Evidence of meeting #33 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Are you hopeful at this point that this will work well? Are the discussions positive at this point?
General Manager, Association des producteurs maraîchers du Québec
The discussions are positive because differences of opinion are being addressed. I always say that this agency's scientific independence must not be called into question. That's clear. However, the agency must be much more transparent. There's still a great deal of work to be done in this regard, as it's very opaque.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Lessard, before we were interrupted during the last round of questions, we were talking about AgriRecovery. Could you tell us more about the rollout of AgriRecovery in cases such as British Columbia? How can it serve as an example?
Chair, Business Risk Management Working Group, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada
Faster payments can certainly help, but the program still has to be well designed and well thought out, and it has to directly address a need among producers. Currently, AgriRecovery only covers excess costs, as mentioned. However, when a business is in a deficit situation where, in fact, it has had no costs because it has had virtually no income, and the AgriStability program isn't sufficient to help it move forward, we inevitably have a problem. Neither AgriRecovery nor AgriStability has done the job. That is what we want to see improved.
Be that as it may, faster payments can certainly be very helpful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
We'll suspend now for five minutes while we change the panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
I call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name or until you are asked a question directly by a member. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I'd like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table in order to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. As a reminder, all comments should go through the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of business risk management programs in Canada's agriculture sector.
I'd now like to welcome our witnesses.
We have the Agri-Food Analytics Lab, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute and the Deans Council of Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine.
To all witnesses, thank you so much for being here.
We will start with Tyler McCann and the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.
Welcome back.
Tyler McCann Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my perspectives on agricultural risk management policies. My comments today are informed by the work of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, which includes a working group of producers and risk management experts, as well as by my professional experiences over the past 20 years.
I want to start by turning the tables and asking the committee some questions. Why do we have risk management programs in Canada? What are they supposed to achieve? What role are they supposed to play in on-farm risk management? A committee report that articulates clear answers to these questions will be a significant accomplishment and help fill a big void in the ag policy landscape.
While I will focus on the risk management programs delivered by governments, it is important to recognize that risk management is more than a suite of programs. On-farm risk management includes programs, but it needs to include much more. Too often, too many farms are missing meaningful risk management strategies.
Back to the policy framework, 25 years ago, the first ag policy framework established the approach that is still largely in use today. It was originally intended to provide producers with an integrated, comprehensive set of risk management options, but the big changes since that time have actually reduced coverage and support and led to a general sense that the current approach does not do what farmers need it to do.
Our work on agriculture risk management has identified many problems with the current approach. We have distilled what we have heard into five distinct challenges.
One, the risk landscape has changed, but programs have not. There is a need for innovation and modernization of the risk management framework.
Two, the programs do not offer consistent coverage. They cover production loss well for some commodities, but there is a growing risk management gap in other commodities and other risks.
Three, BRM programs continue to be poorly understood, and some producers struggle to integrate them into a proactive risk management plan. Participation rates are declining, and producers are increasingly opting out of using public tools.
Four, challenges with administration and delivery exacerbate challenges with program design. Agriculture Canada's own review of the AgriStability program highlighted challenges, including late program payments and unpredictable interim payments.
Finally, the current framework lacks clarity of purpose. Programs do not deliver on their objectives and are not aligned with the broader objectives we have for the sector.
While there are many problems, most are not because of a lack of funding. The cost of the current suite of programs has increased significantly, more than doubling in the last 10 years. The good news is that increases in farm revenue and income mean that, as a share of farm income, program payments have actually declined. The bad news is that decreases in farm income do not always align with increases in program payments. Support rises in some periods of financial stress but not predictably when margins tighten and producers need the help.
The negotiations of the next policy framework are an opportunity to modernize Canada's approach to agriculture risk management so that the tools farmers have access to catch up with the risks they face.
The first step needs to be a broader agreement that better is possible and an evolution is needed. The next step should focus on the principles that should guide the risk management framework. Only after governments, farmers and their risk management partners agree on what we are trying to achieve should we turn to program design. It is unfortunate that we spend more time talking about AgriStability allowable expenses than we spend talking about what AgriStability is supposed to achieve.
Our work is focused on defining the problem, to make finding solutions easier, but we have also begun to work on guiding principles that should help us move forward. Our work points to principles like the need to integrate proactive risk management in the framework and that the priority for government support should be to backstop catastrophic loss on farms.
