Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
My name is Darcy Kirtzinger. I farm near Hay Lakes, Alberta. As a young farmer, I'm very encouraged at consultations like this to hear what's going on and to hear what people are thinking about in regard to the future of agriculture. It's certainly going to affect my generation of farmers.
I'm here today on behalf of the Alberta Barley Commission. We represent roughly 17,000 barley farmers across Alberta. Those producers represent roughly half of Canada's annual barley production.
I'd like to thank you all for making this trip out west.
I'm going to speak to you today about some principles on safety nets that our business risk management committee has come up with. Business risk management in agriculture must be three things: it must be market neutral, WTO green, and profit focused. I'm going to talk about each of these in turn.
In terms of being market neutral, the Alberta Barley Commission is in favour of a safety net program that does not encourage producers to make cropping plans in accordance with government programs. Cropping plans must rather be based on signals from the marketplace. This is why we have supported the whole farm approach for safety net programs in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.
On WTO green, market access is paramount to Alberta farmers. Therefore, any program must be set up in such a way that it does not have the potential to become a trade barrier. My generation is certainly aware of globalization, and we don't want to see any adverse effects. Given the current environment of globalization and WTO regulations, safety net programs must be decoupled from other programs such as crop insurance. Each program must stand alone and on its own merit.
We support farmer involvement, not the current fee situation in CAIS but one that is more akin to the deposit proposal in CAIS's original incarnation. The deposit has always remained farmers' money, whereas the fee is not. We do not agree with the NISA approach because it creates entitlement and it therefore takes away from need. NISA, in its current form and in the past, has been seen as a rich farmer's program.
Finally, BRM programs must be profit focused. As I've already mentioned, we support the whole farm approach in order that programs do not drive production plans. Farmers are expected to make business decisions based on the marketplace. Therefore, the overall aim of safety nets is to reduce the capitalization of government program money for its own sake and to encourage production based on market signals. On principle, a program cannot encourage the production of a crop or commodity for which the buyer is not willing to pay at least the cost of production, regardless of the reason for the low market prices.
Safety net programs under business risk management should be able to assist farmers when there is a downturn in profit. Those same programs should exist to help farmers get through hard times and to allow for a change in their business plans should the need arise. Unfortunately, profit-focused programs may have the effect of pruning some of those farms that are only kept afloat with continuous support. In other words, a safety net program must be based on business principles, not designed to attempt to address social problems.
Thank you for your time.