The poll of 858 producers from coast to coast determined that farmers rank climate change as their No. 1 concern.

“When farmers and ranchers were asked an open-ended question—at the very beginning of the poll—about the top challenge for the agricultural sector for the next decade, climate change was the number one answer,” says Farmers for Climate Solutions, a group, that as its name suggests, is focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation within Canadian agriculture.

The organization hired Leger, a market research firm, to conduct the survey.

It was done by phone from Aug. 8 to Sept. 8.

The headline question from the poll asked farmers to identify the top challenge for the agriculture sector over the next 10 years.

The results?

• 17.9 percent said climate change.
• Input costs were 17.2 percent.
• Government policy and regulations, 11.5 percent.
• Market uncertainty/price volatility, 9.8 percent.
• About 5.8 percent of respondents ranked severe weather as their No. 1 challenge over the next decade.

Brent Preston, president of Farmers for Climate Solutions, said the poll result was unexpected.

“I was surprised that climate change was right at the top. I thought it would be a concern for most producers, but I didn’t think it would be the number one concern,” said Preston, a vegetable grower from Creemore, Ont.

Farmers for Climate Solution decided to pay for a poll because it wanted information on how farmers feel about climate change and related issues.

He said it’s important to have this sort of data when meeting with federal and provincial officials.

“We’re hoping it will give us ammunition when we talk to politicians and policy makers,” he said.

“We can now say, ‘look, this is an issue that’s top of mind for producers and we’re hoping governments are going to do more to help up adapt.’ ”

East-west split

The poll suggests that Canadian farmers are anxious about climate change, but the details within the 37-page report tell a more nuanced story.

Eastern farmers are concerned about the climate, while western producers are less so:

• 116 farmers out of 450 respondents (26 per cent) from the East ranked climate change as the biggest challenge over the next decade.
• In the West, 38 of 408 respondents (9.3 per cent) said climate change was the biggest challenge.
• Nearly three times more farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes are worried about climate change.

The gap between East and West is striking, Preston acknowledged.

“There’s a very clear difference in perception or attitude,” he said, adding that farmers across Canada have some concerns about climate change.

“Everywhere in the country, climate change is in the top three.”

In its report, Farmers for Climate Solutions noted that Prairie farmers are less concerned about the issue.

“Input costs and government policies are seen as the top challenges (in the West).”

In more detail, 21 per cent of western farmers said input costs are their top challenge. About 16 per cent said government policy and regulations. Around 12 per cent cited market uncertainty and nine per cent said climate change.

The poll received responses from 858 people across Canada, including 247 farmers from Quebec. That’s nearly 29 per cent of the total for a province that has five per cent of the country’s arable land.

Comparing the total number of poll respondents, 450 out of 858 were from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. The remainder, 408, were from the West.

A critical piece of data that could be missing from the poll is the opinions of large-scale farmers.

Of all the producers who responded, about 50 percent said they have farm revenues of zero to $500,000. Only 7.6 per cent in the survey had revenues of $3 million or higher.

More large producers are likely needed in the survey to paint an accurate picture.

“You might be right. We may have over-represented small farmers,” Preston said, adding it was difficult for Leger to acquire lists and contact information of producers.

“The sample is definitely not perfect…. We’re not going to use these results to say that definitively, X percentage of farmers think (this or that) … but we think the sample is good enough to make some broad inferences.”

The post Climate change worries Canadian farmers: poll appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Federal minister Lawrence MacAulay and his Yukon counterpart, John Streicker, said during the closing news conference they held productive meetings on a wide number of topics.

However, there was no mention of changes to the capital gains inclusion rate, which at least two ministers said they raised and that have drawn criticism throughout the agricultural sector.

Both Saskatchewan minister David Marit and Alberta’s R.J. Sigurdson said they found support among their colleagues in that they agree the changes are harmful.

“The provinces are aligned,” Marit said during an interview after the meeting.

Ministers want to adjust both AgriRecovery and AgriStability, and Striecker said they would advance work on proposals at their next ministerial meeting.

MacAulay acknowledged that payments through AgriRecovery take too long.

“We want to make sure we get the money into the pockets of the farmers and ranchers quicker than we have been,” he said.

Streicker added it’s not productive to have to “fire up” a specialized program each time there is a natural disaster.

“We’re looking for something that will be more predictable across the board,” he said.

Ministers also agreed to advance the pesticide working group action plan so that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency makes decisions based on evidence.

Further discussions included preparedness for African swine fever, avian influenza in dairy cattle, trade and accelerating work on specified risk material regulations that currently put Canadian cattle producers at a disadvantage to their American counterparts.

The post Ag ministers discuss BRM changes  appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

But some senators suggested it should apply to everyone who could potentially threaten biosecurity.

The bill was ushered through Parliament by Conservative agriculture critic John Barlow, and he was the first witness to address the Senate committee on agriculture and forestry.

“What we tried to do with this legislation was form a bill that would make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the animals being exposed to a disease or toxic substance capable of affecting or contaminating those animals,” Barlow said.

The bill arose from a 2019 incident in his riding when about 40 people entered a free-range turkey barn near Fort Macleod. They then reported themselves to the police.

Barlow said the same protesters were on an Abbotsford, B.C. hog barn the previous week.

“They were not following biosecurity protocols. They could have easily been carrying a disease from one farm to another,” he said.

After an incident in Quebec, rotovirus appeared for the first time in 40 years, he said, and the California government has said protestors could have spread avian flu and caused the death of 250,000 birds.

“We see African swine fever, avian flu and foot and mouth disease, and we certainly see what’s happening with H5N1 and dairy cattle,” Barlow said. “We have to take every step we possibly can to ensure that our livestock, food supply and food security are protected.”

Alberta senator Paula Simons wondered whether the bill is trying to prevent protests.

“I guess the question at the heart of this is, Is this a law that uses the legitimate concerns about animal health as a way to keep out all protesters whether they are actually a risk to the animals or not?” she asked.

Barlow said people such as feed deliverers go through biosecurity protocols but protestors do not. Protesters are free to make their case on public land, he said.

Simons said someone legally going from farm to farm, such as a delivery driver, could actually be a greater risk if they don’t follow farm protocols.

Senator Mobina Jaffer, an egg farmer who recently lost an entire farm to avian flu, said farmers are told by their marketing boards that they must allow organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on their property.

It’s confusing to decide who is there lawfully and who isn’t, she said.

As much as she likes the bill as a farmer, she wondered if existing trespass laws already cover the situation.

Barlow said fines under the Criminal Code are not large enough to deter people, and often no one is charged at all.

Although the bill doesn’t specifically say “protesters”, Simons said the goal seems to be stopping them and cloaking that in the legitimate concerns of animal health.

“If I were you, I would be positioning my bill not as an attack on protesters but as an effort to prevent the spread of disease,” she said.

Barlow said the Commons agriculture committee discussed broadening the bill but felt the focus should be on those not following or aware of rules with regard to animal health.

He said C-275 is not an “ag gag” law, nor does it ban whistleblowers who he said are morally and legally obligated to report any activity that puts animals at risk.

Matthew Atkinson, president of Manitoba Beef Producers and co-chair of the Canadian Cattle Association animal health and care committee, said the organizations support the bill’s intent.

“There is a critical distinction between visits offered to those willing to follow prescribed biosecurity measures and sanitation practices and trespassers who could intentionally or unintentionally endanger animal health, welfare and food safety,” he told the committee.

Asked about expanding the bill’s scope to include everyone, Lauren Martin, senior director of government relations and policy at the Canadian Meat Council, said the existing wording is fine.

“We believe that it is broad enough to capture the intended audience of unlawful trespassers, yet specific enough to really address many of the industry’s initiatives that already protect biosecurity on farms,” she said.

