Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Richard Carey, General Manager, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to contribute to this important discussion.

My name is Richard Carey. I'm the general manager of Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture.

We're a non-profit organization representing and advocating for farmers and farm groups across our province. Our motto is “farmers for farmers”. Our work focuses on supporting a diverse, successful and sustainable agriculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our members span a wide range of commodities, both supply managed and non-supply managed. We deliver programs that support public trust, industry growth, education, mental health, farm safety, and climate action funding and research.

I'd like to start by saying that business risk management programs are not just important; they're essential. They provide a safety net that allows farmers to manage uncertainty, invest in their operations and continue producing food in an increasingly unpredictable environment.

That said, from our perspective in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are some real challenges, especially given the size and structure of our industry. We have just over 500 registered farms in the province, many of which are small, diversified operations. Participation in BRM programs has historically been low. That's not because producers don't need support; it's because, in many cases, the programs don't work well for them.

Take AgriInsurance, for example. While there is potential to expand coverage to crops like forage and berries, the cost of premiums is a major barrier. With fewer than 15 participants annually in recent years, the small pool drives premiums higher, making the program unaffordable for many producers. Even with the current 60% federal-provincial contribution, which is appreciated, the remaining 40% cost share is simply too high, especially for vegetable producers facing already tight margins.

We believe there's a need for increased government investment in the insurance fund, particularly for smaller jurisdictions like ours. This would help stabilize premiums and make the program more accessible. Climate change is already impacting our producers. We saw significant drought conditions in 2025, and those risks are only increasing. Farmers need affordable tools to manage that reality.

On AgriStability, we support maintaining the current compensation rate. This level of support makes a meaningful difference in encouraging participation. At the same time, however, the program needs to be simpler and more responsive. Right now, it's often seen as too complex and difficult to navigate.

For AgriInvest, we recommend reintroducing the matching contribution rate from 1% to 1.5% to encourage greater program participation, and increase farmer savings to better enable farmers to manage the smaller but more frequent income fluctuations that are becoming more common. The contribution rate was previously 1.5% in the Growing Forward contribution agreement many years ago.

There are also gaps that need to be addressed. For example, livestock insurance in our province is currently limited to predation. Producers need broader protection against disease and natural events. Compensation rates also need to better reflect the true value of breeding stock. The absence of coverage for our honeybee industry is another gap worth addressing.

AgriRecovery programs have been helpful, but timeliness is critical. When disasters happen, producers need immediate support when it matters most—not months or a year down the line.

At the end of the day, what we're really asking for is flexibility. Programs need to better reflect regional realities and be adaptable to smaller industries like ours. With only a small number of producers participating in each program annually, we need solutions that make these programs viable, accessible, affordable and worth enrolling in.

Producers in Newfoundland and Labrador are resilient, innovative and deeply committed to what they do, but they need the right tools to succeed.

Our goal as a sector is growth—growth in production, participation and in our contribution to food security and self-sufficiency in the province. Strong, responsive and inclusive BRM programs are key to that future.

Thank you again for your time and for the opportunity to share our perspective. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to Karen Ross for five minutes.

Welcome.

[Karen Ross, Executive Director, Farmers for Climate Solutions]

Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee, thanks for the invitation.

Farmers for Climate Solutions is Canada's national organization advancing tools that support farmers and ranchers to improve resilience and stewardship in the face of climate change.

We need a new vision for risk management in Canadian agriculture, one that better balances reactive response with proactive investment that builds resilience. Currently, we are mostly paying for risk after it happens rather than reducing it before it occurs. If we don't find a better balance, we will soon be unable to keep paying the bill.

Today I will offer five recommendations that can help move us from a system that keeps us on our heels, bracing for shocks and spending the majority of our public funds on just barely withstanding them, to one that gets us on our toes in order to help us prepare for, prevent and reduce risk, opening up more space to seize opportunities to grow and innovate.

Let's first take a look at where we are now. Business risk management costs are rising sharply, driven largely by more frequent and severe climate events, while participation is declining. This increasing ratio means we are concentrating more public dollars into fewer operations facing higher levels of risk. Putting more eggs into fewer baskets is both paradoxical and an undesirable trajectory for risk management.

