I believe I'm going to go first, and then Kalissa and then Bob.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before you today, ladies and gentlemen. We didn't find out until Monday night when we were driving down Highway 401 on the way home from our 38th annual convention of the National Farmers Union in London that we were requested to appear. It just so happened that Kalissa came home with me. So rather than have a couple of days off, here we are. But it is a pleasure, and we thank you very much for this opportunity.
We represent the National Farmers Union of Canada. We're both on the national executive and on the board of the National Farmers Union.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my local member of Parliament, Guy Lauzon. I live and farm in the area of Iroquois, Ontario. Mr. Lauzon has visited my community, and he has also attended my church.
I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Lauzon. Thank you.
In focusing on Growing Forward, which seems to be the topic of the study today, I'm going to give an overview, and Kalissa is going to talk about her vision for agriculture.
Over the past 10 years, there have been numerous studies, submissions, recommendations, and proposals, which many of us around the table are very familiar with, that focus on the ongoing demise of the farming sector in Canadian society. The 2007 release from Statistics Canada on the agricultural sector shows there is an ongoing crisis in rural Canada. The loss of farms and farmers, the ever-aging demographics, and the average net income, well below Canada's national average, point to what can only be considered an incurable cancer in the countryside.
Whereas Growing Forward recommends some progressive steps in addressing issues of concern to farmers and consumers, many of the principles and policies actually lack meaningful or truly progressive and informed rationale. I've been involved in several of the consultations over the past several years, right from Lyle Vanclief through to the more recent consultations. I've travelled right across Canada to be involved in these consultations.
The competitive success that is referred to several times in Growing Forward has not brought financial success to the vast majority of farmers across Canada. We have indeed been competitive. According to Agriculture and Agri-food's own data, agriculture has been responsible for over $15.4 billion in export in the first half of this year alone, yet the majority of farmers will show a net loss, or at least a significantly low on-farm income, again this year.
Policy outcomes in Growing Forward embrace a competitive and innovative sector, a sector that contributes to society's priorities, and a sector that is proactive in managing risks. These can be achieved only when profitability on the farm is addressed once and for all without further enhancing the culture of never-ending dependency that we have in agriculture today. We need to break that cycle of dependency.
The so-called modernization of our regulatory systems and the harmonizing of our standards across international boards will simply allow profitable input suppliers and processors the ability to access products that would otherwise be deemed potentially unsuitable for use in Canada.
According to Growing Forward objectives, highlighting the value of buying Canadian products, which is referred to in the paper, can be achieved when we address the misleading labelling regulations that are currently being used. A program that is not dissimilar to country of origin labelling will give Canadians the information they need . An increasing number of Canadians seek to support “grown in Canada”, not simply “processed and packaged in Canada”.
Further, with regard to society's priorities as referenced in the Growing Forward paper, when we're buying locally or buying “grown in Canada”, risks to health and safety can be easily mitigated, and profitability to the farmers will be better and more easily achieved. This goes beyond sound science; it's simply common sense.
As a farmer, I've always managed my own risks. I've had to. I've been farming for over 25 years, and I'm still in the business. Now, that has to say something. This may be statistically impossible, but it's true. I have diversified and strategized to meet market demands locally, nationally, and globally.
The new suite, proposed and soon to be implemented, may be a short-term solution for some farmers, but in the past we have seen those who are truly in need receive insignificant assistance in the form of payments. The Auditor General's report--and I have a copy here--on CAIS highlights flaws that are best avoided in the future. Once again, I want to emphasize that we need to get out of this cycle of dependency.
I'm going to skip some of this, because we're running short on time.
What we need is to focus on programs that equip farmers to extract money from the marketplace, not from the taxpayers. Orderly marketing and supply management have ensured profitability for farmers and must be protected in the international trade arena. These mechanisms serve as an existing business risk management program and are in fact supported by the majority of farmers, not only in Canada but also around the world.
If farmers are to be more successful, they need to be more profitable. The real causes of the farm income crises cannot be mediated by a business risk management program or suite of programs.
Farmers in western Canada—and Kalissa will talk more about this—require adequate, well-maintained, accessible, and affordable transportation options that include rail lines. Our commodity-based, export-oriented farms in remote and prairie regions require that specific provisions be made that ensure that farmers' needs are a top priority in the Canada Transportation Act.
At this time the alarming crisis in the pork and beef sectors cannot be ignored, and I myself am a cattle producer. As we think about what business risk management is supposed to do, we need to in fact stop crises of this magnitude altogether. This past week the NFU passed a resolution calling on the federal and provincial governments to assist farmers with graduated payments to farmers up to a cap of $100,000 based on current market losses. These payments would be outside of CAIS and targeted directly to farmers in order to ensure that this taxpayer money is not captured by the dominant packers or by packer-controlled feedlots, as happened during the BSE crisis.
As with all programs, the NFU is adamant that any and all government interventions go first and foremost to family farmers, and that farmers such as cow-calf producers be targeted for assistance. Further, the NFU asks the House of Commons standing committee to force the dominant beef and pork packers and food retailers to open their books, so that farmers, policy-makers, and taxpayers can find out who are taking the profits out of our livestock. Also, an inquiry into sudden and dramatic crises in the farming sector that also provides primary producers ample opportunity to participate should be launched.
The NFU is currently preparing an advisory document for policy-makers with recommendations on how to ensure stability in the livestock sector and to restore viability to family farms, preventing the need for future taxpayer support. Finally, the NFU advises the Government of Canada to curtail its predisposition to consult with and heavily fund corporate-based think tanks such as CAPI, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute. This supposed arm's-length think tank is exclusionary in nature and far removed from on-farm realities.
In closing, I would like to mention government's role in safeguarding and indeed protecting the public trust. Policy that puts food producers and consumers at the centre of development will ensure stability and fairness. Failing to provide policies that preserve, pursue, and strengthen rural communities and economies, health and safety of our food, sustainability for those who produce our food, and the ability for farmers to thrive is a matter of public trust.
Thank you.