Guest: Tyler McCann, Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI)

Global trade is shifting. Geopolitics is intruding into supply chains. Food is no longer just food — it is leverage, resilience, and power.

In this episode of Future Herd, Jesse Hirsh sits down with Tyler McCann, Managing Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI), to explore what leadership looks like in a world where stability can no longer be assumed.

Together they examine:

1. Why the global context for Canadian agriculture has fundamentally changed
2. The discipline of focus in a sector overwhelmed by issues
3. How policy actually moves — and why convening matters
4. The cultural tendency toward incrementalism in Canadian agri-food governance
5. Why diversity of participation strengthens policy outcomes
6. The difference between a commodity sector and a strategic one
7. The urgent need to build domestic value-added capacity

Tyler draws on his experience inside federal government and now at CAPI to explain how coalitions form, how priorities get chosen, and where the real leverage points exist in shaping Canada’s agri-food future.

At the heart of the conversation is a simple but consequential question:

Does Canada treat agri-food as a strategic sector — or as a commodity engine navigating price cycles?

In an era of geopolitical volatility, that distinction matters.

About the Guest

Tyler McCann is the Managing Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI), an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing policy solutions for Canada’s agri-food system. He previously served in senior advisory roles within the federal government and operates a farm in western Quebec.

About Future Herd

Future Herd is a podcast exploring leadership, strategy, and structural change across Canada’s agri-food sector. We focus on systems, policy, innovation, and the people shaping the future of food.

If this conversation resonates, share it within your network and continue the discussion inside your organization. The future of Canadian agri-food will not arrive on its own — it will be organized.

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsh and welcome to the Future Herd.

On today's episode, I'm joined by Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian

AgriFood Policy Institute, CAPI, and this conversation lands at a charged moment.

Global trade rules are shifting.

Alliances feel less stable.

Food is no longer just food.

It's leverage, it's security, it's diplomacy, it's risk.

The ground under Canadian agriculture isn't just moving economically,

it's moving geopolitically.

So the question isn't simply how we grow more or export more.

The question is, do we understand the world we're stepping into?

Tyler brings a rare vantage point to that question.

He's worked inside federal decision making.

He now convenes policy dialogues across the sector, and he speaks with the kind of

clarity that comes from knowing how power actually operates, where ambition collides

with bureaucracy, where ideas stall and where they unexpectedly take root.

In this conversation, we wrestle with what it really means to think

about the future right now, not as a slogan, as a discipline.

How do you choose what matters when the list of urgent issues keeps expanding?

How do you create focus in a sector that's perpetually reacting?

And how do you push for policy imagination in a culture that often rewards caution.

We talk about coalition building, about the temptation to stay comfortable about

whether Canada is seizing this trade moment or sleepwalking through it and

beneath it all is a deeper tension.

Whether AgriFood sees itself as a strategic sector in a volatile world,

or just another industry negotiating the next incremental change.

If food is power, and indeed my friends, it is, then policy is the architecture of

that power and the architecture we build now will shape far more than just margins.

Here's my conversation with Tyler McCann.

I.

Hello Tyler.

Uh, welcome to the herd.

It is great to be with you, Jesse.

Now, uh, you're actually the first guest, uh, we're having here in the

podcast who's kind of out of our pilot phase in that all the episodes we've put

together so far we're kind of still before we really got our legs and got moving.

So, uh, I'm really excited today both to talk to you about, uh, the role that

you have taken on within the sector.

Uh, the value, uh, use.

C in policy and policy engagement.

Um, but in particular, I like starting with the first question of, you know,

what does the future mean to you?

Right.

Do you think about the future?

When I say, you know, Hey, what's the future?

Uh, what comes to mind?

Uh,

what comes to mind just.

that the future's different.

And that we're not ready for it.

And a big part of what I think about every day is I think Canadian agriculture

and foods had a really good run.

You know, we've had, especially the last 20 years, but arguably the last 120

years, um, have been really positive.

The

The foundation fundamental,

been really strong and by and large, everyone that is kind around the system

has, has been able to benefit from that.

consumers.

Processors, exporters, but we've had a pretty, pretty good go.

But so many

fundamental.

that have been so critical to the success of the sector are a

lot shakier than they used to be.

And so I think it's important, I kind of understand that, to think about that

and to think about we should be changing today the future that's coming tomorrow.

Right on.

And you know, I, I'm being a bit coy with the concept of leader in the

sense that anyone who comes onto the podcast is in my definition of leader.

But you just expressed an interesting application of leadership right there

in which not only did you acknowledge the uncertainty that we're facing in

the future, but yeah, quite frankly, I think you expressed a kind of courage.

That, that we need to be addressing it.

And I, I wanna unpack that over the course of our conversation, but I

have another kind of foundational, uh, question I want to throw at you, which

is what drew you to the policy world.

And, and while that may seem kind of self-evident to you.

When I encounter a lot of farmers, a lot of food people, a lot of

agricultural people, people, I feel they neglect policy.

I see.

They sort of see it as something for experts and not for them.

And part of what I want to do today is kind of infect people with the

joy of policy and, and recognize that it's actually a really fun.

Space to be playing in.

So what's your origin story?

What's your lore?

How, how, how did the world of policy, uh, attract not only your attention,

but I think also your passion?

Yeah, it's, uh, I'm not sure that there's a great compelling

origin story, but I, so I started off, uh, working as a political staffer.

That was my first actually, maybe, maybe it'll be, uh, take a, a couple steps

back because I think it's, there's some.

Context that that matters.

Um, kind of grew

Grew up,

a beef farm in Western Quebec.

Uh, we now, my wife and I have, um, farm, uh.

10 minutes from where I grew up.

Uh, I did

I did my in

in

agricul.

management and technology at McDonald College was gonna be an ag

banker that seemed to be the career.

Didn't necessarily wanna be a farmer, wanted to be around the

sector, wanted to do those things.

Um, so the plan was basically do do my diploma.

Um, had a great time at McDonald College doing that.

Um, then started a degree in ag economics about halfway through

my first semester in Iowa went.

This is not for me.

I was not doing well in my science classes and my math class, my statistics

class, and I was taking a global food politics class and I went, man,

this politics stuff is a lot more interesting than all of this stuff.

applied

I,

a political science degree and I applied

to do the University of Ottawa,

and

it

it was at the time

so

of that

in the fall of 2005.

There was no

election

The conservative government was elected.

I was interested in conservative

politics

my local member of Parliament

elected.

transport Minister.

So the summer of 2006, I was hired as a, um.

Summer student in the Transport Minister's office.

Um, so that was my kind of exposure to life and government for the first time.

So I did that for the summer.

I worked part-time then in the, in the next kind of school year,

and then went back to working, uh, as the following summer.