We got here because, while they were thoughtfully designed in the 1980s, our BRM programs have not kept pace with today's risk landscape, which now includes more frequent and severe climate events like droughts, floods and wildfires, volatile input costs, tight and uncertain margins, and growing market expectations around environmental performance. By failing to adapt, our BRM programs have led to skyrocketing costs and unintentionally stifled innovation, including farmer- and rancher-led efforts to diversify and reduce risk at the source.

Across Canada, farmers are already reducing risk, diversifying production, integrating crops and livestock, improving soil health and protecting natural water management systems like wetlands. These practices can improve profitability, stabilize yields and build resilience to market volatility and climate impacts, but current BRM programs do not consistently recognize this. In some cases, they discourage it.

I'll give you three examples.

First, wetlands are critical for managing floods and droughts, yet under current insurance structures, marginal lands are more likely to be brought into production because the public subsidy overcomes profitability risk.

Second, intercropping can reduce production risk, but intercropped acres are subject to lower insurance coverage limits, which hinders adoption.

Third, improving nitrogen fertilizer use can improve profitability in the face of volatile prices, but AgriStability tends to reward higher nitrogen applications.

We need a risk management system where building resilience is not the risky choice, especially when building resilience also drives significant public benefits like cleaner air, better soil and water management, and biodiversity.

What do we do? I have five recommendations.

First, let's make BRM more performance-based and choice-driven. Farmers and ranchers who reduce risk should be rewarded with lower costs for stronger coverage or expanded program access.

Second, ensure that BRM doesn't work against resilience-building practices and outcomes. Risk management should reinforce, not undermine, the practices that make farms and ranches more stable and self-reliant.

Third, recognize investment in research, innovation, and practice adoption as critical scaffolding for BRM, and ramp it up. In a rapidly changing climate, we are only as good as our information. Better science is how we get ahead of risk rather than just responding to it. We are also only as good as our management strategies. Adopting new practices for better risk-reducing outcomes also carries risk for farmers. Strategic initiative programming that supports adoption ensures BRM's long-term viability by reducing risks up front.

Fourth, improve data for modern risk modelling. We need better actuarial evidence on how today’s practice outcomes actually change risk at the farm and ranch level so that programs aren’t based on out-of-date data, benchmarks and risk profiles.

Fifth, create a dedicated fund to de-risk innovation and scale what works. Promising innovations in BRM already exist, but they're not scaling. Public and private risk providers are often unwilling to absorb the uncertainty required to trial and scale new models. A dedicated fund would provide a protected space to experiment before widespread implementation.

I'm going to close with this: In a more risky world, we cannot outspend risk. We have to invest in reducing it. That is the path to the sector’s long-term viability. Getting this right will determine not just how farmers survive but also how they succeed.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Lysa Porth for five minutes.

[Lysa Porth, Chief Executive Officer, Agi3 Ltd. and Professor, Finance, University of Guelph]

Thank you.

My name is Lysa Porth. I'm a professor of finance at the University of Guelph and a professor of actuarial science at the University of Waterloo. I hold a Ph.D. in actuarial science and agricultural economics. I'm also a co-founder of Agi3, which is a Canadian company focused on agricultural risk intelligence, private insurance innovation and geospatial AI for farm-level risk management.

The message I hope to leave with the committee is that Canada cannot afford to accept the status quo and leave BRM unchanged.

For decades, much of the BRM discussion has focused on program tweaks. While those issues matter, I believe we've been looking in the wrong place, and the deeper issue is structural.

The current BRM suite provides an important foundation for producers, but the risk environment has changed faster than the structure of those programs has. Public spending is also increasing, as we've heard. Producer satisfaction is decreasing, and the protection gap is still widening.

The core challenge is that we're asking a small number of programs to do everything for everyone. A single structure cannot be equally effective across every crop, region, farm type and layer of risk. Canada needs a more modern, layered public-private risk management framework.

That starts with a simple recognition that not all agricultural risk is the same. Some losses are catastrophic or base layers of risk, where public sector BRM programs should maintain their clearest mandates. Public dollars should protect this foundation because broad participation, stability and government support are most needed.

However, above that foundation, there's room to do things differently. At the upper layers—what I call the “performance layer”—losses are often more frequent, farm-specific and are sensitive to management technology and local conditions. That is where underwriting data, pricing and individualization matter most.

Private sector products can help control public costs while improving choice, flexibility and performance for farmers. Now, public spending is spread across multiple layers of coverage, so public programs and private products can compete for the same premium dollars and risk layers. If a farmer lowers public coverage to buy a private product, they may be leaving subsidized dollars on the table, even when the private option may be better suited to their farm and may provide more individualized coverage.

As a result, the current structure can unintentionally block the innovation that farmers need. The answer is not public versus private; it's public and private coordinated by risk layer. Canada does not need to spend more to begin testing this. It needs to place public support in the right part of the risk stack.

A coordinated pilot could do that in a cost-neutral way. A participating farm would still have access to the same overall level of public support, but more subsidy would be pushed into the catastrophic base layer where government has the clearest role. Less subsidy would attach to higher, more individualized layers, putting them on a more even playing field with private sector products.

This is a win for farmers, government and the private sector. Farmers gain real choice and better coverage options without taking anything away. Government can focus public dollars where they buy the greatest value: the lower systemic risk pool. Private capital gains room to invest, compete and innovate in product design, underwriting, claims, technology and producer advice.

This is not a wholesale redesign of BRM overnight. Nothing is taken away. The practical step is a coordinated national pilot in the next policy framework. Run it in parallel with the current system. Give a cohort of farms the choice to test a layered public-private model, and use real farms, real data and real accountability, before making broader reform.

Technology is also essential to making this work. Modernizing BRM can't simply mean digitizing forms, portals or policy documents. Digitizing paperwork is not the same as modernizing risk management. True modernization means modernizing the actuarial engine itself. The good news is that Canada doesn't need to start from scratch. Canadian-built technology already exists. It's being used by farms, and it's ready to be leveraged more broadly.

Agi3 has built a patented and patent-pending geospatial, AI-native agricultural risk platform that supports exposure management, risk classification, pricing, underwriting, in-season monitoring, claims evidence and portfolio learning. It has enabled private crop insurance, grain forward contract default protection, yield and revenue concepts, and coverage from the field level to the whole-farm level.

This technology has been developed in Canada and implemented in Canada. It is ready to be leveraged more broadly. We are also working with Alberta and Manitoba on a project to demonstrate how BRM can be improved for farmers while containing costs for the public sector. Canadian-built technology already exists, and farmers are asking for better tools. What is missing is a structure that allows those tools to scale.

Other jurisdictions, including the United States, show that a stronger public-private ecosystem can drive innovation, claims infrastructure and farmer choice. Canada should build its own version: one that protects the public foundation while giving farmers more choice and government better tools to manage cost, integrity and performance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. That was perfect.

We'll go to the Conservatives now for six minutes.

Welcome back.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you so much to the committee for giving me space to be here today again and to talk about the farmers from my great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Carey, in your opening statement, you made reference to a lot of things that I'm hearing from the farmers over on my side of the island and, in particular, the AgriRecovery framework. There was a very small window of time that our farmers had in order to qualify to receive support.

I'm curious. Is this something you heard from farmers right across the province?

[Richard Carey]

Yes, definitely. We heard about it on the day it happened, February 11. I believe it was a Tuesday, as I remember fondly, and they had until Saturday or Sunday to get everything in order, which wasn't enough time.

The drought ended at the end of October, perhaps, and then we had November, December and January. I don't know if it was done more towards the end of the fiscal year or how it all came around, but there were a lot of farmers who couldn't partake. They never had the arrangements made in the four days that they had. We respect the AgriRecovery program, but more has to be done on the timeliness of what has to happen.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Yes. Thank you. I think it also impacted some of their cash flow as well, because they had to have the forage paid for.

Another witness talked about another issue they saw. It was a failure around other policies, and specifically around the production insurance. They said that if that was a better program, they wouldn't necessarily need this AgriRecovery framework.

