by SUSAN MANN
Close to eight per cent of all Canadian farms across all sectors are run by young farmers, Farm Credit Corporation president and CEO Greg Stewart told participants at the annual meeting last week in Victoria, B.C.
And last year young farmers under 40 years old borrowed $1.6 billion from the corporation to finance their businesses. “Agriculture is a complex, dynamic and successful industry that needs our best and brightest to take over farms and other agribusinesses,” he said.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, the corporation approved $62 billion in loans to farmers, processors and suppliers along the agriculture value chain. More than 42,000 loans were disbursed with an average size of $146,000. The corporation’s portfolio grew to $21.3 billion.
The crown corporation’s net income was $459.2 million, which the company reinvested in agriculture ensuring it remains financially strong and stable in order to serve the industry through all cycles, Stewart said.
During his speech, he also touched on the importance of the agricultural industry to the country. “Agriculture is the backbone of a strong and healthy Canada. It’s one of the country’s top five industries contributing $130 billion to our economy annually and provides one in eight jobs. The bottom line is that agriculture matters to Canada.” BF
Comments
they say eight percent are under 40 like it is a positive thing. if only eight percent are under 40 that means 92% are over 40. In most occupations this would mean that 98% of farmers are less than 15 - 20 years from retirement (most look to retire at about 55-60years old). so either the farmers over 40 are going to have to work to the grave or our leaders are going to have to start developing policy to get the younger generations involved. we can start by making it more difficult for non resident foreign ownership of farmland, these investors are driving up land prices way past what any younger farmer could ever hope to pay. That leaves them sitting on the sidelines and I know a few who have simply sold out because they see no possible way to compete for agricultures most valuble resource: LAND!. Not to mention when land prices skyrocket, it raises everyones cost of production the next time they have a tax assesment done on their farms. Maybe one of the farm leaders or politions will clue in before it is too late, but i wont hold my breath.
Firstly, I agree with the previous poster - it should be 28%, or even 38%, instead of 8%. FCC is trying to turn a rout into a victory, and is failing miserably.
Secondly, my experience tells me that a good portion of even that 8% are the sons and daughers of supply managed farmers who have inherited, or are about to inherit, the "gravy train"
My experience, as well as my younger non-supply managed farmers, both tell me that if we got rid of supply management,the 8% number would double overnight because the supply management-driven land price bubble would burst, thereby allowing more young farmers to get started.
The biggest loser would be FCC becuase they'd end up administering a lot more small loans to beginning farmers, rather than fewer, and huge, interest-only, loans to fat-cat supply managed farmers.
I think it's a loss agriculture can well-afford, and is quite-ready to pay.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment