AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

0930

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.))

0935

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Steckle

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Don Chisholm (Representative, Creek County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Iain Gardiner (President, Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture)

0945

0950

The Chair

Mr. Al Gardiner (Provincial Representative, Ontario Federation of Agriculture)

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Al Gardiner

0955

1000

1005

The Chair

Mr. Paul Burns (Individual Presentation)

1010

The Chair

Mr. Ray Pender (Individual Presentation)

1015

The Chair

Mr. William Rendell (Individual Presentation)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Dick (Individual Presentation)

1025

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. Hilstrom

1030

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Al Gardiner

1035

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Al Gardiner

Mr. Iain Gardiner

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Al Gardiner

Mr. Proctor

1040

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Iain Gardiner

1045

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Iain Gardiner

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Iain Gardiner

Mr. Steckle

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Don Chisholm

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Don Chisholm

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Paul Burns

1050

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Al Gardiner

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Rendell

1055

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Iain Gardiner

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Paul Burns

1100

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Paul Burns

Mr. McCormick

Mr. William Rendell

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

1105

Mr. Al Gardiner

The Chair

Mr. William Rendell

The Chair

Mr. William Rendell

The Chair

1120

Mr. William Brown (Canadian Organic Sprout Company)

1125

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Michael Fraser (Director, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union)

1140

1145

The Chair

Mr. Michael Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Michael Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Michael Fraser

The Chair

Mr. George Thompson (Individual Presentation)

1150

The Chair

Mr. John Williamson (Representative, Frontenac County, Ontario Federation of Agriculture)

The Chair

Mr. John Williamson

1155

The Chair

1200

Mr. John Hastings (lndividual Presentation)

1205

The Chair

Mr. Stan Raper (Individual Presentation)

1210

The Chair

Mr. Barton MacLean (Individual Presentation)

1215

The Chair

Mr. Kevin MacLean (Individual presentation)

1220

The Chair

1225

Mr. Bob Dick (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Johnston (Renfrew County Federation of Agriculture)

1230

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. William Brown

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Michael Fraser (Director, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Michael Fraser

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Michael Fraser

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Michael Fraser

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Stan Raper

1235

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Stan Raper

1240

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Stan Raper

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Proctor

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Stan Raper

1245

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Stan Raper

Mr. Proctor

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. McCormick

1250

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. John Williamson

Mr. McCormick

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Barton MacLean

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bob Johnston

1255

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bob Johnston

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. John Hastings

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Kevin MacLean

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Kevin MacLean

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Kevin MacLean

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Steckle

1300

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Steckle

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Steckle

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Steckle

Mr. George Thompson

1305

Mr. Steckle

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Steckle

Mr. George Thompson

Mr. Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Barton MacLean

Mr. John Williamson

1310

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Brown

Mr. Anderson

Mr. William Brown

The Chair

1330

Mr. Ormond Lee (Seeds of Peace Roots of Justice)

1335

Mr. John Morrison (President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association)

1340

The Chair

Mr. Peter Dowling (Ontario Coordinator, National Farmers' Union)

1345

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Albright (Albright Trade Corporation)

1350

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kidd (Ontario Cattlemen's Association)

1355

The Chair

Mr. Richard Kidd

The Chair

Mr. Doug Parker (Representative, Prince Edward County Chapter, Canadian Organic Growers)

1400

The Chair

Ms. Helen Forsey (Individual Presentation)

1405

1410

1415

The Chair

Mr. Larry Wannamaker (Lennox and Addington Community Economic Development Coalition Committee)

1420

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy (Individual Presentation)

1425

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ormond Lee

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Jim Caldwell (Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Cattlemen's Association)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Anderson (Victoria)

1430

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Moore

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Anderson

Mr. MacKay

Mr. Anderson

Mr. MacKay

Mr. Anderson

Mr. MacKay

Mr. Ormond Lee

The Chair

Mr. Ormond Lee

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. MacKay

Mr. Dick Proctor

1435

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Proctor

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Proctor

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Ormond Lee

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Steckle

1440

Mr. Gerry Albright

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Gerry Albright

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Gerry Albright

Mr. Paul Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Morrison

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jim Caldwell

Mr. Borotsik

1445

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Borotsik

1450

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Borotsik

1455

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Anderson

Mr. McCormick

Ms. Helen Forsey

1500

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Peter Dowling

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Harold Piercy

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gerry Albright

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Ms. Helen Forsey

1505

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Doug Parker

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

1510

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

The Chair

Mr. Harold Piercy

The Chair

Mr. Doug Parker

1515

Mr. Peter Dowling

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 055

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is here in Napanee this morning to study the future role of the government in agriculture.

With that, I'd like first of all just to briefly mention what we are doing and then we'll introduce the members and begin our hearing.

The standing committee, of course, consists of all parties in the House. We have representatives here today from most of the parties. The Bloc Quebecois are not with us here in Napanee, but generally as we go around the country, in terms of the ten provinces that we're visiting, we do have good representation. In fact, you might say that part of the House of Commons is here this morning in Napanee.

We started in Manitoba. We went from Manitoba to Saskatchewan and on to Alberta and British Columbia, and yesterday we were in the other part of this province, in Grand Bend over in Lake Huron country.

We're hoping to be able to listen to what farm groups are saying across Canada. The submissions that you offer today will be recorded. We have our recorders here. We also have our translation system. What you say becomes part of the so-called blues of our committee.

The committee, after visiting the various provinces and hearing the witnesses, will return to Ottawa. We'll maybe look for future input from our clerks and from our researchers, and eventually we'll prepare for the House of Commons a report to reflect the hearings that we have heard.

As I said, we're here to listen, not to speak. We know that many of you do represent different groups and that you will be giving us concerns that you have here in this area of Ontario and across Canada in terms of the future of agriculture and how government can help out.

I'll call first of all on Howard, our vice-chair, to introduce himself, before--

¿ (0935)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Before our local representative? Thank you very much, sir.

The Chair: Well, I'm going to give him the last word this morning.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: And it will no doubt be a long commentary.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: We'll make sure it's not.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, Larry's well-spoken.

I'm Howard Hilstrom, member of Parliament for Selkirk--Interlake, which is just north of the city of Winnipeg. I am a cow-calf producer who backgrounds my calves over the winter. I have been the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance since 1998 and part of the ag committee, vice-chair I guess; I feel that we're doing the best we can to advise the government on what is needed to be done in the agriculture sector.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): My name is David Anderson. I am the Canadian Alliance member of Parliament for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, which is in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan. I'm a farmer, and have been a farmer for 25 years. I work with Howard on the agricultural portfolio for the Alliance. It's good to be here today.

The Chair: Dick Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, Charles. Excuse the voice.

My name is Dick Proctor. I'm the New Democratic Party member on the agriculture committee. My constituency is Pallister, in Saskatchewan. It includes part of the city of Regina, all of Moose Jaw, and surrounding ranchland and farm areas. I should just also add that I grew up on a dairy farm in Prince Edward Country, about half an hour from here. I have good recollections from the time spent here.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of us on the committee would have appreciated it had he stayed on the dairy farm in Prince Edward Country.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: My name is Rick Borotsik, and I'm the member of Parliament from Brandon--Souris. It's the southwest corner of Manitoba. I'm the Progressive Conservative ag critic. My constituency is very diverse in agriculture, everything from livestock to huge hog operations being developed right now to grains and oilseeds particularly. We are the wheat city, Brandon, so we do recognize the importance of agriculture for our community. I'm very happy to be here to listen to what you have to say today.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): I'm Paul Steckle, member of Parliament for the riding of Huron--Bruce, commonly known as the western coast of Ontario. It's the largest agriculture-producing riding--and I have to say this here, because I say it everywhere else, and I don't want to break the record--of any riding in Canada east of Winnipeg. It's very diverse in its production.

I'm a farmer myself, a primary producer, although I'm not slopping the hogs any more. I've found someone else to do that for me. Nevertheless, I know what primary production is all about. We've had some tremendous hearings, some great witnesses, and we look forward to the time here today. I have spent the better part of my nine years in Ottawa on this committee.

I look forward to your presentations.

The Chair: Larry, you probably don't need an introduction, but do you want to say a few words?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Larry McCormick. Welcome to Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, where you are right now, for our visitors, including the visitors who just wandered in the door from western Canada.

I've been elected here with the government party since 1993, and had the privilege of representing you for the last two years as the parliamentary secretary to Minister Lyle Vanclief, who is in a neighbouring riding.

I also want to do something, Mr. Chair, we don't do often enough, although we have many times before as we've criss-crossed this country; we're in Quebec the rest of this week and, as the chair will say, Atlantic Canada next week. I want to thank all our support staff--the clerks, the translators, the Library of Parliament. I mean, these people, each and all, do a great job, and put in long days.

Thank you, gang, for being here and being part of it, to make us look good.

But you know, Mr. Clerk, I just want to mention one thing. Our committee is televised sometimes in Ottawa, and on a television day, in I think September, the person sitting opposite me mentioned publicly that we still have the reputation in Ottawa of getting along better than any other committee on the Hill. And I think there's something like 23 or 24 standing committees.

Now, this is very important. Here we are, rural people, small-town Canada, and we're in the minority in this country. We're all here basically for the same reason. I'm certainly glad to have...and thank my colleagues for being here in our riding.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Larry.

My name is Charles Hubbard. I'm from a place call Miramichi, New Brunswick, or a smaller place called Red Bank, or if I took my Mi'kmaq word for the same place, it would be Metepenagiag. They're kind of hard to spell sometimes, Mi'kmaq words.

I'm a Liberal member of Parliament and have had experience in terms of beef cattle, a little bit, and also with the dairy sector. Like one of the people I met here this morning, I also was a school teacher for a long period of time. So we do have some background in the rural areas.

As for the way we operate, we have allowed approximately five minutes for each witness. After we've heard the six or seven witnesses, with their five minutes, we'll then go through a round of questioning. With that, the members too have a time allocation. As we approach the time, I usually try to give a signal that you should soon conclude your remarks. It's a program that is quite tightly kept. We have to abide by the minutes and we have to watch quite closely.

So we trust that everybody will abide by that kind of operation, and hopefully we'll have a very good morning and afternoon here in Napanee.

With that, beginning with our list of witnesses, I believe the first one we have is Don Chisholm from the County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition, or CREEK.

Don, the floor is yours.

Mr. Don Chisholm (Representative, Creek County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition): Thank you, Charles. I just got in at the last minute; I understand somebody else dropped off the list.

I'm with the organization called CREEK. We are one of the many organizations in Canada that has sprouted up in the rural areas to try to protect their environment from the industrialization of farmland.

I have a bit of a prepared statement, so I'll just read it, I suppose. Anyhow, thanks for hosting this opportunity to say something.

Across Canada, rural folks are forming organizations to help protect themselves from the results of industrialization of farmland. Prince Edward County's CREEK regional environmental coalition was spawned when the environment was seriously degraded by the establishment of an ILO, an intensive livestock operation, in the area of Cressy. The quality of air, surface water, and deep groundwater are threatened by these industries that operate under the same legislation as normal farms.

But these factories are not normal farms. They require large tracts of land, eliminating many family farmers, thereby weakening the spirit of the rural community. The barns are mostly automated and require only two or three workers from a day-to-day basis, thereby reducing the tax base of the community. Fleets of heavy trucks are brought in from time to time, summer and winter, to empty the manure pit, spread it on the land, and leave the roads muddied and broken for the local taxpayer to deal with. Many of these factories use antibiotics in feed on a regular basis, leading to the superbugs we now hear about, that become resistant to modern medicine.

So then why are these operations developing? Because of many factors. One, of course, is human population growth, but mainly it is our federal government's endorsement of and capitulation to corporate-driven globalization and external bilateral trade agreements. The only success/failure measurement tool available to our federal and provincial governments is gross domestic product and trade balances, but not environmental costs.

And these governments set the rules for trade in establishing the market boards that historically give advantage to high-volume agricultural operations, pushing the small farmer either to sell out or to automate and expand in order to increase protein throughput.

But do farmers really welcome this push by our big governments? No, says a recent survey by the Christian Farmers Federation, who surveyed about 300 Ontario farmers, wherein 68% indicated they resent being forced to change their farm lifestyles. Yet almost every week there's an article in the paper indicating that our federal minister wants Canada to be a number one producer and exporter of cheap food. Canada now marches, I believe, to the drum of export globalization and the rules handed down by international money funds, the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and the lobbying powers of the multinational agri-corporations.

These forces now drive Canada's tractors, and are forcing national governments to compete with each other for market share, and then for farmers to compete with each other. The slippery slope that our federal government pursues is well documented by many eminent Canadians, who describe how the forces of globalization are etching away years of civil progress and freedom, and individual freedoms' well-being.

These losses to the well-being of citizens range from agricultural issues, as we were speaking of, to the commercialization of communal systems that we've taken for granted, such as medicare and Ontario Hydro.

Eminent Canadians have written some very good books, and some of the titles tell the story: The Cancer Stage of Capitalism, by John McMurtry--the son of Roy McMurtry, our chief justice--who's in philosophy at the University of Guelph; Stop: think and Goodbye Canada, written by the Honourable Paul Hellyer, a former Liberal cabinet minister; The Unconscious Civilization, by John Ralston Saul, husband of our Governor General these days; and The Globalization of Poverty, by the University of Ottawa's Michel Chossudovsky.

Margaret Thatcher coined the phrase “there is no alternative”, TINA, to globalization and privatization of every public service that is not nailed down. But there really are alternates, and these alternates are spelled out in another organization I represent, called the Simultaneously Policy Organization. I'll leave some brochures when I'm finish.

Thanks for your time and for listening.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Don.

Perhaps you would leave your submission with the clerk. According to the rules, we really want them in both languages, but I know it's impossible for most of you to do that. What will happen is they'll go back to Ottawa, we will have them translated, and committee members will have an opportunity to read them.

From the Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture, we have Iain Gardiner.

Mr. Iain Gardiner (President, Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture): Thank you, sir.

Just so you know exactly who I am, my name is Iain Gardiner. Along with my father, Allan, and my mother, Iris, we farm in partnership in both Lennox and Addington and Hastings County. We're primarily a cow-calf cash crop and small feedlot operator. I am president of our local Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture.

The Lennox and Addington Federation of Agriculture represents more than 400 farmers and farm families within our rural eastern Ontario county. We appreciate this opportunity to address the committee and look forward to providing input, and maybe even a little bit of direction, to create a long-term vision and policy to foster success and sustainability in the agricultural sector.

I have provided a brief summary to the clerk, and I'll just go through some of the things that concern the farmers in Lennox and Addington.

On farm income, make no mistake, Canadian farmers are experiencing an income shortfall. While providing the Canadian consumer with some of the safest, highest-quality, nutritious food, the farmer assumes enormous risk and small returns on their investment. The U.S. Treasury provides substantial support to their farmers in exchange for their food production. However, in Canada, per capita investments in agriculture are less than half the U.S. amounts.

Farmers and farm families are using off-farm incomes to subsidize their operation and provide the consumer with cheap food. Each year input costs increase, land prices and taxes rise, the choices for suppliers narrow due to multinational concentration, and the price of our groceries goes up, but the price for our products stagnates. Supplementary government support is needed until all farmers worldwide are competing on a level playing field. Interest-free loans are available, but there's uncertainty that the product will be there come fall to pay it back.

Next, the greying of the Canadian farmer. If you walk about two minutes northeast of here, you'll be in my home township of Richmond. The average age of a farmer in my home township is 59. We know that from the completion of an agricultural impact study in our region, which Larry was quite supportive of.

How can an agricultural community attract the brightest and best if there's not an adequate return on investment when you farm? Programs and support plans that make starting farming more accessible, providing tax breaks to the buyer and seller; help to obtain credit; and land reasonably priced--these are desperately needed. Capital gains on farm properties need to be increased to reflect the current value of many farm operations. Farms are being increasingly subject to inflated land prices, as they are prime development locations for ever-expanding urban populations. Housing developments are built over thousands of tillable acres every year, but no one ever constructs a field out of a housing development.

With regard to research, technology, and investment, the Government of Canada must act as an advocate and an impartial source of information in an agricultural community, which has fewer sources of information with the market influence exerted by huge multinational corporations. The government must fund research to help the Canadian farmer make the most informed decisions, practice leading-edge production techniques, and enhance consumers' confidence in our products. Farmers need access to the same services as the urban population with the Internet or risk being left behind with the emerging opportunities that the new global economy is presenting. More support to value-add products at the farm gate and to market our own identifiable products is needed.

On the next topic, the environment, this comes from my heart. Farmers have an attachment, an affinity, a bond to the land and the animals that we are caretakers of. However, increasing our environmental stewardship for the benefit of the entire country should be a cost shared by all Canadians for the benefit of the entire country. This should not and can not be afforded by just the farmers of this country. Increasingly, farmers are being singled out as negative contributors to our environment. The role of all contributors of nutrients and the aging infrastructure of our communities must be assessed without unnecessary and uninformed finger-pointing at only farmers.

¿ (0945)

In conclusion, the farmers of Lennox and Addington need a level playing field. They need young farmers, who can make a living with the farms, to take them over. They need adequate compensation for the products they produce and recognition of the unique commitments that are needed to farm today. They need a government that will listen, advise, support, and protect them from unfair competition. They need stability, sustainability, and profitability. They need a government that will shamelessly market them and all the positive associations that Canada is known to have around the world.

We like to feed people, and we do it well. Help us to keep Canadian farmers farming.

Thank you for this time and this opportunity.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you, Iain.

From the Ontario Federation of Agriculture...and we don't have too many fathers and sons appearing side by side. I suppose Mr. Gardiner is very proud to have a son in the same industry.

Al, the floor is yours.

Mr. Al Gardiner (Provincial Representative, Ontario Federation of Agriculture): Yes, we're very lucky; we have a very supportive mother who allows us both off the farm at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee, I commend you for dropping in to Napanee. I'm sure that wasn't the first place on your list. I've been working with Larry McCormick for a number of years, and when I got out of the shower this morning, thinking about coming here, I realized that Larry and I have been involved for probably over 35 years. He is a merchant in Camden East, and myself...trying to get rid of my produce. Larry and I worked very well together. We came head to head once in a while, but we worked very well together.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I think I won once.

Mr. Al Gardiner: Again, thank you very much for coming to Napanee. I'm an executive member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I certainly appreciate being only five minutes away rather than driving across the province to attend a committee meeting.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, OFA, is Canada's largest general farm organization. It represents the economic and social interests of over 45,000 farm families across the province, and advocates on behalf of Ontario's rural residents.

The OFA is pleased by the opportunity to speak with the standing committee members on what it sees as a current and pressing issue in agriculture. But the OFA also wants to discuss action that the agriculture sector and governments can work collaboratively on to create future opportunities in farming.

