Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, as we pursue our APF study. I would like to welcome Mr. Lukiwski and Ms. Christine Moore as replacements this morning. As you all know, we might be cut a little short this morning with the vote in the House. I think I have consent that we can go maybe 10 minutes beyond the bell, if everyone is okay with that. It looks like we have unanimous consent for that.

I want to welcome our guests this morning. We have Kurt Siemens from the Canadian Egg Farmers and also Alison Evans. Welcome to you both.

We also have Fiona Cook from the Grain Growers of Canada. Welcome.

Of course, we have the well-known Ron Bonnett, who I think has crossed the country more times than most of us as politicians. He's well-known across the country, Welcome, Ron, to our meeting this morning.

We'll start by giving each of the witnesses 10 minutes.

Mr. Siemens, the floor is yours.

[Kurt Siemens, Director, Egg Farmers of Canada]

Thank you very much and good morning. Thank you for inviting us to be part of your study on the next agricultural policy framework.

My name is Kurt Siemens. I'm a third-generation egg farmer from Manitoba. I began running the farm that I grew up on in 1993. I now farm with my oldest son, Harley, who recently graduated from the University of Manitoba with an agricultural diploma. In addition to farming, I'm actively involved with the Egg Farmers of Canada. I've been a director since 2009. EFC represents about 1,000 regulated egg farmers in all provinces and the Northwest Territories.

A uniquely Canadian system of supply management gives Canadians fresh, local, high-quality eggs and sustains vibrant rural communities. The egg industry is in its 10th consecutive year of retail sales growth. Our industry also supports more than 1,700 jobs, delivers $428 million in tax revenues, and contributes $1.2 billion to Canad's GDP.

We believe that operating under supply management is a privilege and a great responsibility, and have been deeply committed to honouring our social licence and strengthening public trust for years. We believe that business success and giving are linked, and this is embedded in our strategic plan known simply as “the EFC way”. That is why we operate a national young farmers' program to nurture the next generation, and why we invest in the long-term programs of four renowned researchers and their teams. It underpins our decades of donations to partners like Food Banks Canada, Canadian Food for Children, and more recently, the Breakfast Club of Canada.

It's why we participate in global initiatives like the International Egg Foundation through which Heart for Africa Canada has received close to $1 million and our on-the-ground expertise in establishing a layer of operation.

Now, countless orphans and people adversely affected by HIV/AIDS, extreme poverty, and malnutrition are benefiting from the humble egg. That's why we are playing a central role in the development of a public trust network. It's an accumulation of government and industry collaboration that started in October of 2015 in Winnipeg, when a small group imagined a national dialogue on these critical topics. It's also why we are here today.

Quite simply, we believe that agriculture represents one of Canada's biggest global economic opportunities and that it is time that the progress and potential of this sector is fully recognized and leveraged. The world's population is estimated to grow to 9.6 billion by 2050. This will require a 70% increase in global food production. Canada is well positioned to play a vital role in feeding Canadians and the world with its safe, high-quality products.

In order to do so, policy and budget decisions must recognize agriculture as a strategic growth sector and a significant contributor to rural and urban economies. An exemplary design and delivery of the next agricultural policy framework is essential, as agriculture needs support in preventing and treating certain diseases and controlling pests, producing more food with fewer resources, responding to growing consumer interests and expectations regarding food production, being responsible stewards of the land and providers of environmental public goods, and maintaining a sustainable lifestyle for farmers and future generations.

With growing forward 2 ending in 2018, it is imperative that the government develop and fully fund the next policy framework to support innovation. A critical input to this process is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's ongoing consultations and the resultant “Calgary Statement”.

We are active participants in this process and are reassured by the commitment to transparency and the mechanisms that aim to keep information and input flowing between industry, stakeholders, and all levels of government. We also want to acknowledge the significant work that the CFIA has undertaken in developing a suite of policy and program recommendations for the next agricultural policy framework.

