Evidence of meeting #54 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was land.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I want to thank the witnesses for being here with us today.
We had a private member's bill come before the House that would have made it easier for family transfers, and I'm sure it pained our colleagues across the way to vote it down.
I have a very short time here, but I'm interested in any suggestions you might make on taxation changes that would assist transfers. I'm speaking to the two farm groups primarily. Do you have something to suggest specifically about taxation issues? You mentioned deep discounts to interest rates. That would be one suggestion. I'm wondering if you have any other suggestions about taxation changes we could recommend to the government that would help with those kinds of matters.
Chair, Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council
I can start with that answer very quickly. The intergenerational transfer of assets is critical. Expanding the definition of family to allow for other family members, rather than just sons or daughters or whatever, is going to be critical, because it may not be your children who take over the farm but it may be your brother's or your sister's children, or even their children. Expansion of the definition of family is something that I think most of the farm groups have been seeking for some time, so that's one thing that would be a big help.
Chairman, Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association
All farm income is a big part of how a young producer gets into it, and there are things that limit your ability to use your farm costs to offset your income that's earned off the farm. Allowing all the money that you use on your farm to be written off against your off-farm income would help.
As far as ways to transfer it without a huge tax bill are concerned, one is possibly allowing multiple-year buyouts without having to be creative when you have an older gentleman who maybe doesn't have a family member who wants to take over, but somebody outside wants to buy it—allowing him maybe 10 years and ways to secure the person selling it and still allow him to spread out his tax load, providing an incentive to do that rather than just do a straight cash sale.
President, Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec
The bill was definitely very interesting. There must be a way to bring it back to the table or to introduce another one. Either way, it would have to be more advantageous for farms to be transferred, not dismantled. You are the experts who can make it more beneficial for sellers to transfer their farms to someone, whether related or not, than to dismantle it and sell it in pieces.
That's what I had to tell you.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We just have a short period of time here.
You talked about the importance of being able to own the land. I think there was testimony at the last meeting that 40% of land is currently rented in Saskatchewan and other places. Leased land and those kinds of things are available.
I'm just wondering about your perspective. Do you feel it's critical that the producers own the land? I'd throw that over to Ryan as well, because he is a producer as well. If the folks in the middle want to answer that, that's fine, but I'm just interested in hearing from producers. Is it essential that we own that land as producers or not?
Chairman, Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association
On my operation, I have a mix of owned and rented land. The benefit of owned land is that you have a lot more stability. You have the ability to use it to finance other things, and once you have some of it paid off, you have some equity there. You also know for sure that you're going to have it 10 or 20 years in the future, so you can do some long-range planning. With rented land, the person you're renting it from could pull it away at any time. That makes it a little more difficult to plan out. To me, it's critical to own at least some of the land. The model it's moving toward is probably more of a combination of owned and rented land, I think.
President, Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec
I quite agree with Mr. Beierbach. Yes, it is necessary to own at least some of the land, which can be capitalized.
I have nothing else to add.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You talked about a 45% increase in worker productivity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
We're out of time, but I would allow Mr. Wales to comment on that last question.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I wonder how you see that productivity improving in the future. Do you see that kind of percentage being achievable in the future?
Chair, Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council
It's going to be very difficult. As Portia mentioned, our slide here clearly shows a ramping up of farm debt, in terms of investment in machinery, since 2009. However, there are limits to that. You can only get so technical and so big.
With regard to land ownership, I would agree with everyone that the future will be a mix.
Just remember one thing. When we're talking farm debt, today you can borrow money at a couple of percent. I recall 23.75% on my operating line, and that is a truly frightening place to be as a farmer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
I recall those days also.
Unfortunately, this is all the time we have. I want to thank the panel for being here today, for taking the time to talk to us about the situation on the farm.
We will take a few minutes to clear the room, and then we'll come back for business.
Thank you, Madame Lalancette, Monsieur Pagé, Ms. Dewhirst, Mr. Wales, Mr. Beierbach, and Mr. Stadnicki.
[Proceedings continue in camera]