Simons asked if it’s possible to separate the real problem of biohazard and the “annoyance” of protesters, although she acknowledged that might not be the correct characterization.

Martin said the issue is not how often trespassing occurs, but the possibility that it will.

She said including everyone could make it too broad and difficult to enforce.

Atkinson added there could be unintended consequences of including everyone.

“The fuel guy and the fertilizer guy and the feed guy might not want to set foot on my farm anymore for potential there. We have agreements in place but if something like this was worded that way, that would be my only concern,” he said.

Earlier this year, a judge struct down sections of a similar law in Ontario after animal rights advocates challenged it on constitutionality grounds. The court upheld the constitutionality of the overall law, but deemed certain sections undue infringements on the right to freedom of expression, as they penalized misstatements like denying affiliation with an animal rights group.

Similar laws are in place in provinces like Manitoba and Alberta.

The post Biosecurity bill draws questions from Senate ag committee appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Planned changes to the capital gains inclusion rate also drew specific concern and attention from the House of Commons’ agriculture committee.

In a May 27 letter to finance minister Chrystia Freeland, agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay and national revenue minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, 10 signatories said they are concerned about the capital gains inclusion rate, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the Canadian Entrepreneurs’ Incentive (CEI), which were all announced in April.

The letter said farmers appreciated the proposal to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE) to $1.25 million to reflect the appreciation of farmland values and capital demands.

“However, we are concerned with the potential impacts associated with Budget 2024’s proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate from one-half to two-thirds for corporations and from one-half to two-thirds on the portion of capital gains realized in the year that exceed $250,000 for individuals on or after June 25, 2024,” said the letter.

The organizations said Bill C-208, which took effect in 2021, recognized the significant costs that section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act placed on intergenerational transfers of farms and small businesses.

“Our concern is that by increasing the capital gains inclusion rate to two-thirds, we are neutralizing the increase to the LCGE threshold, undermining the policy intent of Bill C-208 and jeopardizing the success of genuine intergenerational farm transfers to young farmers across Canada,” they said.

MacAulay appeared at the standing agriculture committee May 30 to discuss the department’s main estimates. Asked about the letter, and whether agricultural stakeholders had been consulted about changes to the inclusion rate, he replied he doesn’t write the budget.

“Did I know what was going in the budget before it went into the budget? No.” he said.

Saskatchewan Conservative MP Warren Steinley appeared incredulous at that, later posting on X that the minister must sit at the kids’ table rather than at cabinet.

However, outgoing deputy minister Stefanie Beck confirmed later that the department sends in its proposals, and discussions happen only around those suggestions.

“I’m saying it would not have been the kind of proposal that we would have made,” she told the committee.

The letter recommends that all Bill C-208-eligible intergenerational farm transfers continue to be under the one-half inclusion rate and that any capital gains eligible for the LCGE be excluded from the calculation of the alternative minimum tax, even if the exemption is not claimed.

The organizations proposed several ways the government could address agriculture’s unique circumstances and avoid unintended consequences of planned personal income tax changes.

These include postponing implementation until January 2025, rather than June 25, 2024, to allow for more consultation and analysis.

They applauded the decision to introduce the CEI, which would reduce the tax rate on capital gains for qualifying disposals but recommended it be available to successive generations and not just first-generation businesses. The organizations noted that farm families commonly transfer shares from a parent to child through donation, which would make the child ineligible for the CEI.

“The tax implications of a proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate and the introduction of the CEI are significant and complex, requiring careful consideration,” the letter said.

“As implicated stakeholders we need time to do a more fulsome assessment of these tax changes to ensure there are no unintended consequences.”

The letter notes the AMT requires high tax payments and although they are recoverable against taxes payable in future years, a seller must have sufficient income to pay taxes. Otherwise, the tax becomes permanent.

Retiring farmers often don’t have enough income to recover the funds.

“In these circumstances, AMT essentially undermines the utility of the LCGE, making impacted farm transfers more costly and negatively affecting the financial health of both the retiring party and next generation,” the letter said.