Of the many constructive ideas we've heard along the way, today we'd like to emphasize our support for the following: investments that facilitate more integrated partnerships in agrifood value chains; funding of broadband technology adoption; and ecosystem/environmental programs that are incentive-based, community-delivered, and voluntary. We also support a joint approach to addressing heightened concerns about food production and government assistance in addressing the significant trust gap between science-based innovation and consumer acceptability, and the understanding of that innovation. We support streamlining of the processes and more mid-project/program flexibility that recognizes change and natural cycles within agriculture. We support significant investment to renew and reinvigorate agriculture and agrifood research to a more meaningful level. investments should focus on priority areas, developing expertise, infrastructure and on mobilizing knowledge for primary producers and the rest of the value chain. We support greater transparency and education on funding opportunities, and on successful initiatives, and their outcomes.

In the spirit of that last comment, I'd like to conclude with a success story. Alberta's Brant Colony has become the Canadian egg industry's first net-zero layer barn, a story that has garnered significant attention and praise. It received $250,000 from growing forward 2 for a feasibility assessment, capital equipment, monitoring, and extension. The project has been an inspiration for EFC's new research chair in sustainability, Nathan Pelletier, who recently showed that over the last 50 years egg farming has doubled production while cutting its environmental footprint in half. He is presently developing a research program that we hope will spur more of our farms to pursue excellence across the pillars of sustainability, where environment, animal welfare, worker health and safety, food safety and quality, and affordability are all considered. To us, the net-zero barn is what timely, effective, multi-stakeholder collaboration looks like, and it is the epitome of what a well-constructed and well-delivered agricultural policy framework should yield in droves.

We want to see the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector realize immense growth, fuelled by the next agricultural policy framework, and are eager to continue to collaborate with the government in this regard.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Siemens.

Ms. Cook, for 10 minutes.

Thank you.

[Fiona Cook, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

Thank you to all members of the committee for the opportunity to appear today and comment on the next agricultural policy framework.

The Grain Growers of Canada acts as a national voice for more than 50,000 farmers across the country who actively grow and care for a variety of crops, including wheat, durum, barley, canola, oats, corn, soybeans, and peas and lentils.

GGC is led by dedicated farmer directors who work with government and stakeholders to achieve our goals. Our primary areas of focus include transportation, sustainability, trade and marketing, research, and safety nets.

Our organization has participated and continues to actively participate in the ongoing consultations for the next iteration of the national agricultural policy framework. We believe there is now a unique alignment of timing and interests in which the current suite of programs, initiatives, and platforms can be better aligned with challenges and opportunities to support business success and economic growth. Specifically, we are working with other groups to examine options for the reform of business risk management programming to support the vision of creating the most modern, sustainable, and prosperous agricultural sector in the world.

My remarks this morning will be quite focused. They will concentrate on BRM, because that is where we feel there is a need for improvement. I would like to emphasize that we consider other priority areas such as research and market development to be as vital for the success of the sector and we encourage continued funding for those programs. These will be particularly important in helping the sector strengthen its competitive advantage through science and innovation capacity, respond to growing concerns around public trust, and adapt to carbon pricing initiatives.

The BRM suite of programs is highly valued by Canadian grain and oilseed farmers. However, there is concern that programs, in particular AgriStability, are not working as well as they used to. Participation rates in AgriStability have seen a steady decline from 60% in 2007 down to 36% in 2013, and they are continuing to decline. Reduced participation combined with unpredictable coverage has rendered it an unreliable program, which offers little stabilizing security in the event of a market shock. Farmers don't know when and how much they will be paid. This leads to risk aversion, less desire to innovate, and in particular does not help young farmers who face the greatest risks and financial exposure in the early part of their farming careers. The overlying issue is that farmers do not have faith in the program, and as participation rates fall as a result, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This should be a big concern to government at all levels, because in the event of a major market shock we can expect the agricultural sector's exposure to be greater and far deeper than in the last 10 years. Despite and perhaps because of strong market conditions, farmers are currently carrying record levels of debt as they invest in their operations. Grain operations are currently being bolstered by the weak Canadian dollar and low oil prices. If this situation should change, farmers will be even more vulnerable in the event of a disruption.