Sorry, that was 2006, 2007.

Summer, I worked again as a student in the transport minister's office.

That fall, that August there was a cabinet shuffle.

Jerry Ritz was appointed agriculture minister.

He needed staff.

I said in the office.

Do you know if they're looking for somebody, I would love to go do that.

Um, and, uh, had a kind of very quick kind of process.

Got offered a job, so I was supposed to go back to doing my bachelor's,

uh, degree that Tuesday after Labor Day, and I started working for

the Agriculture Minister instead.

Right on.

that was.

Kind of the life changing moment for me was getting to go work for

the federal agriculture minister.

was more interested in the politics part

Part of

but uh, also interested in the

agriculture.

Of

And it turns out of the

Agriculture part.

Politics of that context is actually the policy space.

And that is kind of what got me down the road.

I, I spent some time working for the natural resources minister, but for,

uh, I guess would've been seven years I worked for the agriculture minister

federally and, uh, that got me to

Where I'm today.

And do you miss the politics because, uh, I, it sounds to me as if what

you're arguing, correct me if I'm wrong.

That what makes agricultural policy unique is it has impact.

'cause there is a lot of the policy world, which can be abstract, can be

theoretical, can be uh, you know, quite frankly when you look at the AI policy

right now, highly speculative, but agricultural policy really does seem to

impact real communities and real people.

Is that what keeps you in it?

Uh,

this

partly,

partly and, and certainly,

um, getting

getting to work for the

minister.

The, the federal minister was, I often joke that like my problem,

I've been cursed because the first job I had was the best job I've had.

Uh, it was a chance to really have impact and that ability to have impact

and influence decisions and outcomes has been really important for me ever since.

Um,

but.

You know, I think that there's this space where, where policy

is often a, a dirty word I was, was at, uh, earlier this week, uh, the Canadian

Federation of Agriculture annual meeting, and somebody made a comment at one point

that they said that they wanted less government intervention in the sector.

And I think

I think that's probably so

of people that would listen would go, yeah, that makes sense.

We want less government intervention in the sector.

problem

is

that actually.

actually

I

I don't.

true because what you want is more government

investment in the sector.

What you want is more government.

governments closed science sites.

I bet people would like those science sites back open again.

When the federal government is investing in r and d, they are

intervening in the sector when they are

Are regulating or.

or keeping markets open abroad for Canadian exporters.

That is regulating the intervening in the sector.

And so I think when I think about kind of the policy world, I think about.

of those positive opportunities and the positive impact that governments

can have if it's done right.

Um, as well as all of the negative things that kind of, the typical

kind of, when we, when we talk about intervention is a dirty word, know what

people have in mind, but, but it is,

It's hard to think about,

things that happen on farms across this country that

don't.

a direct kind of policy impact.

You know, it, it, it's not like a policymaker.

Tilling the field.

if you think about the policy landscape around land use policy, and

if you think about what that means in Ontario today, whether or not

that field is farmer's field or is a condo tower is, is a policy decision.

And so, you know, I think of that, that understanding of how critical it is, how

much of an impact it is, how much of an influence it can have in, in the success

or failure of farmers, is something that, yeah, really I find super interesting

and engaging and keeps me going.

And, and I think you just hit it on the nose.

'cause you're, you're absolutely right that, unfortunately not just

in agriculture, I think right across society policy has gotten a bad rap

that people think it's bad when instead it's just a vehicle to what you want.

Like if you want less regulation, that's a policy, right?

If you want more regulation, that's a policy.

A, a friend of mine, vast Bednar, has this great concept of regs to riches,

that regulations lead to riches.

And I think the agricultural sector, more so than many others, benefits from

good policy and at the same time can be disproportionately hurt by bad policy.

So I, I'm curious both in the context of you kind of being on the inside

of government and now, you know, kind of being, uh, within the broader, uh,

ecosphere of ideas and, and engagement.

How have things changed?

Like how have engagement levels changed and, and how do you see, uh,

organizations, whether associations who are there to try to mobilize this opinion

or government itself and ministry itself?

How are they responding to this changing policy environment?

It is far more complex than it used to be.

And so if

So if you look at

I'm not gonna have the stats right, but, uh, the federal,

when, uh, somebody lobbies the federal government, they have to record it

in the lobby registry, and you have to kinda indicate what it's for.

And if you go

go back to.

in as a political staffer.

The number of people that were registering that they were lobbying on agriculture

issues, that they were communicating with the government about agriculture

issues to kind of where it was.

Uh, years later there was about a threefold increase in the number of

people that were registering, uh, communications on agriculture issues.

That's not, because there are three times more farmers that

are talking to governments.

It's because there are many different voices that are engaging on these issues.

Right.

And the pressures the governments face are very different.

And yes, on one hand we've got this reality of declining farm demographics.

Um.

Especially when you look at the population growth that we, we've

seen, like the Canadian farm population is, is quite tiny.

so on one hand we see that,

But there are people.

far more interested and far more engaged on food issues

and the pressures on governments to respond to agriculture and food issues

today is very different than it was, you know, up in, in advanced 2015

whenever I was in, in government.

And I think that there's, that, a structural change in that,

that we haven't, that the sector hasn't, hasn't gotten used to.

There was a time when.

When a

Farmers

farm groups in this country had an issue, they

could fly to Ottawa, talk to the

agri.

talk to the senior leaders in the Ag department, say, here's

Here's what problem

And the ag minister in the department would go away

and they'd fix the problem.

It doesn't

doesn't work that way.

because there's a lot

People

a lot of different perspectives on what the problems really

are, what the solutions are, and what the role of government is in, in fixing them.

And

not.

that, I think the reality is there's, you know, there's a lot of really

good, smart people inside government, but their ability to understand.

A complex sector, uh, a difficult dynamic sector like agriculture and food,

ability to understand that and develop solutions isn't the same as it used to be.

So not only do you kind of face this kind of broader conglomeration of voices

that are talking about agriculture issues, you also need to come to the

table with better solutions than what we've, uh, had to in the past because

the ability of government to of come up with the solutions themselves

isn't the same as it used to be.

Well, and, and to what extent is speed or or responsiveness as an

application of speed part of that issue?

Because, I mean, certainly for me growing up, the idea that governments moving fast

was an oxymoron unto itself, and yet now.

Whether it's, you know, policy issues around CFIA traceability or, you know,

consultations around high speed rail.

It seems like the public really moves fast around the conversations they

have, and that puts a lot of pressure on not just government, but policy

organizations, uh, uh, to keep up.

Do, do you see that tension there?

Yeah, so I

I think think it depends

the issue and I, and some

issues

and some issues move very slow.

and I think what we've a is kind the between,

speeds is greater than it than it used to be.