All of this work also needs to acknowledge that farmers are different and that they have different needs for risk management. That shouldn’t come as a surprise, yet governments give different farmers the same risk management tools. A principle should be that farmers need more tools in the tool box so they can find the tool that best matches the risks they face and their ability to manage them.
Evolving the framework, including through leveraging the private sector in program design and delivery, can help address this challenge, but that evolution needs to involve more than tweaks to the existing programs. It does not need to be a revolution, but it needs to be about more serious change. A modernized risk management framework can be a critical component of a growth strategy for the sector, underscoring the importance of better integrating risk management with the rest of the policy framework, but we need to start by answering those questions I asked you at the beginning.
I look forward to taking your questions later.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much.
Next, we'll go to John Cranfield for five minutes.
John Cranfield Dean, Ontario Agricultural College, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, and Deans Council—Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee.
My name is John Cranfield. I'm here today representing the Deans Council of Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine. The deans council is composed of deans from 13 faculties at 11 universities across Canada. Our faculties have been teaching and researching agriculture and agri-food for over 125 years. We've worked together as a pan-Canadian non-profit association since 1991. The deans council engages in dialogue with industry and government to find solutions to national and global issues in agriculture, food, health and the environment.
Today, I would like to bring a different lens on business risk management, namely the role of science and research in driving innovation and reducing business risk. BRM is usually viewed from the perspective of an immediate crisis: for example, a crop failure driven by drought, a livestock population decimated by an invasive disease or a sudden and unexpected market-based shock. These events matter deeply to producers, and effective short-term BRM supports are essential.
Over the longer term, innovation is one of the most powerful risk management tools available to Canadian agriculture. Productivity improvements reduce per unit costs for producers. Early disease detection systems prevent catastrophic losses. Better decision tools help producers manage weather variability, input use and environmental performance. Collectively, these advances strengthen farm profitability, competitiveness and resilience, which are key outcomes of any effective BRM system.
The deans council has worked with industry to establish an industry-academia partnership addressing agri-food research, innovation, skills and education. We have conducted and supported studies on the research ecosystem, on skills and training and, more recently, on the agriculture and agri-food innovation continuum.
The deans council recently launched the driving digital agriculture initiative, which aims to create a national network connecting research-intensive faculties of agriculture, food and veterinary medicine across 11 universities. This network will strengthen collaboration among universities and across disciplines, including engineering, health and environmental sciences. It will also strengthen ties with agricultural colleges that play an important role in training. Our objective is simple: to better connect data, people and expertise, so research insights move more quickly and reliably into real-world decisions that drive innovation.
The initiative will also link and align existing digital agriculture efforts, including on-farm data and knowledge translation and extension activities, such as the smart farm network. So far, we have identified partners, including the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network, Farm Credit Canada and the Enterprise Machine Intelligence and Learning Initiative, all of whom are helping to define the key elements of a globally competitive digital agriculture strategy. The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute has also been an essential partner in helping to shape that broader agri-food innovation strategy.
By building a federated, national network that drives digital agriculture and innovation, we strengthen business risk management in three important ways. First, it reduces production risks by enabling earlier detection of threats and more precise management responses before losses cascade. Second, it reduces financial and market risk by driving innovations that will improve productivity, quality and traceability, all of which support competitiveness and value-added growth. Third, it reduces systematic risk by ensuring that Canada's agricultural data and resulting economic value remain in Canada, rather than flowing to fragmented or foreign platforms.
Driving digital agriculture is about strengthening Canada's long-term resilience by ensuring that research investments translate into practical and producer-ready tools that manage risk, improve performance and sustain confidence in Canadian agriculture.
In closing, the deans council encourages the committee to view innovation and knowledge mobilization as foundational components of business risk management. Well-designed BRM programs help producers recover from shocks, but innovation-enabled systems help prevent those shocks from becoming crises in the first place.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much.
Next, we'll go to the Agri-Food Analytics Lab for five minutes.
Sylvain Charlebois Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the members of the committee for the invitation to appear today.
