Articles et réflexions

Two very different risks are moving back onto Canadian farm planning sheets. One could raise fuel and transportation costs quickly. The other shows how fall migration can turn a familiar animal-health threat into movement controls around poultry farms.

A U.S. diesel restriction remains uncertain, but Canada is exposed

Donald Trump said he supported restricting U.S. diesel exports to bring down domestic prices. The suggestion immediately raised concern because diesel prices are already high and U.S. refineries supply a significant share of the international market.

No ban has been adopted. On September 23, the White House denied that it was preparing a 90-day export ban. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright also said a flat ban was not under consideration and that officials were discussing voluntary ways to increase domestic supply.

The Canadian impact would vary by region. Western refineries could cushion part of the effect on Prairie farms. Eastern Canada is more dependent on imported U.S. refined products, at roughly 130,000 barrels per day. Even a partial restriction could tighten supply and raise diesel costs in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, with added pressure on harvest work, input deliveries and freight.

The proposal has no announced terms, duration or start date, so its eventual effect cannot yet be priced with confidence. The immediate lesson is about exposure: a U.S. measure aimed at American fuel prices could move rapidly into Canadian farm operating costs.

My view: The idea appears to be gaining support among Republicans, and that is worrying. We are in the middle of harvest with diesel already very expensive. Any increase caused by export restrictions would hit our operations hard and add significant inflationary pressure.

Related reading: Farm diesel was already putting pressure on margins in late August.

Six Manitoba poultry sites are now under bird flu controls

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency listed six active infected premises in Manitoba on September 23. The first fall case was confirmed September 10 in the Rural Municipality of De Salaberry. Five more commercial poultry sites were added on September 21 and 22 in Cartier, Rockwood, Rhineland, Bifrost-Riverton and Woodlands.

Each site is under quarantine and within a primary control zone that restricts movement. Manitoba is advising bird owners to keep flocks indoors where possible, postpone poultry gatherings and strengthen biosecurity during fall migration.

There were no active infected premises in Quebec or Ontario as of September 23. That does not make the development a Manitoba-only concern. CFIA is asking bird owners across Canada to watch for sudden deaths, prevent contact with wild birds and report suspected infections quickly.

The agency also stresses that avian influenza is not considered a food-safety risk from properly cooked poultry or eggs. The HPAI virus found in U.S. dairy cattle has not been detected in Canadian domestic flocks.

Sources

• Reuters, September 23, 2026: White House denies preparing a flat diesel export ban
• Farmtario: potential impact of a U.S. restriction on Eastern Canada
• CFIA: status of the avian influenza response by province
• CFIA: investigations and orders for domestic birds

Canada has crossed a new threshold in its watch for spotted lanternfly. In September, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed a live insect in the environment during an official survey in Windsor, Ontario. That is more significant than finding a specimen on freight or a vehicle, but it does not yet mean the pest is established in Canada.

An official detection, not yet an established population

The CFIA classifies the Windsor case as a “detection.” In the agency’s terminology, that means a live spotted lanternfly was confirmed in the Canadian environment during an official survey. An established population would require evidence of a reproducing population. The agency says no established population has been confirmed in Canada.

The distinction matters. Live and dead lanternflies have been intercepted on goods and vehicles for several years, while some public reports could not be confirmed. In August 2026, a live specimen was intercepted at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec. That interception does not prove the insect is established in the province, but it shows that the pathway into Canada remains active.

Vineyards and orchards have the most at stake

Native to Asia and present in the United States since 2014, spotted lanternfly feeds on the sap of many plants. The CFIA considers it a potential threat to grape, fruit tree and forestry industries. Grapevines are among its important hosts, along with apple, plum, cherry and peach trees and several forest species.

Its ability to hitchhike adds to the risk. Females can lay egg masses on smooth surfaces such as stone, outdoor furniture and vehicles, allowing the pest to travel long distances without moving on nursery stock. Canada has regulated spotted lanternfly as a plant pest since 2018.

Climate can amplify the risk without carrying the insect

This particular arrival cannot be attributed to climate change. Human activity is the main pathway for long-distance introduction and spread: eggs and insects hitchhike on goods, vehicles, trailers, firewood and outdoor furniture. Climate did not carry the insect to Windsor.

It can influence what happens next. US Forest Service research found that spotted lanternfly can tolerate more variable temperature regimes than previously understood and that its potential climatic range may include areas once considered too cold. Milder winters and longer warm seasons can therefore make establishment and expansion more likely, even though this individual detection cannot be blamed on warming.