I

I think

The fast issues faster now than they are, than they were

before, and I think the slow issues are slower than they were before.

So if you are a priority issue, if you're dealing with something that is

all of a sudden landed on the front page of the globe, mail is a priority

of the Prime Minister or of his of the minister, will get attention

and your issue will move quickly.

But if it's not.

It's not gonna move at all.

I think if you look at, uh, some of the things that you mentioned, traceability

that you just mentioned, where there were, there's this blow back that flared up as

an issue weeks, like we're not talking, you almost could say days, all of a sudden

overnight this, this kind of ignited and the government backed off and, and down

quicker than they have in, in the past.

And so I think you see, on one hand you see that happening.

On the

On the other hand.

the Prime Minister.

Several weeks ago, uh, in his food affordability announcement

referenced that they're launching or they're gonna launch a, develop a,

a national food security strategy.

And what we hear is that they're moving very quickly on that.

And that's not something that's gonna take years to pull together.

As was the case when the federal government tried to develop a

sustainable agriculture strategy, that is something that the Prime

Minister made the commitment.

And they're gonna act and deliver on it soon.

And so

So that.

faster.

and so, so again, I think it, it depends And, and unfortunately for, for more often

than, than we would like many agriculture issues and many food issues fell into

that second group that things have moved slower than they have in the past.

And not only move slower.

Um, have barely moved at all.

And that I think, creates frustration.

And, and I think in my mind, drives home a need for a more focused agenda

to say we need to really understand what's important and we need to be

able to articulate what's important.

And we need to be able to articulate why it's important and what the

solutions again are that are needed so

So that

not

not getting all of the issues.

this kind of slow stream of things that barely move along.

Well, and, and let's take a moment to kind of get into the

weeds there and, and talk tactics.

So, you know, capi, the Canadian Agricul Agricultural Policy

Institute, is that right?

Um.

AgriFood AgriFood.

So we

Yes,

Ag.

Yeah.

correct.

And, and I, we, we too.

Here at the future, here at our AgriFood, I need to make more of an

effort to bring our food friends on.

Uh, stay tuned to upcoming episodes.

you had Dana, Dana's one of the, Dana's, one of the best food friends.

We all have.

We started at the top and now we gotta keep going at the top.

Uh, not to rip off that Drake song, but how, how do you

engage the, the, the ecosphere?

How do you guys both prioritize the kind of policy issues that you think

should be getting attention and that you think should be mobilizing

resources and, and, and how do you.

Uh, collaborate, mobilize to kind of make that happen, partly because

policy does take a village agricultural policy even more so, and, and you're

right, we're, we're in the world, especially now with, uh, the United

States doing what it does, where every day there could be a new distraction

that absorbs everyone's attention.

How, how do you navigate that kind of policy environment, that

kind of attention environment?

And, and

And it's interesting because

we

we're a

team of people, uh,

working in a small

policy think tank.

Uh, we are not, uh, we understand that we are a pretty niche thing, a

pretty unique thing in, in the sector.

Um, and

and as much as.

you, you

Talked earlier about

of

people are

in policy.

One of the, one of the challenges that we have in.

sector

country, is that there are a lot different,

doing a

different things.

in the policy landscape, and

So

there are

are,

tenets that are really important and are part of a transformation

that we've gone through as an organization where want to be relevant and impactful.

That's something that we think about a lot in what we can do, but we want to

we make sure that we're.

gaps and adding value, so we try and not talk about the things.

That everybody's talking about or if we are talking about them.

We try and do that in a way that is different and distinct and adds value

to the existing conversation, and part of that involves respecting.

The positions and, and kind of roles that other producer groups and, and

other advocacy organizations play.

Um, but we see an opportunity often to, to be a bit different.

And one of the ways that we're different is we do try and convene and engage

stakeholder groups when we're working on the issues that, that we do.

I think often what we see in agriculture is that farmers often in just their

commodities, But maybe even just with farmers tend to like to work in the farm

community, but so many of our farm issues have these butter impacts or would benefit

from perspectives beyond the farm gate.

And what we try and do is bring people together.

Now, got some feedback on a LinkedIn post recently asking about how many, why

we didn't have more farmers in a room.

And we're talking about ag innovation.

Um, so we understand that that's a bit of a flock, but that's partly

because we think that these, like the farm voice is important.

Farm voices in the room and there were representatives

from farm groups in the room.

But yeah, we had other people that are there.

And I think that, I think that one, when we talk about kind of building

that collaboration, building more support for new ideas, more people

around the room and engaged in that conversation is, is important.

Um, but you go back to all of those other voices that are lobbying, the

more people that we can get on the same page and buy into kind of what

matters for the sector, the, the better.

Now, interestingly enough, you're kind of on some levels

evoking the, the, the metaphor we've used here, which is the herd, right?

That there's a group of people who are all doing interesting things.

A and you guys are acting a as, as the kind of, you know, colleague or or herding

instrument to both see the opportunities.

But also to try to bring people together.

'cause you did say something earlier that I want to, uh, dig deeper on.

'cause I do hear in, in both the leadership part of the sector, but

also the policy side of the sector.

Uh, not so much a desire for unity, but a desire for synchronicity, a desire

for people kind of to work together.

So that when the priority comes, there's a kind of a, a, a, a focus

on resources, a focus on attention.

I haven't seen that desire as strong in other sectors.

Other sectors do tend to have more kind of factions or competing interests.

But, but it still doesn't seem like an easy thing to pull off.

Like how does that happen?

And, and, and what role do you see a, a group like yours, a nimble

group like yours, you know, able to play, given that a lot of the

larger associations, you know, larger organizations, they move slow and they

react slow and they deliberate slowly.

Well, and, and so I

I

challenge a bit of the premise that the sector actually

does, speaks with, with one voice.

I, I hear a

hear a lot people.

the sector needs to speak with one voice, but, but man,

I'm not sure often the sector is as good actually delivering on,

on what it says it needs to do.

And I think that the other challenge with that, Jesse, often gets to be in order

to get on the same page, in order to get that synchronicity that you talked about.

We end up in this lowest risk common denominator where what that one voice

is expected to say is this kind of bare minimum, low ambitious kind of support,

the status quo mantra that everybody can agree to because we haven't been able

to figure out how do you reconcile often what are legitimate differences in what

different parts of the, the sector want.

Different regions of the country want different farm

sizes or farm farm types want.

And so in order to kind of deal with that, end up with this space where.

Where we, we kind of, when we do see people making that effort, speaking with

that one voice, it ends up so watered

Down

I really questioned kind of the full value of it.

I,

I I'll.

I think that there's an important distinction when we think

about the, how we approach these things in internally, because you

refer to us as the Coley, but that's not the role that we want to play.

That's not the role we try and play.

