Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for inviting us to speak this morning.
This is a really important step for us. We came here in 2006 for the same reasons. That was when the crisis began. Now it is 2009, and we are back with the same problem. We have not yet found a solution that would enable these producers to start their businesses up again and make them viable.
To date, the proposals in the AgriRecovery program, including compensation over three years, do not really meet the needs or take into account the secifics of the catastrophe we are discussing. In a normal recovery situation, a program spread out over three years would, in most cases, allow businesses in crisis to recover and start over. Following that, their economic situations would probably be similar to what prevailed before the catastrophe. However, in this situation, businesses will experience long-term after-effects over a period of decades. It could take 10, 20, 30 or 40 years—nobody knows. Businesses will have to reposition by producing other crops.
The land itself—the acreage dedicated to production and producers' property—means that they cannot rebuild a viable agricultural enterprise in just three short years. This program needs to be re-evaluated and changed to address the specifics of this situation. This situation is unlike any other. Government assistance must be spread out over a minimum period of 10 years so that these businesses can gradually become economically viable.
Cash amounts were decided on by a committee we were involved in for two years. Representatives from Quebec's ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada also participated. The amounts we established are in line with reality, unlike the $5 million proposed in early February. That amount is completely out of touch with reality and is not nearly enough to deal with the situation. That amount will not help these producers get back on their feet.
I would not like to introduce Philippe Gemme, a producer who is involved in this process.