That is one more consequence farmers may have to manage. Vineyards face the most immediate threat today, but tomorrow another invasive species could affect any farm sector. As with other recent crop pest and disease signals in Ontario and Quebec, surveillance and biosecurity matter well beyond the producers already affected.

Early detection remains the practical priority

The Windsor finding does not mean Canadian vineyards are infested. It does warrant closer surveillance in wine-growing regions and along transportation corridors. The CFIA asks Canadians to report suspected specimens. At this stage, prompt reporting and effective surveys will determine whether the pest can be contained before it becomes established.

Sources: Spotted lanternfly observations in Canada, CFIA; scientific fact sheet on Lycorma delicatula, CFIA; spotted lanternfly spread pathway, USDA APHIS; study of its potential climatic range, US Forest Service.

An insect normally associated with Prairie wheat has turned up much farther east. Orange wheat blossom midge was found this season in winter wheat fields across parts of Ontario and was also reported in Quebec. The finding does not yet establish widespread economic damage, but it points to a surveillance gap in central and eastern Canada.

Wheat midge appears in unusual eastern locations

Farmtario reports that wheat midge was identified in winter wheat in south-central, central and eastern Ontario, as well as in Quebec wheat fields. Quebec’s CÉROM has received reports from different parts of the province. Researchers are still assessing how widely the insect has spread and whether it caused measurable yield or quality losses.

The season’s weather may help explain the unusual activity. Prolonged snow cover over unfrozen soil could have insulated overwintering larvae. Spring rainfall, followed by warm nights that lined up with wheat heading and flowering, may then have created favourable conditions for adult emergence and egg laying.

The larvae feed on developing kernels. Infested heads can contain shrivelled or missing grain, and badly affected heads may die prematurely. That can reduce yield or downgrade grain quality. For now, however, the evidence supports closer scouting and monitoring, not the conclusion that eastern wheat has suffered a major regional outbreak.

The management challenge is that Canadian winter wheat varieties do not carry wheat-midge resistance. The registered insecticide option, dimethoate, must be timed against adults during a narrow crop stage and does not provide a simple answer after larvae begin feeding. Crop specialists are therefore calling for expanded trapping and monitoring in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of eastern Canada before the 2027 season.

Read Farmtario’s September 14 report.

Three issues stood out to me this week: the agricultural commitments being made by Quebec’s political parties, the trade escalation now directly affecting the dairy sector, and the cost of agricultural credit. They are very different issues, but they have one thing in common: all three can directly influence decisions made on the farm.

Quebec parties put numbers behind their agricultural commitments

The election campaign reached an important stage this week as several parties moved from broad statements to specific, costed commitments. The Quebec Liberal Party announced $560 million over four years, the Parti Québécois at least $450 million over four years, Québec solidaire an additional $210 million per year for the MAPAQ along with a $500-million climate fund, while the CAQ presented $56 million for farm succession and measures aimed at reducing administrative burden.

The real point, however, is not simply to compare the totals. What matters is which measures can actually change something on farms: access to financing, succession, farmland protection, local purchasing, income support or less paperwork.

I have brought my analyses together on the page covering the agricultural proposals of Quebec’s political parties in the 2026 election, which will continue to be updated as new commitments are announced.

See the Quebec Liberal Party’s agricultural announcement and the Parti Québécois announcement.

Trade tensions are now directly affecting the dairy sector

Canadian counter-tariffs took effect on September 8 on $27.6 billion worth of U.S. imports, including dairy products and some agricultural equipment. The same day, the United States announced that certain Canadian dairy products will be excluded from the U.S. market beginning September 29, while others remain subject to additional duties.

The issue therefore moved this week from political threats and announcements to concrete measures affecting dairy trade and some equipment costs.

For now, I would rather remain cautious. I still do not know what the real consequences of these measures will be for our production. The announcements are significant, but we will need to see how they translate on the ground for producers before drawing conclusions.

See the federal list of U.S. products subject to counter-tariffs and the U.S. announcement concerning certain Canadian dairy products.

Agricultural borrowing costs remain under pressure

Farm Credit Canada notes that persistently high bond yields can limit the effect of a more accommodative monetary policy. For farms, that means the actual cost of financing can remain high even if the policy rate does not rise.

This is a very practical issue. A change of even a few points in financing costs can completely alter the economics of a new barn, a milking robot, a land purchase or a major refinancing.