I'm, I'm trying to kind of think of what that, what a,

a better comparison might be.

If you think about the hurt context we may be, are.

Are more, I don't know, a farmer with a pale of grain that's saying

like, here's a good idea over here.

You guys should come here, but hopefully we're attracting, hopefully

we're attracting people with the good ideas that, that we have.

But, but it is, it is more of a, you know, we, we talk a lot about

impact and, and how we kind of think about the impact that we have.

And, and when

when you were advocating for

which is what, what we do, the

impact that you have other people.

your ideas.

And so

We try

try and do that by.

good, smart people together to come up with the ideas.

These are not like our small team isn't the one that's aren't the ones that

are, are figuring all of this out.

But we have the opportunity to work with a lot of really brilliant

people across the country.

Bring them together, pull their ideas together, and then

effectively distill those ideas and share them with the sector.

And if those ideas are good and they resonate.

They will get picked up and, and they will get, move forward.

But, but we are, and I'll say we are, I think moving into more of a

world where we're trying to be more of that convener more, bring more

of those people together, see if we can build more of those coalitions.

there really is this tension because part of that is a spirit of, I. We need

to find kind of the coalitions of the willing that are willing to stick their

neck out and say, look it, we think that we need to do different things and we

need to be a bit bolder and a bit more ambitious, uh, at the end of the day.

And that may or may not include the, you refer to it as the her.

I think it's often this blob of organizations that, that exist,

that, that don't always do well with bold and don't always do well with

transformative and don't always.

Think very far beyond where they're at, where they're at today.

Right.

You, you've gone through this exercise around thinking about out to 2050.

Um, I don't think that we do well thinking out to, to 2030 at this point.

I'm thinking about all of the change that's that's coming.

Well, and I, I want to talk about that change.

'cause you alluded to it, you know, when we started in, in, in terms of the future.

And, and I do want to take a moment to reinforce your instinct around convening.

I mean, I, I think Malcolm Gladwell a couple of decades ago maybe talked

about the power of the convener.

And, and I've witnessed it my, my whole life that there is no greater

authority than the person who brings people together in the room.

And that is where small organizations can have an outsized impact.

Because you don't need to do the heavy lifting.

You just need to do the handholding to get people in the room.

And then whatever happens, you get the credit.

If it's good, if it's bad, it was everyone else's fault.

But I, I want to bring up something kind of controversial.

Well, maybe it's not controversial and that I've been noticing in the

broader Canadian policy environment.

Especially in light of this to what you alluded to the changing geopolitical

environment we find ourselves in that there's a lack of imagination

that, that we're not sufficiently brainstorming or coming up with

new ideas or challenging exist.

Thing ideas in a manner that lends itself to true policy innovation,

or at least true policy, you know, entertainment from my perspective.

Uh, uh is that, do you encounter that within the agricultural sector?

'cause you, I, I think you almost alluded to it, and how do you deal with that?

Like, how do you try to get people to be more imaginative, courageous,

curious, uh, when it comes to, uh, imagining what's possible.

Yeah,

Yeah, so

so absolutely,

we run into this and, and it's

and it's an interesting challenge because

you know, I

I think when we think about

um, so what, one of

the.

one of the interesting ways to think about the future is are

we facing this world of generational opportunity or are we facing this

world of generational challenge?

Right.

And those are two sides of, of the same coin, but I think they're very

different sides of, of the same coin.

And I

I think.

is hard for people to get their heads to wrapped around because

that is kind of, things could be better if I make these changes, but that

requires me to be changer, uh, make these changes that requires me to, to

be different and maybe or maybe not.

I'm gonna get this opportunity that's out there.

I think general cha generational challenge speaks to the fact that

how you are today is at risk.

And I think people wrap their heads and understand that better.

And, and so part of, I think what we try and do and, and, and could risk

and, and risk management and thinking about risks in the sector is, is a, is

a big part of the work that we do is to help people understand like there are

serious risks and what you have today is at risk and, and those fundamentals

that have been good for you for the last.

60 years, uh, may not be, uh, there for you in the future.

And so we should think about that and we should think about how we respond,

mitigate and manage those, those risks.

But, but on all of this, when we, when we try and talk about alternatives, I

think it's become increasingly clear just as you need to go to governments

and say, here's what the solution looks like when you're talking to, to

kind of audiences in, in agriculture.

You need to say.

Here's what the alternative looks like and here's what the impacts of the alternative

are, and here's what the consequences of, of the alternative are, because I

think they really need to wrap their heads around what might be different.

uh, again, we're a small team.

Sometimes what we wanna do is.

Put some ideas out there, get a get reaction.

And I, I think again, you realize that the kind of, the more maybe out louds the

idea is the more you need to have behind it so that people don't just dismiss

it out of head and say, no, that's too crazy, and, and or No, I'm too unsure.

And so the more you can, can articulate this is what the ideas, this is why we're

doing it, this is what the consequences are, the easy it is for people to

engage with that type of content.

Well, and myself, what's always attracted me to policy

is that freedom of imagination.

And on the one hand, you're right, Canadians historically and and my career

at the CBC unfortunately was rife with.

This love to dismiss things that are new, love to dismiss things that don't fit

into existing kind of, uh, conventions.

But I do feel, to your point about a generational opportunity.

Mines are open right now.

People are considering things they haven't, so, you know, give

a moment to, let's get right into the muck for a second.

You know, if you found yourself.

By accident on the same, uh, elevator, uh, with the Prime Minister.

You know, if there was one issue that you wanted people to focus on that

they're not one thing that we should be entertaining or debating whether

policy or not, what would that be?

Like?

What would you instinctively pull outta your pocket of, you know,

here's to use the social media cliche.

Here's what people are not talking about that we need to talk about.

So

So I think that the issue is

uh,

adding value.

I think that we have, we have too much kind of tension

and friction around this idea.

I think that that's changing.

I think there's more of an openness and more of a recognition of it, but,

but one of the, there's, when I talk about the fundamentals are changing,

there's a couple of reference points that I go back to and one of them

is if you look at agriculture and AgriFood, GDP, kinda the size of the

economy that the sector represents.

But if you look at primary agriculture share of that and value added agriculture

share of that primary agriculture share of that continues to increase.

There are kind of some reasons why that happens, but that inherently,

in my mind is not a good thing.

That means that we are losing that value added benefit and

that value added advantage.

you look at today in this trade moment that we're in, right?

We are in this space where as much as we'd like to think that we don't have

to worry about Trump tariffs because Canadian farmland can't get moved

south, there are thousands of food manufacturing jobs in this country.

That exists to service the US marketplace that could get moves out.

Those are, those are exactly the type of manufacturing jobs that

Donald Trump wants to repatriate.

And, and so how do we think through that?