The organizations also said farms use diverse operating structures, such as holding companies, and recommended the CEI not discriminate against those who use different structures.

The 10 signatories are the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Cattle Association, Fruit and vegetable Growers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association, Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Sugar Beet Producers Association.

The post Farm groups criticize capital gains inclusion rate change appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

While some have praised aspects of the plan, others have condemned the lack of attention paid to agriculture and farmers.

The Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) stated that they were “cautiously optimistic” to see recognition of the effectiveness of the livestock deferral tax in an April 16 news release.

“Beef producers are encouraged to see the Livestock Tax Deferral in Budget 2024 and we are hopeful that meaningful change will come quickly as we head into another extremely dry season in Western Canada,” CCA President Nathan Phinney was quoted as saying in the release.

He continued by saying that he felt the announcement was “an indication that the government will make a change and work with ranchers to find a solution that addresses extreme weather challenges for producers across the country.”

CCA also praised the budget’s efforts toward supporting the Copyright act.

Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) said in an April 16 release that they welcome the “capital gains exemption on the sale of small business shares and farming and fishing property to $1.25 million,” as most dairy farmers own land.

They also acknowledged the government’s announcement of a national school lunch program: “Dairy products are a source of fifteen essential nutrients and are a top contributor of protein and calcium in the diets of Canadian children.”

The DFC went on to note the government’s commitment to help protect farmers from the effects of climate change, but said they were “disappointed that the government has not taken this opportunity to specifically commit to revising Canada’s business risk management programs for agriculture.”

Other organizations’ reactions were more negative.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) said in their own April 17 release that they were “disappointed to see a lack of investment in Canadian agriculture in the 2024 budget.”

CFA President Keith Currie acknowledged the government’s “competing priorities” in the release, but also said that “the government can ill-afford to ignore food production and Canadian farmers.”

The CFA made note of what it called “positive investments,” such as the launch of interoperability consultations and carbon rebates for small businesses, but lamented that “there was no mention of pivotal issues for the sector such as investments in environmental programming, chronic labour issues in food production or improvements to transportation and trade infrastructure.”

“If Canadian agriculture is to seize its full economic and climate potential,” Currie was quoted as saying, “we cannot keep missing opportunities while our international competitors continue to invest in their agriculture industries.”

The Wheat Growers Association was particularly critical of the budget, calling it “woefully bloated” and saying it “falls short in addressing Canadian farmers’ real concerns.”

Their April 16 news release criticized the government for not understanding the impacts of the carbon tax on wheat growers.

“Once again, the federal government has missed the opportunity to support agriculture and those that work in the industry,” Chair Daryl Fransoo was quoted as saying.

“The real issues impacting us are the cumulative effect of the carbon tax on everything that we do, the growing need to have coordinated grain research, increased funding for the PMRA, and industry efficiency through an improved Canada Grains Act.”

They mentioned the failure to pass bill C-234, which they said would provide “immediate relief to grain farmers from the negative impact of the carbon tax on grain drying.”

The Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) made similar complaints. Their April 16 press release expressed disappointment in the lack of any update to the Canada Grains Act.

“The Canada Grains Act is the enabling legislation that supports grain farmers and needs to be modernized to reflect the realities of 2024,” GGC Executive Director Kyle Larkin said in the statement.

“Unfortunately, this budget has shortcomings in key policy priorities for farmers, such as infrastructure, innovation, tax incentives, and delays in other policy areas.”

The post Federal budget draws mixed reaction from Canadian ag groups appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“A shift is needed in how we invest in our agri-food sector to protect Canada’s domestic food supply, and ensure sufficient, appropriate, and accessible food for all,” the Canadian Organic Trade Association (COTA) said in an email to members on Monday.

COTA launched an online petition on April 2 sponsored by NDP MP Alistair MacGregor.

