Witnesses indicated almost unanimously that lack of returns in the agricultural sector is the main reason why young people do not choose farming as a career or why established farmers often discourage their children to carry on and take over their farms. It is therefore not a surprise that discussions inevitably revolved around the profitability of the agricultural sector. If one thing can attract young and new farmers, it is the ability of agriculture to provide a fair return on investment and an adequate living for the families that work on the land.

I love our farm and I love our history. I enjoy breeding the best cattle we can and I enjoy feeding, calving, weaning, and marketing. But I do not enjoy the frustration of having a superior product that is worth less than it costs to raise it.[56]

[...] How do we make farming profitable? Everything else is irrelevant. You can have all these wonderful programs, all these wonderful supports but if farming isn't profitable, it's not sustainable.[57]

Farm income has steadily decreased in the past four decades due to a combination of increasing production costs and prices that have not followed inflation. The factors behind this cost-price squeeze are well known, although witnesses usually disagree on which are the most prominent ones. Some structural factors are:

• increased competition from low-cost producing countries and from heavily subsidized farmers;
• the lack of market power to negotiate with highly concentrated input suppliers, services providers, processors and retailers, which makes farmers price takers; and
• consumer and societal demands that increase production costs without providing premiums (health and safety regulations, Environmental Farm Plans, On Farm Food Safety Systems, etc.).

Those factors are regularly aggravated by economic and cyclical circumstances such as export market closures or technical barriers to trade, dumping, regional or worldwide overproduction, energy prices, exchange rates, and diseases or weather-related events.

As indicated earlier in this report, farmers have adapted to these situations and for many of them it has meant expanding the size of the farm, whereas others have invested individually or collectively in processing ventures, converted to low input agriculture like organic farming, found niche markets, or diversified into green energy. The Committee visited several farms during its travel around Canada and was encouraged to see so many innovative people, who believed in the future of agriculture. Nevertheless, despite positive signs, for many farmers that appeared before the Committee, making a fair living remains a struggle.

Many of the challenges and solutions put forward by the witnesses were addressed in the recent Committee report entitled Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture.[58] The report was tabled in May 2010 at the same time the Committee was touring the country. As witnesses did not have the opportunity to react to the Committee’s recommendations made in that report, particularly those on market development, competition law, research, and regulations that are key areas for action to improve the profitability of Canadian agriculture, some of the witness testimony was on these issues. This section will focus mostly on issues that were not dealt with in the Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture report.

(A) National Agricultural Policy

Some witnesses told the Committee that the current situation of the farming population is the result of a “cheap food policy”. The Committee wishes to clarify that there has never been a specific “cheap food policy” in this country; policies over the years have tried to help farms adapt and react to the market place; ultimately, the producers’ share of the food dollar has eroded because of pressures from buyers (processors, retailers, etc.) and consumers, that are both looking for better prices. The Committee is aware that the consumers’ tendency to choose the cheapest product is a challenge that the agriculture sector needs to overcome.

Several witnesses have asked that Canada develop a long-term national food policy with a goal of providing a return for its farmers and safe and healthy food for Canadians. The idea of a Canadian agricultural or food policy is not new, and the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) and its successor, Growing Forward, are generally steps in that direction.

What should be included in this policy has been discussed during the hearings. Some witnesses suggested that it should be targeted at food sovereignty, whereas for others, the first priority should be ensuring the stability of returns to farmers. Several witnesses wanted to put the preference on encouraging innovation rather than on income support. Some witnesses suggested clarifying and separating the role of each level of government—for example, the province would be responsible for business risk management programs and income stabilisation; while the federal government’s focus would be on research, health and safety regulations, and market expansion. There were many different opinions and no real consensus, a characteristic of the agricultural sector as indicated by Mr. Jamie Robson:

We had ten people together in a room this morning, and everybody had a different opinion on what government should do. I think that, unfortunately, is how things have gone probably for a long time.[59]

This lack of consensus prompted some witnesses to suggest that it should be the agricultural community's responsibility to bring all interests together and develop a long‑term national food strategy. Indeed, given the diversification of the industry into non‑food agricultural products, it may be called a national food/farm gate strategy. After defining goals and a process to achieve them, the agriculture and agri-food industry stakeholders should work with both federal and provincial governments to implement it.

