If the Canadian government’s objective is to increase farm incomes, one option is to raise prices. The easiest way to accomplish that is to constrain the food supply and increase food insecurity.
Few politicians would agree that is a good strategy, but that may well be the outcome of the federal government’s approach to the agri-food sector. If adopted globally, Canada’s playbook would result in wealthier farmers but it would come at the expense of consumers. This is what it looks like from my farm.
1. Undermine public agricultural research
Read Also
Farmers look to bust higher input costs
High fertilizer, fuel and crop protection costs are pushing Prairie producers to rethink purchasing and application strategies.
Reducing support for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, particularly its crop research programs, would quickly erode Canada’s global competitiveness. For example, Canada’s wheat breeding program is consistently ranked among the top three worldwide, yet it continues to lose funding. If public plant breeding is weakened or discontinued, as announced recently, farmers will face higher seed costs, reduced margins, and declining incentives to grow wheat — potentially increasing reliance on government business risk management programs. With a proven return on investment of approximately 30:1, cutting this research is a false economy. It has been proven time and again that private multinationals cannot supply the same value as AAFC. Less output inevitably leads to higher prices.
2. Continue underfunding transformational innovation
AAFC has developed a globally unique technology that enables non-legume crops to fix their own nitrogen. This innovation has the potential to dramatically improve farm profitability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 85 per cent on grain farms, and reshape global agriculture. In Western Canada alone, it could increase farm profits by $3 billion annually, generate $1.5 billion per year in domestic royalties, and an additional $8 billion from the United States market. Despite this potential, the program remains underfunded, poorly resourced, and lacks a strategic commercialization plan. This gap risks reinforcing Canada’s reputation for inventing but failing to capture the economic benefits of global adoption. Reduced innovation leads directly to higher prices.
3. Allow further foreign control of the value chain
Permitting increased foreign ownership of upstream and downstream agricultural sectors will extract profits from Canada and concentrate market power. While this may raise prices, it will likely reduce farm incomes as input costs are controlled by monopolies and production incentives decline. Over time, this may also suppress output — again resulting in higher prices, but the profits will go elsewhere.
4. Neglect climate and sustainability goals
Failing to pursue net zero or net positive goals by 2050 represents a significant missed opportunity. There is a clear pathway to increasing farm profitability while improving environmental outcomes. No-regret beneficial management practices — outlined in my forthcoming book Evolution of Farm Stewardship: Leaving a Legacy (June 2026) — can reduce costs, improve soil health, open premium export markets, and lower financial risk. AAFC plays a critical role in enabling these outcomes. Ignoring this opportunity will increase exposure to extreme weather and long-term costs, further driving up prices.
Rethinking agriculture’s economic role
In 1939, author and educator Peter F. Drucker argued that agriculture was no longer a primary driver of economic growth in modern economies. While influential, this view underestimates agriculture’s ongoing capacity for innovation and wealth creation. Farmers convert sunlight into food, feed, fibre, and biochemicals — creating foundational economic value — and do so more efficiently each year through technology and knowledge.
While primary farming accounted for $31.7 billion in GDP and 233,000 jobs in 2024, the broader agri-food system — including inputs, production, processing, and distribution — represents approximately seven per cent of Canada’s GDP ($149 billion) and 2.3 million (or one in nine) Canadian jobs.
The paradox of farm prosperity
Ironically, if farmers sought to maximize profits collectively, they would produce less. Organic grain systems, for example, often yield 30 to 50 per cent of conventional production. Reduced supply would raise prices and margins. In theory, farmers could even co-ordinate production to maximize shareholder (farmer) returns through collective market power.
In practice, however, agriculture is characterized by individual decision-making. Farmers respond to both low and high prices by increasing production. Supported by risk management programs, we consistently produce surplus at the lowest possible cost. Canada is one of seven countries with a persistent export surplus and is therefore highly dependent on global markets for price discovery.
When global supplies are tight, farmers prosper; when they are abundant, farmers often suffer. This system largely benefits consumers, who enjoy safe, abundant, and affordable food. Canadians spend less than 10 per cent of their income on food, and food security contributes to social and political stability.
AAFC is a critical driver of agricultural innovation. While programs should always be reviewed and improved, broad funding cuts that undermine the interconnected agricultural innovation systems are short-sighted. Prime Minister Mark Carney, if your goal is to make farmers wealthier, these measures may succeed — but it is unlikely that the other 99 per cent of Canadians would welcome the consequences.
For those of you that think cutting public spending on agricultural innovation is shortsighted, sign a petition, send a letter to your local MP, to the federal minister of agriculture and to Prime Minister Carney.
David Rourke is a grain farmer from Minto, Man.
