee wrote a letter to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Marie-Claude Bibeau highlighting some of their findings, in hopes it would help inform her during now-delayed discussions with the provinces.

This was valuable because it involved members of several different political parties agreeing on where, and how, the programs can be improved.

The letter to Bibeau was supposed to be followed by a fuller report from members, but the parliamentary session ending prevented that.

Committee members voted in their first meeting back to reinstate that work, and there is now expectation of a full report.

Meetings in May and June featured a study into the impacts COVID-19 was having on the sector.

This allowed stakeholders to give real-time updates on how the pandemic was impacting their businesses and which COVID-19 support measures were and were not working.

Again, it was valuable work being done by politicians representing four different parties.

Despite some partisan gamesmanship, the committee traditionally does a good, pragmatic and fair-minded job – particularly relative to the work of some other committees.

Hopefully that will continue in the newest iteration of the committee. There will be differences.

Most notably, longtime Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Agriculture Critic John Barlow won’t be there.

Barlow’s strong understanding of the issues and ability to gather information from witnesses was a huge asset to the committee.

Lianne Rood, the rookie MP who replaced Barlow as ag critic, will be tasked with filling those big shoes. While there is no doubt Rood’s background demonstrates a knowledge of the file, she never really stood out during previous meetings.

She’ll have a chance to shine in this role, particularly because of a lack of experience among her party mates on the committee.

Beauce MP Richard Lehoux has proven competent, particularly in representing the views of the dairy industry, but Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington) and Warren Steinley (Regina-Lewvan) will be sitting on the committee for the first time.

They do have farming backgrounds, which will prove helpful. I don’t know much about Epp, but during his stint as an MLA in Saskatchewan’s legislature, Steinley was an enthusiastic if ineffective lawmaker.

The Liberal members will continue to rely on the likes of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell MP Francis Drouin to do their heavy lifting, backed by a group of MPs with experience on the committee.

The post Opinion: Plenty of work for new-look Agriculture Committee appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Not in this way. All the options are on the table for the future, but I’ve never considered asking them to withdraw, to empty their accounts, to face COVID-19,” she said in an interview Friday.

Bibeau had previously expressed disappointment at seeing over $2 billion sitting in accounts which, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), exist to help farmers “manage small income declines and make investments to manage risk and improve market income.”

Billed as a “self-managed producer-government savings account,” an AgriInvest account can accept a farmer’s deposits up to 100 per cent of allowable net sales (ANS) in a given program year, and receive a matching government contribution on one per cent of ANS.

AgriInvest account balances are capped at 400 per cent of a producer’s average ANS from the current and two prior program years.

In 2020, there has been between $2.27 billion and $2.37 billion sitting in 99,673 active AgriInvest accounts — but the majority of those accounts have balances of less than $10,000 each.

After seeing those numbers, Bibeau said they “did not show that farmers had used their accounts very much” and it was “a bit disappointing to see that,” while encouraging producers to spend the money available to them.

Grain Growers of Canada chair Jeff Nielsen responded by saying he understood Bibeau was disappointed, “but unfortunately the federal government has not asked any other Canadian to withdraw all their savings from their savings account.

“Yet, it seems we’re being asked as producers, the few of us who have money in these accounts, to drain those accounts.”

Bibeau on Friday reiterated her longstanding commitment to improving business risk management (BRM) programs, but to do so “on evidence.”

She and AAFC officials have been “going through the programs, trying to analyze each of them in different ways to see how we can do better. If we have more money, how can we use these additional funds?”

While “not telling anything about how we will move forward,” she said, from the federal government’s viewpoint, AgriInvest “should be the first business risk management program they should be using when they face a challenge.

“This should be the easiest way, for them to take money out of these savings accounts — then when the shock becomes more significant, other programs would serve them.”

Bibeau admitted there is debate among stakeholders about the program’s purpose and said it needs to be discussed.

Certain groups of producers see AgriInvest as a way to build resilience against risk, she said, while others view it as a retirement fund.

Asked if she had ever considered closing all AgriInvest accounts or ordering, rather than asking, producers to use the money available to them in their accounts, Bibeau said she had never considered it.

“I want to look forward and improve these programs, and hopefully with the provinces we will be able to add more money as well, so I have to do it step by step, but these are cost-shared programs and the provinces will have to step in as well.”

While closing AgriInvest accounts isn’t on Bibeau’s radar and would be unprecedented in recent times, such a notion isn’t unheard of in Canadian farm programs.

The Saskatchewan government, for example, in 1996 terminated its Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) and paid out that program’s surplus funds.