By its nature, OFA is oriented towards provincial issues. Clearly, however, given the constitutional structure of agriculture authorities, the OFA must also take a very active role in federal initiatives on behalf of Ontario's membership.

Our brief today, however, is not about who should do what at the federal, provincial, or even the municipal level of government. Our approach is more generally about the need for, and the benefits of, private and public sector collaboration informing agriculture policy and developing the agriculture sector in this province and across the country.

Our brief today is fundamentally about key principles that need to be adopted in Canada before we hope to have real success in growing the agricultural economy and ensuring its sustainability. In this regard, we take heart in an announcement by the Prime Minister, who said:

The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is integral to our high standard of living and unmatched quality of life.

I have a brief here, Mr. Chairman, which I will provide to each member. I'm not going to read everything completely. I trust that the members will read it. I'm going to go through, because of the time constraints, and hit on some of the highlights.

First, the guiding principle. The OFA believes that for the foreseeable future, agriculture's success and its ability to continue to contribute to rural society and the Canadian economy in a meaningful way will depend on successful private and public sector partnerships. Government must maintain a supportive, proactive role in the agriculture sector. On many fronts, governments are necessary partners in a successful agricultural sector.

Second, background. Agriculture faces numerous challenges--low commodity prices; international subsidies; weather; lack of infrastructure, both broadband and roads; environmental pressures; social standards of animal care; food safety and quality requirements and expectations; social and political desire for cheap food; rising input costs for equipment and fuel; limited access to competitive input products, PMRA problems; concentration in the supply and buying chain; reduction of greenhouse gases; adoption of GM products; reduction in public research; and private IP commoditizing production agriculture.

¿ (0955)

It is clear to the agriculture sector that the pressures from society are mounting, particularly in the environmental stewardship and food safety areas. Canadians are asking more of farmers and the agrifood sector. Frankly, Canadian agriculture is not capable of delivering more under the current circumstances.

In short, everyone has been capitalizing on farmers. The situation has evolved to a generation of farmers subsidizing low-priced food for Canadians through off-farm income. This situation must change to ensure a sustainable agriculture industry. The Prime Minister referenced in his remark, noted earlier, that Canadian agriculture has been integral to the high standard of living and unmatched quality of life--but it's at a cost to the quality of life of those involved.

The next item I've entitled “The New Deal--A Contract with Canadians”. The Government of Canada must take a leadership role in establishing a new deal for agriculture in this country. That includes establishing the policies and programs required to meet the requirements of the sector and the expectations of our society.

Income is by far a critical issue for all sectors of agriculture. The new deal with Canadians will have to recognize the real cost of food, through either policies and programs that enable producers to recover fair prices from the marketplace, such as supply management programs, or through tax support paid as risk management and safety net programs.

The environmental standard to which agriculture will be held accountable is being defined. It is the subject of great public debate and much angst as Canadians in general become more aware of groundwater issues from the Walkerton affair, and, in a more local sense, as urban Canada migrates to the rural areas, bringing a new sensitivity.

National commodity organizations have demonstrated a high degree of initiative in promoting a new standard of care with regard to food safety. The development of a self-directed HACCP, based on farm food safety programs in Canada, leads the world in adoption of better practices for consumer benefits.

With regard to corporate concentration, as noted above, the production agriculture sector is being squeezed between fewer and larger input suppliers--genetics, chemicals, equipment--and fewer and larger buyers. As such, the consolidation of production agriculture is accelerating in response to the demands of lower costs and larger production runs.

Many opportunities exist for agriculture in the emerging new economy, the life sciences economy. New plant and animal products and new uses for existing or GM agricultural products--including materials, nutraceutical, and pharmaceutical uses--create potential opportunity for farmers positioned to capitalize. It is not clear, however, what may best position farmers to capitalize on the life sciences economy.

To be palatable, the new contract with Canadians will require a higher level of understanding of the agriculture agenda and issues. A public sector initiative such as the one addressed above will need to be accompanied by a campaign designed to educate the average Canadian about Canadian agriculture's positive messages. The campaign will need to inform Canadians on why the agricultural policy is important and why the policy is designed the way it is.

In summary, above are just some of the key areas requiring a new approach--a new deal. These areas all need to be reworked, away from the ad hoc processes of the past as the Canadian society evolves in its thinking and expectations. A new contract with Canadians will finally recognize the contributions of agriculture and the work for sustainability in a way that respects both the needs of the sector and the needs of society.

À (1000)

In order to be successful, however, the new contract with Canadians requires a new paradigm on the part of the agriculture sector, the public sector, and the Canadian public. That paradigm was best reflected in the Prime Minister's remarks, already quoted, which form the fundamental premise of OFA's arguments. I'll quote again from the Prime Minister:

The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is integral to our high standard of living and unmatched quality of life.

The OFA agrees, and strongly suggests that bold and immediate action such as suggested above be taken to ensure that the Prime Minister's words remain true.

I thank you very much.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gardiner. I did give you a good bit of extra time because of the federation you represent.

Mr. Al Gardiner: Thank you, I appreciate that.

The Chair: We don't have anyone from the provincial government on the list here, but there is someone in the audience who may want to present later.

Is his name on the list now? Oh, he didn't ask.

If you do want to present, and if there are others, too, there's a table at the back of the hall where you can put your name down. If it wasn't arranged, we'll certainly try to give you at least a couple of minutes somewhere during the session today.

Now we're going to individuals. Perhaps they would just mention what their background is, very briefly.

We'll start with Mr. Burns.

Mr. Paul Burns (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much.

What I hope to do today is present an idea to the committee. This idea will take lots of determination and lots of perseverance, but it's an idea that I'm pretty optimistic about. It might, after ten years, get us to a point where we're not looking at tractors on the road and demonstrations on Parliament Hill. I hope we can get to that point in ten years' time.

I'll get a copy of these remarks to send in, but very briefly, I bought the original farm from my mother and father in 1965. I've sort of carried it on, and now I hope to see it carry on to my son and his sons. Our family owns and operates a beef farm 40 miles north of here, at Tamworth. My son, I, and one employee operate the farm. My wife assists from our home and my son's wife is employed off the farm.

At present we have 20 beef cows and 620 head of feeder steers. The steers were bought last fall, from September through to December, and will be marketed in June, August, October, and November of this year. The cost of the calves last fall was $435,000. We grow our own roughages, including hay, haylage, and corn silage, and purchase our grain requirements.

At present, our protein and grain inputs are costing 60¢ per animal per day. That doesn't sound like much, but it amounts to $370 every day. If all goes according to plan, we hope to have a net profit of about $100 per steer, or $60,000, when the cattle are marketed. This is a modest amount when you consider our investment in land, machinery, and cattle. But we are not complaining.

The reason I am stating this information is to allow you to better understand that farming today means input costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Government-producer partnerships must be geared accordingly to successfully weather whatever challenges the future holds.

Our farming operation should be prepared to successfully survive the worst-case scenario. An example would be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease anywhere in Canada or the United States, which could decrease the value of our livestock by $200,000 overnight. Feed costs and other input costs would continue as usual, and our banker would be checking with us to see what plan we had in place to meet our financial obligations.

I think we could handle this disaster ourselves with the help of our NISA account, which we have persevered to build since the program began. The NISA program allows the security that, in spite of all the uncertainties facing farmers today, our farming operation will be able to continue for our son and his wife, and on to their two young sons, if they wish to farm.

In making plans for the future of our farm, we must set a goal that the standard of living is at least comparable to a career in other lines of business or professions. I feel confident that we can achieve this goal. By the time our grandsons are deciding their future careers, about 15 years from now, I hope a career in farming would appear to be as lucrative as any other choices available to them.

One of the tools our farm operation needs to ensure this standard is a substantial reserve fund in a NISA account for protection to survive--intact--from the worst-case scenario, whether it be unforeseen disaster or several years of depressed cattle prices.

I am sure my idea of carrying a reserve fund of $200,000 or more for our size of farm operation will seem excessive to some people. However, in reality we all carry $1 million or $2 million liability insurance on our auto and property insurance policies, because we think it is an absolute necessity for our protection against the worst-case scenario. Should we not also be building up protection to sustain our farming operations through the worst-case scenario? It would actually be an insurance that we build with the help of government through NISA, because unlike other insurance policies, it cannot be bought anywhere.

I realize that the original intent of NISA was not as an insurance program for the worst-case scenario, but we are all working to find the best method to guarantee the future of our farm operations in the long term, and NISA can fulfil that goal. The program is already in place and meets the approval of almost all participants. I know that from a survey that was done last year.

I have three suggestions that I think would enhance the overall success of the program.

One, NISA must become a mandatory program for any operation whose major source of income is from agricultural production.

Two, methods must be found to encourage producers to build a substantial fund. The bonus interest provision already in place is a good, worthwhile incentive to build, but methods must be found to discourage withdrawal of funds unless it is absolutely necessary. And this is where the determination and perseverance part of it comes in. The farmer's going to have to persevere to build up that fund.

Three, governments, farm organizations, and those of us who are enthusiastic about the NISA program must endeavour to convince all producers that this is a program that will work and that will give long-term security to the farm operation. This is something we haven't done much of in the past, a good selling job of NISA.

Thank you very much.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Burns.

Mr. Ray Pender, welcome.

Mr. Ray Pender (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chair, MPs, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this group today.

I'll tell you just a little bit about myself. I was a dairy farmer for 25 years. My son was with me, and he decided he wanted to do something else. He's now trained as a commercial pilot. The youngest son is almost finished studying as a veterinarian, so he'll be starting to work with another vet. So I guess in my case the farm is sort of winding down, but I'm also interested in the next generation. My comments will be sort of general comments.

In order to take a look at the future and the direction we might go in, maybe we need to take a look back and see where we came from. After World War II, people didn't have any money. A consumer subsidy was placed on agricultural products so that people could afford to buy them. This was the beginning of Canada's cheap food policy.

As an example of some of these subsidies paid to dairy farmers, supply management was introduced in 1965. Over the past 30-plus years the support part of the program has been reduced until the present day; as of April 30 this year, the entire income for dairy farmers will come from the marketplace. This is a partnership of high tariffs, processors paying a reasonable price for the raw product, and consumers paying market value for the end product.

February 8 was Food Freedom Day. Consumers, on average, have earned enough money to cover the cost of their food for the remainder of the year. This translates into less than 10% of their income for food.

When we look at the grain and oilseeds business, we see commodities that have high inputs and low returns. The average farmer cannot continue to subsidize this part of our ag industry. We know that Europe will keep subsidizing their farmers, because people went hungry during the war and they will not let this happen again. Each year in Holland, on May 5, they celebrate the fact that Canada gave them freedom.

We know that the U.S. will keep subsidizing their farmers; 60% of net farm income comes from government support payments. Removing subsidies would result in a 20% drop in land value. That is politically not acceptable, because hundreds of thousands of farmers and non-farmers have their savings invested either directly or indirectly in farm real estate.

We know that we cannot compete with the U.S. Treasury. We also know that rural Canada will not survive unless a partnership is formed to bring more income into our ag communities.

When farm income is increased, there is a 2:1 factor employed that reflects the spinoff to the economy. When farmers have money they spend it, and some actually pay income tax.

We're going to have to get creative, with an ag policy that will serve us well into the future. We need to include the environment, clean water programs, etc. We need to consolidate our different commodities in the grain and oilseed sectors. We need to apply our capital and technology differently to reflect the changes that need to be made. We need to educate the consumer that the farmer is a necessary part of society, who must have a decent return on investment, and that the consumer needs to spend a higher per cent of income on food.

We need to get creative on what we call this new ag policy. Our U.S. friends get away with increasing their support programs by calling them anything but a subsidy--for example, their “green plan”. We need our government to develop a mindset that we must have a long-term ag policy. Agriculture is the backbone of any country. Third world countries happen because they don't take care of their ag industry.

Our trade agreements need to reflect the fact that we must protect our ag industry and our farmers so that our young people will have an incentive to carry on. Over the next 10 years, probably 40% of the land will change hands to the next generation. The age of the farmers in Renfrew County is also about 58.

We need a balanced approach. The government, the processor, the farmer, and the consumer all need to be figured into this policy.

Thanks very much.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pender.

Mr. William Rendell.

Mr. William Rendell (Individual Presentation): Soyez bienvenue. It's a delight to be here. Unfortunately, I guess there's no one here from la belle province.

My names's Bill Rendell, and I'm a cash crop farmer. I used to be a dairy farmer, but I do a few other things, including having a business that deals with some of the government agencies in the United States, and that's essentially why I dropped in today. I'm on my way to speak at a university in the United States this afternoon. So I do that plus some academic work down there.

I'd like to make a few comments about our situation vis-à-vis our American friends. I thought they may be somewhat helpful to the committee in their deliberations.

Ann Veneman just presented a report to the Congress with respect to American agriculture policy, and I'm amazed by the fact that the report reflects some of the good work done here in Canada, especially with respect to NISA and some of the other accounts that they are suggesting.

Now, somebody mentioned the practical application of solutions to problems. The United States has a policy in place that says their whole safety net program needs to be effective, transparent, equitable, consistent, and comprehensive. To that end, I would suggest that here in Canada we must have the federal government take the lead in the safety net program.

I do not believe the commodity organizations in the provinces have done a great service to Canadian farmers. I don't believe the current debacle here in the province of Ontario, with the leadership contest that's apparently holding up any kind of support, is a good indication of what should be done. And I'm also convinced that Congress and assemblymen in various neighbouring states would be much happier if they knew that there was a consistent and clear solution run by the federal government. I'd also urge, and I'm sure you've done this in the past, the members of the committee to take the opportunity to meet some of these people.

I do not believe American farmers are our problem. I believe they are our ally in a problem that faces all of North America, and I think we have to think in those terms.

The second thing I'd like to say is that I believe you need to consider increasing the powers of the National Energy Board to reflect what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, does in Washington. With the so-called deregulation of electricity here in various parts of Canada, there are things facing producers, both ranchers and farmers, that are very significant, I think.

Furthermore, the key thing in my view is that the electrical grid is the promise of the future for delivering broadband. That's an extremely important part of the solution for both marketing and various other adjustments.

To me, the broadband situation is becoming alarming, because at the present moment 27 states have formed an alliance, with Manitoba being the only other member, and there's no clear path that the Government of the United States is able to follow, even though FERC is trying to do something, and there's no counterpart here in Canada. I'm concerned about that.

I might also mention the matter of equity. I've had some experience to suggest that we need to take a look at the entire safety net program from that perspective. I would argue, for instance, that with respect to the income stabilization program, some of it is administered in various provinces by the federal government, some by the provinces.

Here in Ontario, the Province of Ontario has asked, under that program, for not only the farm income statement but also the T-1 form. It wants to know the overall income of the farmers who have applied for that. I've asked what their authority is to do that. I've asked them how they're storing it. I've asked how they're going to dispose of it and what use is being made of it.

I'm suggesting here that there are a number of areas where the federal government would do a much better job, and with the spread of various client relationship management systems, I think there would be a solid base to allow that, which would encourage the development of various other aspects.

I might also suggest that the Club Export agro-alimentaire du Québec in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a good illustration of a provincial-federal arrangement that needs to be expanded across the country. I think farmers need to be aware of their individual opportunities for trade with the United States, and I think they are there if we have the system in place.

I'll tell you three brief things that come to my mind. Last weekend I was in Lehigh Valley, and as I was driving along near Philadelphia, I noticed that there was dust coming up because it was so dry; they were busily engaged in cultivating. It reminded me of the fact that there is a drought and that El Niño is being set up in the Pacific. I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

As one of the other witnesses said, I don't like to see tractors and combines coming from Regina to Parliament Hill, and it's not necessary. We need to have something in place, as the Americans have, that is comprehensive. I realize we may not be able to fund it as richly as they have, but it needs to be, I think, analogous.

The second thing is that I was talking to some people who were busy cleaning up the site in downtown Manhattan. They said three things to me--the federal government, number one, the state government, number two, and the local government, number three, dropped the barriers and said, “We have an emergency, and we have to deal with it.” Aside from the tragedy, the cleanup at Ground Zero is a miracle. If you're there to see it from the other side of the Hudson River, it's unbelievable.

The third thing I remember is, as a graduate student, sitting with David MacFarlane, the last commissioner to have a federal task force on agriculture. It was a few years ago. He said to me, “We need another task force on agriculture.” And if it was true then, it's true now.

I believe the aboriginal report, which was an excellent royal commission report, is at least an indication of the fact that we deserve similar kinds of careful research and analysis.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your coming here. It's a great beginning, but we need much more.

Thank you very much.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you, William.

To conclude this panel, Kevin Dick.

Mr. Kevin Dick (Individual Presentation): Thank you for the opportunity to come here to meet with you today, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen.

I'm a farmer in Renfrew County. I grew up on the farm, and with my wife and our four children run our family farm. It's primarily cash crop and pedigree seed. During the tough times in the early eighties, it became obvious that we had to diversify. We started selling farm crop supplies, and that has enabled us to supplement our income to keep going and hopefully growing as a family farm.

I have a daughter who is at the University of Guelph. She will graduate in a little over a year, and I'm really hopeful that there is enough opportunity there for her to want to be involved and engaged in the family operation. The three younger children then can follow, potentially, in her footsteps. As for me, I am a sixth-generation farmer.

I drove down here with three other individuals. It was about a two-hour drive, and there was a lot of discussion in the car as to why you would want your children to be involved in agriculture, and what future is there for them in agriculture.

There was some pessimism, but I would like to think that there is a way in which government and farmers and farm organizations can work together and establish criteria that would take out some of the risk factors. Definitely not all of the risk factors can be eliminated from farming, subject to its parameters, but it would be nice to think that there was some way of cooperation and collaboration so that my daughter and her classmates and future classmates could come home and resume agriculture. Most of you are well aware of the current numbers; I think now only one in six raised on the farm will have a potential for resuming on the farm. These numbers are a little alarming.

In the part of my business where I sell crop supplies to other farmers, I'm very involved in their economics and their operations. I see their personal hardships. I see good people doing good jobs, and the economic return is not coming back to them, through no fault of their own.

The policies of Europe and the United States have led to a long-term depression in commodity prices. Right now Canadian farmers are picking up the tab for that, and society is benefiting. I think somewhere in here society should come to the aid of the people who have given them the lifestyle that they have come to know.

That's pretty well all I have to say.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you, Kevin.

We'll start our round now.

In terms of the press, I'm very happy to see Barry Wilson here from the Western Producer.

And you are...?

A voice: Aimee from the Napanee Guide.

The Chair: Are there other members of the press here?

Then we'll start with our round of questioning, starting with Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much.

I'm going to start with Paul Burns.

