Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity.
We are representing fruit and vegetable growers from Ontario. I'm going to deal with one issue here today. We're going to be very focused. I'm going to read my presentation, and then we'll get on with it.
My name is Len Troup, and I am the chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. Brenda is my vice-chair. We are seeking your support for the extension of our self-directed risk management program, referred to as SDRM. This is to cover the 2006 and 2007 crop years. That's the crop we're already harvesting, plus the one coming next year.
This is Ontario horticulture's alternative to production insurance, and it has been used extensively by our fruit and vegetable growers for the past decade. At this point, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is refusing to extend this program, leaving many of our growers without coverage. A promise and guiding principle of the current APF, which commenced in 2003, is that all crops grown in Canada will have access to both CAIS and production insurance. Yet this promise has not been fulfilled. In fact, there has been little if any development of new production insurance programs in Ontario.
We are about to enter the fifth and final year of APF 1. Yet we do not have crop insurance coverage on many of the fruit and vegetable crops that we grow. Is this the fault of the growers? Absolutely not. It is the role of both Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to develop and deliver these programs, and they have failed to do so. At a meeting in Ottawa less than two weeks ago, AAFC admitted to having dropped the ball on this issue. If there is no change in the current position, it will be our producers who pay the price for this failure.
When the APF was initiated, it was known that the development of new production insurance for horticulture was not going to be easy. Horticulture does not fit the production insurance mould produced primarily for the grains and oilseeds sector. It was for that reason that SDRM was extended to cover the 2003, 2004, and 2005 crop years. It is also the reason that prompted Minister Lyle Vanclief, as he then was, to write to our industry.
This is a direct quote from a letter addressed to me in my past and current position as the chair of the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board. The letter deals with concerns I had put to him prior to entering into the APF period. I quote:
The APF is performance-based and so, if governments and industry together cannot deliver on a commitment we will be obliged to look at alternatives. Before the end of three years, industry and governments will take stock of what insurance products have been developed to meet risks. If the products have fallen short, the scope may need to be broadened and alternatives, such as self-directed risk management or variations, may need to be considered. I am sure that we all want to give the development of new insurance products the best possible opportunity. I have, therefore asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials to work with their provincial counterparts to propose a plan to agriculture ministers on how we can work multilaterally—with crop insurance agencies, agriculture departments, industry and other outside experts—to pool ideas and develop new ones in order to reach our goal. I do not want to fall short because we did not give it enough effort.
That was a letter to me responding to my concerns prior to going into the APF. That was a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture, and with that commitment in hand, we went in. But that commitment is being ignored, and that's why we are here today to seek your support in overcoming this inequity. We ask only that the government of this country follow through on a commitment, made at the outset of the APF, to provide all producers across this country with access to both CAIS and production insurance and, if a program could not be developed by the end of three years--and one has not--then to consider a program such as SDRM.
We believe the government has made a commitment to our industry. It is a moral, if not legal, obligation to follow through on that commitment. Many of our producers have no form of production insurance available to them. This is not because they don't want it or because they don't need it, but because government has not provided a program to them.
The government will tell us that SDRM is not production insurance in its purest form because it is not premium paid; nevertheless, SDRM is comparable to production insurance in the minds of the growers, and our members need some form of coverage, be it traditional or otherwise. As we enter the fifth and final year of APF 1, it is most probable that no new production insurance programs will be available to our members.
IBM Consulting stated in their August 2006 report to government that if we were to have new programs available by 2008—that's for the 2008 crop year—we had to start to develop them by now. Note that I said 2008, not 2007. So we're not looking forward to any change in 2007—which means more of nothing.
I'm sure you will agree that it is government's role to develop these new programs and that it is obvious they have failed to do so. It is unacceptable to our members that SDRM—their form of crop insurance—has been taken away and replaced with nothing more than a broken or empty promise of production insurance coverage.
Our request for the federal government to contribute their 60% share to the extension of SDRM would fulfill the government's commitment to our industry at the outset of the APF. It does not give our industry any more coverage than other crop producers already have and take for granted. It does not guarantee prices for market; it is simply a workable alternative to production insurance.
As a signatory of the APF, the Ontario government has recognized both the commitment made and its obligation to follow through on that commitment; it has already extended its share of the funding towards an SDRM extension to cover crop years 2006 and 2007. These are the years that we're asking the federal government to cover.
We need the federal government to do the same, to extend its share of funding for SDRM for 2006 and 2007. The government needs to honour the commitment made to our industry at the outset of the APF, that all producers of all crops have some form of production insurance coverage available to them; that's all we're asking. Just do what you said you would do. I think you will agree that we are not asking for much in the way of dollars. The cost to the federal government is approximately $7 million annually. What we are asking is that they deliver on their commitment to our industry.
I thank you.
We're all ready for questions.