What happens next is difficult to predict. In a context where tariffs imposed by Canada and the United States could themselves add to inflation, we might normally expect upward pressure on interest rates. On the other hand, the Bank of Canada could also want to support the economy and encourage investment if activity slows. Between inflation and the need to stimulate the economy, the direction agricultural borrowing costs actually take remains something to watch.

Read Farm Credit Canada’s analysis of tariffs and bond yields.

What to take away

This week was not dominated by a single major agricultural story, but by three sources of uncertainty that can weigh on producers’ decisions. Political parties are now proposing more concrete measures, but their real impact still has to be assessed. The trade war is beginning to touch the dairy sector directly, without anyone yet knowing how far the consequences will go. And financing remains expensive at a time when many farms need to invest to improve productivity.

In other words, the coming months may require as much caution in financial decisions as attention to political ones.

Washington’s response to Canada’s counter-tariffs now directly affects dairy trade. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on September 8 that will bar several Canadian products from entering the United States starting September 29, while a separate revision adds Canadian cheeses to the list of goods facing a 50 per cent tariff on September 15.

The ban covers whey, not the entire dairy sector

The White House describes the measure as an import ban on certain Canadian dairy products. The official annex provides a much narrower and more precise picture: it lists whey protein concentrates and several forms of modified, fluid and dried whey. It also includes certain molasses products and non-alcoholic beer, which are not dairy products.

Fluid milk, butter and yogurt do not appear in the annex. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the measure as a complete closure of the U.S. market to Canadian dairy. For the listed products, however, the change is more severe than a tariff that merely weakens competitiveness: imports will be prohibited as of September 29. Goods imported but not yet entered for consumption by that date will remain subject to the previous 50 per cent duty.

Canadian cheese remains eligible for entry, at a steep price

The administration is also modifying the scope of the tariffs announced in July. Various Canadian cheeses are being added to the list of products subject to a 50 per cent duty beginning September 15. Those cheeses are not banned outright, but a tariff of that size could remove much of their competitiveness in the U.S. market.

Washington says the measures are a response to Canada’s continued use of tariff-rate quota allocation rules for U.S. dairy products. The proclamation relies on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose duties of up to 50 per cent and, in certain circumstances, exclude products from a country accused of discriminating against U.S. commerce.

The United States had far more to lose

The announcement came on the same day Canada’s counter-tariffs began applying to U.S. goods, including several cheeses and whey products. Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada must accelerate investment and trade diversification, while acknowledging that the shift will carry short-term costs.

The dairy trade relationship remains highly asymmetrical. In 2025, the United States exported about $1.3 billion in dairy products to Canada while importing roughly $433 million from Canada. Canada’s measures therefore threaten a U.S. trade flow almost three times larger.

That does not make the American decision harmless. Canadian processors specializing in whey or export cheeses may still face serious losses. Across the bilateral dairy trade as a whole, however, the United States had more sales at risk.

My view: Oh no… I am heartbroken… Frankly, these measures affect relatively little. The United States exported far more dairy products to Canada than Canada exported to the United States. Looking strictly at the dairy side of this trade conflict, Canada still comes out ahead.

Sources: White House proclamation, official annex listing the banned products, Reuters and University of Wisconsin.

Canada’s counter-tariffs announced in August took effect at 12:01 a.m. on September 8. For agriculture, the issue is no longer limited to trade-war rhetoric: the final schedule now adds duties to specific U.S. food products and selected equipment used on farms.

Cheese, whey and honey face direct tariffs

Canada is applying duties of 15, 25 or 50 per cent to $27.6 billion in U.S. imports. In the agri-food portion of the schedule, most listed American cheeses, including cheddar, mozzarella, brie, gouda and parmesan, face a 25 per cent tariff. Several classes of whey and other natural milk constituents are subject to a 50 per cent duty, as is natural honey.

The measures are a dollar-for-dollar response to U.S. tariffs that took effect on August 22. They may improve the relative position of Canadian products in the domestic market, but the outcome will depend on actual import volumes and whether buyers can switch suppliers. Food processors that rely on particular American ingredients may instead face higher input costs.

The farm machinery coverage is narrower than the label suggests

The official schedule does not impose a blanket tariff on every tractor and combine. It specifically includes certain mowers and tractor-mounted cutter bars at 15 per cent, parts for harvesting machinery at 15 per cent, and farm or livestock trailers at 25 per cent. Depending on their tariff classification, some handling equipment, pumps, compressors and components may also be affected.

