Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you to our guests for being here today.
I need only a few moments to make a few comments on discussions that have gone on around the table. I want to address what Mr. Valeriote said regarding provincial versus federal programming.
Certainly, the federal government has a mandate in agriculture, but I want to say, “as do the provinces”. Oftentimes, certainly what I hear as parliamentary secretary and what I've heard as an MP for a rural riding with lots of agriculture, is that farmers don't want a one-size-fits-all type of program. They do want regional flexibility.
What I would put forward is that there is a balance here between the federal responsibilities and the provincial responsibilities. The provincial responsibilities and how they act on their initiatives actually give some regional flexibility. So in a sense, it's very hard to have a level playing field and to have regional flexibility all at the same time. So there is a tension, I would say, between local provincial endeavours and what the federal government is trying to achieve. But I also think it offers flexibility and national programming at the same time, so in a sense we have a foot in either camp.
On the supply management side, I feel supply management works extremely well. It is supported by the consumers, and I do think consumers are happy to support Canadian agriculture. Again, this is something I'm hearing across the country, that consumers want to support our farmers, they want to buy Canadian product, they want to know it's Canadian product, and they know that Canadian product is high quality and is beneficial to our society and to them. Here is a way that consumers do support agriculture, through supply management. And I do think they accept pricing where it's at. There doesn't seem to be rioting in the streets over the price of milk or the price of eggs. I think consumers are actually pleased with the way things are priced.
I think, too, supply management offers great stability, especially in difficult times. The supply management system helps mitigate risk. This is important, because when we look around the world, for example, at the collapsing milk prices, what difficult circumstance farmers of other countries have found themselves in with this collapsing milk price, yet our farmers have some stability thanks to supply management.
I'm kind of going on a little bit here, but I want to underline that. I think the stability offered by supply management helps with the future of farming. Certainly, when pork farmers are communicating with the government, they're saying they're in very difficult times. This does not attract the new and upcoming generation to take on farming when they see the turbulence in the pork market. When they see the stability in the supply managed sectors, there are young people getting involved. I'm always impressed with the young farmers involved, for example, with egg farming. It's a very young generation that is taking over the egg farms. So I think there are lots of benefits to supply management.
I want to ask Mr. Busby what your comments are on that, in terms of the advantages that supply management offers, and the impact of the stability in encouraging new farmers and youth to get involved. There will be financial challenges, it's true, but the stability actually helps mitigate the high costs that can sometimes be attached to buying into supply management farms.