I'm curious to know if you have any thoughts on that or if that's something you hear about.

[Richard Carey]

Well, the AgriInsurance covers six of our vegetables. Right now, we're developing and growing up to 100 vegetables and fruit through research over the years and with innovation throughout the years. Six out of 100 isn't going to do it, we'll say, to maintain the economic viability of farmers. The low uptake is a result of that and also is a result of increased premiums, which further discourage other farmers from partaking. It's one big cycle.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Yes. Thank you for that.

I'm glad that you mentioned research. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this industry is fairly new. Over on my side we got a lot of new start-up operations.

I'm curious about the value of research, especially for our farmers in our province. Could you speak to that?

[Richard Carey]

Research is so valuable. It's part of the expansion that we're currently undergoing. I had a tour up to the new federal research station in St. John's. It is a marvellous facility. They have big plans this year.

Research is so valuable. The province has their own research division as well. They're doing great work. We're anxious every year to see what's developing and to jump on that and help to grow the industry.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

As a follow-up to that, too, we have harsh weather conditions. We also have a shorter growing season.

Within that context, would you say that the closure of the Nappan research farm would impact us more negatively because of our dynamics? Also, with it being an island, would it have a greater impact on Newfoundland and Labrador farmers?

[Richard Carey]

For sure, yes. Any research is valuable wherever it occurs. We don't depend totally on the St. John's structure to get our data, so it will impact us for sure, but in St. John's, it's a cool climate, and because of the cool climate—we're recognized for that—there are special conditions that I hope the committee will recognize in other parts of this today.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

You also brought up another important point that I hear a lot about from farmers, that it's not the availability but the accessibility of the BRM programs.

I want to give you another opportunity to expand a bit on that for the benefit of the committee's work as it relates to the farmers from Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Richard Carey]

I've heard all the witnesses talk about how valuable it is, and it is valuable, but to a lot of our producers, it's very cumbersome. It's very complicated to get into for a marginal farmer who's just eking by most years. When farmers look at the cost and what the benefits are and are not fully understanding what the program is, I think more needs to be done in one-on-one communication with AAFC and the province.

I was on a call a couple of weeks ago. It is confusing to listen to all of the details. I think more could be done. It's a great program, but I think more has to be done to communicate and to make things easier for producers.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Yes, and if they're smaller operations, there's something to be said for the operator who's doing all tasks and therefore doesn't always have the same resources that larger operations would.

Would that be a fair statement?

[Richard Carey]

Yes, for sure. They don't have accountants. They don't have CPAs or lawyers. They're a one-person operation, and the only chance to get to do this is in the evenings, and it just becomes overbearing at times to avail of all the programs that are out there.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Just quickly, I know the Conservatives have been pushing on the livestock insurance issue, and I want to give you a final opportunity to put a fine point on that as well.

[Richard Carey]

The livestock insurance currently covers predation, but there are more things that can happen to an animal other than coyotes or dogs. There could be injury, disease or natural disasters. I think more work could be done and more people would take advantage of it, which would decrease premiums. It would be better for the industry and make the overall economy greater than it is now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to the Liberals for six minutes.

Go ahead, MP Connors.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Carey, I want to welcome you to our committee. I'm glad to see that you're here representing the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture.

We're not really new, but our agricultural industry is still small in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're still in the growing stages, to use an agricultural pun.

I want to talk a little bit about the AgriRecovery that happened this past February. BRM programs are federal and provincial. Was there a portion of that delay caused by the provincial government and the ongoing...?

[Richard Carey]

I would think it's a combination, for sure.

I had a whole career in provincial government before this—

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes, I know.

[Richard Carey]

—so I recognize what happens behind the scenes in provincial terms. There are delays, and I think there are lessons to be learned. The farmers need help as soon as this happens, as soon as it ends.

I think that, if we look back on lessons learned, probably more could have been done. Maybe more resources, human resources, could have been put into it to get it out more quickly, but it's complicated, for sure. We are thankful that it did come down. A lot of people couldn't avail because of the short timeline, but it has helped.