Governments have indicated that they have no desire to return to the days of ad hoc programs, but the call for these is a certainty, should a major market shock happen.

For AgriStability, given that the drop-off in participation rates has occurred steadily in the last 10 years we believe that a simple return to the 85% coverage rate and margins included in GF1 may not be the optimal solution. We're suggesting a deeper dive to figure out where the issues are and propose workable solutions.

It is hard for one program to meet the needs and risk profiles of every farm in today's environment. For example, it would be useful to have an AgriStability program that encourages rather than discourages diversification of operations, because many growers, as you know, are involved in several elements of agriculture, but the AgriStability program as it currently stands is organized in such a way that diversified operations often do not meet the threshold for compensation when one element of their operation fails.

For example, a farmer may have a hog and a grain operation. If the grain crops fail, the income from the hog operation might keep the farm over the threshold, while they still need the support of BRM programs, which have been already paid for, to overcome losses.

Participation rates in programs such as AgriInvest and AgriInsurance—these are the remaining pillars in the suite—are solid, even though those programs require considerable investment in dollars by farmers.

That is perhaps because they are predictable and bankable. They provide peace of mind to farmers and seem to be working well, although there is a desire to see a return to previous levels of funding for Agrilnvest, and a reconsideration of the cap that was lowered in GF2.

Given the importance of BRM programming, we feel there needs to be a separate consultation-discussion mechanism for the next policy framework. We have recommended the formation of an advisory committee made up of national commodity association representatives, including relevant provincial associations to address any regional gaps.

This group would work to assess the effectiveness of the current suite of programs and make recommendations to the minister and government. We have already begun outreach and informal discussions with other groups to consider options for increasing flexibility within the AgriStability program. We look forward to bringing those proposals to government once they are developed.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that support from the provinces and the federal government for adequate safety net programs has always been appreciated by grain farmers across Canada, but we feel the time is right to review, and modernize the existing suite of programs to address the needs and risks of today's farmer, and achieve broader public interest outcomes.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Cook.

Mr. Bonnett, for 10 minutes.

[Ron Bonnett, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members for the opportunity to appear before you, and present the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's perspectives on the next agriculture policy framework.

As you're aware, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents producer groups and a number of commodity groups across the country.

For the past two years, the CFA has engaged members and other producer groups in this discussion. Producers and staff from across Canada support this discussion by undertaking the technical analyses needed to inform a clear vision for the next policy framework.

To start with, I'll touch on some of the overarching administrative issues our members have raised, and what we believe will ensure these issues are addressed moving forward.

Our members' concerns fell into three key areas. The first area dealt with the transparency and reporting of cost-shared growing forward 2 dollars. Producer groups often have little insight into how growing forward 2 dollars are spent at the provincial level. The second area was that inconsistency in funding applications and program requirements continued to cause major challenges for industry. Finally, the timeliness for many programs remained a major concern, with funding delays resulting in lost opportunities and inefficient project rollout in many instances.

To address these issues, CFA has developed a number of targeted proposals. I'll touch on a couple of those now, but can provide more detail if you have further questions.

The first is that provincial governments should be providing detailed annual accounts to industry and other stakeholders on where APF funding was directed, the rationale, and associated objectives, providing assurances that funded initiatives are supporting the needs of industry.

Second, programs need to maintain consistency in their application documents and requirements for in-kind and cash contributions throughout the entire application process and the life of the program.

Finally, programs must be ready and in place to launch at the outset of the APF, without lengthy delays, and program approvals need to be completed in a much timelier fashion.

Next, I'll speak to some of the key concerns and challenges our members have identified with regard to business risk management programs under growing forward 2. I'll touch briefly on each issue, and what we believe is needed to address it.

First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, we've seen a significant decline in AgriStability participation, which increased as a result of the cuts to AgriStability under growing forward 2.

In our discussions with producers across Canada, the primary driver behind this is that producers no longer see the program as credible and able to provide meaningful support. CFA members continue to identify AgriStability as the backbone of the business risk management suite, but we need to ensure this program provides the support producers need to manage significant risks beyond their control.

