Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the committee's study on Canada's business risk management programs.
My name is Marvin Slingerland. Alongside me is AJ Gill. We are pleased to be here on behalf of MNP, one of Canada's largest advisers to Canada's agriculture sector.
MNP has served as a trusted adviser to agriculture operations since our founding in Brandon, Manitoba. Over the past 68 years, MNP has built a comprehensive agriculture practice, where today we work directly with over 30,000 clients across Canada. We serve these clients across our 178 offices from coast to coast. This work includes supporting producers each year in navigating BRM programs, filing thousands of applications and managing risk at the farm level.
Over the years, we have developed a deep understanding of what is working well within Canada's BRM framework and where targeted reforms are needed. This understanding has been documented in a paper outlining our observations and recommendations moving forward, which we are happy to provide to the committee.
Let me begin with a fundamental point.
Canada's BRM programs remain a cornerstone of agricultural policy, designed to support producers facing income volatility from external shocks. In our view, the core architecture of the system is sound, with the programs playing a critical role in supporting the long-term viability of farm operations across the country. Further, this strength lies in its margin-based foundation, particularly through AgriStability, creating an effective and responsive tool for producers.
However, what we have heard from producers, along with our advisers, is that the system has not kept pace with the realities of modern agriculture, and that is where reform is needed.
Producers frequently experience long processing timelines, sometimes receiving payments well beyond the point when they are useful for cash flow. There is also limited visibility into how payments are calculated, which creates uncertainty and contributes to the perception of the program as a black box.
More importantly, the sector has evolved. Farm operations have become larger, more capital-intensive and more complex, yet key program parameters have not kept pace, reducing the effectiveness of the support in some cases. In short, while the intent of the programs remains strong, their practical effectiveness has been constrained by outdated parameters and delivery challenges.