The petition says that Canadian consumers are driving strong demand for organic food, and asks the federal government to establish policies and programs to “encourage growth in the domestic supply of organic to meet the market opportunity,” and to “meaningfully recognize and incentivize sustainable resilient food systems, such as organic, across all departments that relate to Canadian food policy.”

The petition needs at least 500 signatures to be presented to the House of Commons. On Wednesday morning, petition e-4909 had 596 signatures.

In September, national organic groups launched a national organic action plan, which included a push for greater support through federal policy and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s work.

At the time, COTA executive director Tia Loftsgard said that while the federal government provides some funding for organic research and developing export strategies, overall support is “nominal.”

“We get lost in the fold,” she told the Manitoba Co-operator.

This petition supports some of the objectives behind the national organic plan, Loftsgard said in an email yesterday.
While petitions rarely result in immediate policy change, Loftsgard said they can be an effective tool to keep a topic front-of-mind in the House of Commons.

“This petition provides us another forum to talk about the needs of the organic sector with consumers and government and in the broader context of the Organic Action Plan,” Loftsgard said. “It also allows supporters of organic to add their voice to our advocacy efforts and to showcase to their Members of Parliament the broad support for organic across the nation.”

People can sign the petition until May 2.

The post Organic group send petition to federal government appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

There has been a lot of opposition to the bill from grain and livestock exporters who say entire deals are at risk if the supply managed sectors are kept off the table. The bill is currently in second reading in the Senate.

Speaking at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting today, Verheul said each side always has its “red lines” when talks start, so they aren’t really a surprise.

“I really see this more as a political signal of support to the dairy sector and to supply management more broadly,” he said.

“We’ve already negotiated with most of the major dairy exporters to Canada.

“I don’t think there’s actually an imminent threat. This is about politics, about support. I don’t expect this to have a huge impact on negotiations going forward.”

Verheul said Canada would prefer that politics be kept out of trade and let markets operate. He said while the World Trade Organization at the moment is fundamentally broken, bilateral agreements are working well and where most efforts need to take place.

He was Canada’s chief negotiator from 2017-21, working on the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the free trade deal with Europe. Between 2003 and 2009 he was Canada’s chief agricultural negotiator.

—Karen Briere writes for the Western Producer from Saskatchewan.

The post Bill to protect supply management unlikely to harm trade talks appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The PBO provides independent economic and financial analysis to Canada’s Parliament.

Initially, the bill proposed to exempt fuels used in grain drying, barn and greenhouse heating from the price of carbon for eight years. The PBO projected farmers would have saved $115 million in carbon taxes by 2026 if this version had passed.

The current, heavily amended version, will reduce those savings to $26 million.

This doesn’t include any carbon price rebates farmers might receive.

The Senate amended the bill to remove exemptions for heating buildings and to reduce the bill’s sunset clause to three years from eight.

The original bill passed 176 to 146 in the House of Commons in early 2023. It is again under debate in the House, where Conservative MP Ben Lobb put forward a motion that the bill be stripped of its amendments and returned to the Senate.

The post Carbon exemption amendments costly to farmers: PBO appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“We are very hopeful that Members of Parliament will continue to show their support for farmers and that they won’t flip flop and change their vote,” said Dave Carey, co-chair of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance.

Bill C-234, which would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Price Act, was once again the subject of debate as Parliament resumed today. Conservative MP Ben Lobb tabled a motion to essentially reject the Senate’s amendments to the bill.

In an email exchange, Carey explained that if this motion is carried, the amendments made in the Senate would be eliminated. However, the bill would return to the Senate for another reading.

Late last year, the Senate voted to amend Bill C-234 to remove greenhouse and barn heating from the proposed exemptions, and to reduce the bill’s sunset clause to three years from eight. This left only the proposed exemption for fuels used to dry grain.

If the motion passes, Carey said he doubted the Senate would try to amend the bill again.

“That would raise a legitimate question of constitutionality and the role of the Senate,” he said.