Paul, it sounds like you and your family have put in a really good farm business plan. You see one of those components as being NISA and I can't agree with you more. I think the ability to not sell when you have to, to be able to hold off when you have to meet a bank payment or something...if you can increase your income by having those reserve funds and so on, I think that's a good business plan.

The minister has clearly said, though, that NISA does not work from the federal government's point of view, and that's one of the things, he has told us in committee, that he intends to change with the new farm program. You're recommending very strongly that NISA be retained, enhanced somehow, if possible, I'm sure. That's your recommendation?

Mr. Paul Burns: Yes, that's true. I think what's happening with regard to the minister and his assistants is that they're looking at my profile. They see that I'm 62 years old, and they're thinking, okay, this guy is building up his NISA reserves, through thick and thin, as his retirement policy. As I think you were able to gather from my talk here today, my primary interest is in the continuation of the farm. In order to get there, I think, first, I'll continue to build that, but my son is now coming into partnership with me, and we'll be transferring so that my son will be building his. We can carry on from that.

I don't know how we sell government officials on the benefits of NISA, but the program is all there; all you have to do is use it. For instance, with the type of operation we have, the size that we are, our eligible farm sales are $200,000. Here in Ontario...allows a 4% amount. In other words, I can put in about $8,000 a year, and that, of course, will be matched with the government moneys of $8,000. If we hit a year when I can't put the $8,000 in, I deem my deposit and the governments will still deposit theirs.

There seems to be an adage out there somehow...and I think we've done a very poor job of selling this program. I've talked to farmers who say they can't afford it. But you don't really have to afford it; all you have to do is go through the steps and carry on, and try to make something of it. Of all the deliberations and talks and programs I've seen over the years, this is the only program I can see that offers a long-term solution. I think we really have to work on it. We have to try to convince the government that it can work.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, thank you very much.

In Ontario in particular, and around the big cities in other parts of the country, we have this big clash of social values on the go. Mr. Chisholm brings in one view, that the small farm, the traditional farm possibly of years past, is the way to go to have more people out on the farm. The other type is the response to the market, response to incomes, designing the most efficient farm that can make the best profit to have a full-time living.

Now, the very small farm in our current Canadian situation cannot make a full living in most cases. And we're not just talking land size; we're talking dollars, not land size. The small farm....

Mr. Chisholm, in your view, would that vision have a farmer that is earning off-farm income and farming at the same time, or do you believe they should earn a full living from the farm?

À (1030)

Mr. Don Chisholm: Well, as I said, I believe they should be able to live a full living from the farm. Anybody else in industry has a day job, they go and they do it, and they come home and relax at night. I'm not a farmer myself, and haven't farmed since I left as a boy, but I have been associated with farmers quite a lot, and I hear the stories all the time. They have to subsidize their own farm.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In order to do that, then, are you recommending to the federal government that the support payments be sufficient to enable anyone who wants to farm to be able to make a living on that farm, or how would you differentiate?

Because this is a problem that the government is dealing with. The question is, who should be receiving this farm safety net subsidy money? There isn't enough to go around just willy-nilly. So where does it go? Should it be the full-time, commercial farmer who's making a living there, or should it be everybody, including those who maybe only want to gross $50,000 a year?

Mr. Don Chisholm: I've done a little bit of reading on the subject, and I understand that, for example, you can't get as good a price if you're a small farmer, selling through some of the marketing boards, as you would if you were a large agricultural corporation with a long-term contract to sell your goods. I think this is part of what makes the playing field unlevel for the smaller farmer.

With regard to subsidies, I just can't comment on how they should be distributed.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

But that is the big, crucial question we're coming up to now: who is going to be out on the farm? That brings up the Gardiners, I think, Al and Iain.

On the issue of land prices...and of course there's also machinery and infrastructure costs and all that, and in the supply management the cost of quota. But land prices are one of the key factors in agriculture, I think you'd agree.

Should the federal and provincial governments--and this should be maybe more of a provincial government thing--have stricter zoning regulations saying that this is farm land, nothing but farm land? And the price would then drop, of course, because it would start to reflect more directly the productive capacity of that land.

Is that where we should be going in order to retain our agriculture lands--more zoning that is very explicit, that this is agriculture and there will be no urban residents out there just because they like to live in the country and smell the roses?

I guess maybe Al would be the best...or you can choose which one can comment.

Mr. Al Gardiner: I'd like to start off. As past wardens of Lennox and Addington, Paul and I spent some time in municipal politics. You always had the...and there were farmers who wanted to sever that corner lot. I think now--Mr. Chisholm has brought out the position right there--we see what can happen after you have severances in the rural areas.

As to how we change that right now, I can't say, but I do know that this has been a factor in a lot of municipalities, not just our municipality. I think that's happened across the whole country.

À (1035)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Would you recommend to the government...provincial, I mean--and I appreciate that--and federal that this is where they should be going?

I appreciate that I'm going a little long here.

Mr. Al Gardiner: They should certainly have a look at it, for sure.

Mr. Iain Gardiner: If I may, I'll just give a little bit of background on our local area. All you have to do is look right across the road here at Milligan's Farm. Part of Milligan's Farm now is the Napanee mall, and sitting out there in the middle of their alfalfa field is an A&P store. On the other side of the 401, as you'll probably have seen in your travels, is the Flying J Truck Stop. Up until two years ago that was a feedlot.

Now, one of the price factors you have is competition for how that land is going to be the most productive for the municipality. Which are they going to look at as more of a feather in their cap for tax assessment? Because we see all the downloading that has occurred between various levels of government down to the municipalities.

Finally, when you talk about our provincial government, one of the things they're going through right now is Bill 81, the nutrient management legislation. One of the concerns that a lot of farmers have in this province is that when they start talking about setbacks, of applying nutrients to various water courses, wells, and wetlands, they put in this word “etcetera”. One of the things that really concerns us is the possibility that viable farm operations right now.... The farm that is directly adjacent to the Flying J property up here is 100 acres, but it's only 660 feet wide. The Flying J occupies one entire fence line along there. If there's a setback to commercial, multi-residential zonings, there's a possibility that even though they have an adequate land base, they cannot get their nutrients far enough away from a setback that isn't defined yet such that they could conceivably be put out of business.

The Chair: Thanks, Iain.

Mr. Paul Burns: Can I...?

The Chair: No, time's up, Paul; we may get back to you.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all for your interesting presentations.

Mr. Gardiner Sr. was quoting the Prime Minister. It would be interesting to know exactly where the quote came from, but as I wrote it down, he said that agriculture was integral to our standard of living and high quality of life. I would suggest that one of the reasons that we're on this tour is that farmers themselves don't see the high standard of living and the high quality of life reflected in what's happening with agriculture today. I would use the example of food safety and the fact that a lot of money that goes into the agriculture and agrifood budget is for food safety.

So my question, I guess, and I would start with Mr. Gardiner, is whether or not there should be a different allocation of money. If food safety is there for the consumer primarily, should the farmer or the Department of Agriculture actually be paying for the bulk of that? More than 70% of the ag budget goes for food safety.

Mr. Al Gardiner: I think we all have an opportunity to be part of that. We're taking the Prime Minister at his direct view of agriculture, and we all have to be part of that. As I said in my presentation, there has to be partnerships. We don't anticipate that we as farmers have to take the load ourselves, but we also don't say that the public has to take it, or that the government has to take it.

I think Mr. Burns made a very good point on NISA. NISA has been criticized federally for quite some time, but if you do look at NISA, those who have money in it have been criticized rather than sort of clapped on the back, saying, “You went without to put that money into NISA. You were a good businessman, you were a good business person.” We as farmers have to be business people.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, and I agree very much with the line Mr. Hilstrom took, that the first person you're going to have to sell the thing to, Mr. Burns, will be the current agriculture minister, because he's the one who's saying that money is coming out of NISA, that we're not going to fund all these programs and just allow you farmers to build up your NISA accounts. He's said that repeatedly over the last several years. So I agree that you have a selling job to do there, but you have to start at the top.

I want to take advantage of Mr. Rendell's appearance here. With his American experiences perhaps he could comment and put this into context for us.

The former President of the United States, Mr. Bush, said there were three priorities he had when he was president. One was the airlines, two was financial institutions, and three was agriculture. If you look at programs over the last 10 years in the United States, I think you would see those have indeed been the priorities. We don't see agriculture as being anywhere near that high on the political agenda here in this country, and I just wanted to get some contrast.

I heard what you said about the Americans, and Ann Veneman liking the programs they see here, but they wouldn't like the fact that we're not really putting much money into them.

À (1040)

Mr. William Rendell: I would say in response, Mr. Chairman, that basically the whole process in the United States--from the legislatures in each state on up--is to support agriculture. I would say that the extension community--the fact that you still have active 4-H Clubs, and active extension workers--goes all the way up to Congress, so that everybody in every community, including a city like Indianapolis, is fully aware of the presence of agriculture. That's political capital that we don't have here in Canada, and it's hurting us terribly. It's very serious, I think. So that's the key differentiator in the political reality there.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Charles.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...because in my former life I was also a municipal councillor and I was also a warden. So I know that when we get into land transfers, we're talking about jurisdictional areas that we sometimes have difficulty dealing with.

What I'm seeing here this morning is that we have a father and son here. We have Mr. Burns, who is concerned about his son being able to take over part of the operation and ultimately the operation. And I think Mr. Dick was also hoping his daughter could come back. So there's an interest there, and quite a familiarity in terms of the context here this morning, in terms of where you want to see our children going. We want a future in agriculture.

How can government, in terms of its tax laws, in terms of intergenerational moneys transferred, help you do that? Because I think this has become a real encumbrance for people who want to enter the business of farming--how we treat the succession of moneys, how we deal with that in a tax way, how we can better help you. I think someone alluded to that this morning, if I heard correctly.

Who wants to speak to that?

Mr. Iain Gardiner: Well, one of the things that I think has to be brought up is that we are operating, as farmers, from a decreased possible work pool. You never see someone who comes off of Bay and Bloor in Toronto saying they want to move to eastern Ontario and become a poultry farmer. That does not happen. The only time anyone becomes a farmer is if they've already had an opportunity to farm, perhaps because their parents have given them a break. The only way you can begin farming today is if you get a break.

In one way, as someone who's receiving that, it's good, because it keeps you in the industry, but it's also not quite fair for the person actually giving you the break.

Right now the capital gains exemptions don't reflect a lot of the true values of farms around here. I know a 30-year-old dairy farmer who works in partnership with their 31-year-old brother; they've taken on debt loads of $1.4 million, $1.8 million, $2.2 million....

Now, when you have the capital gains...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...somebody is going to get hammered. And right now, when farmers see things like that, they think that maybe the government doesn't really understand the realities of farming today. Because then they hear about the Bronfmans being able to transfer billions out without having to pay capital gains taxes on it, and at the same time we get hammered over the head.

You have to have possibilities of accessing money, making sure that land costs are actually affordable. These are all things that have to come into the--

À (1045)

Mr. Paul Steckle: But if I might, though, even if we could finance your operation, at whatever level you think it should be, you have to have a return on that investment--

Mr. Iain Gardiner: Exactly.

Mr. Paul Steckle: --so that you can support that debt load. And that's not possible other than perhaps in the supply managed sectors.

Mr. Iain Gardiner: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Paul Steckle: And I appreciate that, but perhaps you could think about some numbers, because I'd like to hear some numbers sometime.

I think I'd like to go to Mr. Rendell.

Generally we don't talk about state policy in terms of agriculture in the United States. Perhaps, Mr. Rendell, you could enlighten this group here. We always talk about the federal responsibilities to agriculture and their obligations and, of course, their commitments to agriculture. Are we fighting among ourselves here provincially? Do we have a jurisdictional problem here? Should the responsibility to agriculture be from the federal jurisdiction only, not provincial? Or should we play a greater role? How does that reflect what the Americans are doing?

Mr. William Rendell: My view of the situation, as I mentioned briefly in the testimony, is that I think there are certain areas where the federal government needs to take the lead. We've got to avoid trade irritants with the Congress. We can't keep doing this over the Wheat Board and so forth. And the way to achieve that is to recognize certain areas where you can have better effectiveness.

With respect to the States, I would say this: if you go to Albany or to Lansing and sit down with the legislators on committees like this one, the one thing you'll notice is that they have a more keen awareness of international trade and those issues than our provincial legislators do. And that's a detriment. I notice that quite often. So I think they have a bigger international view that helps their state situation. As well, I would say they do a better job working with their municipalities in that way.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, Mr. Chisholm.

Mr. Don Chisholm: You asked what the government can do to improve this. One thing that has not been mentioned, I think, is the energy sector. Right now you can see New Zealand spring lamb competing with Canadian produce, and the energy for transporting has been subsidized to such a degree that it's almost transparent; you know, the cost for jet fuel is much lower than the real price. I would think that the agricultural ministry may need to work with the energy sector to look at this aspect of it, because we don't get a true reflection.

If energy was not heavily subsidized we wouldn't have many of the import problems and competing with other nations, because it wouldn't be possible if there weren't heavy subsidies in these areas.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Great, great presentations. I wish we had more time to be able to talk to each and every one of you about your suggestions and ideas.

First of all to Iain. Actually, your mandate, as I understand it, is to protect society against industrial agriculture. Would you consider 620 feeders as industrial agriculture?

I'm sorry, that's to Mr. Chisholm; we'll get to you, Iain.

Mr. Don Chisholm: Are you talking about hogs?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'm talking about the 620 head of cattle that we have over here. Is that an industrial agricultural operation?

Mr. Don Chisholm: Well, according to the definitions I've read, that's one animal unit per feeder, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe it's two. But that's about on the limit. If it were two, that would be a 300-animal unit--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you're suggesting it is industrial agriculture--on the edge, on the limit? Correct?

Mr. Don Chisholm: You have to make--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you from this area?

Mr. Don Chisholm: Not originally. I'm from southern Ontario, near Goderich.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you live here now?

Mr. Don Chisholm: I do.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: A small holding?

Mr. Don Chisholm: No, I've retired, actually. I'm interested in the farming area because I live in it, and I'm interested in the concerns there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would you support any type of right to farm legislation, if it should come forward?

Mr. Don Chisholm: I would have to read the legislation.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sure you would.

Mr. Burns, I'm very interested in the NISA. And I agree, the NISA account, the NISA program, is, in my opinion, one of the tools we can use and enhance. I agree that there could well be, and should be, a reserve that you've anticipated building up. However, one of the problems we have with this government particularly, and society in general, is that there's a contribution there from society to the NISA account. In terms of being one of the potentials, maybe, of building up this reserve, would you look at the possibility of a lesser contribution from the federal side into a NISA account and letting it continue on as a reserve as opposed to having it triggered the way it is currently?

Mr. Paul Burns: It wouldn't affect me very much. I could live with it. The problem will be that there has to be incentives in order to get the people who haven't been in NISA to start.

À (1050)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, the reserve is the incentive, and I really like that concept, where you have this reserve built up and you could then use it for the down times.

Would you also look at the possibility of transferring those NISA accounts with the farm, if in fact you're signing over?

Mr. Paul Burns: Yes, sure, that would suit me fine. Of course, at the present time it isn't going to work that way. But that's why at this point now my son and I are going to get a partnership going so that he'll be able to build his NISA account.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: His own account, I know.

Do you see yours as a retirement account right now?

Mr. Paul Burns: No, I don't feel like retiring.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no, I'm asking you, do you see it as a retirement account?

Mr. Paul Burns: I hope I don't have to use it as a retirement account.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you, Mr. Burns.

Mr. Paul Burns: I have a comment I want to make about land. I'm not going to get into severance stuff, because--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, I'll get back to that. I have a question for Al, first of all.

Infrastructure has been mentioned a lot. Can you just give me a very brief 25 words on what kind of infrastructure you're talking about here, and how the federal government should be in those infrastructure renewals, if you will?

Mr. Al Gardiner: Certainly, as I said before, it would be private partnerships going along...the total amount being sort of specified. You can't do it piecemeal, Rick. I think you and I discussed it one time--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We did.

Mr. Al Gardiner: --at an OFA convention. I think it has to be set out. There has to be an actual plan, and it has to be adhered to completely.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Bill, excellent, excellent comments with respect to the relationship with the United States. I want to get back to the federal-provincial relationship we have here in Canada. It seems the jurisdiction is somewhat fuzzy. It's grey. Our federal government goes out and says, “We can't do it because the provincial government of the day isn't prepared to come along with us.” In the United States I don't see any of that. I see a federal government who in fact takes the lead, takes the initiative, puts into place the programs, and doesn't necessarily have to negotiate with all the states.

Do you see that happening at the federal level here, where the federal government should well be more of a proponent of agriculture as opposed to less reactionary--let's have a little bit more vision towards that--and perhaps more of a funding partner? Right now there's that 60:40 split.

I'd just like to have your comments on that.

Mr. William Rendell: I think there's no question about that. It's absolutely necessary on every policy level imaginable. We can't be rational here if we don't have somebody leading the pack. And this is getting ridiculous. We faced a terrible situation last year and we're in the middle of it right now, with no resolution in sight.

The other thing I might mention is that with respect to the system in the United States--the land grant universities and the research that flows back--there's even a graduate school connected with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that's sending excellent training out to farmers over the Internet; lots of neat things can be done at relatively low cost through a centralized system. Identify what it is, do it to the best of your ability, and let the provinces do the other things.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Should the funding be 100% federal in Canada?

Mr. William Rendell: I think it would make sense, and the Congress would be happier with us because they'd understand it more.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Rick.

I'm going to go to David now.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Rendell, you had mentioned that farmers need to be aware of their individual opportunities to trade. I think that's important. We had a chance to visit with some of the Ontario Wheat Board directors yesterday after they presented. They have, as you probably know, 20% to 25% right now they can market freely, 30% coming. From the indications, it looks like they'll have a 100% option within the future. You know that western Canadian farmers have none of that as an option, right?

Mr. William Rendell: Yes, I'm aware.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are the Americans aware of that?

Mr. William Rendell: Very.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Anderson: That's fine; I'm one of those being held captive by that system.

I guess I just wanted to ask...and I think you do understand the implications and the importance that all Canadian farmers have that opportunity to market their own products.

Mr. William Rendell: Yes. I don't decry, however, the value of the Canadian Wheat Board, so there needs to be a reform of how that works. We don't have time today to get into a full discourse on that, but very clearly it is the case that, from my perspective, farmers need to understand what the market really is.

The Chicago Board of Trade sets all our prices in commodities. Most farmers don't understand how that works, what's really going on, and they're mystified by it. I think that alone is a key part of the educative process to assist them to get involved in marketing.

À (1055)

Mr. David Anderson: There are prices set apart from that, though, with things like the identity preserve--

Mr. William Rendell: Yes, very good point.

Mr. David Anderson: --and we have many opportunities to get into that and can't do that right now.

Mr. William Rendell: Yes, and the other thing I might mention is using distributed computing, which allows you to connect with various processors and so on. You can make direct deals at premium. That's an excellent way to do it, with IP product.

Mr. David Anderson: I just have a comment about your call for a task force. Now, this is partisan to some extent, but we've had a government for nine years now, and if they haven't shown some leadership in agriculture now, a task force is probably not going to provide that for them.

Mr. William Rendell: I won't comment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. David Anderson: Getting back to Iain, you were talking about land prices and the expense of it when you're dealing with the industrialization of land and selling it to commercial interests. How do you deal with that land price issue? Do you have any suggestions?

There's a big area in Ontario here, and between Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta there's another area, being affected so much by urban interests and those commercial interests. Do you have any suggestions on how we deal with that as producers? How do we make it fair to people, and again, fair to the RMs? That was a good point that you made.

Mr. Iain Gardiner: We're almost captive to our own success, in one respect. I mean, we have a wonderful place to live, and as we've seen, lots of other people want to live here as well. But one of the concerns you have is that as soon as they live here, they only want to take care of the good things, and some of the things that they don't think are as nice, they want to change it back to where they came from, so they're kind of changing the whole community.

With respect to the land value prices, it's one of those things that's different for each and every farmer as well, because for some farmers, due to outside influences on them, that's their retirement plan. That's the way they have built up equity; that is their retirement plan, because they don't have anything else. They don't have a succeeding generation to go along for the ride.

One of the things that has to be done is there has to be some incentive, perhaps a tax break on intergenerational transfers that allows the seller of that property to sell to someone within the family, or to someone within the farming community, to at least a break-even point. It would be naive to suggest to someone, “You can sell this for $1 million to this developer, or you can sell it for $200,000 as a farm property.” You're asking the farmer to shoulder an awful lot of.... I'm not sure of the exact word, but I think you understand what I'm talking about.

Mr. David Anderson: We've actually benefited in our area, which is southwestern Saskatchewan, because people who have sold near Calgary have then come down into our area, doubled their acreage, and ranched instead.

Paul, you had some comments you wanted to make about land. Do you want to make them now?

Mr. Paul Burns: Yes, I wouldn't mind at all.

We're getting back to questions about the value of land. I'm not going to spend any time at all talking about severances, because that's too big an issue. The point I want to make is about the value of the land.

In the type of farm that I'm in, the beef business, which I've been in all my life, my son is never going to be able to buy the land, period. If he can afford to buy the cattle and the machinery, that's the most. I wouldn't saddle him with a debt where he'd have to keep his nose to the grindstone for the rest of his life. Our land value is not very high at all. Our land is what you call marginal farm land. We're sort of right on the edge of the shield, as Larry can tell you, or the boys from Renfrew can tell you. We're right on the edge of the rocks. There's no more work land until you get back to Renfrew, where they are.

So when we quit farming it, nobody's going to buy our land to farm it. One of the fortunate things we've had, actually, is that we've had good neighbours, third-generation neighbours, who haven't been severing out lots. That's really worked to our satisfaction. The bar keeps rising every year, as people have alluded to here, and I can see us spending $50,000, maybe in the next four or five years, for improved nutrient management. And that doesn't bother me. I don't mind that. It's one of the things we have to accept.

One of the other things we have to accept in the beef business, too, as Mr. Rendell, I think, has already told you, is that the prices are set in the States. To tell what the market's going to do here, all I do is watch the Chicago futures market. I listen to it sometimes twice a week and sometimes every day, depending on how close I am to selling something. So we might as well accept that as a fact of life.

Á (1100)

Mr. David Anderson: That's why it's essential we maintain those markets, too.

The Chair: Thanks, David.

Larry, do you have some questions?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I'd like to put a question to each of you, but you know, I think we all want to head in the same direction. Certainly government should be part of the solution and not part of the problem, which happens too often.

William, a good friend of mine recently retired from politics, perhaps for a while, but if we could share with Brian a little more of your sincere thoughts about using the electrical grid for the distribution of broadband, perhaps Mr. Tobin would come back more quickly. There's probably nothing more important across this country, in every province, in terms of how we can work with the rural communities to get the broadband there.... But we probably don't have time to go there.

Now, you said that the U.S. producers are not our problem, but it so often seems to be the politicians, no matter which side of the border. We feel that we face some protectionism along the border, the northern part there, whether it's beef or whether it's lumber, just as a comment. So if they're not our problem, who is the problem?

Mr. William Rendell: Let me just put it this way: I think it's a misunderstanding on their part, largely, and that's why I think we need to build bridges with them. I would encourage people from the Federation of Agriculture to go to meetings in New York and Vermont and so on. They are open to hearing from us but they don't understand us. They're fed myths by their farm press and by the politicians.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we were in Washington a couple of years ago, and I know we were saying yesterday that we hope to go back to talk with Senators and Congress people and the Farm Bureau. Perhaps we should do that in some other states.

Paul, regarding NISA, one of the challenges about NISA, of course, is that it's not available for the people who need it the most. Perhaps the worst-case scenario is grains and oilseeds. To withdraw some money.... I mean, young farmers, especially in the grains and oilseeds in the west, have not had the opportunity to put money into their NISA account. So if we're going to use NISA and work with it better, then we all need to be responsible, perhaps in a report that's coming up, and talk about this. We're going to have an opportunity to have a real report, but tell me, how can we do a better job of getting the younger farmers involved who do not perhaps have a father leading them?

Mr. Paul Burns: I suppose in answer to your question, Larry, for the farmers in the west who are cash-strapped and don't have funds in the account and have never been in the account and so on, I think there would have to be some type of interim programs, maybe with built-in incentives to get them going into it. I don't see any other way to handle it.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Okay.

As a final comment, Mr. Chair, I've always thought that people in the western cities were a little closer to the farm then what they are here in Ontario, aware of the importance of the industry. From anyone here, what can we do to build awareness--the public good and so on--so that we can invest more in agriculture? I mean, if we have more awareness in some cities in the west than we have here.... Whether it's William or Paul or Iain or Kevin, what can we do as a government to build awareness better than what we have?

Last year $3.7 billion was paid to you producers, and of course it didn't work. A lot of people fell through the cracks. Maybe it takes more money, but we've got to build more support for that. They do a better job in the States of making people aware.

Mr. William Rendell: I would say that the key thing here is to recognize where the realpolitik is. My view is that we don't have a farm press in Canada, with the one exception at the table here, so farmers deserve some kind of actual material being sent out by the federal government to non-farmers, because they just don't know what the programs are.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Larry.

Al, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but in Nova Scotia we had representatives, from both the American farm group and from the EU, who talked about subsidies. Have you had time to reflect on that? They put forward a very palliative type of approach, that things weren't as bad as you Canadians say they are. Or at least that was the impression I got. Did you or your group do any analysis of...?

Á (1105)

Mr. Al Gardiner: Not to date on the Halifax convention, but certainly the year before, the Ottawa one, when the EU was represented by a gentleman from France. We did look at their position--you know, 60-acre farms with 15 acres of parkland, and if you allowed the public to go on the parkland, you were allowed so much money.

But there was one thing that came up, Mr. Chairman, that I questioned them on. It's a scary thing for us, because we live in a liability-type world. There was no insurance liability on those public parks. That wouldn't work, I don't think, in Ontario, or in Canada, because someone would fall and break their leg and the park would go...you know.

But there were some very good illustrations. Even Nova Scotia was.... We enjoyed hearing from Minister Fage. We were amazed; in his ministry he looks after fisheries--I believe it's natural resources and agriculture--and seems to be doing a very good job.

I hope Mr. Coburn isn't in the room to hear that, but perhaps we should forget the federal and the provincial and work together more. We've said that all along. I've said that to Mr. Coburn and I've also said that to Mr. Vanclief. The farmers are in the middle and there's always a blame--they didn't do this, or the province didn't do this, or the feds didn't do this. We have to lower that. We're out for the good of all agriculture.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: William, with your American study and understanding, do you think the American people will continue...? I guess in Congress there is debate about these demands that the farm groups are putting on. Could you give us any impression of what your solution might be?

Mr. William Rendell: I think the focus of the debate in Congress right now at the committee level has to do with the equity of the distribution, which is to say the large farms, large holdings. They're getting huge amounts of money and small farms are not getting enough. So I think the pressure politically, even within the Republican Party, is to move towards some more equitable arrangement in that regard.

The Chair: In your statement you listed “comprehensive”. It's rather amazing that the Americans even identified the dairy farmers of Lennox County as being beneficiaries as opposed to California, or Wisconsin, or whatever. So it's very complicated. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on that?

Mr. William Rendell: With respect to the comprehensiveness of it?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. William Rendell: One thing that's true in the United States is that the support programs and so on do not apply to livestock in the same way in which they apply to crops. So there's a skewing there, as here, toward crop production, and subsidies and support and so forth. Livestock producers on both sides of the border are not treated that well.

Sorry, Paul.

The Chair: We'd like to thank all of you for coming. We hope you can stay and hear some of the other presenters.

One of the big issues you talked about is succession. I guess, Al, I mentioned this in Halifax, too. Quota, for example, has become a very large part. In fact, usually it's worth more than the farm itself and the machinery and everything else that's involved there. Probably as a country, we're sooner going to have to look at succession in terms of what burden quota is putting on the investment that the young farmer has to put into the operation.

Maybe another group will give us a little input on that, but I think as a concern for the welfare of agriculture we have to wonder how we can continue to see that, in order to have a cow here in Ontario, apparently you have to invest between $20,000 and $25,000 just to be able to get a bit of that milk. So it's an issue that we haven't really approached but have to somehow deal with.

We'd like to thank you. We'll adjourn for a few minutes and continue then with panel two.

(1106)

(1117)

The Chair: We'd like to resume our hearings.

Again, we give each presenter about five minutes. As you approach the five minutes, I give a signal. With that, we hope you will be able to conclude your remarks. After we've heard all the presenters, we will start our round of questioning, which begins, of course, with Mr. Hilstrom from the Canadian Alliance.

It's my understanding that Mr. Fraser has to leave a little early, so I'll try to fit him in as second on our list. We have, first, from the Canadian Organic Sprout Company, William Brown and Dean Harvie. I'm not sure that means five minutes each, but I hope about six or seven minutes will do for both. William, are you presenting first?

Á (1120)

Mr. William Brown (Canadian Organic Sprout Company): Yes, I am. Later, if you want to ask questions, you can certainly do so with both of us.

I'm pleased to be here this morning. The founder of the Canadian Organic Sprout Company is Dennis Barker. Dennis and Gail Barker are in California at this time selling what it is we're producing. So we, in fact, have a functional food, and I'd like to go into a little bit about sprouting.

The Canadian Organic Sprout Company is a hydroponic sprouting company located in Belleville. We produce a commercial product, and have done so for the last 15 years. We produce a variety of sprouts. We bring seeds back to life. We produce alfalfa, red clover, broccoli, and blends with various seeds and beans. We wholesale to the various grocery chains and brokers across Ontario, and are searching for markets elsewhere in the world right now. Our facilities where we produce this green production product, the green sprout, can produce about 6,000 cases a week. That's about 18,000 pounds of sprouts.

What you've probably been told about the sprout industry has often been a little bit on the misleading side. Our industry has been affected by some bad press from the media, and what you're hearing is an interpretation and sometimes absolutely obsolete information. The media have targeted the industry as dangerous, because of food-borne problems that maybe come from the fact that there may be a limited shelf life on this product. Several researchers in the United States and Canada have set their sights on the sprout industry as a target, but it's not based on good science, it's based on old information. We are on the front edge of the new science. How to produce sprouts in a very efficient and clean way, that's the secret here.

Statistically, the sprout industry has been one of the safest. If there's any type of fresh produce industry, you know there's a chance, but now there are some very interesting and innovative things that we're doing in the sprout industry to make sure it's safe. But there is still a relentless attack from the media. It's negative on the value of sprouts, but here we have something that is incredibly good for people, incredibly high in vitamins and antioxidants. The change that occurs when you make a seed sprout is dramatic. In most of agriculture we grow seeds; it's horticulture that sells fresh produce. When we take standard seeds, whether it be flax or other crop plants, and bring them back to life, the vitamins just take off. The incredible level of enzymes that occurs very quickly makes this stuff, this product we're producing, this sprout, exceptionally more healthy than the seed from which it came. That's what I'm here for. This is absolutely amazing, and it has long-term implications for the health of Canadians and the people in the world. What we're learning here is very interesting.

Canadian Organic Sprouts has the highest safety standards of any sprout company in Canada. We are certified organic and HACCP-approved. We follow the HACCP production plans. We've tried on countless occasions to get the media to pay attention to what we've done here. We have literally changed the standards by which sprouts are produced, and we're producing an exceptionally high-quality product that is exceptionally good for you. I can see by the occasional grey hair here that we'd all like to live a little longer, and I believe there's an opportunity with some of the things we have and what we're learning to change the health of Canadians.

I think the government really needs to take some responsibility in supporting all phases of agriculture, and the sprouting industry, as you'll see as we go a little further on, I believe will be one of the shining lights and big growth areas in agriculture. Right now the only reason the government really looks at the sprout industy is to figure out how they're going to regulate us and do a risk analysis of us, because they have no concept of exactly what we're doing. A lot of these things are based on the obsolete data. They don't have anything to do with what we're doing at this time.

What you're hearing from the media is also based on bad data, and it's just being regurgitated and repeated. It doesn't have anything to do with coming and seeing what it is we're doing, why we're doing it, why the product is superior, and why it has an extended shelf life over even conventional sprouts. We have changed the industry and are now setting the standards for the sprouting industry, probably worldwide.

Á (1125)

Let's move on to innovation. Canadian Organic Sprout is a leader in Canada, of course, and probably in the world. There are a number of serious research scientists involved in this, and I'm one of them, working to improve the whole concept of what a sprout is and what you can do with a sprout. The technology is now patented. We're taking sprouts at the very best time at which all the good things occur inside them. and then we're drying them. We're taking them from fresh and putting them into a stable, dry form that conserves all that's inside, and we do that without rupturing the cell walls. If you dry them, you can grind them and everything stays intact, nothing goes away. This stuff stays stable on the shelf. We've been testing it for a year now.

We started with flax--this is one with blueberry in it. We've maintained the linolenic acid at 25%, it's stabilized, and you can cook with it. Nobody has ever done this before. We take what's in sprouts and we look to take this to other seeds. We're making a different product. This makes a different bread. This makes a nutraceutical thing that you take over your salads, or over your cereals, or with yogurt in the morning, and we're offering it with specially dried blueberries and specially dried cranberries, and then there will be specially dried cherries.

Á (1130)

If anybody knows what an omega-3 linoleic acid does for your body, it relaxes you, lowers inflammation. There are several people now claiming the lowering of blood pressure, like yours truly, and it has some very good things to do, as well as being an excellent energy source, an excellent source of vitamins. We've captured all these vitamins and we've kept them in this form.

We're here to let you know that we've changed sprouts. There's fresh and there's dried, and they're both extremely safe. We've been putting the two together, mixing things together, and the flax has been an integral part of this. When you grow things together, you change the final results. These sprouts are different, and they have an increasingly good shelf life. Because we start clean, they stay clean. So whether you're buying them fresh or dried, they're the highest standard, organically certified.

As I said, the products will be available as food supplements, after which you'll see flour for baking, pet food applications, and we're going to the animal feed industry, because we can improve the health of livestock. This has exceptional importance for Canadian agriculture.

Thank you.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, William.

Mr. Michael Fraser, from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Mr. Michael Fraser (Director, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union): Good morning. My name is Michael Fraser. I'm the national director of UFCW Canada. I did present a presentation. I'm going to identify highlights. I apologize that it wasn't translated into both official languages. Any future submissions certainly will be.

The UFCW Canada and its predecessors have represented food and agriculture-related workers in Canada for over 100 years. We represent and bargain on behalf of brewery workers, leather workers, stockyard workers, meat-packing workers, poultry-processing workers, and thousands of other Canadian workers in all aspects of the food industry and the retail food business.

The growth of agribusiness and the reduction of family owned and operated farms have changed the traditional nature of Canada's agricultural industry. I'd like to say from the very start that our concern is not with the family farms per se in relation to representation. There are two distinct realities in our Canadian agricultural industry, the family owned and operated farm and the agribusiness or factory farms.

Labour legislation throughout this country provides exemptions from basic labour laws for workers in this agricultural sector. These exemptions were based on the premise that the farm owners and their families performed agricultural work. Corporate farming and factory farms have dramatically changed the nature of agricultural work. Canada's labour laws have not kept pace with these changes. In December 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and acknowledged that Canadian laws are no longer relevant to the current reality of agribusiness. The Supreme Court stated:

The reliance on the family farm justification ignores an increasing trend in Canada towards corporate farming and complex agribusiness and does not justify the unqualified and total exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario's labour relations regime.

This Supreme Court decision was a result of a case that UFCW Canada undertook on behalf of 200 workers at a Leamington, Ontario, mushroom factory. These workers had been stripped of their bargaining rights by the Ontario Conservative government in 1995. After seven long years the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the provincial government had acted unconstitutionally by violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A farm worker is defined as someone who works planting crops, cultivating, pruning, feeding and caring for livestock, and transporting produce to market. In Ontario, however, farm workers are not covered by the Employment Standards Act for minimum wage, overtime pay, public holidays, vacation pay, and hours of work, and there are variations of that in the labour legislation in the provinces throughout Canada. In Ontario health and safety legislation does not apply at all in the agricultural industry. Workers have no protection in that regard.

We would urge the federal government to join with us in our efforts to better the working conditions of agricultural workers by initiating national labour standards for this sector. We urge the federal government to work with us by setting national standards for enforcement of health and safety for workers in this industry.

Last year nearly 17,000 migrant workers were brought to Canada to work on farms. Ninety per cent of these worked on farms in Ontario. Migrant farm workers are even more vulnerable to poor working conditions than Canadian farm workers. However, our Constitution and Charter of Rights apply to every person on Canadian soil, whether a citizen or not. The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the right to unionization also applies to migrant farm workers. UFCW Canada invites the federal government to join us in our efforts to improve the working and living conditions of migrant workers by establishing national standards for these workers.

UFCW Canada also recognizes the contributions of the family farm to our society. We support and endorse all reasonable measures and policies proposed that would improve family farm incomes and facilitate and enhance their ability to increase production and compete in national and global markets.

