Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon to the members.
My name is Bruce Burrows. I'm the executive director of Grain Growers of Canada.
In contrast to the previous witness, I just started a couple of days ago, so please bear with me. For this reason, our in-house expert, a farmer herself, Kate Sauser, manager of policy, is joining me today. She's here to keep me out of trouble, I hope.
Please be patient with me. I'll be making my comments in English.
Grain Growers of Canada represents over 100,000 producers through our 15 national, provincial and regional grower organizations. Together, our members steward more than 120 million acres of farmland and produce crops that feed Canadians and customers in over 160 countries. That generates approximately $45 billion in export value, and 70% of our production is exported.
This study comes at a particularly important moment for grain farmers. Across much of the country, seeding is already under way or about to begin. At the start of every season, farmers make some of the largest financial commitments of the year, often before a single crop is in the ground.
According to Farm Credit Canada, producers are expected to invest approximately $22.5 billion in crop inputs for this season alone, which includes seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Talking about risk, this represents one of the most significant annual—and therefore regular—private sector investments in Canada, months before any revenue is realized.
Input costs remain elevated, margins are tight, and producers are increasingly exposed to risks far outside their control. Those risks are no longer limited to weather or production. Farmers are now navigating geopolitical disruptions, trade uncertainty and supply chain instability. Existing business risk management programs were not designed for this environment. That is exactly why this study matters.
Recent tariffs affecting Canadian ag exports, including measures targeting canola and other commodities, illustrate how quickly market access can change and how significant the financial consequences can be at the farm level. Member producers have reported losses of approximately one to two dollars per bushel due to geopolitical disputes, which can translate into six-figure impacts on individual farm operations. When shocks like these occur, producers need BRM programs. They have to be responsive, predictable, and capable of stabilizing operations through uncertainty.
As governments begin preparing for the next FPT framework, covering 2028-33, this is an opportunity to ensure that BRM programming reflects a multitude of risks that farmers are facing today and are likely to face in the future.
I'll make four points quickly and then conclude.
First, it's essential that existing core programs remain strong. AgriInsurance continues to be the foundation of risk management for grain farmers. There's no question about it. It's widely used. It's regionally responsive and delivers support when producers need it most. The current cost-sharing model between governments and producers is working and should be maintained. Protecting the integrity and accessibility of AgriInsurance must remain a priority.
Second, BRM programs must better reflect emerging risks beyond production losses. Trade disruptions, as I just mentioned, geopolitical tensions, transportation interruptions and regulatory uncertainty can all have significant financial consequences for producers, yet they're not always captured effectively within current programming. Tools such as AgriStability are intended to provide whole-farm income support during major shocks, but many producers experience meaningful income declines without triggering payments. Improving the responsiveness will strengthen both participation and confidence—and I underscore the word confidence—in the program.
Third, programs must remain flexible enough to reflect regional realities. Agriculture in Canada is highly diverse. Risk exposures differ among commodities, production systems and certainly regions as well. A one-size-fits-all approach limits effectiveness and reduces program uptake. That is why AgriStability needs adjustment to reflect commodity and regional differences, ensuring provinces retain flexibility to tailor delivery to regional needs, which will strengthen outcomes for producers across the country.
Fourth, BRM programming should support proactive risk management rather than creating an unnecessary administrative burden.
For example, proposals to link AgriInvest participation more directly to environmental cross-compliance risks duplicating practices that farmers are already implementing. Grain producers are leaders in environmental stewardship through measures such as zero till adoption, precision agriculture and soil carbon management. Programs should recognize these contributions rather than introduce requirements that reduce accessibility and effectiveness.
Every season, grain farmers commit hundreds of thousands of dollars before they know what the markets are going to be.