As to whether this policy should encourage a specific model of agriculture such as an emphasis on small farms or family farms, witnesses were divided. The definition of “family farm” was discussed at a few meetings, and there was a consensus among witnesses that a family farm can be large or small, have hired help or not, but that the owner and his/her family must work on the farm and be the main decision makers. There was no clear consensus on the need to limit farm size. During its travel, the Committee saw that many different models of agriculture can work and that their success depends on the specific economic environment: for example it may be easier for a small farm to thrive close to a populated area where direct marketing is a possibility, however, not all farms have good access to niche markets. Furthermore, large farms may be better equipped to enter commodity markets. Canadian agricultural land is large and diverse and many types of agriculture are possible.

Many witnesses, however, pointed out it is often harder for small farms, and by extent young farmers, to access programs. For example, Mr. Jean Lecours told the Committee that while programs and financing to encourage specialty products and direct marketing are becoming more and more available, as a business adviser he still encourages new entrants to sell, at least partially, into commodity markets because of the security they provide.

The Committee already recommended in 2007 that the vision for the next generation of agriculture and agri-food policy must place more emphasis on farmers and on primary agricultural production, and it wishes to reiterate this here. The Committee also agrees with the idea that farmers must be the ones deciding the directions of this policy, and that programs should encourage all types of agriculture and business models equally.

(B) Business Risk Management Programs

Business Risk management programs, and more generally income support programs, were a hot topic during the discussions in Committee. Witnesses were unanimous that farmers need to be profitable first and that government programs are a backup. Farmers want to make their living from the marketplace, but, as Mr. Layton Bezan pointed out:

It seems ironic that since the start of government programs such as GRIP in the late seventies, early eighties, we have unfortunately depended upon those subsidies more and more.[60]

Opinions were mixed on the type of support the government should provide: while some witnesses only saw the need for a program like Agri-insurance with very little additional support, others preferred more comprehensive programs to ensure the stability of farm income. The following paragraphs summarize the testimonies on this topic.

Many different ideas were put forward by witnesses regarding the current suite of business risk management programs. Regarding AgriStability, some comments were not new to the Committee: its whole farm approach works rather well for specialized farms but penalizes diversified farms; and the program provides very limited assistance to any industry, like the livestock industry currently, that is experiencing a continuous decline in margins or several bad years in a row. To make it more responsive to the livestock industry, some witnesses suggested eliminating the viability test and changing the way reference margins are calculated by using the best three years of the past five years rather than the Olympic average. Witnesses also complained that the program is not simple and its delivery is not timely—several witnesses were still waiting for their 2008 application to be processed, and as a result it is difficult to go negotiate with the bank with an assurance that the AgriStability payment will be received in time. The Committee was also told that some operations such as incorporated farms are treated differently, which adds delay to the processing of applications. Overall, the long delays to issue payments make the program less responsive for industries that are in crisis. The delay of payment, in some contexts, creates unexpected tax consequences. Witnesses were split on the issue of program caps; some witnesses wanted to impose or lower caps for AgriStability to limit the eligibility of large farms and leave money for new and/or smaller farms, while others opposed caps because they would penalize too many producers.

What was CAIS is now AgriStability. It’s the same idea, roughly, but it still doesn’t work for my operation. Anyone who grows average to above average crops and is diversified will almost never get a payment.[61]

[...]; provide the highest reference margin by using the calculation either on a five-year Olympic or previous three-year average reference period; increase negative margin coverage from 60% to 70%; and give greater consideration to business risk management programming, based on the cost of production rather than margin-based coverage.[62]

AgriInvest was seen by many witnesses as a good program, similar to the old Net Income Stabilisation Account (NISA) program. They liked its flexibility and some witnesses would like to see the government expand it. Other witnesses saw it as not being very effective for larger farms because of the fixed cap and would rather see a cap based on reference margins so that larger farms are able to cover their first 15% decline in margin that the program is supposed to cover.