Canada's business risk management, or BRM, programs have supported producers through many cycles of volatility, but the environment has changed. Risk in agriculture is no longer limited to weather and prices. It is now shaped by global markets, supply chain disruptions, input volatility and geopolitical uncertainty. These risks are broader, faster-moving and often originate beyond the farm gate. Yet our current approach remains largely reactive and centred on compensating losses after they occur. If we are serious about improving resilience, we need to shift from a model that primarily absorbs risk to one that helps the sector manage and distribute risk more effectively—and we can do that without increasing public spending.
I would offer three recommendations, grounded in free-market principles and with no required new spending.
First, we should improve market transparency by expanding risk disclosure. Markets function best when participants have access to clear, comparable information. Requiring standardized risk reporting from BRM program participants—covering exposure to key inputs, markets, logistics and climate—would strengthen decision-making across the sector.
Second, we should enhance predictability by moving toward more rules-based program delivery. One of the challenges producers face is uncertainty around when and how support will be delivered. Establishing clear, predefined triggers tied to measurable indicators—such as margin declines or cost spikes—would improve confidence and allow producers to plan accordingly.
Third, we should use existing programs to encourage voluntary risk-sharing across the value chain. Today, a significant portion of risk is concentrated at the farm level, even though value is created across processors, distributors and retailers. Rather than mandating outcomes, BRM eligibility can be structured to incentivize the use of supply agreements that include mechanisms such as price bands, cost indexing or volume commitments. This would allow market participants to negotiate how risk is shared, while public policy simply reinforces those behaviours.
Finally, the Canadian agri-food sector is highly capable, but policy should not substitute for market signals—it should support them. If we align our programs with how markets actually operate, we can improve resilience, reduce distortions and make better use of existing resources. At the moment, we are managing outcomes. We should be enabling better decisions.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much to all witnesses.
We will now go to the Conservatives for six minutes. We have MP Anstey filling in for MP Barlow.
Thank you, and welcome to the committee. You have six minutes.
Conservative
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Thank you so much.
I appreciate this opportunity to ask some questions on behalf of the farmers in my area. I live in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. McCann, I'd like to start with you.
You brought up some very legitimate points that I'm also hearing about from the farmers in my area, one being the AgriRecovery program the government put out this year. Our farmers had a 10-day window to secure their hay and make payment on that hay. As a result of cash flow constraints, this was something they really couldn't take advantage of.
How do we reform this program so that, in the face of droughts, they're able to access these important funds?
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
An important piece to remember is that AgriRecovery isn't a program. It is effectively a framework or an agreement between governments that when a disaster happens, they will do something. It does take time for them to do something.
The problem we have with AgriRecovery is that it's really being used to make up for the failures in the other programs. If we had functioning production insurance that was able to respond to forage losses, for example.... Again, I think if you look over the last five years, whether it's in Newfoundland or across the country, most of the AgriRecovery money is being used because there's been drought or flooding that has impacted forage production. If we had an effective forage insurance product that was available to producers, they wouldn't need to wait for AgriRecovery to come along. If AgriStability was a predictable program that responded in a timely way, they wouldn't need to use AgriRecovery. The only reason we're using AgriRecovery is the failures in the other programs. I think the focus needs to be on how we make sure that we have other, more responsive tools there.
There are situations that are disasters, yes, but they are predictable disasters. We know it's going to be dry and we know it's going to be wet. We know that is the future. We should be able to build a predictable set of tools that farmers can use to respond to that, and keep the disaster framework for the very exceptional situations that arise. Too often, it's being used for things that just aren't exceptional the way they are supposed to be.
Conservative
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
I appreciate that. I think that's a great perspective.
In areas like mine, where the agriculture industry is fairly new and we have a lot of start-ups, how important is research to these farmers?
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Regardless of where you are in the country, whether you're a new farmer or an old farmer, research underpins so much of it, as Dr. Cranfield mentioned. Too often, when we think about risk management, we think about these programs, but we don't understand the critical role that research and development plays and that effective market access plays. We end up in a world where we are spending more money on risk management programs and not investing enough in these other tools that are there, that are proactive and that can make a difference. We need to better understand the really critical role they can play.
The other thing that's worth acknowledging, and it goes back to a point I made that I think is often missed, is that new farmers in your riding need different things than farmers who have been farming for 50 years in Saskatchewan, yet we effectively give them all the same set of tools. I don't think it's reasonable to think that in any other situation we would want very different businesses to be using the same set of tools. We need to find better ways to put more tools in the tool box that reflect the unique realities that those farmers face.
