Across the meetings summarized, the committee has heard a consistent argument that Canada’s agricultural risk management and food security frameworks were designed for an earlier era and have not kept pace with the modern realities facing producers. Witnesses from commodity groups, provincial federations, and academic institutions repeatedly described a sector confronting climate volatility, trade policy uncertainty, rising input costs, and concentrated market power. A recurring theme is that programs like AgriStability have become too reactive, with triggers set too high, payments arriving too slowly, and caps that penalize larger operations. Many witnesses, including the Canadian Cattle Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, called for restoring the AgriStability trigger to 85% of reference margins, raising the payment cap, and making livestock price insurance a permanent, cost-shared national program.

The committee has heard from a broad range of constituencies, including grain and oilseed farmers, cattle and pork producers, organic growers, greenhouse vegetable operators, dairy processors, and food banks and community organizations. While producers focused on program design and payment mechanics, food security witnesses from Second Harvest, Food First NL, and regional food coalitions emphasized access, processing capacity, and the need for stable operating funding for community infrastructure. A notable point of agreement across many meetings is that Canada’s problem is not food production but competitiveness, processing capacity, and market access. Witnesses from CropLife Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and the Agri-Food Analytics Lab all argued that regulatory modernization, investment in research, and reduced interprovincial trade barriers are essential complements to any risk management reform.

Disagreement emerged most clearly around the appropriate role of government. The Montreal Economic Institute’s Renaud Brossard argued against state-run food distribution structures, while several witnesses from the organic and climate-focused groups advocated for proactive, performance-based programs that reward resilience-building practices. There was also tension over cross-compliance measures, with MNP LLP and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture opposing them as added complexity, while Farmers for Climate Solutions suggested they could incentivize risk reduction. On trade, cattle and pork representatives warned strongly against granting Mercosur market access, citing animal health concerns and the risk of displacing domestic production, while other witnesses framed the U.S. as an indispensable partner and called for pragmatic trade relationships.

Over the course of the hearings, the committee’s focus shifted from the technical details of business risk management programs toward broader questions of food security strategy and national competitiveness. The June meetings saw the Minister of Agriculture present the government’s first national food security strategy, which witnesses largely welcomed as a starting point but criticized for lacking measurable objectives and accountability. Concerns about the Alto high-speed rail project’s impact on farmland recurred across multiple meetings, with Quebec producers warning of expropriation and lost investment confidence. Witnesses also repeatedly flagged the closure of federal research centres as a loss of capacity that universities and provincial programs cannot fully replace, and several called for stable, long-term funding for applied research partnerships.