AgriInvest is a very good program as well, but it's not overly effective for large farms right now. With the cap in place at $22,000, it's a little bit too low.[63] AgriInsurance was considered by witnesses to be another important program for farmers; many witnesses suggested that it is the most important government program. The program is targeted mostly at field crops, although it has been recently expanded in certain provinces to cover losses by predators in some animal production. Many witnesses indicated that they would like to see this program made available to the livestock industry. In some provinces, discussions are under way to develop a livestock insurance program for beef producers. Some livestock producers proposed that the government look at a cattle price insurance program similar to the insurance program for livestock available in Alberta. This program provides protection against a drop in cattle prices over a defined time period and is financed by producers’ premiums.

That's why we feel that a targeted program, an insurance program, whereby we can insure, for a premium [...] similar to crop insurance, so that we know how much we'll be able to end up with for our product in the fall when we sell it, so that we can cashflow our business.[64]

On insurance programs for cattle producers, there have been promises to have something similar to crop insurance developed for the livestock industry since the APF started in 2003. To date, nothing substantial has happened in that area. There needs to be an effective, affordable form of price and basis insurance for cattle producers across Canada.[65] These three programs (AgriStability, AgriInvest, and AgriInsurance) were seen by some witnesses as working better for established rather than young or new farmers. There was a consensus among witnesses that the programs should be better adapted to meet the needs of new farmers. Some witnesses have suggested changing the reference margin calculation for new farmers in AgriStability: this program uses regional averages because new farm operations do not have their own reference margins. Other proposed using the better regional margins rather than the average. One witness also suggested limiting full government assistance to the first five years of a farm and decreasing that support over the years.

Maybe a solution is that we start decreasing the subsidies. Have them in place [...] for the first five years for those who need them to get their feet on the ground. Drop it down as the farmers get older in years and more established.[66] For AgriInsurance, young farmers also have to use regional average yields for their coverage because they do not have historical data. Therefore, it can take up to 10 years for the program to take their own individual yields into consideration. According to a witness, most of the top producers—and the young farmers tend to be in that category—are producing about 50% above the regional average. It was suggested to change the formula to allow new farmers to build their average more quickly. Other witnesses suggested that AgriInsurance be modified to guarantee the costs of production for the first few years of activity of a new farmer. For AgriInvest, one witness proposed that the government pay for the producer share during the first few years after setting up the farm, that the government contribution be increased.

The Committee is aware that changes to these three programs would require the agreement of the provinces, and it encourages the federal government to engage in discussions with them to implement some of these proposed modifications.

Recommendation 3.1

The Committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in cooperation with the provinces, make changes to AgriStability, AgriInvest, and AgriInsurance to specifically make them more responsive to agricultural industries in crisis and to better meet the needs of young and new farmers. The Committee also recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, along with its provincial counterparts, expand AgriInsurance to the livestock sector and that the design and protection provided for this sector could be similar to the cattle price insurance program in Alberta.

The government has put in place a number of measures and programs to address the crisis in the hog industry. Some hog producers who appeared before the Committee shared their experience and views on these programs. For example, the Committee was told that very few farmers applied to the Hog Industry Loan Loss Reserve Program (HILLRP) since it was difficult for them to show the required profitability in order to access credit. Overall, witnesses were concerned about accessibility to the programs.

Several witnesses supported a different approach than the current BRM programs. There was a lot of support for a program to cover the costs of production, although some witnesses believed it to be unrealistic and others cautioned that such a program has a tendency to interfere with normal market signals. Other witnesses suggested a low floor price for all commodities.

Witnesses also indicated that national programs are not designed to address the strong regional differences in agriculture. Since a one size fits all approach does not work, there should be more regional flexibility regarding income support programs. It was recommended that the government allow the financing of provincial BRM programs with the Agricultural Flexibility Fund (AgriFlexibility). On the other hand, several witnesses shared the concern that they have to compete against farmers from provinces that are more generous and provide more support to their producers. The Committee is nevertheless aware that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to offset the imbalances created by provincial programs.