An estimated 10% of all farms in Ontario employ 50% of Ontario's agricultural workers. Clearly, agribusiness is reaping the benefits of farm labour legislation that is outdated and irrelevant. Hog farm corporations producing thousands of hogs per week, mushroom factories that employ hundreds of workers year round, and greenhouse operations dependent on thousands of migrant farm workers for up to eight months a year should no longer be allowed to benefit and profit from legislation that does not reflect the current reality of this industry.

Our mandate as a union is to work on behalf of workers in Canada to improve their working conditions. We welcome and invite the assistance of all levels of government by implementing legislation and policies that will provide real benefits to workers in agriculture. We intend to pave the way and set the benchmarks for these changes through organizing union membership and collective bargaining for these workers. We believe progressive labour legislation for workers in agribusiness will also help to level the playing field between family and corporate farms.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that through the seven years that we challenged the legislation that was taken away in Ontario by the Conservative government, the government continued to put forth the fallacy that this was about organizing family farms. Our union and other labour organizations in Canada do not intend to go out and organize the family farms. Our intention is to go out and organize those corporate businesses that are taking advantage of workers across this country.

Á (1140)

Another argument that has been put forward many times is that this is going to cause unionization of these workers and will diminish competitiveness. I'd like to point out that the largest employer that UFCW Canada represents, which is over 80% organized with our union, is also the most successful retail food business in Canada, Loblaws. So the fact that a company is unionized does not diminish its competitiveness.

Thank you very much.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you.

It's my understanding you have to leave, but we might want to ask some questions.

Mr. Michael Fraser: I can stay around.

The Chair: This panel will finish around 12:30 or a little bit later.

In your submission you say it is to the Prime Minister's task force. This is not the Prime Minister's task force here today. As we mentioned earlier, this is a House of Commons standing committee, which represents all parties in the House. If you plan to also approach the Prime Minister's task force, you should contact Bob Speller, who is the chair of that.

Mr. Michael Fraser: I would ask, then, that you amend the title on that document.

The Chair: We will.

Mr. Michael Fraser: We definitely will be making that submission.

The Chair: Next a Hastings County dairy producer, George Thompson.

Mr. George Thompson (Individual Presentation): Hello. I'm a dairy producer from Hastings County. I milk about 70 cows, and I'm here today on behalf of the 125 dairy producers in Hastings County.

The economic impact of the local dairy industry is significant. In the six months ending with January 2002 we produced over 200,000 hectolitres of milk for the domestic market. Using the January blend price of $63 a hectolitre, this works out to approximately a $28 million annual boost to the local economy. This does not include milk marketed under export contracts, sale of dairy beef, breeding stock, or other dairy-related marketings from these farms. In short, a health dairy industry supports a healthy local economy.

Recently, Dairy Farmers of Ontario has introduced quality assurance to all Ontario's dairy farms. This program will involve additional expense and record-keeping. Possibly the most expensive part of the program will be the need to upgrade our water supply. On my own farm water supply is a perennial problem, particularly in the dry late summer period. I operate several wells, each of which has to monitored and properly treated on a regular basis to bring the water up to acceptable standards. My situation is not unique. Currently, resources seem to be directed at finding these problem wells, but very few are being directed at finding solutions to improving the water quality.

Expertise at dealing with water quality problems is needed, as incorrect treatment can be very expensive, with little or no improvement to the water quality. We will ultimately be required to generate and keep records of our bulk tank and wash-line temperatures through these automated recorders. These units are going to cost between $1,000 and $2,500. Each unit has the capability of alerting a farmer if a condition exists that jeopardizes bulk tank milk quality. For a larger farm, the saving of one tank of milk will easily justify the cost. However, the smaller operator may find this to be an expensive thing to have in his barn.

We will also write up and post standard operating procedures for milking, washing, and handling of the antibiotics we use. While the benefits of these are apparent in preventing loss of milk quality mishaps, it is one more demand on our time.

The final aspect of the program will be the requirement that all dairy farmers take a livestock medicines course. The benefit of this course is that farmers will be more aware of the many issues surrounding the use of livestock medicines. Must of the information contained in the course is common knowledge amongst livestock producers. However, under the HACCP-based quality assurance program, it becomes formalized knowledge.

Government must ensure that in an environment of increased regulations, the amount of time spent on certification and paperwork is minimized. Each individual program or procedure may not take much time, but its total can be considerable, and that's not contributing to our bottom lines. The question must be asked, is that one more procedure or form really necessary? If not, it should be eliminated.

Each dairy farmer in Ontario contributes 4¢ of every hectolitre of milk to industry research programs. I must compliment and thank the federal and provincial governments for providing matching dollar support for these programs. I am currently a member of Dairy Farmers of Ontario's grassroots research committee. We provide input into what directions our industry-sponsored research should take. Research is one area where farmers and governments can work together for the future of our industry. The Ontario government has privatized the electricity market, a measure due to be implemented on May 1. Many farmers are wary of this, as they have watched events in other jurisdictions, such as California. Modern dairy farms must have a reliable supply of quality electricity. The government must ensure that with the private electricity market, Ontario consumers come first. Otherwise, industries such as dairy farming will find it very difficult to survive.

Ontario has introduced legislation that will require all farmers to account for the nutrients they place on their land to grow crops. These nutrients include commercial fertilizers and any other material used as fertilizer. A large part of the legislation is targeted at manure and uses a best management practices approach to regulation. These regulations pertain to the storage, application, and transportation of manure. Particularly worrisome is the expanded storage requirement. Last night, I was at local nutrient management committee meeting, and they're going to require us to store 240 days' worth of manure. This is going to make it necessary for us to build expensive structures costing between $1,000 and $2,000 per cow. Many other jurisdictions have similar rules, but their governments also provide significant financial support for measures such as manure storage, nutrient application, and nutrient planning.

The Canadian supply management system has worked very well since its introduction during the 1960s. Even today it is constantly evolving and improving in response to the demands placed upon it by the current business environment. Our supply management system requires no direct financial support from the government. It ensures processors have access to a consistent supply of high-quality milk, the consumer has access to a wide variety of dairy products at reasonable prices--

Á (1150)

The Chair: George, I have to cut you off here. You've gone considerably over time. But leave your submission with us, and it will all go into the record. We'll probably have questions too.

John, you're the representative from Frontenac County, I understand.

Mr. John Williamson (Representative, Frontenac County, Ontario Federation of Agriculture): That's correct, yes, centred around Kingston.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. John Williamson: Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee.

Agriculture in Canada is at a crossroads. We have an aging population of farmers that have been and are contributing substantially to Canada's standard of living and to Canada's growing balance of payments. Many in Canada are living better today because of Canada's farmers, that is, except for the farmers themselves. Without substantial changes, this cannot and will not continue. We need a very clear blueprint of where we want to be in agriculture in 20 years and what type of agriculture we want. Is it enough or desirable to have a few large corporate entities, or do we want a vibrant rural community in Canada? If the latter, we need to start helping the family farm. To be honest, my rural Canada includes the family farm.

We need to look at today's successful family farms and see what makes them work. To a large degree, in eastern Canada they are focused in the supply management sector. This doesn't guarantee them success, but if they are hardworking, good managers, and stay current, it does guarantee them a cashflow that is fairly predictable. In turn, this enables them to get loans for short-term and long-term needs.

So I say to you, we need to keep supply management for those commodities that have them, so we can plan into the future. The reason other countries want to destroy them is that they work. As we go through the next round of world trade discussions, we have to defend supply management.

The next ingredient we need if we want family farms in the future is youth. Our farmers are aging, and in the next 10 years we shall lose a lot to retirement or the scrap heap. As a profession, we likely have one of the oldest average ages. Believe me folks, we are getting older, we ache, and 14 to 16 hour days are no longer job perks. The other problem is, our spouse is also aging and soon won't have that off-farm job to subsidize us. Watch the exodus from farming then.

How do we get youth back to the farm? We need a loan program with a low rate initially, then increasing to market rate as cashflow increases. We need government working with supply management boards to make low-cost quotas available for the initial years to, again, get cashflow started. We need a reasonable rate of return for labour and investment. We need to ask our youth what it would take to get them into farming. Our agricultural colleges are full, but few are choosing farming. Why?

Now that we have family farms and a new crop of young farmers, what's next? Listen to society. We need more environment-friendly programs. The environmental farm plan is a good starting point, but $1,500 does very little. For the average beef farm, one is looking at $50,000 to $70,000 to build manure storage. Few beef farms can finance that with present farm sizes and commodity prices. As a government, we can spend over $1 million a mile to cement the centre of the 401 to ricochet cars into Toronto, but only $1,500 for an environmentally friendly farm. Where are our priorities?

Next, as farmers with large animals, we need large animal vets. We need programs to encourage new vets to enter farm communities and set up large animal practices, as we do for rural doctors. We need to work with the provinces and the universities to make sure our vet teaching facilities stay current and keep their accreditation, or we will again lose our farm communities.

We shall need a fair return for our products. While economists are writing about the price-gouging by our dairy farmers and the impact on the pizza-makers, the largest manufacturer of mozzarella cheese reports record profits. As with the Enron scandal, how many of these economists hold shares of food processors in their registered retirement saving plans? None of them write about the farmers' share in your grocery bill or the fact that food freedom day comes earlier in Canada than in other industrialized countries. Many of the food processors had record profits last year. That makes me happy, and it is good for Canada, but is it unrealistic that the producer should also receive a fair return?

Next, we need to get serious with trade talks with the U.S. All these endless court battles only help the lawyers, and the producer pays. I am talking about the Wheat Board, r-calf, milk exports, and all the endless battles that we keep winning and then have to refight. I believe it is now nine for the Wheat Board. Of course the U.S. doesn't like it when we beat them at their game. Their concept of free trade is that we should be free to trade with them under their rules, and if they don't win, they are free to change the rules.

Finally, we have to decide whose food we want to eat. We do a good job as producers in Canada, and are proud of the quality and safety of our product. Can you say the same for all other countries? Whose standard do you want on your table? Talk to the agri-food import inspectors and see the rate of rejection on some of these imports. How much do we miss? After September 11, I suggest we get serious, and I know I want Canadian food on my table. We can improve and we should keep trying, but if it adds cost, we need support. We have a lot of room for environmental support under the WTO rules.

If we address these issues, we can have a vibrant rural Canada into the future and have successful farms, mindful of the environment's and our animals' well-being. Let's stop throwing stones at each other, sit down, roll up our sleeves, and get to work. We don't want farm rallies, machinery parades, and traffic chaos any more than those commuters who are inconvenienced, but we need your attention and efforts. Bombardier doesn't need to roll airplanes up to Parliament Hill to get assistance. Why should we?

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thanks, John.

Now, individually, we have a number of presenters. You may just identify briefly what you do or who you represent other than yourself, or maybe it's just your own farm.

John.

Â (1200)

Mr. John Hastings (lndividual Presentation): I'm going to make two presentations in a very short space of time, both of which I think could lead to sustainable agriculture being improved, at minimum government expense, which I think will make you sit up and listen.

I've had 30 years of experience in the pesticide industry. I run a multinational company. I've been on many farms in every province of this country. I've been there for research and sales and advice to growers. I'm also involved in one of the larger certified organic cash crop farms in the province.

I think most of you know that 99% of pesticides used by Canadian farmers are imported, and they're imported and manufactured by just a handful of major multinationals. They're also distributed here by subsidiaries of large outside or offshore companies, which puts a question mark on whether or not this is a sustainable part of crop protection. In 1980, when integrated pest management was first thought of, I set out to form a company to bring in less toxic, more sustainable products. Since that time the company has developed more and more in the direction of insect pheromones, which we now supply over the whole country. Insect pheromones form an integral part of IPM, integrated pest management, because they enable us to know when, how, where, and whether to use insecticides. As a result, we make savings and we prevent mishaps. Unlike pesticides, pheromones are made in small laboratories, and there are laboratories all around the world. The only problem is, there are none here in Canada. So all the pheromones we use in our pest management programs have to be imported.

Across Canada there are numerous universities, colleges, research stations, all with excellent laboratories and trained staff, and they're constantly standing with their hands out looking for more funding. If the government could come up with some encouragement to these institutions to produce a number of pheromones and also put on some sort of acceptable label or standard of approval, I'm sure many of these institutions would take up producing some of these pheromones and making them available for our use, which means we could supply our domestic needs, we could also cut back our imports, and we could have a presence on the export market, which would be very important.

So pheromones are one of the tools that help make agriculture more sustainable, and I think we need to be more self-sufficient with the help of government.

The second part of the presentation is on organic farming. For background, my wife runs a 350-acre certified organic cash crop farm in Hastings County, and I play a part in this operation. Making a living growing cash crops on 350 planted acres is very difficult indeed, but it can be done if we specialize. One way of specializing is to go into organic crop production. Over the years a lot of growers have come to me and said, how do I get into this, how do you become an organic grower? Unlike the situation in Germany and in the U.S., our government doesn't seem to have recognized that organic food has been growing by leaps and bounds, and it's made no attempt at all to show growers how to get into the organic culture.

What we need in this country is more research: we have absolutely no research being done in organic farming. We need more information: we have absolutely no information on cultural practices, and those advisers and extension specialists we've got have absolutely no training in organic methods. All of this has got to be put right first.

If you look at the shelves of organic foods in the supermarkets, you'll find that most of them still come from off-shore. We should be growing this food, and we should also be exporting it. We've been very much influenced by the promotional pressures of large corporations to adopt their patented biotechnology, and as a result, we've lost some export markets, notably in canola. What we should be able to do is get back some of those export markets with more sustainable agriculture of our own, and we can do this with organic production.

I know a lot of organic farmers would work immediately with government researchers to set up trials on their farms. This is important, because there are no research stations that are purely organic, and therefore they couldn't set up organic trials on conventional farms. It would take a long time to set up organic farms.

The organic industry does not need subsidizing, but it does need government support in research and with information.

Thank you.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Stan.

Mr. Stan Raper (Individual Presentation): My name is Stan Raper. I'm the coordinator for the Care Van Project, which is an Ontario-based project in support of the migrant farm workers, through the seasonal agricultural worker project. In our presentation we have provided a document that was released in the fall of last year to the federal Minister of Labour and to Jane Stewart's office. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing today.

Last year a number of individuals travelled across the province identifying where large populations of migrant farm workers were being housed and worked. What we found was a pretty diverse situation with migrant farm workers. First, they come from Jamaica and the Caribbean countries, but the majority now are coming from Mexico. They're isolated on farms, they're housed there. It is a voluntary program, but they are inspected by either a municipal or some other agency in those communities. One of the problems we found is that they are inspected before the workers even go into them. The opportunity to do snap inspections or make sure those housing conditions are kept up to par is not there.

What we find is a number of problems and conditions that are, in fact, exploiting and discriminating against these workers. They are working overtime without overtime pay, 10 to 12 hours a day, six days a week. There is a lack of training in occupational health and safety and of proper access to health care. Both farmers and employees pay unemployment insurance premiums, with little, if any, access to the benefits of that program. There are poor housing conditions: sometimes you have 60 people in one house with three showers. After you've worked 10 to 12 hours a day, to cook your food and go into a housing situation like that is, in my opinion, deplorable. Isolation on these farms breeds depression. One of the most predominant problems was lack of services, not only in their own language, but from the community.

The seasonal agricultural worker program brings just over 16,000 workers from a number of different countries. This program was started in 1966, with the majority staying from 12 weeks to eight months. They are brought here on work visas. The federal government of Canada, through HRDC, wants to expand these programs into tourism and hospitality industries, and also into the construction trades. We urge that before you expand the programs, specific problems need to be addressed.

The language barrier is a huge problem. Representation for these workers is necessary. Farm organizations in the province of Ontario and across Canada have representation, some accreditation, where it's mandatory that they affiliate with a specific organization, primarily in the province of Ontario. No such program exists for agricultural workers or migrant farm workers in this province or in any other we can identify, other than British Columbia.

Farming is the most dangerous occupation in Canada, surpassing the construction and mining industries, which have their own specific legislation put forward by those industries to protect those workers. The agricultural industry has no protection under the health and safety legislation. In the province of Ontario the Farm Safety Association has a partial mandate to train farmers on health and safety. They use a trickle-down theory to educate farm workers about the hazards on those farms. We're advocating today that this system has a lack of resources and is not effective.

There'll be 20 farm workers die in this province this year alone. Twenty died last year, three at a farm just outside Drayton in a manure spreader. A Mexican Mennonite, who spoke German and had no training in health and safety whatsoever, crawled into that tank, died, and two Canadian workers crawled in to try to save him, and they died. Before that the same farmer had a worker die at his farm. The Farm Safety Association went in and trained the family and the farmer about the dangers. Do you think any of that training went down? Do you think any committees were established to protect those workers from the impact of what's happening?

So there are a number of issues. Representation is the big one, health and safety is the other. We will continue our project this year, and every time a worker dies in this province or is injured, the federal government is going to hear about it, the media are going to hear about, and we're going to make an issue of it.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Thank you, Stan.

Barton MacLean.

Mr. Barton MacLean (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

I have farmed in the Napanee area for 35 years. I am at present in partnership with my son Kevin, who is sitting beside me and will also make a presentation today. Together, we farm 425 acres, milk about 80 cows, plus the heifers as well. I'm also a director of Dairy Farmers of Ontario and represent a number of local farmers, such as Mr. Thompson, in the Quinte region.

The Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and the territories, has recently developed a long-term plan or vision for the agriculture industry. Government responsibility and long-term vision are all qualities of good leadership, and I applaud your government for doing that. The long-term plan is something dairy producers have sought for a number of years, and as a general premise, I fully expect they will support you as you move forward with this plan.

Agriculture is one of the keys to Canada's economy. It provides 8.3% of the country's gross domestic product, contributes $5 billion to $7 billion towards Canada's trade surplus, and provides employment to 1 in every 7 Canadians. That's equivalent to having one day a week devoted to agriculture. I think the government needs to make it a higher priority on their list, and your committee today is an instance, and again, I thank you for that.

I'm going to address my comments to three of the key elements of your new plan, food safety, science and innovation, and risk management.

Dairy farmers recognize that food safety, security, and quality are prime concerns of the Canadian consumer. The dairy industry has been a leader in the field of food safety and raw milk quality for some time. Our farms are regularly inspected, quality standards are the highest of anywhere in North American, and our producers meet and exceed those standards, with very few exceptions. To further enhance consumer confidence, Ontario is in the early stages of launching a quality assurance program based on HACCP principles. That program will further ensure traceability of our product from field to the consumer's fork. Mr. Thompson has outlined many of the details of that. As a result, I as a dairy farmer am very proud to attach this quality symbol to all our dairy products in Canada.