To re-establish credibility and participation, the program needs to provide support capable of keeping farms viable following income declines. To achieve this, we believe it is essential the coverage rate be returned to 85% of the historical reference margin.

The support available through AgriStability was also reduced with the introduction of a reference margin limit under growing forward 2. This was intended to prevent AgriStability from paying farmers in profitable situations, but has limited support for many producers who needed support. It increases complexity and reduces support for producers who have managed to improve their efficiency by reducing their inputs and expenses. We strongly advocate for the removal of the reference margin limit.

For Agrilnvest, we continue to hear concerns with the adequacy of support. Under growing forward 2, governments only match 1% of eligible net sales.

We believe Agrilnvest has great potential as a source of proactive investment in risk mitigation and income generation, but this requires enhancing the matching contributions back to 1.5%, and also providing producers with flexibility to access their own contributions for priority investments.

Program rules and tax planning combine to prevent many producers from accessing nearly $1 billion in producer contributions currently sitting in accounts. Meanwhile, producers continue to support Agrilnsurance as a straightforward and predictable program, although we continue to recommend expanding this program's access for livestock and other products.

One of the other key challenges that our producers identified was the frequency of disaster events due to climate change, and the need to ensure our programs, particularly Agrilnsurance and AgriRecovery, are responsive. Both programs need to be more flexible to accommodate and provide support for the often multi-year impacts of disaster events.

Finally, one common issue we heard across Canada is the need to ensure business risk management programs are meeting the risk management needs of beginning farmers. We need to be sure that all programs are available to them at minimal cost so that farmers entering the industry can immediately receive support and engage with the programs from day one. This will help address participation issues, but more importantly, it will ensure the next generation of agriculture has the tools they need to remain viable.

I'll take a few moments to talk about the strategic investments side of growing forward 2. The strategic investments are mostly cost-shared funding between the federal government and provincial/territorial governments, and there is a lot of flexibility in how provinces can use that money to respond to regional priorities.

It is our belief that all strategic investments through the next policy framework should, first, support agricultural producers in continuous improvement to long-term economic, social, and environmental sustainability; second, create the necessary conditions for us to access the latest and best technologies, research, inputs, and market opportunities to support improvements to Canada's agricultural leadership in global competitiveness and innovation; third, build support and recognition for public goods and services provided by agricultural landscapes; and finally, continually engage Canadian agricultural producers in the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of agricultural policy frameworks.

As you are no doubt aware, farming is facing a demographic crisis as the average age of farmers continues to increase. We're calling upon the next policy framework to better address this challenge through encouraging a breadth of programming related to access to capital for young producers and new entrants that addresses both transitional funding for intergenerational farm transfers and seed capital requirements for establishment of new operations. Provincial flexibility to build upon access to preferential financing arrangements and grants for young farmers and new entrants is needed at a scale that enables commercially viable operations to move forward. Starting a commercially scaled farm is very expensive and we've seen a shrinking number of medium-sized farms. This should be supported with regular and detailed information-sharing between provinces in best practices, a recommendation that applies to all strategic investment funding.

On the environmental sustainability side of GF2 programming, the sector would greatly benefit from increased funding for best management practices overall, and a priority focus on those that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Agriculture policy framework funding must also continue to support regional ecological goods and services concepts, and the federal government must recognize the role that these programs play in building resiliency, supporting producers, and water infrastructure that impacts many downstream users.

Environmental farm plans have been tremendously successful programs and now is the time to invest in a renewal to develop a national baseline for the environmental farm plans and to launch an enhanced, strengthened program. Work for this is already under way. The national environmental farm plan must remain industry led and government supported. It must improve environmental outcomes through being science-based and it must be sufficiently resourced.

Public trust has been an emerging issue over the last year and a process to address it has been led by industry working together. Yet there are elements that the next policy framework must clearly play in supporting industry, through providing a public trust lens on policy, programs, and funding, and also in enabling two-way communication between producers and the public, both nationally and provincially, by funding communications activity.

