Thank you very much, Chair.
I don't want to spend too much more time on programming. I do hear the comment about a level playing field, but also about wanting regional flexibility, because not one program meets all the different needs of all different commodities. I often see that federal programming is put there to level the playing field--it applies to all farmers across Canada--and then the provinces have that flexibility. That's where it doesn't make for a level playing field, when the provinces launch their own programs. But it does give regional flexibility.
My riding is right beside Quebec. If you throw a stone from my riding, you hit Quebec. My farmers know quite a bit about Quebec programming and what they perceive to be a lack of Ontario programming. They see the difference between the two. But there is something to be said for that regional flexibility, where every province responds according to what it thinks its agricultural needs are.
We were talking here about equity and cashflow. Farm equity seems to be increasing, but you can have an equity rich scenario but very low cashflow. So I want to ask for your ideas on how that could be better balanced. When we were out in British Columbia, for example, we visited an apple orchard with 35 to 36 acres. An acre of land sells for $100,000. He could easily lop off one or two acres and that money would get him through the next couple of years, if they were going to be difficult years, but of course there is a farm policy in place that means he can't just sell off agricultural land and have a condo built on it. So he feels very constrained. It's all 36 acres or nothing. Now, he could go to the bank and borrow against his land, but then it increases his debt load.
I want to ask you for some of your ideas on what can be done to better manage the inequity of high equity, low cashflow, particularly in difficult years. Maybe I'll start with Jamie.