Finally, supply management is one form of government policy to mitigate risks coming from agricultural markets. This policy was praised for the stability it gives to dairy, chicken, egg and turkey producers. Those farmers are able to predict their revenue, which is an asset for making business plans and negotiating with financial institutions. While there is not much support from producers to expand supply management to commodities like beef or pork that are largely exported, the idea came up a number of times. For example, the Committee was told that more and more apple producers are talking about supply management and that it is gaining support in provinces like British Columbia.

(C) Research and Innovation

In its Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture report, the Committee made the case that public research is one of the best areas for the government to invest in for the future of agriculture. Testimony heard during the hearings reinforced the Committee’s opinion. The Committee visited the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph and toured the AAFC Atlantic Food and Horticulture research centre in Kentville, Nova Scotia, and was impressed by the quality of the research undertaken in these institutions; but as in other areas, there are challenges.

Some witnesses mentioned the Auditor General of Canada’s report tabled in April 2010. Chapter 5 of this report addresses scientific research carried out at AAFC and brings up similar concerns that witnesses shared with the Committee. In particular, the report identified problems with the renewal of research staff and buildings and equipment used for public agricultural research. The Auditor General also indicated that 70% of research projects had adjustments made to the original proposals, mostly budget reductions and staffing changes.

Because private research tends to focus more and more on a limited number of markets, witnesses stressed the importance of public research to improve farm productivity, and to better serve certain types of production, such as organic agriculture. Witnesses also stressed the importance of local and regional research. A few fruit producers from British Columbia and Nova Scotia, who appeared before the Committee, linked the profitability of their operations with easy access to their local research facility (namely AAFC Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre and Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre) and the fact they can take local and regional characteristics into consideration. Some would like to see a “Cereals Centre of Excellence” in Manitoba to ensure that the eastern part of the prairies has adapted crop varieties. Farmers’ feelings about research were best summarized by one witness:

[Research] must be regional, it must be multidisciplinary, and it must relate to primary production research. It must be targeted at the grower, at the producer level. Without it, we’re going to go out of business.[67]

Several witnesses also put forward the recommendation from the Farmers for Investment in Agriculture coalition, which brings together 100,000 Canadian grain farmers from across the country. This coalition has asked that public agricultural research investments be restored to 1994 levels in constant dollars. In concrete terms, this would mean an additional yearly budget of $28 million for the next 10 years. The coalition believes this is a realistic goal in relation to the kinds of investments made in public agricultural research about 15 years ago.

Recommendation 3.2

The Committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) provide an action plan that will describe how the department will implement the recommendations set out in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General of Canada report tabled in April 2010, and specifically how regional research will be integrated in its Science and Innovation Strategy. The Committee also recommends that AAFC provide a formal response to the Committee on the Farmers for Investment in Agriculture coalition proposal to restore the AAFC research budget to 1994 levels in constant dollars.

Application of innovation on farms is a perennial issue, and the Committee recommended in its Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture report that the government develop, with the provinces, a national commercialization expansion program to facilitate the movement of innovation from the research stage through to commercialization. Nevertheless, the adoption of new technologies sometimes requires a more comprehensive set of policies.

For example, the production of green energy on farms has enormous potential for both the environment and primary agriculture production. Biodigesters, wind turbines, solar panels, pressed solids are just a few examples of renewable energy that can be produced on farms. Furthermore, farmers are aware of the role that agriculture could play in this area.

I think that some environmental problems could be solved with agriculture, whether in terms of energy production, recovery, composting, etc.[68]

Green energies represent an additional source of income and a way to reduce the production costs. The Committee had firsthand experience when it visited a dairy farm in Ontario that produces four kilowatts of energy per day and per cow with a biodigestor that converts manure into energy, a cleaner fertilizer and animal bedding. Other witnesses touched on their individual or collective endeavours to produce energy with solar panels or wind turbine. The Committee also visited Pound-Maker facilities in Saskatchewan, another example of how agriculture production can be integrated with the production of energy—in this case an ethanol plant and a feedlot operation.

