Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to appear today.
My name is Andre Harpe. I am the chair of the Grain Growers' business risk management program. I farm in the Peace region of northern Alberta. Our farm has been in the family for just about a hundred years now, so we've been around for quite a while.
Personally, I have been enrolled in the AgriStability program for many years and have seen its evolution first-hand. Perhaps most important, though, I have felt the impact of the 2013 changes on me and on my neighbours. Since funding to the program was reduced, I have not once triggered a payment from this program. This is not because I haven't had bad years. In fact, the last few have been quite difficult.
Last year, we saw what we call the “harvest from hell”, as well as complications from rail blockades, trade disruptions and market access loss. Given that in my region there is no processing capacity and almost all the canola I grow is sent straight to international markets, price decreases and market access challenges have been particularly impactful.
This year, I just barely got my seeding done in time because I was busy finishing up my last year's harvest. Now it looks like we're going to have more rain that we don't need in the next couple of weeks, which means that we will be looking at possibly drying grain again, which, as you know, adds a significant cost. We are hoping and praying for a good summer and harvest this year, but hoping doesn't always work. That's why we need programs in place to stabilize income during challenging times.
I believe strongly in the theory of the AgriStability program. It should do exactly that and offer us some stability amidst all the unknowns involved with farming, but it is getting harder and harder to find value in it as it is currently set up.
Given the way the coverage amounts are calculated, we are always looking back towards historical averages, which have been decreasing over the last few years. As it gets lower, my coverage also gets lower, meaning that triggering that 70% rate now means that it is a full-blown disaster. It seems that the program is becoming less about stability and more about disaster compensation at the 70% rate, especially following lower averages in the past few years, and this is exactly why the program needs to change.
When I ask my neighbours why they are not enrolled, they tell me two things. First, the program at a 70% trigger is simply too low. Stability support to that level would be insignificant even if they did receive it. The online calculator that has been promoted still requires a lot of data just to use, and often a few calls to the accountant. Second, the program is just too complicated and unpredictable. It is well known amongst farmers that this program is only understood by accountants, so we have to pay to enter the program and then pay our accountants to help us navigate through it. Usually at the end of that, we find out that we're actually not eligible for a payment. It's not exactly appealing to the average farmer.
Finally, our operations aren't as black and white as accountants and government officials want them to be. If I were to claim that I initially had 10,000 bushels in a bin full of canola but later find out I only have 8,000 bushels because I've lost 2,000 to heating or something and I'm unable to sell it, the administrators seem to struggle to understand how that is possible.
This program needs to be simplified and to be more timely, more predictable and more responsive. If the government actually wants increased enrolment, we have to do changes.
Thank you for your time today. I'll let Erin take over from here.