But I do have one major concern. The provincial government has indicated that it may appeal the act that protects the identity and integrity of dairy products, the Edible Oil Products Act. Dairy Farmers Of Ontario consumer surveys have always indicated that consumers demand pure products. With the removal of this act, the exact opposite will result. That annoys me. In fact, it darn well angers me that I am being asked to provide a quality product with traceability throughout the process when, at the last minute, we turn around and allow products such as coconut oil or palm oil to be mixed with it. That makes no sense to me economically, and it makes no sense to me socially. How can I attach this quality tag to such a product?

The federal government could alleviate some of these concerns by having clear-cut rules in place with regard to blending and labelling of dairy products. Canada has supported the principles adopted at the international level by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on the general standards for the use of dairy terms. We need those principles embodied in Canadian law if we are going to avoid misrepresentation and unfair practices in our domestic dairy industry.

Canada has always been a leader in science and innovative products. Dairy Farmers of Ontario has supported the need for market and production research. As Mr. Thompson has outlined, we do have a check-off of 4¢ a hectolitre. We also have another 3¢ a hectolitre that's passed on to Dairy Farmers of Canada for national research projects. For the average Ontario producer, that represents about $350 a year. If Dairy Farmers of Ontario were a Canadian corporation, it would receive a 35% tax credit for doing this type of research. I believe a similar benefit should be extended to producer organizations that collectively invest on behalf of their producers for research in this country. Government assistance for research qualifies as a green program under WTO, and we should use that to our best advantage.

Under risk management, it seems safety net programs become an increasingly important part of our rural economy. Currently, 70% of Ontario corn and soybean producers are covered by crop insurance. Forage, which is a major concern to dairy producers, has had a smaller uptake, and that is a concern. Last year was one of most devastating crop years in this country, and it has had serious effects and caused financial problems for producers throughout every province of the country. It seems to me that one of the important things the government could do right now for producers is to override some of last year's yield data, so that it doesn't have a further serious effect on other risk management programs, such as--

Â (1215)

The Chair: Mr. MacLean, I'm going to have to cut you off. I've been trying to signal. You're up to about six and a half minutes. Probably it will come out in the questioning.

Kevin, are you presenting too?

Mr. Kevin MacLean (Individual presentation): Actually, Dad said he was going to go nine minutes. I thought that was great, and I'd only have to go one minute.

Good morning. My name is Kevin MacLean, and I am a proud dairy farmer and a proud son as well.

I recently spoke to a gentleman who immigrated from India. I asked him how many people live in India. He told me over a billion people live in that country. I couldn't believe it. I wondered how they feed that many people. Then I asked whether they are concerned about the environment in India. He laughed at me. He said, we're worried about feeding our families, not the environment. I have the luxury of a full stomach and of being able to speak to my elected officials about my concerns in agriculture, so I consider it a privilege to be here today.

I'd like to talk about two things, the sustainability of the environment on our farms and the sustainability of family farms through succession planning. I hope I answer some of Paul's questions, wherever he may be.

First, I'd like to talk about uniformity of policing for environmental problems. Within the city of Kingston in the last few years millions of litres of raw sewage have been dumped into local waterways. The Minister of Environment is told about these dumps, but as far as I know, there have been no fines laid. Meanwhile, in our home county of Lennox and Addington, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is a federal organization, has cracked down on local farmers and is threatening to fine them $300,000 for allowing cattle into the waterways. Can someone here please tell me if that is equality? No, it is not. I believe the federal government needs to take the leadership in making a level playing field in this matter. Don't get me wrong, environmental watchdogs are essential, they benefit us all, but there needs to be a level playing field and rules respected by all.

Second, funding for these environmental improvements, for the city of Kingston, will come from the taxpayers, but who is going to foot the bill for our improvements and our environmental upgrades? Federal programs and grants need to be put in place to help us with that capital expenditure.

As I've travelled the roads of rural Ontario and Canada, I've noticed that the old 80-20 rule applies. Eighty per cent of the problems are caused by 20% of the farmers, and that's where policing and education need to start.

Alliances must be formed with agencies to handle unique situations. Right down the road we have Strathcona paper mill, which is attempting to compost its by-products, and I congratulate them for that. However, they have a carbon source. They need nitrogen to make that composting process work. Lo and behold, there's a farmer right next door with a pile of manure, an excellent source of nitrogen. Put them together, and you have a saleable product. Why is it not happening? Because of red tape. I believe the federal government needs to take a leadership role here as well and allow and force agencies, provincial, federal, whatever level, to get together and call in the experts to make this symbiotic relationship happen.

Over the last few years it certainly appears to me that the climate is changing. The federal government needs to establish goals to reduce harmful emissions into the environment, and they need to set in place programs to make sure these goals are met. They need to support research for companies that put dollars into research and development of wind power, solar power, bio-diesels, bio-plastics, and nutraceuticals. This, in turn, will open up specialty markets for farmers who can provide identity preserved products, which they'll get a premium for.

I'd like to switch to farm succession planning. Youth retention in agriculture is a problem across all sectors. The lack of succession planning itself is a reason for youth not to go into a family business. It may be financially unfeasible for youth to remain on the farm. The government must partner with the private sector to get a database of people who are qualified to handle mediation and facilitation of farm succession planning. Simply not having access to an expert to help you with farm succession planning is a problem in itself and a reason for not doing it. Perhaps matching funds from the government to farm families that pursue succession plans would help them follow this route.

Currently, the capital gains exemption is $500,000 from owner to owner, and perhaps this needs to be reviewed as well, because of the increasing size of our farms.

Retention of youth in agriculture can be promoted by funding excellent organizations like the 4-H program. I'm a graduate of that program myself and proud of it. Youth must be encouraged to seek post-secondary schooling, and they need to seek off-farm employment after that education. Incentives such as interest-free loans for individuals who pursue this avenue may help them to establish themselves in the farming industry and make them more committed farmers.

For non-farming youth wishing to pursue a career in agriculture, but not having a mother or father to take over a farm from, we need to set up a mentorship program. We have lots of retiring farmers with no children to take over. On the other hand, we have young people who would like to get into agriculture. The federal government needs to help get these parties together and make a win-win situation.

Briefly, I'd like to touch on education. How do we educate the politicians? Today is an excellent opportunity to do that. We have also sent commodity groups to Parliament Hill to help educate as well. What about a tour of prominent agricultural operations within your own ridings? I think this would be an excellent way to educate all politicians.

I'm going to answer Larry's question. How do we educate the public? We open up our farms. We allow people to visit our farms and see ongoing farming operations, how they do work and how we do treat our animals.

Finally, I'd like to put a plug in for the advanced agricultural leadership program. I'm a graduate of that program, and 31% of those graduates go on to be national and international leaders. Is there federal funding for this program? No, there is not, and a small amount of funding would help for that program.

I appreciate the opportunity, and the luxury, of standing here today.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you, Kevin.

Mr. Bob Dick.

Â (1225)

Mr. Bob Dick (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I come from a beef farm, a mixed operation, a feed farm. We have cows and calves, we have feed lot, we custom-feed. We're in the business with a family operation, partnered with the wife. How does the next generation carry this operation on? That's my concern, with the future. I'm 56 years old, I can probably get out, but what about the next generation? We're in the process of evaluating the operation we have. It's roughly 1,500 acres, 1,000 head of cattle, give or take, and they're having a job to justify taking it over. The livestock sector is getting smaller in Ontario, the packing industry is pretty well gone in Ontario, so why should we stay in livestock? I'm just raising the questions.

The federal clean water act, environmental concerns, I guess, have been pointed at livestock primarily. I don't think there's a level playing field there. Urban centres are simply regulated now to old standards, and we're going to be regulated to new standards if Bill C-81 passes. That's going to put, I think, a real crunch on the cattle industry, which I think is a market that can grow. We have a large population in the corridor we have to feed. I'm not sure whether it's provincial or federal, but it's been forgotten about. I think government should be involved in an agriculture policy that looks at long-term solutions. Tax laws should be sorted out, because they're changing. New markets and end products should be looked at, end products being ethanol or whatever, to create new products from what we produce.

I want to speak about NISA. NISA is a real good program for us. We've been involved in it for quite a number of years now, and I can't say anything but good about it. It should be enhanced. Maybe it should be part retirement fund and part safety net. When we go to transfer these operations now with a large capital investment, the retiring person needs to have something to fall back on, which we don't have now.

That pretty well concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Bob.

Now the other Bob, Bob Johnston.

Mr. Bob Johnston (Renfrew County Federation of Agriculture): Okay.

I'm not here as an individual. It's not on the program, but I'm here on behalf of the federation of agriculture of Renfrew County. They've given me seven concerns that I would like to put forward to you today. I'll just list them here. I won't use a lot of time.

First, we must have a total package across all commodity groups to address the downswings in the agriculture industry. I know right now it's a case of grain and oilseeds in Ontario, but the people of Renfrew Country and the general farmers want something that's going to help each one of them whenever it happens, whether it's the pork industry, the cattle industry, or whatever.

The second point is that we have an uneven playing field with the U.S. and Europe, and something has to be done to bring us closer in order to compete. Of course, again, right now it's in the grain and oilseeds. We know U.S. subsidies have tripled in the last three years. As mentioned earlier in one of the presentations, it depends on the name by which you're going to call it down in the States. Here they call it subsidies, and everybody is concerned about that.

Third, we feel the consumers must be educated as to the true cost of production and be prepared to pay a higher percentage of their income for food, because all other countries are paying higher prices. As a recent study showed, Canada has the cheapest food basket in the world at this stage. We feel there's some room there for them to pay a bit more money for their homegrown food.

Fourth, the clean water act--and it's been mentioned by Bob here beside me--coming to the forefront is going to adversely affect the livestock industry in particular and some of the other commodity groups, sheep, hogs, and so on. Keep in mind that farmers are not the only sector causing environmental concerns. There was a study out of Kemptville College recently about E. coli in the water of the Bonnechere River coming out of the provincial park. There certainly were no farmers up in the provincial park. Therefore, it had to be coming from beaver or deer dying and lying in the water and so on. If there's a calf lying in the water, that's a big problem, but not if there's wildlife. Again, there's urban sewage bypass: The Sewage Double Standard was written by Don Stoneman from Guelph. Cottage industry, septic tank problems, all of these are certainly leading to the larger percentage. If, in fact, 75% of the farmers are polluting 25%, then we feel the federal government should have a program out there that's going to give us 75% of the money to solve the problems being caused by society, not the farmers.

Fifth, more money is needed from the government to develop new technologies, such as ethanol and bio-diesel, which, in turn, will produce new products and new jobs. We know that 650,000 jobs, the second-highest sector in Ontario, are driven by agriculture. It will soon be number one, as the auto industry starts to flounder. So we think, with plants like the ethanol plants that have been trying to get going in eastern Ontario for a number of years, it's time the government stepped in. Instead of our people borrowing the money from Dutch banks or German banks, we could maybe get it from Canadian banks.

Sixth, this generation of farmers will probably survive, as Bob mentioned, but the next generation is not going to have enough equity, because they're using up all their equity getting by in this generation. Maybe, if the NISA program could be enhanced, and there's some talk about the three plus three going to four plus four or six plus six, that's another thing we might keep in mind.

The last point is this. Keeping in mind that agriculture is subsidized by off-farm income far more than any of the past governments have given in contributions to agriculture, we have to ask ourselves, who benefits? I think the people who benefit are the consumers. So the circle comes back around: the consumers should maybe ask themselves if they would like to pay a little bit more for food.

These are the basic points I was handed by the farmers of Renfrew County. I would like to thank everybody for the opportunity of being here to voice them.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Thanks, Bob.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, we'll quickly touch on the organic business. All of us are in favour of safe food. Whether it's grown conventionally or organically, our number one goal is to give Canadians safe food. I just need to ask if BT corn is considered an organic.

Mr. William Brown: No.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Can you tell me why? It grows, what you get out of it is the same as what you get out of the other corn. Can you tell me concisely, John, why it is?

Mr. John Hastings: It's difficult very often trying to find some connection between conventional and organic, because there isn't a clear-cut line. The only clear-cut line is that laid down by the rules of being an organic farmer, and this is what you have to adhere to.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's a precise answer. I appreciate that.

Mr. John Hastings: As a biologist, I could argue both ways too.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's a precise answer, and I appreciate that very much. It is the rules, it's not any kind of food safety thing. Of course, food stuffs have different nutritional value, and sometimes it's better, depending on how it's growing or whatever. Anyway, that's an excellent answer, and I appreciate that.

We don't have an opportunity to have union people here very often. We have two employees here of the unions right now, and I think we should use our time wisely. We need to know from your union, Michael Fraser, your definition of a family farm, a precise definition, because you're going to be organizing farm workers. We need to know precisely what your definition is of a family farm.

Mr. Michael Fraser: If you go back and look at the legislation that was introduced in Ontario 1995, where the stakeholders did get together, there were guidelines set out that dealt with that. It's very difficult for me to sit here today and give a precise definition of what a family farm is. I would like to say this, though. My grandfather commenced farming in Glengarry County in the early 1900s, my mother was born on that farm, and the third generation of my family continues to operate that farm today. Compare that farm to what happened in Leamington, Ontario, where the challenge to the Supreme Court was made. You had 200 workers who worked in a mushroom factory farm, worked production lines, sometimes three shifts in a day. That company also owns, just down the road, another mushroom factory farm in Wellington, Ontario, that employs in excess of 300 workers. Now if that's a family--

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What's the definition exactly, then, of a factory farm?

Mr. Michael Fraser: An exact definition, I would believe, is a farm that is incorporated for mass production, as opposed to the primary participants being family members. I think, if you look at some of the large corporate operations, it's clear they are not family farms. How can you consider, when you have 300 and 400 and more workers working on production lines, that to be a family farm?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: You're missing my point here, though. I'm asking you for a specific definition, because we have, for instance, five employees on the family farm cattle ranch. All they do is produce cattle in Alberta. They're incorporated because of income tax. They're going to kill us on income tax if we don't incorporate.

Mr. Michael Fraser: I would argue that is not a corporate farm, that is a family farm.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's why we need a definition, because you're telling us that you're going to go around and intend to continue your work on behalf of agriculture workers in Canada through union membership and collective bargaining. We, as a government, are going to resist every effort you make, because you can't define who it is that you're going to try to unionize. Until you do that, how can we deal with your presentation?

Mr. Michael Fraser: I'm afraid the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you. The Supreme Court of Canada has said:

The reliance on the family farm justification ignores an increasing trend in Canada towards corporate farming and complex agribusiness and does not justify the unqualified and total exclusion of all agricultural workers from Ontario's labour relations regime.

The question on the family farm, sir, is a red herring. There are people who are being exploited by large corporations who deserve to be covered by health and safety legislation, who deserve to be covered by minimum wages and hours of work. The whole question of the family farm is the false issue the Ontario government brought up in the seven years we had to challenge it before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Could you give us a definition of a family farm, Mr. Raper?

Mr. Stan Raper: The Rae government, when they introduced the legislation, through a two-year consultation process, did define what a family farm was. I think they had a specific number of employees on a specific operation. It took them two years to come up with that decision, but they also could not figure out what a farm worker was.

Â (1235)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're going to prepare a report for the agriculture minister. Are you recommending to this committee which types of farm workers should be unionized and which shouldn't? We're talking about the federal government setting up legislation for the future of agriculture. Who do you recommend be unionized?

Mr. Stan Raper: It's a very complex issue. You can't just say a number and that's going to be it. Unions normally target operations that are 50 or more. The owner of the farm in Drayton that has killed four workers already in the last 10 years has 25 farms under his name, and it's a dairy operation. Are you telling me that's not a family farm?

Â (1240)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm asking.

Mr. Stan Raper: Exactly. There have been consultation and studies on the definition of what a family farm is and what a corporate farm is. Those studies are out there, the consultation process has been done. Pick a number, do something, but let's start the process. Some basic standards defining what a family farm is or what a corporate farm is should start at the federal level. Each province is struggling with the same issue. The federal government needs to take some leadership in determining what the definitions of these operations are.

The Chair: Thank you, Stan.

I'm going to move on, Howard, but I think it is a very important consideration. Howard, you said “our government”. You speak for your party.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks again. They were very interesting presentations.

Mr. Hastings, I wanted to start with you and try to link or marry the two reports. You said you were giving two reports, and I want to tie that together by asking this question. Are you in organic agriculture with your wife because you spent 30 years as an expert on pesticides?

Mr. John Hastings: No. I think she chose to go into it on her own. I just happen to be one who gives free labour as much as anything, and I have a certain amount of experience I can add to it. Being chemically experienced doesn't exclude you from being biological. I'm experienced in pest control, pest management, crop protection. It doesn't matter whether it's chemical or biological, but an organic farm deals with it biologically.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I wanted also to pick up the point you were making, I think the essential point, that there's no training for organic agriculture. I just wondered, if there were more attention paid and some more money put in, what the impact would be.

Mr. John Hastings: In Germany, for example, they have colleges and universities that give degrees in organic agriculture. They're sited on organic farms. In the United States, at the University of Vermont, there's an organization called SARE, Sustainable Agriculture Research Establishment. They provide reams of really useful literature on how to farm organically, how to use the equipment, how to select the crops, how to use cash crops, how to use the green manures etc. that are needed in organic farming. We need that. I do know they've just put some money into an establishment in Nova Scotia, but we need it in every single agriculture region, not way out on a limb in the Maritimes.

So we need advice, we need help, and the trouble is, none of our agriculture research stations have got land that's suitable to immediately turn over to organic farming. Hence they have to work more closely with current certified organic farmers.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Stan, you talked about the problem you're having with migrant workers having to pay into employment insurance, as well as the employer who pays his or her contribution. You said there's little, if any, possibility of the individuals paying in being able to reap any of the benefits. We know that in other instances as well. People who have summer jobs, university and late high school students, are generally in the same position and rarely, if ever, able to get anything out. You said you presented a brief to the minister responsible for HRDC, Jane Stewart. What have you found out, or what changes are there, if any?

Mr. Stan Raper: Jane Stewart has not responded to us, to the report, to the Canadian Labour Congress, or anyone else directly in regard to our questions about unemployment insurance. There has been an indication that they are entitled to sick benefits. The majority of the workers, however, are not even informed that they are paying unemployment insurance. Most of them speak Spanish, are not given any clear indication about what deductions are being made from them, and therefore don't even know the program exists.

The other problem is that generally, unemployment insurance paid by all workers in Canada goes into a general fund, which has some $40 billion excess, in general revenue. What we've tried to indicate is that where there are large populations of migrant farm workers, as in Leamington, the Simcoe-Delhi area, some funds need to be established to provide basic services for them, a worker centre or a community centre.

Â (1245)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Are those the community services you were talking about?

