Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm also a graduate of Olds College. I farm about 40 minutes southwest of here in the foothills of Alberta.
I'd like to thank the committee for taking the time to come on a road trip. I know it's a big job to get organized and get the committee on the road. It certainly makes our job easier coming here to talk to you rather than having to go to Ottawa to speak to you. Again, I appreciate your time and effort in being here today.
On behalf of the Western Barley Growers, I thank you for the invitation to speak to you today under the ag policy framework.
Of the five pillars of the ag policy framework, business risk management is certainly the major pillar that has had the most attention. This is what the Western Barley Growers have spent the majority of our time addressing. On the other four pillars, I'll make the same comments that I did in 2003 when we appeared before the standing committee, and that is, the other four were significantly underfunded to the point where some of them had no impact whatsoever.
The Western Barley Growers Association has used the private sector risk management partnerships program under the APF for a very successful program that we've been working on, which is the ag commodity clearing house. We'd like to see that the PSRMP program continue, as it has worked very well for us and we have seen significant benefits from that program. It has provided stable funding for the development of private sector risk management tools in a number of areas, and we encourage the committee to continue this program under APF2.
We've done a lot of work in developing the first CAIS program and how it came together as the combination of NISA and CPIP programs. We'd like to see CAIS remain as a whole farm margin-based program that is used in low-price, low-production years. We'd like to see it remain as a needs-based program rather than an entitlement.
CAIS has worked for my farm. The first time was probably when my otherwise inaccessible NISA account was accessed because of the change to the CAIS program. I may be fortunate in that I had high margin years that provided the payment base for the drought years. The change that would result in the program reverting back to a NISA-type program would change it to an entitlement program rather than needs-based.
The problem in grain farming is the dependence on the Canadian Wheat Board for marketing. Grain producers who rely on the Wheat Board to market their grain are in a very disadvantaged position. The CWB has refused to accept all grain that producers have offered to the board for marketing in the past three years. This has had a disastrous affect on the CAIS calculation. When there is at best a 10% margin in grain farming, and more likely zero or less, then the last few tonnes sold represent the margin. When the Wheat Board refuses up to 50% of the contracted bushels, as in the case of durum, this distorts the CAIS program payments. Farmers are left with no cash and no CAIS payment. They could not sell their grain, but the inventory was counted as a receivable and valued at the PRO, so there would be no CAIS payment. The program is blamed for not being responsive to farmers needs, but it is CWB mismanagement and refusal to follow one of the few actual requirements under the CWB Act.
To comment on Eric's public funding for R and D, this has virtually dried up completely as far as public money going into variety research for western grain and oil seed commodities. It's been shifted completely to the private sector, which may have some advantages, but there are certainly disadvantages in the long run.
I look forward to any questions or comments you have.