Country of origin and tariff classification will therefore matter for any farm preparing a purchase. A machine sold by an American brand is not automatically covered if it was built elsewhere, while a U.S.-origin part may attract a duty during an urgent repair. The practical impact should become clearer in quotes from dealers and suppliers.

For context on today’s implementation, see also the earlier analysis of the announcement and its possible consequences for Canadian dairy.

Retaliation carries a domestic cost

Ottawa is trying to create political leverage in the United States, but some of the immediate pressure falls on Canadian importers and customers. Farms may respond by delaying capital purchases, buying used equipment or looking for suppliers outside the United States.

Implementation is a material development from the August announcement. The next useful evidence will come from actual price changes and from the responses of farm equipment dealers, food processors and importers over the coming weeks.

My view: As a dairy farmer, I am pleased that more of the demand may now be met by our own products. However, I worry that consumers will have to pay the price. With 25 per cent duties on many American cheeses and 50 per cent duties on certain whey products, the risk of higher prices is very real.

Sources: Department of Finance Canada’s official tariff schedule, Reuters and Wisconsin Public Radio.

This week’s agricultural numbers look fairly good at first glance. But a closer look at three stories tells a much more nuanced story: the good news is not benefiting every sector equally and, in agriculture, producing more never guarantees earning more.

Livestock and field crops are not having the same year

Canadian farm cash receipts rose 4.2% in the first half of 2026. In Quebec, the increase was 3.0%. But the national figure hides very different realities across sectors. Livestock receipts increased 8.7%, while crop producers continue to face expensive inputs and tighter margins.

Looking back, this contrast does not really surprise me. Beef prices are high, while on the grain side, input costs remain high and are eating into profit margins. An increase in overall farm receipts therefore does not necessarily mean that every farm has more money in its pocket.

Earlier this week, we also looked at how corn and soybean margins remain under pressure in Quebec.

See Statistics Canada’s farm cash receipts data

Canola shows the tangible value of diversifying our markets

Perhaps the most encouraging trade statistic of the week came from canola. Canadian canola exports jumped 43.2% in July. Over the first seven months of 2026, they were 32.2% higher than during the same period in 2025. Increased shipments to China, Pakistan and Japan accounted for much of that growth.

The number is even more interesting because Canadian exports to countries other than the United States reached a record level in July. The trade diversification we have been talking about for months is therefore beginning to produce measurable results.

I’m happy to see Canadian markets becoming more diversified. It reduces our dependence on the United States and strengthens us overall by sheltering us a little more from the Trump government’s craziness. No new market will replace our American neighbour on its own, but having more outlets gives us more room to manoeuvre.

On Thursday, I devoted an analysis to the jump in Canadian canola exports.

See Statistics Canada’s international trade data

Garlic and tomatoes: the trap of abundance

Two Quebec vegetable stories illustrated an economic problem as old as commerce itself this week. Quebec garlic has successfully gained market share from imported products, but increased production is now creating difficult competition among growers. Meanwhile, a generous tomato harvest is forcing farms to move large volumes quickly.

It is the same thing in almost any industry. When a product gains popularity and value, new producers want to benefit from the opportunity. Supply increases and, unfortunately, eventually puts downward pressure on prices.

With perishable food, the problem is even harsher and largely unavoidable. A manufacturer can sometimes slow production or hold inventory. A vegetable grower does not have that luxury. Once the crop is ready, it has to be sold.

Read La Terre de chez nous on Quebec garlic and its report on the abundant tomato harvest.

What to take away

This week is mainly a reminder to be careful with isolated statistics. Farm receipts are rising, but not equally everywhere. Canola exports are growing strongly, confirming the value of expanding our markets. And in Quebec, garlic and tomatoes show the other side of the equation: when production succeeds faster than the market grows, success itself can put pressure on prices.

Ultimately, producing is only part of the job. We also need to be able to buy inputs at reasonable costs and, above all, find markets capable of absorbing what we produce at prices that allow farms to make a living.

Canadian agricultural trade moved against the national trend in July. While total merchandise exports declined, farm, fishing and intermediate food products recorded a meaningful increase. Canola was a major contributor, offering a concrete sign that efforts to broaden Canada’s export markets are producing results.