Conservative
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
I would definitely agree with that. Because we live on an island, we often talk about food stability, yet I talk to a lot of these farmers and they're just losing hope. They're having a challenging time.
In addition to that, in Atlantic Canada, we have shorter seasons and we have harsher conditions, which is to your point. Do you think the government's proposal to shut down the Nappan research centre disproportionately impacts our farmers in Atlantic Canada? We do have a bit of a unique challenge over on our side of the country.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Unfortunately, we don't actually know what the impact of that is yet. Announcements have been made, and there's work going on. We need a bit more detail to know what's there.
The reality is that the cuts to research and development and to the spending are just short-term gain, arguably, for long-term pain that the sector is facing. Whether it's farmers in your part of the country or others who have different realities and need to look at research that works for them, they need the support that's there.
Unfortunately, we cut infrastructure. We don't just cut the infrastructure; we cut the spending, too. I think there are probably better ways this money could be spent that would still give your farmers access to information and to applied research and development. It's not necessarily that the sites should stay open, but how do we do a better job of closing that gap? When you just take the money away, you miss the opportunity to renew and make sure the farmers are getting the tools and information they need.
Conservative
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Four large dairy farms over in Newfoundland and Labrador have faced creditor protection and difficult situations over the last 12 to 18 months. I really want to dig into why they are facing such challenges.
One of the things that I get is just the increase in the costs for the farmers. I wonder if you could speak to that. These have been stable in our communities for a long time, and now they're facing all these challenges. Could you offer the committee some suggestions about why this might be happening right now?
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
First, I think there's a myth that supply management guarantees profits. It doesn't, because farmers are facing increased input costs and other pressures that are there. Again, we need to look at what's driving those input cost issues that are changing the cost of doing business.
Liberal
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Mr. McCann, I want to begin by thanking you for the work you do with your institute. I actually had the pleasure of attending one of your virtual meetings on this topic, which was very interesting.
I liked your question, and I'll turn it back to you: Why are these programs in place? There's actually a book by Simon Sinek on this, titled Start with Why.
Beyond risk management programs, as part of the negotiations to be held with the provinces, we are also discussing the federal-provincial-territorial sustainable agriculture strategy. So, in your opinion, what should be the objectives of this range of programs and strategic directions?
Furthermore, we have heard witnesses talk about risk prevention. So what role should prevention play?
We've also heard about new risks. There are not only risks related to climate and disasters, but also risks related to supply chain disruptions owing to international conflicts.
So this is a question I have for you. I'm turning your question back to you.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Thank you.
I believe that, at the outset, the objective should be to support the resilience of agricultural producers. Resilience should be defined as the ability to absorb shocks and manage the impacts of those shocks in order to return to the starting position. However, this is not about growth. It's not about increasing production. Programs should really just ensure that, when there is a shock that could jeopardize the farm's or business's ability to survive, there is support in place to help it.
The problem today, as you just mentioned, is that many producers, when they are affected by tariffs or market disruptions, don't have that kind of support. There are shocks in the system that can impact their ability to survive, but there are no programs that can respond to them in a timely manner.
There are other needs, such as more proactive management, that can be supported through other programs and tools. However, if we subsidize producers, we should ensure that, from the outset, the subsidies are in place so that they are available when needed or when requested.
If we look at the figures today, it's not clear that payments increase when incomes are declining. If the goal is truly to support resilience, the two should go hand in hand: When incomes are down, payments to producers should go up. It happens sometimes, but it doesn't always happen today.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC
So the “why” in your question relates to resilience. No matter what shock farmers are experiencing—whether commercial, international or climate-related—it is a shock, and we must support resilience. That's an excellent point.
My colleague mentioned a number of different programs. We would almost need a common objective to oversee these programs, which would operate differently, but in accordance with a very clear objective.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Yes. As I said, the answer shouldn't be to have a single program to help producers become resilient. As mentioned, the answer should be to have an overarching goal for all programs, as well as flexibility in the programs and tools available to producers. We should move past the idea that every producer in Canada is required to work with AgriStability. Yes, it's a good idea—it's an approach that can work—but it's not really working today. We should find solutions to offer a variety of programs to producers.