And if you look at what actually has been kind of 10 pretty good years

of investment in food manufacturing in Canada has largely been driven by

market access to the United States.

If you want to build a plant that's competitive, that's a scale, you need a

plant that serves not just the Canadian market, but serves the US market too.

we lose that market access advantage that we have today, don't lose those

plants because there's a lot of new plants that are, that are in the country.

But we may lose

Lose any investment.

future plants, and we may see the erosion of those plants.

And so I think for a lot of reasons, we are missing out on how

do we think about adding value to Canadian agriculture, uh, today.

And, and the obvious question follow up to that is

like, what's the missing piece?

WW what's the kind of subset of that we should be focusing on?

Is it a capital issue?

Is it a knowledge issue?

Is it an infrastructure issue?

And, and just to verify that we're, we're talking that I'm thinking

about what you're talking about, you know, my gut response to

that is to see more kind of on.

On premises on farm processing, right?

The way that a lot of people now are taking the commodities they're producing

and turning it into products, you know, let alone direct to marketplace

or direct to other uh, uh, producers.

How do we shift that focus?

'cause part of it, I agree, is policy, but I sense part of it may be psychology

as well, of people understanding kind of what's, what is available to them

in terms of their operations and in terms of the entrepreneurial mindset.

You know, I think

I think

Jesse, so

many.

in agriculture and food become cultural issues we need to change

the way we think that there's this, again, you referred to it as psychology,

but I, but I think that there's a cultural issue and I, and I think.

You know, uh, my old boss that I start, uh, that I worked for, the

agriculture minister, uh, talked about farmers first all of the time.

We need to put farmers first.

Um, and I think it creates a dynamic that that reflects the

mindset that we've had where the agriculture and AgriFood department

is really the farmer department.

We need a cultural change to realize that actually what may be

in farmer's best interest in this country is more focused on processing

Mm-hmm.

added, and that may mean kind of the farmer priority.

doesn't get as funded as much as it used to because the kind of

scarce resources are going into supporting value, value added.

but I think there's 2, 2, 2 important things I wanna add onto that.

One is, I think we need to think about value added as

more than just food processing.

It is more than just food manufacturing.

It is.

Kind of this

Range of things, sustainability, certifications,

there's a premium available for a product that we can

go out and capture where we can add

value

the commodity, the supply chain that way.

And there's this big space

around innovation, how

about, how do we do things different?

And again, that is a kind of innovation that can add value to the sector

by driving down costs and making our farmers more competitive to

developing new products, new markets.

So I think that there's

there's a.

than we think about value added.

Yes.

Food processing is a huge part of that.

I think

I think.

that you talked about, Jesse, is, is one of the challenges

that we have though, is that may mean some more on farm processing, but if we

actually wanna have scale and impact, that means big facilities and it, and

it is this tension that we have in in the sector where, do you manage the

difference between the big and the small?

Now we often hear the talk about this and I, and I think Dana.

numbers reflect this, right?

The vast majority, whatever, 90% of food businesses are SMEs in this country.

But we often have these 80 20 rules where yes, the vast majority of

the total number of them are SMEs.

The big kind of things that actually change GDP numbers that

get noticed are big facilities.

And so how do you find that right balance and how do you understand

that across all of these things?

One of agriculture's strengths is diversity that we have

the big and the small.

But one of agriculture's weaknesses is also the diversity that we have, the

vague and the small, and kind of thinking through kind of one set of solutions that

work for everybody, whether or not it's a, a small farmer tried to do on-farm

value added or Mars and a big plant and the GTA doing the work that they're doing.

a farmer farming a hundred acres and.

Western Quebec or a farmer farming 6,000 acres in Saskatchewan.

We struggle.

I think, uh, you know, that diversity is, is a challenge,

and trying to find something that works for all of them is, is tough.

But,

But really.

think about how do we, no matter what we're doing,

have this reflex around added entrepreneurship, like you talked about.

I think it's a, like, it changes the outcomes for the

Yeah.

Yeah.

And, and I, I, I, I want to dig deeper into the culture piece, but as an aside,

and this is kind of outside of today's conversation, I think there, it would be

an interesting case study to look at how Amazon handles distribution, say just

exclusively here within Canada, and to think about how some of those lessons

can be applied to the Agri Food Sec.

There.

Because on the one hand, it reinforces your point about the need for scale of

having very large centers that create the kind of optimization possible.

But at the same time, Amazon has that grassroots capability to get

anything I want to my door, even in the farm, uh, the moment I want it.

Um, but again, I digress.

I I feel that when you

but, so,

Go ahead, please go ahead.

you, you,

You, you tell me before we hit.

that I could ask you a

You can digress, please.

Is your

your experience in the sector like firm?

learn from?

The examples like Amazon.

No, I, but I, I asked that question about imagination, uh, due

to my own personal agenda that I, I do find, I come from the internet world.

I come from the startup world.

I come from the world where, throw everything against the wall, see

what sticks right, and your constant iteration and brainstorming.

I meet many people in the AgriFood sector who act that way, who live that way.

To your point, we all love Dana, uh, McCauley, but I also do run into a lot

of people who are still in a 19th century agrarian model of governance and of doing

things, and, and that is an obstacle I think, for the sector as a whole.

I called it psychology.

You called it culture.

I think it's a combination of, of both.

And, and, and I guess what, what I struggle with sometimes is that

it's not like we're reinventing the or or we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

You know, that, that Amazon model, again, maybe it's not the best model, um,

uh, but it's a model out there, right?

It's so how do we understand what works or what doesn't?

We spend a lot of time talking about innovation these days.

I talk a lot about the Australian model.

There is a different way of funding r and d. In Australia

that I think is very relevant.

There's a lot of lessons that we can learn.

That doesn't mean that we transplant the whole thing into here, but it

means that why don't we look at it and take the best of what works

there and implant it into Canada?

But often it seems like the answer to people's kind of people's first

reaction, and so many of these times is.

Agriculture's different or Canada's different or this

doesn't work, this doesn't apply.

And, and I think there, there are a lot of missed opportunities to learn

from what others are doing and, and to think, why don't we just take what works

somewhere else and make it work for us?

Well on, on the one hand, there's table stakes, right?

It it, it's why even though you and I are policy people, you and I are innovation

people, we're also both farmers, right?

Because that's part of what allows us to participate in the space.

But when you evoke.

Culture, you, you, you, you're giving me the social license to bring up what I call

the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is true from a policy perspective, and I

I ain't talking about Donald Trump yet.

It, it's true from a policy perspective.

It's true from an economics perspective, and it's the urban,

rural divide here in Canada.

And I underestimated the, the extent to which that difference, uh, I, I influences

everything, but when I went from living in the city to living in the country.