Canola shipments rise 43.2% in one month

Statistics Canada reported on September 3 that exports of farm, fishing and intermediate food products increased 5.5% in July. The category reached its highest level since March 2023 even as Canada’s total merchandise exports fell 2.3%.

The gain was especially pronounced in canola. Exports jumped 43.2% in July, driven mainly by stronger shipments to China, Pakistan and Japan. Over the first seven months of 2026, Canadian canola exports were 32.2% higher than during the same period in 2025.

Diversification is becoming visible in the trade data

One strong month does not guarantee that demand from these markets will continue at the same pace. It does show that Asian buyers can absorb more Canadian canola while trade relations with the United States remain unsettled. Following the recently reported purchase by Pakistan, the July figures confirm that this market is already registering in Canada’s official trade data.

For growers, the value of this development will depend on whether the volumes persist and translate into stronger farmgate prices. Still, growth spread across three destinations is more reassuring than a surge tied to a single buyer because it reduces some of the concentration risk in Canadian agricultural exports.

My view: Donald Trump’s first tariffs showed how urgently Canada needed to diversify its markets. China’s return accounts for an important share of this increase, but sales to Pakistan and Japan also show that our efforts are bearing fruit elsewhere. This is exactly what Canada needs to do: develop more outlets and become less dependent on any single trading partner.

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian international merchandise trade, July 2026

Canadian agriculture is absorbing several decisions with direct consequences for financing, risk management, research capacity, and export logistics. The Bank of Canada has held its policy rate as tariff uncertainty grows, Ottawa has named the first regions eligible for the 2026 livestock tax deferral, federal research herds are being sold or relocated, and grain is moving through the Port of Churchill for the first time in six years.

The Bank of Canada holds its policy rate at 2.25%

The Bank of Canada kept its policy rate at 2.25% on September 2. The Bank Rate remains at 2.5% and the deposit rate at 2.20%. The policy rate has been unchanged since October 2025.

Canada’s economy strengthened in the second quarter, with gross domestic product growing at an annualized rate of 3.3%. The Bank nevertheless warned that new U.S. tariffs, Canadian counter-tariffs, and persistently high energy prices have made the outlook less certain.

Headline inflation was close to 3% in July, largely because of gasoline. Inflation excluding gasoline was 2.2%, while measures of core inflation remained near 2%. The Bank said tariffs could raise costs for some businesses and eventually feed into consumer prices.

For leveraged farms, holding the rate avoids an immediate increase in the benchmark cost of borrowing, but it also delays the prospect of relief. Agricultural loans do not all move one-for-one with the policy rate, although the decision generally influences variable-rate financing, operating lines, and the cost of new debt.

My view: This decision is hardly surprising in the current context, with major new U.S. tariffs having just taken effect. The Bank likely wants to remain cautious and wait to see how the situation develops before changing its policy rate.

Read the Bank of Canada decision

Ottawa names the first regions eligible for the 2026 livestock tax deferral

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has released its initial list of regions eligible for the 2026 Livestock Tax Deferral. The provision is intended for producers who must sell part of a breeding herd because drought, excess moisture, or flooding has reduced forage supplies.

A producer must reduce the breeding herd by at least 15% to qualify. A portion of the sale income can then be deferred to a later tax year and may be partly offset by the cost of buying replacement breeding animals when conditions improve.

The first list includes areas in Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, and Quebec. Ottawa says regions close to the affected zones can also be prescribed and that the list will be updated as weather, climate, and production data become available.

The measure does not replace lost production or the breeding animals that were sold. Its practical value is that a forced herd reduction does not immediately create a tax bill that compounds a cash-flow crisis. Timely additions to the eligibility map will be important as conditions evolve.

My view: Governments are often criticized for failing to give agriculture enough consideration. This measure, however, is clearly designed to support farmers who have faced difficult circumstances. It deserves recognition.

Read the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announcement

See the prescribed regions

Federal research cattle are being sold as stations close

Cattle from federal research facilities in Lacombe, Alberta, and Nappan, Nova Scotia, are being sold or relocated this fall as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada winds down beef research at those sites.

Nappan had already sold about 130 animals earlier in 2026. Another 96 cows and 93 calves are expected to be sold this fall after the cows are bred. At Lacombe, roughly 100 animals from a herd of about 450 will be moved to Lethbridge for continued cow-calf research, while the remainder are slated for public auction.