Despite its huge potential, many witnesses told the Committee that the production of energy on farms will not take off without an energy policy or adequate support. As one witness indicated:

The challenge we find is that when you go without a solid renewable energy [...] like a feed-in tariff policy. The economics are so marginal, the banks don't want to touch it. FCC barely wants to touch it. Then we're into programs. We're going to go and apply to NRCan or Agriculture Canada: it's a special project, it's a demonstration project. Well, you can only do so many demonstration projects. Without a broad-based policy mechanism to allow us to integrate, all you get is one-off projects.[69]

The Committee heard that Germany has a solid renewable energy policy: one of its targets is that agricultural biogas will supply 17% of the energy in 2020. Some provinces are trying to encourage the production of renewable energy on the farm but in some cases they do not support all types of energy equally: in Ontario for example, electricity produced from agricultural biogas does not receive the same feed-in tariffs as solar or wind energy. One witness mentioned that the federal government had a program to provide a top-up of one cent per kilowatt of renewable energy. But the program did not include a lot of on-farm systems since only facilities producing at least one megawatt were eligible. Also, as farmers face competition from large companies that are better equipped and have easier access to capital, some of them are pooling their efforts in order to alleviate financial risks and to have an economically viable structure.

Many witnesses supported the idea of a program to assist the production of renewable energy from agricultural products and by-products. The program would either provide an incentive per kilowatt or help with financing and raising capital to start up the projects.

Recommendation 3.3

The Committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in consultation with stakeholders, set a goal to make the agricultural sector a major provider of energy by 2020 and work with the provinces to implement a program to assist the production of renewable energy from agricultural products and by-products.

(D) A Fair Marketplace

As indicated before, most topics in this section were addressed in the Committee’s report Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the issues.

a. Trade

Witnesses recognized that market development plays a key role in the profitability of agriculture. As an exporting nation, the need to gain or expand access to foreign markets is important to farmers. Many witnesses made the case that expanding export opportunities is vital to their industry, although some witnesses claimed that export markets did not bring their intended benefits and may have been the reason for decreased competition in the Canadian agri-food sector. Nevertheless, all witnesses recognized that, as a country, Canada may need to put more emphasis on promoting Canadian and local products in Canada and overseas, and for that matter, farmers must compete in an environment with fairer trade rules.

For example, apple producers told the Committee that the country of origin labelling rules for fresh fruits and vegetables are not properly enforced. Therefore, Canadian producers that are growing premium apples have no means of differentiating their products from imported apples from low-cost producing countries. Apple producers in British Columbia also mentioned cases of dumping from Washington State, one of the largest apple producers in the world, when this region experiences a surplus.

Recommendation 3.4

The Committee recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada undertake a thorough analysis of the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the agricultural industry and report back to the Committee.

The vast majority of witnesses also questioned the rationale for importing products grown or raised with pesticides or drugs that are not approved for use in Canada. The Committee specifically recommended in its Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture report that the government undertake a study of the level to which imported agricultural products do not meet the same standards required of Canadian producers, and provide recommendations that could be implemented to resolve this matter.

Recommendation 3.5

The Committee reiterates that the government look into the level to which imported agricultural products do not meet the same standards required of Canadian producers and recommends that the government takes the necessary steps to implement motion M-460.

Regarding export markets, some witnesses asked for adequate and timely government action to make sure Canadian producers have access to the same opportunities as their foreign competitors. For example, the Committee met a group of cattle producers, who are trying to sell hormone-free beef in the European market. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has approved a slaughterhouse that would slaughter and ship this beef to the European Union (EU). However, the United States currently has better access to the European market and a different tariff structure for hormone-free beef—in response to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute over the use of growth-promoting hormones in cattle, the United States has negotiated a 20,000 tonne duty-free quota for the shipment of hormone-free beef to the EU, and this quota will gradually increase to 100,000 tonnes over the next several years. As a result, U.S. producers receive a bigger premium, and Canadian producers may not be able to access the market. The Committee also heard that Australia reacted quickly to meet the EU’s requirement and was able to obtain access to a portion of the 20,000 tonnes tariff‑free quota using their most favoured nation status. The Committee believes that it is imperative that the government respond quickly to these challenges.