GRIP, an early iteration of AgriStability, used historical commodity prices and yields to offer revenue insurance to producers, but critics have said it distorted farmers’ seeding decisions and discouraged investment in inputs.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post Bibeau not considering closing AgriInvest accounts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, a back and forth has gone on between Ottawa and producers over money being held in those accounts.

Ottawa and the ag sector are still sparring over AgriInvest use.

Designed to act as a savings for producers, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the stated goal of AgriInvest is to help farmers, “manage small income declines and make investments to manage risk and improve market income.”

In 2020, there has been between $2.27 billion and $2.37 billion sitting in 99,673 active AgriInvest accounts, but the majority of those accounts contained less than $10,000.

“The last numbers I’ve seen did not show that farmers had used their accounts very much. Some sectors a little bit more, but not in a significant way the last time I looked at it, but that was a few weeks ago already,” Bibeau said during an Aug. 13 interview. “I would say it was a bit disappointing to see that.”

She brushed aside criticism from producers, who argue most accounts have an insignificant amount of money available in them.

“This (program) is meant to provide support in the very short term, as the first line of safety net. It’s easy to access, because you already have it in your account. You’re supposed to put this money aside every year so if you face an extraordinary challenge, you have this money quickly available, and then you can wait a bit longer or have access to other programs, like AgriStability, AgriRecovery or AgriInsurance if the needs are greater,” she said.

“This is the path within the BRM (business risk management) programs, so even if it is not a big amount for some producers, and I would put ‘big’ in brackets because it’s a relative number, but it’s supposed to be the first line of support available and not using it sends the message you don’t really need it.”

Jeff Nielsen, chair of the Grain Growers of Canada, said Bibeau’s comments were disappointing.

“We understand the minister is disappointed, but unfortunately the federal government has not asked any other Canadian to withdraw all their savings from their savings account,” he said. “Yet, it seems we’re being asked as producers, the few of us who have money in these accounts, to drain those accounts.”

He also contended that while there are producers with money in their accounts, over 72,000 of them have less than $10,000 available.

“I’d say the others are experienced, well-established producers, but we’re in a situation where we have producers facing serious financial issues and they’ve used their accounts,” he said. “It’s frustrating on our part that it seems like Ottawa doesn’t quite grasp the situation in agriculture.

“We’re frustrated there’s no grasp or any sense of reality when you look at the numbers. The numbers do not support her argument, in our opinion,” he said.

That data on AgriInvest was released to the federal standing committee on agriculture and agri-food as part of its work reviewing business risk management programs.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) was expected to make a second disclosure of information, offering more insight into AgriStability accounts, but it is unclear when that will happen.

Due to the governing Liberals’ decision to prorogue parliament, the committee has been dissolved and is unable to receive the disclosure – even if it were to be made available by the AAFC.

Canadian Pork Council chair Rick Bergmann said Bibeau’s comments were “ironic” and demonstrate a lack of understanding on how farms operate.

“It’s unfortunate that people don’t understand that $40,000 or $80,000 is very little on a farm,” he said.

He said he believes Bibeau wants to see business risk management programs made better, but, “there is a misconception that just because you have $50,000 or whatever in an AgriInvest account, you don’t have problems – and that tells me there is a significant disconnect.”

The post Industry ‘disappointed’ in Bibeau’s AgriInvest comments appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum past chair Paul Glenn told members there is “nothing more important” than business risk management (BRM) programs to those starting out in the industry, but the outlook to bring such people into agriculture remains challenging.

Glenn said improved BRM programs could “awake the sleeping giant that is agriculture in Canada” but programs offered by the government, such as AgriStability, are “nothing short of confusing.”

“There’s no doubt that some of the programs are a bit confusing and I think there could be a marketing push to show there are programs out there for young farmers,” he said, noting it is “unfortunate” when he talks to young farmers unaware of what programs are available to them.

He echoed industry-wide calls for a simplified formula for determining payments under the program, and said Ottawa should consider raising the amount it contributes for young farmers in matching funds under the AgriInvest program.

Glenn also said BRMs need to be redesigned to better support the diversity of operations seen in Canadian agriculture.

“When you’re a young farmer trying to mitigate your risk by doing multiple things, you’re almost punished for doing multiple things rather than just cattle or calves,” he said, citing concerns diversified operations are less likely to qualify for BRM programs.

Julie Bissonnette, regional representative of Ontario and Quebec for Canadian Young Farmers’ Forum, said AgriStability “isn’t very reassuring” to young farmers because it requires them to endure significant losses before offering any support.