Mr. Stan Raper: The community services in Essex County, for example, are open from 9 to 4:30 Monday to Friday. Any farm worker who goes to try for those services, first, doesn't get service in Spanish, and second, the doors are locked by the time they get to them. So what services are they getting? We're talking about specific services for the migrant farm worker community. There'll probably be 4,000 in Leamington, Mexican farm workers. What services are being provided to them? None, except from the church or a few individuals through the Care Van project who go up and try to provide them with information in Spanish. That's it, and that's shameful. They pay into CPP, they're a big boost economically to that community, a big boost to the federal government through CPP, unemployment insurance, and a big boost to the Mexican economy. Those organizations, the federal government, the Mexican consulates, those communities need to start providing some services to them directly.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Dick.

I will now go to Larry McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad you're part of our committee, because there's a great role and a great need for opposition in government. I want to mention this again, as we have some other people in the room here. It was our chair--whether I'm supposed to say that or not--who said on television this past fall that we have the reputation in Ottawa of getting along better than any other committee on the Hill. That's really necessary, and I'm really proud that we do, because we are in the minority in rural Canada.

I want to read out a business card here. Let me play with the words in my only language, even though English will become a minority language in the next 20 years, and Spanish will be number one in North America. The business card I have here in front of me is that of Kevin MacLean, a young man who stood up for agriculture. These are most powerful words on his card--I've read it before -- “Visitors always welcome”. Kevin, I admire you for what you've said here. I admire you for your stand with and against the federal government, because if we can't get youth involved and if we can't have our farms and be more open to our young farmers, we have a great challenge.

I do want to mention a couple of investments we made recently. Lyle, Minister Vanclief, made one last week at the CFA meeting. He gave some money--the chair was there--to the Canadian Young Farmers Forum so they could look at some of these problems and challenges. Many of you have students in high school, and all high schools will be receiving information very shortly, which Jane Stewart did announce last year here in Napanee, at close to $1 million, because we want to show our high school students that there are good opportunities in agriculture careers.

I don't want to stand here and talk about government programs, but, Mr. Hastings, I did have the honour of presenting $900,000 to the Nova Scotia Agricultural College for organic. I hope they're going to share this information across the country. Organic is a growing industry, 15%-20%. I believe in it. I know in Saskatchewan there's one 8,000-acre farm with organic production.

If anyone else here has any ideas on how we can build public support.... It's easy to say a government should give a lot more money, a lot more support to farmers. The dairy farmers have done a great job of promoting. But again I repeat, to you, the taxpayers--we all pay taxes, we all pay too many--we did invest $3.7 billion last year in agriculture. It probably wasn't enough money, and yet one-third of the producers whose income is between $10,000 and $100,000 fell through the cracks. So that's what we're for, to re-jig the whole thing, whether it be NISA, whether it be crop insurance. But to do some of this, it may take some more commitment. I don't think it's a food tax or whatever, but does anyone have any ideas on how we can make public support even wider for our great food here in Canada?

Now let me ask you this question. With crop insurance and dairy farmers, of course, we have some provinces that run it themselves, while in other provinces the federal government runs it. There have been some programs where we've tested having crop insurance available for hayfields and forage. There's a beef person here, there are dairy people here. Do you people think that should be included? Should we have crop insurance for all crops? Should we let you decide? It's a business decision. People don't take out crop insurance, Mother Nature is against us, and then we have problems. I'd like to have your views on what changes we might make to crop insurance.

George, John, please.

Â (1250)

Mr. George Thompson: When I grow crops, I'm growing them specifically for my cows. I grow corn, hay, and barley. I look at it almost as a financial portfolio, where my risk is diversified. It's very rare to have a year where I have a failure in all my three crops. If I have a failure in hay, I usually have success in corn or in barley. My net is not damaged very much. I'm not a believer in crop insurance myself. I don't carry it. I believe more in the diversification of crops.

Last year was an interesting year. I felt I had a very good first-cut hay crop. I had no second cut, but the first cut was fine and that got me through. I had a great barley and wheat crop. My corn crop was kind of the poor cousin last year, as it was with most people. Fortunately, I had enough carryover of corn from the previous year to get me through to this fall.

Mr. John Williamson: From my own perspective, we don't carry it, because my main crop for beef is forage, and in our county forage crop insurance isn't available. I would sure look hard at it if it was, given a year like last year. Up until now my crop insurance for forage has been half a year's supply of hay ahead of time. Hopefully, I can, after last year, get back to that. I think the risk sharing is essential. How we do it, whether it be George's way or through the crop insurance, is an option.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think George has reminded me of one thing we need to remind all Canadians of. Several of you are producers. We need to remind Canadians that you're also business people, which you are, the professionals. When George says his crop is his financial portfolio, I like that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Larry.

Now we'll have Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is on crop insurance. Barton, you got cut off. You were talking about the drought last year, and you started to talk about an override of the yield data. In 35 seconds, can you explain to me what it is you would like to see with the crop insurance and the override of the yield data?

Mr. Barton MacLean: My concern is that the overall yield data are factored into the sister programs, like GRIP and NISA. I would say last year was an extreme exception. Why factor that into programs that will then cut all the other programs over their history?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We've talked about changing the crop insurance program. That's one area I think has to see some of the modifications.

My second question is to Bob Johnston. You started talking about the clean water act and a 75%-25% split, where society has 75% of the responsibility, yet agriculture is being asked to take the lion's share of the cost. Do you want to just touch on that 75%-25% split?

Mr. Bob Johnston: Basically, that was just a figure I pulled out. In Renfrew County there's a pressure coming on that the farmers are the big bad boys. It looks as if we're 75% responsible, but when it comes down to some of the studies, we're not saying we're not polluting, but it's probably closer to 25%. I'm just using that as a scenario. If 75% is the figure, or 65%, or 95%, let's gear the program that way, not the $1,500 we got.

Â (1255)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a good suggestion. We had this discussion coming down. In fact, there's a lot of urban pollution that perhaps the society should be cleaning up equally quickly.

Mr. Bob Johnston: That's right. It's the unevenness.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: My third question is to John. R and D has been a theme throughout all our sessions. It comes from canola producers, cattle, pulse crops, organics, dairy. We heard about wind power, we've heard now about other areas where we have priorities for R and D. You see organic as being a priority, and I appreciate that. I agree there should be some program there for research and development. How do you see the government identifying the priorities and the funding going into those priorities?

Mr. John Hastings: They've got to find a method to encourage and teach new growers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm talking about not just organic, but R and D for everything.

Mr. John Hastings: This applies to everything. We need new technology at our fingertips. We know how to get the best out of the land we're farming, we have to understand the pros and cons of every variety we're dealing with, and we need data to show whether we're doing the right thing.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Does that include R and D in biotech?

Mr. John Hastings: Biotech is being driven by the large multinationals.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There's a federal drive there as well.

Mr. John Hastings: There is indeed, but that's because the funding comes largely from the large multinationals.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, John.

George, question number four is for you. You talked briefly about energy support, which is really interesting, with the privatization of energy and electricity particularly. You talk about energy supporting your business; it depends on energy, the dairy. What kind of energy support are you talking about?

Mr. George Thompson: I was planning to do this presentation on Sunday, actually, but I was 20 hours without power. It's managing power loads and this sort of thing. The Ontario government has decided to go with privatizing power generating ability, effective May 1, 2002. In California they had brown-outs. The power generating companies sold too much power outside California and couldn't supply the California market at a reasonable price, so they had brown-outs.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So should there be a guaranteed supply at a reasonable price to farmers?

Mr. George Thompson: I think there should be. Actually, I think we should really be looking at guaranteeing it for Ontario consumers, not just farmers. People in Ontario should have first crack at power generated in Ontario.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one more question, and it's to Kevin.

Kevin, you had a very powerful presentation, and I thank you for that. Another recurring theme is, how do we keep the young farmer in the business? You decided to stay in the business. You had a father, obviously, who was going to assist you in maintaining a dairy farm. Why did you decide to farm?

Mr. Kevin MacLean: My parents gave me the opportunity, they gave me the choice. They didn't say, we want you to come home to the farm, they gave me the opportunity, they encouraged me to go to school, and they encouraged me to get an off-farm job after I came home from school. That's the fundamental reason I came home.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You decided off-farm was tougher than on-farm, is that it?

Mr. Kevin MacLean: Oh, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, good--honest answer, thank you.

On succession, you talked about a number of really good suggestions here, and we'll have a chance to talk with you about them after this session. You've talked about capital gains, you've talked about mentorship programs, you've talked about interest-free loans. If there is one thing you would see as being the greatest element in your going back to the farm, what was that, on the succession side of it? Was it your parents?

Mr. Kevin MacLean: I had a father and a mother who were progressive, and that gave me the opportunity to jump into an ongoing operation that was viable. I think that's a large part of it, having that operation set up so you can continue to grow, rather than always having to climb the hill to success. The success is already there, I just have to continue it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Kevin, Rick.

Paul, did you have some points you wanted to ask about?

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'd be remiss if I didn't bring to the table at least a few of my comments.

Michael, you alluded to Loblaws, and you're correct. I think we all know that Loblaws has a way of passing on costs to the consumer, which the farmer doesn't, whether it's a family farm or what you would call a commercial farm. We don't have the capacity to do that in agriculture. That's not a slam at what you're trying to do. I'm not negative towards you, because I have a lot of those migrant workers in my own riding. I have to say that in many parts they're looked after very well, although there are probably some shortcomings.

The whole issue of transferring farms to the next generation, which Mr. Borotsik just raised, is something I have a keen interest in. Unless we can find ways of doing that, it's not going to be possible for our younger farmers to come on board. George, you have 70 cows, you're looking at $1.4 million or something in that area as a quota value. How can that be transferred to the next generation? I'm a great believer in supply management, absolutely, 100%, but I think we have to find ways of dealing with that. How do we do that, so you, as the outgoing farmer, can leave to your son the capacity to carry on?

· (1300)

Mr. George Thompson: Dealing with high quota value is a perennial problem. I've been in the local milk community for several years. It has been one of those problems. It's sitting in the background. It has been very difficult to deal with. With intergenerational transfer, you're going to have to look to the Income Tax Act on capital gains, exemptions, that sort of thing. You get that quota to move down a generation.

Mr. Paul Steckle: We need to raise the value of capital gains? What would be an appropriate level?

Mr. George Thompson: For a farm my size, you probably need $1 million, because there is quota value there, the value of the land, the value of buildings, the value of all those assets that are sitting there on the farm. I'm not totally familiar with the Income Tax Act. I would have to have my accountant here.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Should that apply if the purchaser happens not to be a family member? Should it only be within family?

Mr. George Thompson: I think you're going to have to do something about that. If there's a farm that has no new generation family members, there'll have to be some provision there for a non-family member, maybe somebody who has been part of that operation for years, a way to get that farm transferred as a total business to the next generation.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Whatever we do in fixing some of the problems, and some of these are long-standing problems, it's not going to happen without some money.We would all agree that the food basket value dollar to the consumer has come down and down. We're not the lowest in the world. Food Freedom Day is now February 8, but it will soon be January 15; the cost of that production goes way back into early January. To the farmer it's almost become irrelevant, because we're not getting any portion of it back.

We need to find a way of doing that. I realize you don't trust government, and as part of government, I sometimes wonder myself. But if government, in its wisdom, could put forward a plan whereby there would be a safety net of money for farmers that is timely and triggered on short notice--none of this ad hoc, eight months, nine months down the road, perhaps another year--would you agree that a food tax might be an appropriate way of doing it? Given that it would be hidden, 1% would raise $5 billion--we'll assume it does--and there would be a cap of maybe $20 billion, where it would come to an end. That money would be there only for dealing with those kinds of things. All sectors would be involved.

Mr. George Thompson: It is an idea that may be worth looking into. I see some problems with it.

· (1305)

Mr. Paul Steckle: What would be the problem with it?

Mr. George Thompson: I'm thinking of low-income people who are struggling to make ends meet now. They don't need any more expenses.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Low-income earners have the same habits as a lot of people who make a lot of money. I've come to the point where I'm not going to listen to that any more, because I can tell you, low-income earners, whether they go to McDonald's or to the high-end restaurants in town, all leave a lot of money in restaurants today. They could buy pretty cheap if they wanted to buy the flour and all these things. They don't do that any more.

Seeing that you give the restaurateur, the person who carries the food to the table, 10% to 15% for carrying the food to the table, which is much more than the farmer gets for producing it, would we not, as consumers, be prepared to put a toonie on the table for $200 worth of groceries? I think they would, if we sell it in the right way. But there has to be a lot of assurance and guarantees that the money goes to agriculture, and, of course, the program has to be right.

Mr. George Thompson: I think if the government imposes a new tax--

Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't know what the chairman is doing. He's motioning.

The Chair: Your time is up. I was asking a researcher something here about the figures you were using.

David.

Mr. David Anderson: Did you notice that if you don't look at him, you get a little bit longer time?

I just wanted to make a comment. Larry's used the same figures twice, and I think it's important that we correct him. The federal government has not given $3.7 billion to federal agriculture in the last year. It was just over $1 billion. I think it's important that we make that clear. Their budget is about $3.7 billion.

Kevin, I was glad to hear you talk about how farmers shouldn't be blamed for the environmental problems as much as they are. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing that, as a producer. This morning on the bus we were talking about some of the cities, including the environment minister's own city, which pumps sewage directly into the ocean. Then they continually talk about farmers causing problems. Bob mentioned that as well.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the issue of DFO. They've become Canada-wide in their annoying way of doing things. Have you been in touch with your provincial government talking about the problems DFO are causing, or has it been a longer term problem here in Ontario, dealing with them in the agriculture community? They've just invaded western Canada in the last year and a half. Has that been an ongoing problem here, dealing with DFO? Anybody.

Mr. Barton MacLean: I can't comment on how long they've been active, but they have been reasonably active in this area for about three years now. They seem to have a very heavy-handed way of looking at problems. The local Ministry of Environment could have looked at many of these problems and had a much lower profile solution to them, which would have been accepted by the local area much better, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. John Williamson: For Ontario, DFO is a relatively new entity in respect of scope. Formerly, either the province did it on their behalf or the conservation authority. It's a fairly new staffing process here. Also, Environment Canada and the pollution people have got involved in a lot of the stream work here now. This is relatively new, it's their own initiative. To me, they've gone well beyond the legislative mandate. They're extrapolating harmful materials on a fairly broad basis. The legislation, I don't believe, was ever intended that way.

I'll give you the perspective of a former fisheries officer of 30 years. In my mind, they're not using the legislation that's there, they're abusing it and using a hammer on people they know won't fight it in court. When you start expanding into cattle in stream beds that are flooded seasonally, you're way beyond fisheries habitat, in my mind, when fisheries exist way upstream.

I'll give you just a very quick history of mine. In a stream I used to play in as a kid with the cattle, swimming, splashing, chasing fish, whatever you wanted to do, today you couldn't do that under existing legislation. Under the new Nutrient Management Act you won't have cattle close to that. It's a moot point, because that stream is now under 50 feet of soil and Magna corporation headquarters, and I ask, who really hurt the environment?

· (1310)

Mr. David Anderson: It's interesting. We've heard fairly consistently that PMRA is the problem, with the way they've been administered and have done things. Now DFO, consistently across those country, seems to be a second agency people are having problems with. I don't know if they do it here, but in western Canada they've gone into man-made drainage ditches trying to find the minnows, so they can establish their control over that.

I had a second question for William on the organic part of it. Food safety is getting to be a big issue, and it is for all of us. Now it's GMO, the labelling issues come up. But also in the organic area we're starting to hear some of these concerns about food quality. You've changed some of your product, dried it and those kind of things, but how do you plan on dealing in the long term with those food safety issues that are becoming, supposedly, more important to people--or at least to the media?

Mr. William Brown: We're dealing with it by using the highest standards of the food-processing industry and being certified as to the health and safety standards we use within the facility to grow the product. The secret is, you start off clean, and if it isn't absolutely clean, you clean it. You do this on the absolute best science. We have microbiologists on staff to follow everything through, so we know what we produce is clean. It's tested when it goes out the door. We ship good product out. We seal it in containers with the tamper-proof seal, because there's always the possibility of somebody at the terminal opening it up and getting a hand in there or people squeezing the product in the stores.

Mr. David Anderson: Do we have adequate health and safety regulations for our food?

Mr. William Brown: Yes. You heard us talk about organic and organically certified. We're starting there, because that's the high end of the market. The reason people want to go organic is that there's more money in it if you figure out how to grow the product. So you value-add your agriculture. A lot of what we're been talking about here, to me, is not value-adding to agriculture. We're growing beef, we're not growing special beef. We're growing corn, we're growing beans, there's nothing special about those, so you won't get a special price. What I'm doing is value-adding to commodities. That's a big difference.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

William, when we were in Kelowna, they presented us with a potato. I still have it at home, and I'm going to plant it in the spring. I see you have something there. I'd like for you to maybe leave me a copy of your little product.

In this part of our panel we have heard a very diverse group of presenters. Everywhere we go, our mandate gets a little bit bigger. Michael, you and Stan are bringing in the issue of offshore labourers on farms. It's certainly a wake-up call, and I think it's something that has to be addressed, all those conditions that we Canadians believe to be important to our labour force.

Again, we hear from the dairy sector the principle of trying to keep our farms going for the next generation, but I might offer a thought for those of you involved with dairy. The marketing boards are controlling this quota, and I'm not sure the marketing boards have really ever come to grips with what it's doing to the industry. I don't think you should look to government for the solution. Probably, you should go back, being dairy farmers or poultry or feather people, and say, how can we do something to overcome the problems we see in the future? Governments can do so much, but basically in this country, we rely upon individuals and groups they represent to have their own solutions. So as you escalate the value of your quotas, you're creating great problems for the future generations of this country. Will it be worth $50,000 to milk a cow in another 25 years? I don't know, but think through what I'm saying. I do say that to you by way of trying to get some thought out there among your marketing boards.

With that, we'll adjourn this portion of our meeting, and in five minutes time we'll be back with our third panel. Thank you for coming. We enjoyed your presentations.

(1310)

(1326)

The Chair: We'll resume our hearings now with the witnesses for our third panel. I understand there are a few people who haven't come yet. I may be jumping around a bit in terms of how we're presenting it, but....

First of all, from Seeds of Peace, Roots of Justice, Mr. Ormond Lee.

· (1330)

Mr. Ormond Lee (Seeds of Peace Roots of Justice): Thank you for taking the time to listen to what we have to say.

I'm Ormond Lee. I'm here on behalf of a citizen's action group from Lanark County, Ontario. Some of our members are farmers. All are very concerned about the state of agriculture in this country and throughout the world.

Could I have a 30-second warning, because I realize this has a 10-minute limit?

The Chair: We'll give you the old “T” here.

Mr. Ormond Lee: Thank you.