Two purebred herds associated with federal researchers at the University of Alberta, consisting of about 120 Charolais and 180 Angus females, are also scheduled for sale in December. Agriculture Canada ended federal beef research at Lacombe, Nappan, and Quebec City as part of departmental cost reductions announced in January.

The auctions may give producers access to strong genetics, and some sale proceeds will support research through the Canada/Alberta Livestock Research Trust. Still, the movement of the cattle is also a concrete measure of lost public research capacity. Animals, long-term datasets, specialized staff, and research infrastructure are much harder to rebuild than a budget line.

My view: I am stunned. Losing this research capacity is a serious setback. This is not merely about selling cattle or closing facilities; it puts part of the future of Canada’s food security at risk.

Read The Western Producer report

Churchill loads its first grain vessel since 2020

The Port of Churchill is loading approximately 30,000 tonnes of Western Canadian durum wheat bound for Europe. It is the port’s first grain export vessel since 2020 and the first of three grain ships planned for the 2026 season.

The shipment is part of a multi-year agreement between AGT Food and Ingredients and Arctic Gateway Group. The northern route provides a shorter connection from Western Canada to customers in Europe and the Mediterranean, while offering an alternative to the country’s more heavily used east- and west-coast corridors.

Churchill once moved more than 400,000 tonnes of grain annually, but shipments fell to zero in 2016 and only briefly resumed in 2019 and 2020. Recent work has included track rehabilitation, bridge reconstruction, and structural reinforcement of grain-handling infrastructure that largely dates from the 1930s.

Three vessels do not yet make Churchill a major grain gateway. The railway remains vulnerable to flooding and shifting permafrost, and the port needs sustained investment. Even so, restoring a functioning northern export route has added strategic value while Canadian agriculture is under pressure to diversify markets and transportation options.

My view: This is excellent news. Canada is developing its markets more independently while improving its ability to deliver grain to international customers. Restoring this route gives our agricultural sector another strategic option.

Read the RealAgriculture report

Canada’s August 31 farm news points to a stronger flow of gross revenue, but also to important differences between sectors and regions. National farm cash receipts rose in the first half of 2026, while Alberta announced that it will remove approval requirements for some routine farm work affecting temporary and seasonal wetlands.

Canadian farm cash receipts rise, but the figures do not measure profit

Canadian farm cash receipts reached $51.8 billion from January to June 2026, up $2.1 billion, or 4.2 per cent, from the same period in 2025. The first-half increase is notable after receipts had declined during the first quarter.

Livestock receipts rose 8.7 per cent to $23.2 billion, with strong prices, particularly for cattle, accounting for a significant share of the gain. Crop receipts increased 4.1 per cent to $27.1 billion.

Direct program payments moved sharply in the opposite direction. They fell 35.5 per cent to $1.5 billion, largely because crop insurance payments were lower. Reduced indemnities can reflect improved growing conditions, but they also lowered the contribution of government programs to total receipts.

Farm cash receipts are a measure of gross revenue, not profit. They do not subtract operating expenses, debt payments or depreciation. With production costs still elevated, the 4.2 per cent increase should not be read as proof that farm margins improved by the same amount.

My view: This is good news. The 4.2 per cent increase is above the 12-month inflation rate, which stood at 3.0 per cent in July. Overall, this means more liquidity in real terms for farm businesses, although the effect will vary by sector and according to how their expenses have changed.

Read the Statistics Canada release

Alberta plans to remove approvals for routine work in temporary wetlands

Alberta says it will amend the Water Regulation and the Alberta Wetland Policy this fall so farmers can carry out certain routine activities on cropland without first obtaining a Water Act approval. The change is aimed at temporary and seasonal wetlands and areas where water pools on farmland.

The province says the exemption will make it easier to cultivate, seed, spray, ditch, drain and infill on cropland. It argues that the current process can cost producers thousands of dollars and delay low-risk field work. Pulse growers have welcomed greater flexibility because peas and lentils are particularly vulnerable to excess moisture.

The environmental trade-off will need close attention. Temporary wetlands can still provide habitat, water storage and water-quality benefits even when they are not permanent Crown-owned water bodies. The practical significance of the change will depend on the final wording of the amendments, including which activities and wetlands qualify and what protections remain for connected or permanent water bodies.

My view: This will certainly be excellent news for the producers affected, but I wonder whether it could come at the expense of the environment more broadly. Some uses of the exemption will undoubtedly be legitimate, while others may become abusive. The final rules will therefore need clear limits and effective safeguards.

Read the Government of Alberta announcement