She also lobbied the MPs to consider subsidizing participation in the suite of BRM programs for young farmers by eliminating certain enrolment costs, like administrative fees. Bissonnette echoed Glenn, claiming most young farmers don’t use BRMs “because they don’t understand them.”

In order to attract young farmers into the industry, changes are needed to ensure young farmers “feel supported,” she said.

Bissonnette said particular focus should be given to companies in their first five years of operation.

“A young farmer starting, the better his cash flow is the better his business will be,” she said, saying any support is welcomed. “Anything that can help us with cash flow, like rebates on administrative fees or contributions, can help.”

She noted that because the majority of BRM programs are paid for by federal and provincial government, the “risk could be shared” among them in offering additional support to young producers.

Bissonnette also touted the strength of supply management’s benefit to young farmers, saying it offers some level of stability even in volatile periods.

“For a brand new company, supply management is a good thing and we need to keep it with all of its strength,” she said.

The post Young Farmers call for BRM education appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That confirmation came during a wide-ranging media availability Bibeau held Tuesday.

In March, Tom Rosser, an assistant deputy minister at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), said the government is looking at a number of options to improve the programs, which are often the focus of complaints from producer groups.

It was expected at the time Bibeau would have the recommendations in time for a previously planned meeting in July with her provincial and territorial counterparts.

BRM programs are funded by federal and provincial governments, at a cost-share ratio of 60:40. The cost has averaged roughly $1.5 billion in the past five years.

Changes to any BRM programs generally require two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the market, according to federal officials.

Now, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, that meeting has been delayed until October — and so too have plans to announce any BRM reforms.

Bibeau said her office is attempting to “build a new consensus” with the provinces.

“It’s not easy to get all the provinces at the same level, and us as well, finding a new consensus,” she said.

At the same time, Bibeau defended the current suite of programs and her government’s support for farmers in the midst of the pandemic.

“I understand that these programs are not at the level producers would want them to be, there are gaps, and we are trying to fill these gaps through ad hoc supports as well, and there will be more,” she said.

“We’re still working with the industry to identify the sectors who are most in need but still, these programs are working to a certain level.”

According to Bibeau, $1.6 billion could be available to producers under the current suite of programs and “double if farmers ask for that” and the situation they are facing.

“These programs are responding to the demand, according to the situation of course,” she said, repeating support is there for producers and more ad-hoc supports are coming.

In a Commons standing agriculture committee meeting Wednesday, Bibeau reiterated the available supports.

“One of my messages to farmers continues to be, these are important tools and please make use of them,” she said.

Bibeau said she is speaking with the provinces every week and despite the formal meeting being delayed until October, progress is being made.

“We are moving forward in the sense that we are putting some options on the table, discussing at what level one province would go, another one, us from the federal (side), so trying to find a consensus so how we can better support farmers,” she said.

Despite any imminent reform coming in the next few months, Bibeau said improving the programs is a priority.

“I can’t promise any deadline but this is top priority, this is the subject that is on the agenda each and every week,” she said.

The current agreement between federal and provincial governments was signed in 2017 and carried forward five programs aimed at BRM: AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, AgriRecovery and AgriRisk.

AgriInvest funds currently total $2.3 billion, according to Bibeau. She said the average producer has around $25,000 sitting in AgriInvest, which is a savings account program with matching government contributions. Funds can be withdrawn at any time to alleviate risk or for investment.

“It’s there to help producers in difficult situations when they need funding,” AAFC deputy minister Chris Forbes said at Wednesday’s committee meeting.

Supports offered by the other programs – particularly AgriStability – continue to frustrate producers, who argue it puts them at a competitive disadvantage on global markets because other countries offer more support for producers.

Bibeau was asked about Canada’s level of support during the pandemic for producers compared to that of the United States, where farmers are being given up to US$16 billion (C$21.7 billion) in coronavirus payments on top of additional direct payments and indications more support is coming.

“We can’t compare Canadian agriculture with another one. In Canada, the business risk management programs exist for a reason and it’s to (give) the farmers more predictability and support that they need,” she said, reiterating a recognition the programs could be better.

The current iteration of risk management support began in 2003 when provinces and the federal government agreed to standardize supports in a cost-shared policy framework.

Originally the programs were focused on income stabilization, but provincial and federal governments realized they were offering more coverage than they thought was needed.

Consecutive years of strong commodity prices also followed, resulting in higher levels of profitability and justification for governments to allocate funding away from risk management toward other areas, such as innovation and growth.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post No timeline yet set for BRM reforms appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.