I was shocked at how completely ignorant my city friends are about

rural life and at the same time how misperceived the city is.

And it strikes me, given our first pass to post politics, given the

nature of how policy debates happen.

This is the real problem that we have to deal with.

If, to your point, we're gonna have a cooperation in which, on the one hand

we're thinking about how we're funding farmers, but on the other hand, we're

allocating resources to processing 'cause that benefits everybody.

That gets us railways, that gets us roads, that gets us the infrastructure we want.

So, uh, I'm rambling, but I, I kind of feel that this urban, rural split is

tied to what we're talking about in terms of the culture and psychology piece.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

And uh, I've talked over the years about, The four Ps that that

agriculture faces is challenge.

And one of those is the politics

And,

and

and that is the space where

we

we're in this world.

Where there is

strong rural urban divide

where

urban

communities,

one way.

urban issues

the attention, rural communities and writings vote the other.

And so we live in this space where, um, it's really easy for

the conservative party of Canada to take rural votes for granted.

to ask where the ag platform was in the last federal election

campaign from the conservative.

Uh, as a former conservative staffer that contributed to platforms, it pained

me not to see, not to see one, uh, not to see one and, and what they put out.

And, but on the flip side, I guess the liberals had one,

but it was very like token.

It was kind of like from the greatest hits, uh, that I'm sure that the

liberal ag platforms changed much in,

And to your point, I think the liberals take urban

voters for granted, right?

I think in both cases, they're neglecting the constituencies that they

should actually be properly serving.

'cause instead the battle is for the swing votes.

The battle is for the exurban suburban edges.

That kind of fall in between these lines and better policy is, is the con, sorry.

Worse policy is, is the consequence.

That and, and I think it is, um.

You know, I, so I'm in a, I'm in a nonpartisan position now.

I'm not involved in partisan politics, but, but I've said to increasingly said

to people, I think one of our challenges is we need to get more, uh, more

convinced that there are votes to be had on these issues because, you know, we

We can talk about,

great economic impact of the sector, or we

we can talk about.

in Ontario.

There are more manufacturing jobs in food than there is in automotives.

But if there's not a political advantage.

It's hard to get kind of attention and engagement on it.

And so that, that I think is just this, this dynamic and, and it's, it's a,

Challenge

the, at

at the

and, and it really is,

you.

nothing we can kind of do about it or, or, I think that there

are some things that we can do about, first and foremost is probably how do

we help, how do we understand that in many rural communities can benefit from

liberal policies when they're right.

How do we get past kind of this rural urban divide, this, this kind of piece

that's there and how do we think about it?

In a different context, in ways that, that, that aren't, aren't the,

aren't the way that they used to be.

Well, and, and I, I feel a, one of the mandates of

this podcast, but also one of the opportunities of the sector is to

be non-partisan and non-ideological, because earlier you lamented.

I think legitimately so that often getting everyone on the same page means you really

dumb it down and you really leave out the meatier parts of a policy opportunity.

I think that we are in a position to start coming together

around both methods and, uh.

Priorities that allow us to achieve complexity and nuance and unity precisely

because we say we don't gotta be partisan, we don't gotta be ideological.

There's enough commonality and, and interestingly enough, I actually think

the processing piece is part of that.

I acknowledge that there are a lot of people threatened by it.

There are a lot of people who feel that it could be a zero sum situation.

But I think once you really kind of crunch the numbers and understand

the global dynamics, processing is the area that lifts all boats, right?

The, the same way that I, I kind of feel that Fin Dana's organization has

a similar approach where they really want to raise all boats, and those are

the policy approaches that I think it's a lot easier to get everyone on side

boat, which is why, again, I'm giving you guys the, I'm, I'm saying convening

is definitely the path forward to this.

I'll be devil's advocate, especially since uh, uh, you are, uh, so

brilliant and generous here with your time and attention.

What is the obstacle to that happening, right?

If, if Jesse the newbie is saying, Hey guys, if we focus on the priorities

and the system and try to, you know, limit the, the partisan bickering,

we can accomplish something.

Am I naive or are there things here that I, I'm not seeing that would make this

harder than, than what I'm imagining?

You

You know, I think.

um.

This is very much my kind of strong personal that, that the,

that the challenge at the core of that is that farming is a

tough, business farmers often are.

Being squeezed and under threat and are worried that if they give an inch,

somebody else is gonna take a mile.

And you know,

You know, there's.

important context to some of those things that I see.

So as farmers hard and struggle, but.

average farm family is worth a lot more and makes more than the

average Canadian family, right?

So there's like, again, two sides to many of these coins.

But, but

But all of that.

like the reality is again, I think that there's this, this

pressure and when you're under the pressure all of the time, again, you may

not be as willing to kind of embrace.

of a focus away from you and onto somebody else.

We run into this a lot when we talk about risk management programming in Canada.

We have effectively had the same framework for risk management

programs a little bit different.

We've, I guess, more provincial companion programs in Ontario.

There's RMPE, but there's this suite of programs across the country that have

largely been the same for 25 years.

The world has changed, the technology has changed.

The other options and tools are there are different, but farmers are really

reluctant to talk about changing to risk management programs because I

think when they think about change to risk management programs, they

think about fewer monies going to support their risk management needs.

They think about they're gonna lose and, and that when you're worried

about losing all of the time, your ability to embrace thinking

differently really gets to be tough and it really gets to be a challenge.

And, and I, I kind of wanna acknowledge and validate that psychology

because the other thing that shocked me, uh, when I became a farmer is the extent

to which farmers are constantly circled by sharks of all sorts, shapes and sizes.

And, you know, I once had a farmer say, uh, frame it quite brilliantly, which

is, you know, we're the only people who, uh, uh, buy retail and sell wholesale.

Right.

Like you're on the wrong side of all the different economic mixes.

So I, I get the kind of, uh, economic paranoia, but at the same time as you've

been repeating through our conversation today, times have changed, right?

We're in a different world.

We're still figuring that.

Out.

We're still, uh, uh, that's where the collaboration piece, I think is best

done as the opposite of dumbing down.

But of, uh, each one teach one of all of us helping each other.

And that's where I wanna throw you a, a, a bit of a self-serving

question, but nonetheless, uh, a a a kind of, uh, giving you respect.

I love the podcast, uh, that you guys at Cap are doing with real agriculture.

'cause I really feel it makes.

This kind of knowledge accessible podcasts are very popular amongst farmers.

You can listen to it while you're doing your chores, while you're in the tractor.

Social media is obviously also very popular with farmers.

Um, so I'd love to hear about how that's going and, and how you feel

that fits into the larger kind impact, uh, driven nature, uh, uh, of Kappy.

'cause I, I, I'm a fan and it's.

Partly what motivated me to say, Hey, let's do more podcasting.

