Thank you very much for being here, we really appreciate your testimony.
This is not the first time since the beginning of the tour—and even before—that we are hearing about income support and the problems related to it. We are currently on a tour to consider the future of farming.
My committee colleagues will say that I am repeating myself, but since you are the first ones to hear me speak in Saskatchewan, I would like to tell you something. At first, when the idea about going on a tour regarding the future of farming was conceived, I accepted because I believe that we can do two things at the same time.
However, we also need to talk about current problems. The farming sector is experiencing countless problems that we must try to resolve right away. This is not only the responsibility of the government, but also of the whole farming industry. Farmers should be the first ones consulted. This does not mean we can't discuss the future of farming. Nonetheless, priority should be given to current problems. That is why I am not surprised to hear your testimony on problems related to the AgriStability program.
Regarding income support, government members often say that farmers reject social assistance, as they do not want to get paid for doing nothing. Of course, it is natural to be proud of our land, of the work we do, of our animals, of our crops, of having taken over the family business and of continuing to undertake the crucial task of feeding Canadians. It is quite normal to say that we do not want social assistance. However, income support is not social assistance, as you have skilfully explained, Mr. Thompson. In fact, you said that farmers may have no need for that kind of support for years, but after several lean years... For instance, over a period of 10 years, the income of grain producers in Quebec was extremely low. At the time, they were not eligible for support under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, which is now the AgriStability program.
If my understanding is correct, we are now facing very similar problems. I do not think that farmers are asking for charity when they tell the government that the choice must be made by society, and that they need help getting through rough times in order to be able to continue contributing to the use of the land and to growing crops here on our home soil.
Let's look at what's going on internationally. The United States have adopted the Farm Bill and the European Union is giving out a lot of subsidies. Canada never took subsidization that far, it never would have been able to do so. I never considered subsidies to be a form of charity and I do not think that it compares to sending out social assistance cheques to people who do not work. You must forgive me for my comments, but your testimony has gotten to me. I have not yet asked any questions, but I am getting there.
Mr. Thompson, you surely know that Agriculture Canada recently made public some of its forecasts. We know that farm income—especially in the livestock sector—will be on the decline in the coming years. You came up with some interesting solutions, but I would like to get more details. You said that production costs may not be the solution we should focus on.
Do you think that we could come up with a program that would be an AgriStability hybrid of sorts? What specific improvements do you think should be made to the program for it to be effective?