Discussions about trade and market opportunities inevitably moved towards the role of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Unsurprisingly, testimonies were split on this issue. Witnesses stated that the CWB prevents their wheat and barley production to be profitable; consequently they gradually give up the production of grains under CWB mandate. They criticized the CWB’s lack of transparency regarding prices, and indicated that there is little accountability when market signals sent by the CWB are off the mark and cause overproduction. Some witnesses also disapproved of the Board, which is supposed to be a producer organization, being dependent on the federal government. This dependence could be harmful to the interests of producers. Other witnesses supported the CWB monopoly because of the market power it provides to producers. They were adamant that its current structure and democratic process allow producers to decide what they want to do with the CWB. They also questioned the CWB’s ability to be a significant player in the world market if farmers were given the choice to market their product on their own or through the CWB.

b. Competition

Many see concentration and the lack of competition in the agri-food chain as the main culprit behind declining farm income. While this opinion is not shared by everyone in the agriculture community, the vast majority of witnesses agree that farmers do not have the same market power to negotiate and compete with a reduced number of input suppliers, processors, and retailers.

As a result, the farmer’s share of a dollar spent at the grocery store has been decreasing,

A former director of Canadian Cattlemen's went through the prices. [...] They priced out a calf who leaves our ranch around 600 pounds. By the time he hits the grocery store shelf, he's worth $3,080. [...] the cow-calf producer gets $590 of that $3,080. [...] the retail cut is 55% [...] of that $3,080. And that share has been increasing continuously. [...] It's just an untenable situation to have that kind of money when people are telling you that beef is expensive. People do study after study, and they say, well, the demand is low. But the demand is low because someone's taking too much money off the table, and it ain't us.[70]

We are getting such a small share of the food dollar. Through Keystone Agricultural Producers, we did a project called Farmers’ Share on what percentage of the food dollar goes back to the farm gate for one week for a farm family. From 2008 to 2009, the cost of groceries went up by 3.2%. Farmers received 1.7% less than they did in the previous year. The customer paid $6.01 more per week. Farmers got 86¢ less per week. And the middleman got $6.87 more. For our grain products, we got about 5% on bread, and on oatmeal the farmers' share was 2%.[71]

In addition to this situation, witnesses were very concerned and complained that the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act do not have the power to ensure adequate competition throughout the sector. The Committee was also told that competition laws in the United States have more powers to break monopolies.

We actually had some direct experience with the Competition Bureau. Three years ago, we had Pricewaterhouse do a study on competition in fertilizer pricing, back and forth, between Manitoba prices and North Dakota prices. We found a 60% difference, which was in the wrong direction, obviously.[...] We tried to get the Competition Bureau interested in this. They basically told us that the only way they would get involved would be if we could find someone on the inside who was prepared to testify that there was collusion. We provided them with lots of external information. [...] they were not prepared to take action unless we basically did it all for them, handed it to them, and said, “Okay, here you go.”[72]

The Committee made several recommendations to address the lack of competition in the agri-food chain in its Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture report and takes note of the government’s response, however,

Recommendation 3.6

The Committee recommends that, with the view that monopolies have been detrimental to Canadian farmers, the government look into other models, including the U.S. model, that deal with competition and that allow the government to exert more power to break up, or otherwise manage, monopolies in the agricultural industry.

c. Regulations

The issue of regulations was regularly addressed during the hearings. Generally, regulations impose additional costs to farmers without giving them the opportunity to obtain a premium, although they may have some benefits like opening export markets. In general, witnesses saw regulations as a burden; one witness even indicated that too many regulations were the reason why her daughter would not take over the farm.

More specifically, witnesses addressed the regulations on the disposal of specified risk material (SRM) in the cattle industry and the impact it has on Canadian slaughterhouses. Farmers are also concerned that certain regulations prevent them from timely access to new technologies. Witnesses told the Committee they do not have the same access to pesticides and drugs as their main competitors. The non harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary regulations among countries is putting Canadian agriculture at a disadvantage. These topics have been on the Committee’s agenda for many years. Although some progress has been made, notably through programs to register minor use pesticides, the Canadian regulatory regime is still failing to provide Canadian farmers with the latest available tools.

Recommendation 3.7

The Committee recommends that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency continue harmonization efforts with the United States and other countries to reduce the competitive disadvantages faced by the Canadian agri-food sector and to ensure that Canadian farmers have timely access to the latest technologies, including veterinary drugs and pest management products.