'cause I think this is how we enact that cultural change and, and, and really start

to reach people and open their minds.

Yeah.

And, and one of the, the dynamics that we've got in the sector is that

this isn't, uh, you know, the auto manufacturers where there's kind of

five big players, and if you get their CEOs on the same page, you fixed it.

We've, we've got, uh, 150,000 farmers in the country.

Um, this is a very diffuse group and, and trying.

Like, we

We realize that if we wanna have,

we need to meet people where they are and talk about the

things that we're talking about in ways that resonate with them.

And

so the podcast,

is, is part of that, right?

It is

how do we

take content, make it more digestible, but also how do we

make it available in ways that, as you say, people can listen no matter what.

I, I,

I,

am

I'm a big fan of

to the podcast when I'm out in the tractor.

what are the things that we're trying to do now on the podcast?

with this, this most recent focus is

How do we talk about,

kinda the big ideas for change?

how do we do this?

way that hopefully is not threading?

How do we do it in a way that's easy, that's, that's engaging, that

you say kind of breaks things down?

I'm trying to talk to people about.

Um, that have big ideas.

Some big ideas are actually kind of small, but they are

like big transformational ideas.

of the ideas that we, we, we just had an episode come out recently

on, uh, embracing benchmarking and business management.

One of, I talked about the challenges we have with risk management.

We put a lot of money and time and focus into risk management programming.

We put very little into proactive risk management decisions, and I think that

there's really something to be said for.

Man, we should take a little bit of money that's floating around in

the ether of all of these programs

Incentivize.

uh, uh, business management benchmarking.

How do we kind of fund the resources so that farmers could become part of

a, a benchmarking group, could make their data available, learn from others?

Understand this, like, like the fact that that just seems like such a simple.

Impactful way to take a little bit of money and go a long, long way.

So, uh, you know,

that's that.

little idea, big change.

I think.

Um, uh, it is, it is, it ends up being a big idea because we're not doing that.

That, um, that's not a reflex that this idea that.

That proactive risk management, that farmers are their own first line of

defense is an idea that's gotten lost.

When governments think about risk management.

We've also talked about supply management and the future of supply management.

That's maybe more of a bigger, more controversial idea, but, but

we really see this need to kind of put those ideas out there and.

And again, put them out and not in a way that says this is the solution.

I, I really, I think this is in part, kind of informed by my, my startup in the

politics, but I really don't think that there is a right answer on any of this.

There are just different ideas.

With different pros and cons and different consequences, and

So.

we'll put our ideas out there.

We wanna create the space where we can put more ideas out there, have that

more, understand what those pros and cons are, understand what the consequences

are, and then people get to make their own decisions at the end of the day,

whether or not they think that they're the right ones or the wrong ones.

And, and that's why I think policy is such an exciting area right now.

'cause on the one hand there is a kind of butterfly effect that you evoke that

even the smallest idea people can go Wow.

Yeah.

And really wrap their head around it.

Then the distribution of that idea via TikTok, via Instagram, via

x can happen at a rapid speed.

And it's why I'd love to see more policy leaders, more ag leaders doing what you're

doing, which is having these conversations on a regular basis and letting people

make up their own minds, right?

Letting them figure out, like get the information and, and move forward with it.

Um.

I, I that kind of li as we start to come to a close, it kind of brings

us to the real variable throughout all of this whi, which is the United

States and the Trump Administration, and granted the SMA or U-S-C-M-A,

however you want to rearrange the acronym, uh, is a hot topic, uh, within

agricultural circles for very good reason.

But it seems to me that the constant is uncertainty.

I, I'm, I'm, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

You've, I think, been alluding to it.

I think it's been a through line in terms of, you know, we need to be adapting to

this new world, but on a. Concrete level.

I would love to hear your kind of informed perspective on kind of

what's going on and, and what we should be doing to prepare for it.

Both on the AgriFood level but also on the geopolitical level.

'cause they're, uh, intrinsically linked.

And I, I

Encourage to go

YouTube channel because we've had two webinars this year.

One was an Outlook, uh, for 2026, and the other one was, was explicitly

on geopolitics, but we, on for

the

webinar,

we looked.

farm economics.

We looked at farm sentiment, we looked at farm policy and foreign politics,

U-S-M-C-A was kinda the elephant in the room and all, I guess it wasn't the

elephant in the room, it was very much called out as, as the major challenge.

know, the FCC economist that was on the webinar effectively said,

look at, these are our projections.

But if Donald Trump rips up the agreement, all bets are off.

Yeah.

will

Yeah.

a bad year, right?

If you look at from the foreign politics perspective.

You know, we understand what the year looks like.

We understand how the year goes.

If Donald Trump asked for something crazy on supply management,

you know, all bets are off.

From a political perspective, it is such a big challenge at the end of the day.

And it's interesting because I think we are starting to see a bit of a

shape politically, nationally, around how Canada should approach the United

States and the rest of the world.

I think that.

Actually at the end of the day when it comes to the United States, the,

the kind of perspective of the prime minister and the opposition leader

are probably pretty similar in that we need to defend Canadian interests and

yes, we should get a deal at all costs.

But I think both are pretty aware that, you

You know that, that, that idea,

a tariff free deal.

It probably not realistic at this point in time.

well

when we

think about.

what that means for agriculture and food and, and what that

means for the broader relationship, a couple of things that I think

are really important to understand.

We can handle tariffs as long as we have a tariff advantage.

you know,

Like

a 10%

10% tar,

not ideal.

I don't think that's in anybody's interest.

That's not, that's not great, that's not predictable,

but we do have an

compared to the rest of the world.

And so understanding what that looks like and, and kind of the level of the

tariff and the impact that that's there.

So, so that doesn't necessarily mean we need to light our hair on fire,

there.

situations where we may need to light our hair on fire that

may have really dire consequences.

And as much as we like to talk about trade diversification.

The reality is, is that is extremely hard in agriculture and food,

Yeah.

This isn't just a, a question about bulk commodities,

almost every product that we produce, the best and easiest market is going

to be the United States, and it is hard to build the infrastructure

needed to really diversify and, and the sector today, or maybe not today.

well probably even today, probably even today, more concentrated in the United

States market than it was 20 years ago.

Yeah.

American Free Trade Agreement kind of

supercharged that integration.

You talk about those investments that we've got in plants in, in Ontario.

I mean, one, one

One of the great,

stories is bakery goods.

I don't think people know that we're a major exporter.

Bakery goods into the United States.

We have a $4.5 billion trade surplus with the United States on bakery goods.

Um, like

all of that.

on that, that meaningful market access.

And so we need to get through this year, we need to get through the next couple

of years with a reliable trade deal.

And, and then we need to think through.

If that doesn't happen, what does probably transition look like?

And, and, and one

And one of the challenges.

all of this is.

Kinda the predictability because even if there was a sense that maybe we may,

something bad may happen for the next year or the next two years, there's a hope

that return back to normal after that, then that takes some pressure off, right?

Like, like it reduces the motivation to change and transition.

And I think that that's really the, the challenge that we're in today

is how do you plan for the future?

I talked about change, talked about the future, but, but how

How do you.

that future's gonna look like when.

When it hasn't, hasn't arrived yet.

When there are kind of big differences and, and where there are, where

there's kind of the length and, and the duration of that changes and unknown.

The final point, Jesse, that I think is really important is, or maybe two points.

One, we have more leverage than we think that we do.

And I really do think that that's, that often gets lost in this, is that,

um, you know, if you look at the, kind of the technical arrangements.

What's that happens this summer is a review process and as part of that

review process that, that any one member of the agreement could provide

a notification, but that effectively starts a 10 year clock That, that

the agreement only ends 10 years ago.

But

But there is another alternative,

is somebody just gives the six months notice to

say they're walking away, but.

that will have devastating.

on the US economy.

Like the president may threaten that, but I dunno,

Yeah.

it's gonna happen.

Yeah.

so like,

So, so like understanding the.

that we have is really important um, and, uh,

happens, I forgot what the, the other part I was gonna make is, but

Oh, sorry.

The other thing, the other thing is that, and

this is I guess part of the.

Part of the leverage.

But, but I think that if you look at what a lot of, we have more allies

in the United States and, and even on something like supply management,

if you look at what the US dairy industry is saying, you know, they're

not asking for the end of the system.

That's not what they want.

And so I think it's really important to understand, you know, the, the

president's got his own views, his own, his own desires on these

things, but I think it's important.

For Canadians to understand more of the facts and kind of look beyond the

hysteria that we seem to live in, in this space to know what is the dynamic

that we're really operating in when it comes to, to customer renegotiation.

Uh, although potentially contentious follow up, do you think

the federal government, uh, uh, values or prioritizes the AgriFood

sector compared to all the other competing agendas that they need to

be looking at in this, uh, uh, chaos?

So the, the Prime Minister went to China and

Effectively trade.

for canola.

You know, like that says a lot to me.

Uh, I mean, let's be honest that I don't think that would've happened

into the past Prime Minister.

You can get

Mm-hmm.

Kind of

arguments

about.

of the scale and the understanding and, and kind of the

trade-offs that were there, but, The Prime Minister came back from China with

Scott Mo kind of locked arm in arm and

Mm-hmm.

to what he was doing.

that says a lot to me, I think, about how the current, uh,

government is thinking about it,

Is very different.

than when it comes to supply management.

And I think, uh, the unfortunate reality that heard for.

Producers in the sector understand and appreciate is that government

is gonna put the Canadian economy at risk to protect supply management.

And so if the US said, and I don't think that this is what's gonna happen, but

if Donald Trump said, we're gonna leave everything the same, you're gonna get

your tariff free access, but you need to tear down all of your dairy protections.

I think it's a very easy decision for the Prime Minister to make.

And, and I, from the scuttlebutt that I'm reading amongst the

agricultural sector, the, the concern is there, there's a lot of people who

are doing the kind of game theory you're doing of trying to anticipate this.

This has been an absolutely fantastic conversation.

Uh, if only because it indulges my own kind of desire to reinforce the value of.

Policy as a playground for anybody and everybody.

Uh, because I, I, I think one of the truisms that we've teased out

is that there aren't crazy ideas.

There's just boring debates, and that debates get more interesting

when you have more ideas.

Uh, any final thoughts or, you know, uh, uh, things you kind of want to leave

us on, especially a, as we kind of.

Think about what our audience, the through line for our audience, which

is, you know, we need leadership, we need new kinds of leadership.

That's kind of what I've been hearing you, uh, hearing you talk

about and say throughout this.

So, anything you wanna leave us with,

Yeah, I think

we

we

leaders that are prepared, make

When I

talk about.

change that's there, it means that we're gonna

need to do things differently.

And again, I think we've had the luxury of not having to make big, tough decisions.

I think our governments have not had to make big, tough decisions.

I think our farm leaders have not had to make tough decisions.

I think farmers make decisions every day on their farms.

Deciding things, making choices be that hard.

But if we wanna really unlock the full potential of the sector, we

need to be prepared to make, make some decisions, make some choices.

That's what's in front of us.

And I think to your point, that's where advocating for ideas, putting different

thoughts out there, helping, making sure people are making informed decisions is a

big part of the role that we're playing.

And something that I get really excited about.

Right on a big Canadian salute to you.

Our, uh, uh, automated audience has been enthralled with this conversation.

Uh, where can people learn more, uh, about Cap?

About you, Tyler, about the work you guys do?

Yeah,

Yeah, they could go

our website and sign up for our mailing list.

website is CAPI ipa.ca.

Uh, sign up to our mailing list.

That is the best place to stay tuned with all that we're doing the.

But they should also go check out our YouTube channel, our webinars go there.

There's some pretty good content.

Our podcasts are, our episodes are there as well, and they should check

that out and people should feel free to engage with us on kind of all the

social medias and all of these things.

I maybe not often the best on it, but, but one of the things that we really wanted to

do is encourage more debate and dialogue.

So the more people that are talking about the work that we're doing, telling

us where they think that we're right, telling us where they think that we're

wrong, um, that makes us really happy.

We always appreciate the, appreciate the feedback and engagement.

Right on.

Thank you.

That was my conversation with Tyler McCann from the Canadian

AgriFood Policy Institute.

What I really appreciated about this exchange is the

refusal to drift into fatalism.

Yes, the trade environment is volatile.

Yes, geopolitical pressures are intensifying.

Yes, policy processes can feel slow, fragmented, cautious,

but there is also movement.

There are coalitions forming.

There's momentum building.

There are ideas gaining traction.

There are people inside and outside government who understand

that food is not peripheral.

It's foundational.

If there's a thread running through this conversation, it's this.

The future is not something that arrives.

It's something that gets organized.

Organized through focus, organized through courage, organized through institutions

willing to convene hard conversations and not flinch when complexity shows up.

The AgriFood sector in Canada has more leverage than it sometimes realizes.

The question is whether we use this geopolitical moment to think bigger

about value added production, about resilience, about sovereignty, about

the kind of leadership this era demands, or whether we settle for incremental

adjustments while the world reorders itself around and maybe without us.

Momentum is building.

The stakes are rising, and the opportunity is real.

If this conversation sparked something for you, hey, share it.

Push it into your networks.

Start a conversation in your own organization about what future

you are actually building toward.

This is the future herd and we're just getting going.