The committee’s hearings on food security and business risk management have consistently returned to the theme that Canada’s agricultural challenges are not primarily about production capacity but about competitiveness, productivity, and the structural barriers that prevent farmers and processors from thriving. Witnesses across multiple meetings—from Sylvain Charlebois and Kristina Farrell to Tyler McCann and Michael Graydon—have described a system where input costs, regulatory delays, labour shortages, and concentrated supply chains erode margins and discourage investment. The new national food security strategy was welcomed by some for its ambition, but many witnesses, including Charlebois and Farrell, criticized it for lacking measurable objectives, accountability, and sufficient attention to the competitiveness of food manufacturing and processing.

A wide range of constituencies has been heard from, including commodity groups (grain, cattle, pork, bison, organic, greenhouse, fruit and vegetable), provincial federations, food processors, retailers, community food organizations, and academic experts. There has been broad agreement on several points: that AgriStability’s trigger and payment cap need to be raised, that regulatory approvals for crop protection tools and veterinary products are too slow, that interprovincial trade barriers harm the food system, and that the Alto high-speed rail project poses a serious threat to farmland in Quebec. Witnesses from Newfoundland and Labrador, including Tina Bishop and Fred Marshall, highlighted the particular vulnerability of regions that rely heavily on imported food and lack processing and storage infrastructure.

Disagreements have emerged on specific policy tools. The tariff on Russian fertilizer imports divided witnesses: farmers and commodity groups called for its removal, while the minister defended it by pointing to the EU’s move to a 100% tariff. On the role of government in food distribution, Renaud Brossard argued that state-run food hubs would not lower prices, while Joshua Smee and others made the case for multi-year operating funding for community food hubs. The grocery code of conduct was described by Karen Proud as a tool for improving commercial relationships, not a direct food security measure, and witnesses noted that small producers remain uncertain about its benefits. On business risk management, some witnesses, like Lysa Porth, advocated for a layered public-private framework with more room for private insurance, while others, including Ben LeFort and Marvin Slingerland, maintained that core public programs like AgriStability should be strengthened rather than supplemented with private options.

Over the course of the hearings, the committee’s focus has shifted from a broad examination of food security toward a deeper, more technical scrutiny of business risk management programs, with an increasing emphasis on the need for proactive risk reduction, innovation, and tailored tools for specific sectors. The later meetings have featured more detailed critiques of AgriStability, AgriInvest, and AgriInsurance from commodity groups and individual farmers, alongside calls for permanent funding for livestock price insurance and for programs that recognize organic and diversified operations. The minister’s appearance in June marked a pivot back to the government’s broader strategy, but the recurring concern from witnesses—whether about research centre closures, the Alto rail project, or the Mercosur trade agreement—has been that federal decisions outside the committee’s direct study are undermining the very resilience the strategy aims to build.