We're calling on government to reduce the cost-shared funding requirement from 50-50 to 25-75 for the fostering business development program funding so these critical organizations can focus their resources on projects that benefit producers rather than fundraising. We see youth engagement, farm safety, and business development as priorities within this stream. Farm safety can be promoted and improved through supporting regional organizations in conducting localized work that leverages their direct contact with producers. Furthermore, farm business management programming must be improved across provincial governments in an integrated fashion that promotes co-operation and that creates basic requirements for all jurisdictions to meet.

CFA has a long list of recommendations regarding research funding that is provided, but to sum it up succinctly, they boil down to making research funding more pertinent to producers' needs, faster to approve, streamlined to administer, and consistent from one policy framework to the next.

The next policy framework must bring a greater focus on knowledge translation and dissemination to encourage uptake within the industry.

I would also like to offer support for the cluster model, which is used in funding, although there are barriers. Many smaller commodities do not have the funding or administrative capacity in order to support a cluster, yet would greatly benefit from having one. Therefore, we would recommend for these a second-tier funding match formula and coordinated or pooled administrative support.

We've heard from the department that investments in the processing sector will feature more prominently in the next policy framework. Any additional investment in processing must illustrate a clear benefit to Canadian agricultural producers. In other words, processors would demonstrate that the investment would be for instances where Canadian agricultural products are sourced and would demonstrate the expected impact. On-farm processing should also be a priority.

The types of strategic investments that are needed will change in response to markets and other factors and should be flexible to respond to emerging priorities.

In conclusion, these comments reflect a very high-level overview of CFA's recommendations. I would recommend that everyone review our report—and I believe copies have been provided to you—entitled “The Next Agriculture Policy Framework: Positioning Canadian Agriculture for Continued Success.”

Again, thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Bonnett.

We will start our questioning with Mr. Anderson for six minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

First of all, I want to thank you all for coming today.

The first question I would like to ask is, is increasing debt a concern to your organization? I've talked to bankers, and they're not concerned about it. They don't mind the debt going up. Some farm organizations don't seem to be that concerned. Are you concerned about the increasing debt in agriculture?

[Ron Bonnett]

I'll take a stab at it.

I'd be more concerned if there were a drastic shift in interest rates. I'm from the generation that dealt with interest rates in the early 1980s. The debt itself, with the interest rates that are there, is definitely repayable. I think the risk is if there's a shift in those interest rates.

What we're recommending, and it's part of our proposal on the business planning side, is farmers should be doing some type of an evaluation and making sure that they hedge their bets on that interest, and get it done long term so that they don't get caught with that rapid shift.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Do you see any role for government in that?

[Ron Bonnett]

I think the role for government would be helping with the farm business management planning and making sure that farmers have the tools to do the type of evaluation that's necessary according to their own particular situation.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think that leads into what you talked about on public trust. Mr. Siemens talked about a significant trust gap that we need to address, or whatever. I also think that education for farmers is part of that.

Do you want to talk a little about how you're addressing those social licence public trust issues? How do you think the APF should deal with that? Should there be a larger scale education program?

I remember travelling across the country with the agriculture committee. I think it was in 2001 or 2002, and we talked about trying to get the educational programs in the schools—I don't know that we've been very successful at that—in order to educate people about agriculture.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Kurt Siemens]

I could probably speak to that in regards to what we are doing as public trust. There are lot of different ways and lots of different angles to attack that situation. With programs we have at Egg Farmers of Canada, we're addressing some of those. Agriculture as a whole has to work on that. A group got together in October of last year in Winnipeg and talked about public trust. That came from the federal-provincial-territorial agriculture ministers meeting that happened in Charlottetown and then subsequently in Winnipeg in October. That developed into—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can you frame that in APF? There are bigger issues outside, but in terms of APF, what should the government's responsibility or the taxpayers' responsibility be to bring that about?

