Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to present today.
Canadian agri-retailers are the stewards of critically important crop input products like fertilizers and chemicals that are responsible for boosting yields and protecting crops while they grow. We are the suppliers to Canadian farmers, and our sector contributes nearly $10 billion in trade towards the Canadian economy. But we are struggling with an unforeseen burden that has nothing to do with crop production. It's the prohibitive costs of securing crop inputs within the current regulatory scheme.
For four years the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers has been asking for one thing: government assistance to help us secure agricultural inputs that are essential for modern crop production, sustaining Canada's food supply and enabling a multi-billion dollar grain and oilseeds worldwide export market. We are not asking for the government to pay for our business expenses. We are asking for it to help implement a proactive security plan in the interest of public safety so we can prevent malicious diversion of our products.
Our sector has never regarded crop inputs as a threat to public safety, but the reality of today's world necessitates renewed vigilance and preparedness. Some products carry more inherent risk than others, but only if they are misappropriated by those who have intent to cause harm. Fertilizers like ammonium nitrate, which can be used as explosive precursors, have received the greatest amount of media and regulatory attention recently. Explosive precursors have been regulated under the Explosives Act for two years.
CAAR members both support and comply with all existing federal regulations pertaining to these products. We are not here to object to the content of any one regulation as it relates to the product that it governs. However, we are here to inform you that the cumulative effect of a product-by-product, piecemeal approach to regulating crop input security is both impractical and cost-prohibitive, and diminishes the agri-retailer sector's ability to stay competitive. Inevitably our costs will have to be passed on to our customers, the farmers, and the only other alternative for agri-retailers would be to stop offering the products altogether, and that is already becoming a more common outcome in our industry. For example, ammonium nitrate is no longer sold west of Ontario.
I'm sure all of you have heard the expression that death by 1,000 cuts can be just as lethal. That is exactly the experience that is unfolding at over 1,500 crop input dealerships across Canada. Although no single regulation is prohibitive in and of itself, it's the cumulative effect of having to endure a separate set of rules for each and every product that becomes unreasonable and unworkable. Whether these rules are developed as part of an industry code or a government regulation, the net result is a myriad of unharmonized requirements that are either redundant or conflicting and therefore inefficient when considered from the perspective of an agri-business owner.
So it should come as no surprise that the desired solution for this impractical scenario would be to harmonize and integrate all high-risk crop inputs into a single comprehensive security protocol. Because there is no single regulation that currently regulates such a protocol, CAAR is being criticized by government officials as advocating for funding for something that is not mandatory. But that's the whole point: we're trying to do the right thing to prevent an incident and avoid having to deal with it in hindsight, and with its consequences. Just because something is voluntary does not mean it is not a good idea or in the best interest of public safety and the Canadian economy. Suggesting we should not invest in sensible programs until it becomes mandatory is a ridiculous circular logic, obviously generated to be argumentative rather than open-minded and genuinely considerate of real solutions. Our industry has several examples of very useful voluntary programs that save taxpayer dollars, including training events, educational seminars, and the implementation of best management practices.
But the key difference about implementing an integrated crop input security protocol as a voluntary program is that we cannot afford to do it alone. We believe it has all the merits of being a small investment now to avoid a much bigger problem later. But the impediment is that it is too costly for our sector to bear alone. If the ultimate objective of the program is to enhance public safety, then it makes sense that the federal government partner with us to meet the objective. When it comes to securing crop inputs, CAAR and its members want to do our part, but we're asking for your assistance to help us do it once and do it right, versus the current piecemeal approach that is both inefficient and cost-prohibitive for agri-retailers.
In closing, the specific details of our proposal have been included in our original submission to the committee. We would like to point out that it's been officially supported by recommendations from both the House and Senate Standing Committees on Agriculture as well as several trade associations, including the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.
We're pleased to answer any questions you may have.