When the bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons in March 2023, it did so with support from the NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Conservatives and a few Liberal MPs. Today, alongside Conservative MPs, NDP MP Alistair MacGregor spoke in favour of the motion, as did Liberal MP Kody Blois. Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux spoke against it.

Bloc Quebecois MP Yves Perron, speaking through French translation, said he is is in favour of Bill C-234 but said he was concerned that the bill would be embroiled in a ping-pong match between houses.

He suggested the bill should be passed as-is while it’s in the House’s grasp.

“We have a gain now on the grain drying. I think we should take it,” Perron said in an interview, adding that further work could be done afterward to get an exemption for building heating.

He cited the partisan environment exhibited in the Senate, which included accusations of intimidation during debate around the bill.

“If we send back the bill to the Senate, well, when will it come back?” he said.

Perron said he’s in favour of widespread carbon price exemptions for agriculture because of the need to compete with subsidized farmers in the U.S. and E.U.

The motion did not go to a vote today. Carey said he’s hopeful it could be voted on next Tuesday.

Proponents of Bill C-234 are concerned it will be endlessly delayed and die on the order paper.

“With the carbon price set up to increase this April again, we are urging the Liberals not to delay it and to let it go to a vote as soon as possible,” Carey said.

–Updated Jan. 30. A previous version referred to Yves Perron as leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

The post Motion to squash Bill C-234 amendments put to MPs  appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

It should reflect regional differences, recognize early adopters and improve data and measurement.

The “what we heard” report was posted to Agriculture Canada’s website during the holiday season. It outlines the feedback from consultations, workshops and written submissions gathered between December 2022 and March 2023.

A final strategy was supposed to be released in late 2023, but the department now says it will be sometime this year.

Stakeholders said direct incentives to increase the adoption of best management practices and technology were critical. Farmers have to see the financial sense of changing practices.

“They emphasized that incentives needed to be long-term and should consider the cost of adoption, return on investment and the ecological goods and services provided. Furthermore, incentives and support must be made available to a variety of farm sizes, particularly to those who do not have the capacity to measure GHG emissions or carbon sequestration, or are unable to afford costly clean technologies,” the report said.

Both smaller and larger farmers had concerns.

Small and medium-sized farmers said they didn’t have large enough financial buffers if they attempted to implement a new practice and failed.

“Large-scale producers were concerned around their ability to remain competitive and profitable in global markets, competing against producers from other countries with different policy and programming support from their respective governments,” said the report.

“Small-scale producers who participated in the consultation noted their financial struggles and inability to access government funding and programming for a variety of reasons, including high cost-share ratios and disappearing local and regional infrastructure (grain terminals and abattoirs) vital for their survival.”

The need to recognize early adopters was often mentioned in the best management practices discussion. These producers have already tackled change but can’t access current government programs. The report said these producers should be viewed as mentors and leaders and their success publicized to encourage others to follow suit.

The loss of agricultural land was also mentioned, particularly by respondents from Ontario and British Columbia. Participants were concerned about who was buying land and why, and the discussion included increased calls to better regulate foreign ownership of farmland, the purchase of farmland for non-agricultural purposes and the overall consolidation of agricultural land in fewer hands.

Respondents noted data gaps and the lack of a cohesive, consistent measuring policy around agri-environmental data collection and analysis at all levels.

Nationally, there were concerns about how agriculture is modelled in the National Inventory Report. Regionally, the data is fragmented and drawn from many sources, which makes it difficult to develop comprehensive, valid data sets.

“And at the local level, producers need tools to measure and collect data on their farms, helping them make production decisions and more informed investments. Overall, there was a strong call for a data strategy to collect, manage and communicate data on GHG emissions, biodiversity, water, soil health and resilience, with solutions to address the data and measurement challenges developed with the sector and various stakeholders at different levels to effectively measure change,” said the report.

The report is based on 420 responses; 41 percent of those were producers while six percent represented producer or industry associations.

—Karen Briere writes for the Western Producer from Saskatchewan.

The post Farmers demand incentives for environmental changes appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.