[Kurt Siemens]

I think there's an opportunity for funding to make sure that education happens. Agriculture in the Classroom is a program that would be great for that, getting some of that education or some of that consultation happening in the schools starting at younger ages. I think that's a good start. There are lot of opportunities, but I don't want to go on too much with that.

[Ron Bonnett]

Just on that, as Kurt started talking about, there is an initiative where industry is trying to build a consensus on how we approach public trust issues, using the existing value chains for that. Under the APF, if that could be identified as one of the types of project funding that would be prioritized, that would be important. With industry coming together, they're going to put some coin in. If government puts some coin in, then I think we could start working on that.

There is one specific suggestion I did hear about. You mentioned Agriculture in the Classroom, but that's just part of it. We have to go back from that and look at the teachers who are being educated. I think teachers' colleges have to understand what's going on agriculture as well. I've heard some horror stories over what teachers are saying to some of their students, and it's because they don't understand. They're picking up their information from the Internet. I think those are the types of things we have to look at.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. Our time goes by quickly. I would like to talk a little bit about what you see as important for transition programs. I believe Egg Farmers has a program dealing with that. Maybe you could talk about that first, and then the others might address it a bit.

[Kurt Siemens]

We do have a young farmers program at Egg Farmers of Canada. Basically the way the program works is that we look to the provinces, and they would sponsor one or two farmers from each province. Then EFC would take them through the whole progression of what is supply management; how does it work; and what are the tools that these young farmers could use, or potentially could use, to help them to be better farmers. That leads all the way from being more productive to also being leaders in provincial organizations, such as the Young Farmers' Forum, provincial boards, and all those types of things. That is one way.

Also, in Manitoba, as I can speak to personally, we have a new entrant program where over the last nine years we have had, I think, just over 14 new producers in the Manitoba egg industry. In at least six other provinces across Canada, their provincial organizations do the same thing: they encourage and help out by offering free quota or offering financing or business planning to be able to have those new entrants. So there are ways of transitioning.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

How should the APF address that?

[Kurt Siemens]

There's an opportunity to set up an educational component to continue to help these young farmers to be able to become better farmers, and also, as Ron stated in some of his comments, that transition funding, having some funding there for them to better be able to afford to buy those farms. As you talked about, it's a higher debt load for some of these young farmers. It's not impossible, but it is difficult, so to be able to have those opportunities would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Siemens and Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Lockhart, for six minutes, please.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Bonnett, I know when you presented to the finance committee, one of the things you talked about was tax policies that would be developed to encourage sustainable growth for family farms and create new entrants into farming. Today, all of you have outlined many ways that the agricultural policy framework could also assist that.

Do you have any data on the changes in growing forward 2 from growing forward 1? Have there been any significant differences? I'm looking for some data on how many new entrants we have, succession planning, or anything like that.

[Ron Bonnett]

That's one of the problems we talked about in the presentation: reporting on the impact of the programming. I think that's one of the things that should be looked at in growing forward 3, if you can call it that. How do we measure what we're doing, really clearly identify what the objectives are and how we measure?

On some of the types of programming, we likely have some good information, such as on the environmental farm plan side, the types of projects that were funded and the amount, the number of dollars. On the business development side, I guess measuring the number of courses that were offered online might be one of the measurements. However, the stark reality is, with business risk management, as a number of people have mentioned, there has been a decrease in AgriStability participation. I think that's directly related to the drop from 85% to 70%, the changes in the reference margin. Those are the types of programs on which there's fairly good information.

There's just one thing I want to comment on. You mentioned tax policy, and we've talked about that before the finance committee. One of the other things we might want to look at in transition in farming is for farmers who are holding back a mortgage, for instance, to a young farmer taking over their farm, looking at a way to see if the interest paid to those farmers could be tax exempt. That would encourage the farmers to lend at a lower interest rate yet still have the income that would give them the retirement pension they need. I think we have to be a little creative in how we look at the types of tools that are there to ensure that this transition takes place.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Did anybody else want to comment? Okay.

Because of demographics, how many farms are we going to need to see change hands?

[Fiona Cook]

I'm sure we could get that data for you.