Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Larry Black from Deloraine, Manitoba. This spring my wife and I will sow our 33rd crop. I'm very passionate about this particular subject. I've seen a lot of my neighbours leave the industry, and I've seen the negative effects on our rural communities.
I'd like to start by saying that asking what we can do to entice more young people to consider farming is much too narrow a focus. The real problem is declining net farm income. The farm crisis is 25 years old, and the disinterest of our young people is just a symptom of the much bigger problem. I'm afraid that if we focus on the symptom, then the solution will be a temporary band-aid at best. If we fix the problem and put profitability back into farming, the symptoms, such as young people not being interested, mounting farm debt, rural community decline, and stress on farm families, will look after themselves. When there's no longer a need for a farm and rural stress line, then we can finally put this issue to bed.
Lots of young people still want to farm. We need to have an economically viable climate to make that possible. Capital investment is astronomical. Potential returns seldom meet expectations. The stress level plus debt level plus workload equal no quality of life. In this current economic climate, I would not recommend a young person enter this industry.
Let's examine what's happening in agriculture today. Pork producers are losing money, and there are programs in place to help them exit the industry. Beef producers have been losing money ever since BSE in 2003. The business risk management programs are wholly inadequate to support these industries. Grain producers are always at a break-even price or worse. Programs for this industry are also inadequate. Lyle Vanclief stated that the next business risk management programs were going to take agriculture beyond crisis management. In my opinion, they are even more inadequate than before.
Supply-managed commodities are faring much better than any of their counterparts are. So what went wrong, and how do we fix it? I would describe the problem as a failure of farm policy to maintain a favourable economic climate to support primary producers. The companies that farmers do business with, on both the purchasing side and the marketing side, which are very often the same companies, have amalgamated to the point where there's no real competition left in the marketplace. The Competition Bureau hasn't been doing their job. There has been lots of mention of the Competition Bureau today, and I guess I'll carry on with that.
A business graduate may have started a career with the bureau, completed a 30-year career, turned in his rubber stamp, and not had to say no to a merger the whole time he worked there. How important is market power when we're looking at solutions here? I mentioned supply management earlier. I consider this to be the premier marketing structure. We control imports through tariffs, although in the dairy industry we still do allow 5%, and I know the feather industry's import allowances are considerably higher than that.
We control production with quotas. We set our price using an agreed-upon formula, including the cost of production component. This system doesn't rely on government subsidies. The revenue comes from the marketplace, where it should come from. All sectors of the value chain are getting a fair return, and the consumer gets a quality product at an affordable price.
Supply management has allowed me to put the next generation on our farm. This system balances the market power. Another example of a marketing agency is the Wheat Board, and the benefit of this institution is the single-desk selling which reduces competition on the selling side. The price pooling gets you the same price regardless of the time of year you market. This is really important, because in the fall when so many bills are due, the grain price is typically at its lowest.
The Wheat Board is a strong advocate for farmers, taking on issues such as poor transportation service from the railways and battling against the introduction of Roundup Ready wheat when so many of our customers are saying no to this product. The Wheat Board can provide customers with a consistent quality to suit their individual needs, and a majority of farmers support this agency, as evidenced by the number of directors who are Wheat Board supporters.
One of the next points I have here has to do with the World Trade Organization and those negotiations. This is not really about fair trade. It's about further advantaging our multinationals and writing in stone their ability to make even more profit at the expense of everyone else, especially farmers. We have made-in-Canada expenses, and we need made-in-Canada policies to help us realize an adequate return from the marketplace.
If you go to Geneva and you sign away your ability to do this, how will you manage the problems we experience here? Farmers are expected to pay 2010 bills with 1972 income.
I have a copy of a report here called Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace, and I see the author is with us today, which I'm happy to see. Six years ago Wayne Easter interviewed 450 producers and farm leaders, in a process not unlike the one we have here today. I suspect the dust on that copy in Ottawa is even more than what I just blew off of mine. I have to say it makes me wonder where the report on today's proceedings is going to end up.
I think this report captures the very essence of where the real problems in this industry are. Some of the issues that this document identifies are the following. There's a need to balance the market power between farmers and agri-business, and that's all throughout this document, it's front and centre. It mentions the farm debt situation, and the statistics in there say that in 1994 we had $23.5 billion, and in 2004 we had $48.9 billion, which is more than doubling in 10 years. In 2010, we're now exceeding $60 billion. This is a time bomb, probably of equal proportions to the young farmer issue.
This report acknowledges the small share of the retail price that the farmer receives and stresses the need to publicize this point whenever possible. That's something that our Keystone Agricultural Producers have taken upon themselves to do, and I think it needs to be done at a far greater level. It also supports and acknowledges the benefits that the Wheat Board brings to farmers. For some reason, our government of the day is intent upon dismantling this institution, when this government document--and I mean this document--cites independent research and praises the advantages of the institution. At a time when farmers need to pull together for strength, Minister Ritz is dividing them. There are plenty of options to assist farmers, that all farmers could agree upon, and regardless of what side of the Wheat Board debate you're on, as a farmer, the main concern to me is how the government can stomp on our democratic rights and take away our own choice.
I would like to quote a recommendation out of this report--to talk about the Competition Bureau again--that says: Restructure the Competition Bureau, instructing it to review the impact of current and proposed consolidations from the perspective of how they will affect the primary producer.
Now, why would this need to be reconstructed? Isn't that exactly what they were supposed to do in the first place? I would like to request that the committee share with us later--I know that has been done at a small scale here this morning--what exactly the Competition Bureau's mandate is currently. And I'd like to add to that: what did it used to be? Was there a change in that process? I'm really curious about that.
It's important that you understand I'm not just slamming the Conservatives here for some of their actions. The Liberals have spent more time at the helm in the last 25 years than the Conservatives, and I don't think their farm policies were all that much more friendly to us either.
I'm going to switch pages now to talk about solutions.