We have several suggestions we wish to put before you. First, we advise that you refer to and follow the recommendations of the Royal Society of Canada's Report on the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods--hereafter I'll refer to these as GE foods--which was submitted in 2001.

The report concludes there is great potential risk from GE foods to human health, animal health, and to the environment. It goes on to say that even the best studies to date have not proved their safety. They recommend that studies be done by third parties, whereas at present the biotechnology industry carries the burden of proof.

We advise an immediate, total, and comprehensive moratorium on the production and processing of GE foods until third-party, long-term studies are complete. We advise the government to institute these studies immediately. A moratorium would protect our farms and fields from genetically engineered seeds. Problems from contamination are already an issue.

I have a few points that illuminate our concerns. Genetic contamination can occur during breeding of new varieties, at seed production, and during grain marketing. It can also occur at planting if the planter has not been cleaned properly when switching seeds. Contamination can occur at harvest unless farm equipment is used exclusively for non-GE seed. Contamination happens when equipment for transportation or storage is not cleaned carefully. Contamination can result when volunteer GE plants come up in non-GE fields, having been blown there via pollen drift or transferred by birds and animals.

Non-GE and organic farms have been polluted by neighbouring farms' GE crops. On January 10, 2002, two Saskatchewan organic farmers, Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin, filed a class action against Monsanto and Aventis on behalf of all certified organic farmers in Saskatchewan. The suit claims that GE canola has spread across the prairies and contaminated conventional crops so extensively that most certified organic farmers no longer attempt to grow canola. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, had his canola fields contaminated with Monsanto Roundup Ready canola. A legal battle is ongoing.

Also, genetic drift can occur when pollen from one kind of plant is taken up by another, creating a new kind of hybrid as well as hybrid superweeds. The larger the transportation and distribution system, the more likely it is that contamination will occur. A moratorium would address these extremely serious problems.

We advise the government to make funds available to clean up farms contaminated by genetically engineered organisms and pass legislation to make the biotech industry bear the costs and be held responsible for all the problems resulting from this GE disaster. We advise that the money used to subsidize agribusiness be rechanneled to support small farms, sustainable farms, and help farmers transition back from production of GE crops to ecological farming methods. We're talking about creating a lot of jobs and long-term employment in this country.

Stop subsidizing agribusiness. I've learned here today that this has yet to be defined. Presuming we come to a definition, we must stop subsidizing the factory farms. Sustainable, ecological, sensible farm culture has been swallowed up by an economic...[Editors' Note: Technical difficulty]

· (1335)

Mr. John Morrison (President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): ...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty] We as cattle producers have a lot at stake. Much of the land owned by cattle producers is home to an abundance of wildlife. The cattle industry has been very much aware of its role in living in partnership with nature. We know, for example, that if we over-graze, we will damage our pastures permanently, which will affect our livelihood.

However, we feel that when it comes to protection of all wildlife, it has to be a partnership with the public. That is why we fought hard for possible compensation under the species at risk legislation. We want to protect endangered species, as everyone else does. The new species at risk legislation is a good example of how legislators and those affected can work together to develop legislation we can all live with. We hope it soon passes into law.

I believe the Canadian cattle industry has a bright future in Canada. We have the natural resources that are renewable. We continue to build an infrastructure that is the most modern in the world. Canadian beef producers use the latest in feedlot technology. Our packing plants use only the most up-to-date equipment. Our retailers are doing an excellent job of giving the consumer the best possible product and have increased consumer information. We are now the third-largest exporter of beef in the world. This trade is expected to increase and grow over the next decade.

It's very exciting, but as I mentioned earlier, we need government as a partner. You as legislators must ensure that our borders remain open; our food and health inspection services are properly funded; the research facilities are available to the industry; legislation assists our industry and doesn't put up roadblocks; and our economy is healthy and government not misdirected.

In closing, the cattle industry in Canada wants to work closely with you as legislators to make the Canadian agriculture industry second to none in the world.

I thank you and look forward to your discussions.

· (1340)

The Chair: Thank you, John.

From the National Farmers' Union we have Peter Dowling.

Mr. Peter Dowling (Ontario Coordinator, National Farmers' Union): I farm in this area, and I welcome the opportunity to once again meet with the committee and perhaps generate some discussion, as I did the last time.

I want to start out by setting the scene a bit, from the NFU perspective, on just what the situation of agriculture is in Canada, and even around the world. Maybe some of you have heard this before, but we'll very quickly summarize some of the things we've been saying from our research over the years.

The first point is that there's a lot of emphasis on agrifood exports by our Canadian government these days. Normally I would have an overhead projector and show you the graph of how it looks, but I found this new technology that works pretty well for a lot of things in agriculture, and that's my left hand. I will use my index finger as the agrifood exports and my thumb as the realized net farm income. Notice how it dips as my thumb goes along.

Realized net farm incomes are declining over the years, and at the same time Canadian agrifood exports are exponentially increasing. So all this emphasis on exports has not been of benefit to farmers in general.

Who is benefiting from our current food system? If you look at commodity prices versus food prices, whether it's barley and beer, cornflakes and corn, pork chops and hogs, or bread and wheat, it's all the same--the farmers are getting about the same as they always have and the consumer prices are exponentially increasing over time.

What's happening with this money and where's it going? We did a little bit of a study not too long ago, looking at the gross farm incomes in Ontario versus the realized net farm incomes. Still using the same fingers, you have a steep increase in gross farm income over the years, with the same realized net farm income in the doldrums. Over the last 25 years, there has been something like $70 billion in difference between realized net farm income and gross farm income. That's really been extracted from our rural communities, because it's just an increase in costs for the same income.

So farmers aren't benefiting, and the system seems to be set up in a way that extracts resources from the rural communities.

So how do they do that? How does that happen? We look, for instance, at mergers, and corporate power seems to be soaring. Farmers seem to have less and less power in the marketplace.

We just released some information from a study that shows that mergers have exponentially increased in the last 10 years, so it's continuing. There are increased mergers among all the corporations that work around us. Those that sell stuff to us, those that buy stuff from us have a lot more market power than we do, and that is brought on by globalization.

Globalization seems to be really facilitating the idea of mergers, takeovers, alliances, and networks at the same time as the billion or so farmers around the world are being forced to compete head to head with each other. So there's some irony in that.

So with that as a thumbnail of where our research leads us, I'll mention a few things about where we think government needs to be involved in agriculture.

To start with, the involvement of young people in agriculture, the ability of young people to enter agriculture, came up in the last panel.

The NFU youth president raised this point in Guelph a couple of weeks ago. She asked this question: what kinds of farms do we want? And Martha said that answering that question will tell us whether we really want young people in agriculture.

So we have to decide what kinds of farms we want, and if we want young people involved, that has to be part of the equation.

Things like orderly marketing and supply management are really important when farmers don't have that much market power. It's a way of getting some more market power onto the farm.

We have concerns about food safety regulations. The experiences in Europe with hoof-and-mouth disease and BSE are experiences that occurred with a deregulated health and safety system. The Canadian government has been trying to deregulate health and safety in Canada, and we really need to study that before we go too much further on that.

· (1345)

The Chair: Thanks, Peter. I'm going to move on.

Mr. Albright, I'll call on you next. To vary our presentations, you're with the trading group, I understand.

Mr. Gerry Albright (Albright Trade Corporation): Yes. First of all, I wanted to come here today and listen, but through the offer of the chairman and members suggesting that I had something to say, perhaps it's a nice opportunity to say it.

I've been in the import-export trading business for some 20 years. I started in 1979 with the largest importer of cheese products in Canada. Subsequently, I got into moving more product out of the country than I did into the country.

So cheese exports are what I'm primarily going to speak about.

In terms of buying, I buy across Canada. I come from a background of family wheat farms in Saskatchewan, and I still have family members in the farming business, so please don't misunderstand me. I respect what goes on on the farms, but I have some grave concerns about which way it's going.

I don't agree with all the developments. The quota cost, the high cost of entry was mentioned. To me, it's going to self-destruct, and I think that has to be addressed by the industry. I think the Dairy Farmers of Canada--it's a legislated monopoly--have to be accountable for their actions.

In terms of export, we're now faced with the WTO panel having a definite impact on business. In fact, some Canadian trading companies are doing very well at buying product offshore and selling it offshore, and Canada's been left as a so-called incredible supplier, mainly because we don't know what our future is.

My buyers in the U.S. say, well, come back in the summer after this re-presentation of the facts. This is like going to the court. You can go back to the WTO and re-present the facts. If your evidence wasn't in on time or you didn't present enough, there's a loophole to allow you to go back and swing again. New Zealand and the U.S. have done this, so I've been lucky enough to be in on the Department of Foreign Affairs phone calls or the conference calls discussing it.

I think our team is doing a great job. But how many times do they go back to the same ball diamond and keep swinging or getting swung at, or whatever?

I hope it comes to an end because right now I'm in a holding pattern. My business is built on building business three or four months down the road for aged cheese. I'm at the point now of telling my suppliers, “We're in a holding pattern; tell the farmers to do what they like with the milk”. I can't commit myself because I won't get hung out on an export deal. That's my customers telling me they won't commit themselves unless I can give them firm prices and guarantees of supply.

On the EU, U.S.A., New Zealand subsidies, I had the benefit of running into Norval Francis III--he's the U.S. ag attaché in Ottawa--at a food show recently. We've had an ongoing discussion. About three years back, he attacked access to Canada. The quotas incoming to Canada are difficult, yes, but I threw it back in his face that my access to the U.S. is more compounded because they're product-specific and country-specific. So when my last opportunity came up, I had to ask him which part of the farm bill isn't subsidy. Again, it didn't fit the answer.

As far as the import business is concerned, I think the imports of cheese in Canada have done great justice to the industry in Canada. Having been in it since about 1979, we've seen a lot of cheeses produced in Canada now that never would have been introduced had it not been for the importers who lead the way. Now we've been stuck on certain quota for 28 years--no change. Mr. Vanclief has indicated there would be no change until the next world trade talks. I think Canada should be proactive on this and move to larger accesses. Work with the world. Don't be so protective because it can lead to bigger and better things.

As far as the consumption is concerned, we're still under 5%. But if we increase that, I think it will improve factory situations. There will be new cheeses introduced. I have a long list of people who would like to import cheese into Canada through me or through other companies--no access. This is Mr. Francis's frustration bringing U.S. exporters to Canada. They can't gain access, so they go back home.

On another point, a few months back I was at a fundraising dinner in Belleville. Mr. Tobin was present. He spoke well of industry--how great industry is in Canada--and I believe that's the case. But at the same time I found it contradictory to what I was seeing, where various factories are closing, creating unemployment and social cost in the process. Because we're protecting supply management and the legislative monopoly that's in place, certain influences are happening. Yes, I'm a taxpayer. It's happening to affect me personally now because of all the developments.

I don't have an answer, except that maybe supply management needs tweaking. It's a good thing in some areas, but I have some concerns about the way the boards are running things and maybe taking it down the road to....

As far as the export scenario, this is something that I could go into but without a whole list of facts.... As to the dairy farmers of Ontario, the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, the mechanism for export is separate from them, and if they don't stay out of it, it's very transparent. It's open to New Zealand and the U.S. to continue to say, well, it's not separate from supply management, it therefore is subsidized. So these guys just have to learn to stay out of it.

As far as the future on the WTO, I can only ask our government to be proactive, be on the offensive, put the facts to them, because they're putting them to us.

Thank you.

· (1350)

The Chair: Thank you, Gerry.

Now Richard Kidd from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.

Mr. Richard Kidd (Ontario Cattlemen's Association): Good afternoon. I'm a beef producer in Lanark County. I'm on the executive of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, which represents 25,000 beef producers in the province.

I'd like to talk about four key issues today: environment, including water and nutrient issues; food safety; farm income; and our working relationship with government.

Environment. While always a concern to society, awareness around the impact of agriculture on the environment has been greatly heightened by the events in Walkerton. This tragedy was in fact caused by years of ignoring warnings and by human error. To those wishing a simple answer, however, agricultural production played a significant role. Society in general now views agriculture through a difference lens.

For several years now Ontario agriculture has been calling for provincial legislation on nutrient management standards, related to nutrient management. Beef standards, when brought in, will have a significant financial impact on Ontario producers. Only by setting equivalent standards of production on product imported from outside Ontario with those from within Ontario will there be a level playing field. This is critical to the survival of the domestic agricultural industry.

A significant issue facing the beef industry is that of cattle access to waterways. If fencing of all waterways is made mandatory, provincial beef cowherds would reduce significantly. Fencing is not necessary in every situation or economically viable. OCA has been very active on this issue. We have funded research impacting on cattle access. We have spoken on the issue to raise producers' awareness. We have developed best management practices for buffer strips on farms. Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and provincial ministries must recognize the impact of simplistic regulations. We'll be working with the industry toward realistic solutions.

The environmental farm plan program has been very successful, yet it faces an uncertain future. OCA supports the environmental farm plan program and the requirement for all Ontario farmers to complete environmental farm plans. The environmental farm plan program holds the potential of becoming the umbrella program for the requirements facing all producers. It should become national in scope, comprehensive in nature, and permanently funded. Commitment by provincial and federal government levels is needed.

Assistance is available to landowners interested in water protection; however, availability tends to be county-specific. A program is needed to assist all landowners to make changes as needed to protect water quality. The Ontario Ministry of Environment estimates there are 100,000 abandoned wells in Ontario. This represents a serious threat to aquifers and must be addressed. Funding should be provided to assist landowners in identifying and properly closing up abandoned wells.

Food safety has moved down the food supply chain to the source of the product. Ontario farm food safety programs are being developed for all commodities. OCA is actively involved in the development and implementation of such a program. Implementation will be much easier for those commodities that have legislative powers and field staff already in place. There will need to be specific government assistance, both federal and provincial, for those commodity organizations that do not have resources to implement such programs.

One challenge to implementation of the on-farm food safety program is the lack of data that exists for agriculture in general. While some commodities have an excellent database of producers, others do not.

There is also the challenge animal agriculture in Ontario has with regard to identifying outbreaks of foreign animal disease. A database of farms needs to be created, preferably GIF formatted. Both on-farm food safety programs and GIF databases need to be funded by governments currently, but the ongoing cost and maintenance to keep these programs going also need to be funded.

· (1355)

The Chair: Are you nearly done?

Mr. Richard Kidd: Yes, I'm skipping.

There are many issues facing individual producers, commodity organizations, and agriculture in general. All involved in agriculture, including government, need to agree on and work together toward a vision that will allow agriculture to thrive. Such a vision will require the sharing of resources and improved communications.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Richard.

From the Canadian Organic Growers, we have Mr. Doug Parker.

Mr. Doug Parker (Representative, Prince Edward County Chapter, Canadian Organic Growers): Good afternoon. I'm Doug Parker, a certified organic farmer. I represent the Prince Edward County chapter of Canadian Organic Growers. We appreciate this opportunity to present our concerns to you on the future of agriculture in Canada.

Last year, a certified organic field of mine was contaminated by a neighbour seeding an adjacent field from the air with chemically treated seeds. I made an inquiry to the normal farm practices board, “Could we prevent this from happening again?” The board's response was clear: no. This is normal farm practice, they said, and therefore it is protected. We believe this local experience illustrates the larger reality of current agricultural policy in Canada.

As far as we are concerned, this is the only viable future for agriculture in Canada. Organic seed, in this case, spilt from my own farm. The practice of organic growing is rooted in a close cooperative relationship between humanity, the earth, and food. We believe in working with nature, not against it. We believe that healthy soil is absolutely essential to healthy food.

Consider some of the forces that currently threaten our soils, as well as our water, our farms, our communities, and even our lives. First, normal farm practices legislation protects such practices as run-off pesticides and raw manure into creeks, wells, and groundwater. How many Walkertons will it take before we catch on?

Urban sewage sludge is being spread as fertilizer on farmland, 300,000 tonnes a year in Ontario alone. It may introduce into soil and water any or all of the following: viruses, parasites, heavy metals, PCBs, dioxins, furans, antibiotics, hormones, other drugs, and toxic gases.

Factory farms are growing fast in most provinces. These industrial operations threaten land, water, air, smaller farms, and rural communities.

Chemicals. In Canada, the current approach is to approve pesticide products unless they can be definitively proved to be harmful. This tends to happen only when people get sick or die. Given the choice, most Canadians would not choose to be guinea pigs. Research clearly shows that prolonged and/or intensive use of chemicals on the soil weakens soil structure and reduces fertility.

Genetic pollution. Across the prairies, genetically engineered canola has become an invasive menace. On Prince Edward Island, the location of test spots for genetically modified wheat have been kept so secret that other farmers, citizens, and apparently even the provincial agriculture minister himself, have been kept in the dark.

Lack of effective controls. The federal ministry responsible for food safety in Canada has already spent more than $3 million to convince us that genetically engineered foods are safe. But no one knows that they are safe. We do know that thalidomide was declared safe until children were born without limbs.

The ministry responsible for food safety aggressively promotes GE foods. This is a fundamental and unacceptable conflict of interest. At least two Health Canada scientists who raised questions about GE safety, Dr. Shiv Chopra and Dr. Margaret Haydon, were gagged by federal bureaucrats, most notoriously in the case of bovine growth hormone

With the defeat last year of a private member's bill calling for compulsory labelling of products containing GE substances, our elected representatives effectively denied Canadians the right to make that choice for themselves.

We offer these recommendations. First, the concept of normal farm practices needs to be redefined. It should not protect polluters nor people who violate the right of others to make a living by organic farming.

Second, the precautionary principle should prevail. Until they can be proven safe for the foreseeable future, innovations are to be considered unsafe. No further experiments of GE crops should be permitted. We call for the immediate removal of any genetically engineered wheat crops anywhere in Canada and a comprehensive ban on any further planting.

We call for clear mandatory labelling on all products containing genetically engineered substances. We call for the replacement of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with a new arm's-length, adequately funded, public agency that is independent of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

We believe that long-term food security depends not on ever-increasing exports but on local, regional, and national self-sufficiency. This can be achieved only by adequate support for farmers working on a moderate scale where direct relationship with the soil is still possible.

More specifically, we believe that organic farming merits effective federal and provincial support for the following: programs to train farmers in conversion to organic practices; subsidies for the transition period; peer support programs; apprenticeship and agricultural college programs; adequately funded research into appropriate methods; seed breeding programs for regional ecosystems.

¸ (1400)

These recommendations are quite basic. There are successful models for all of them, mostly in Europe.

To conclude, we came here today to add our voices to others calling for fundamental change in the way farming is practised in this country. We believe the choices we make today will not only shape the future of agriculture in Canada, but in fact may actually determine whether it even has a future for generations to come. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Parker.

Now we have individuals. Please just give us a little background of who you represent or your farm activity.

I'll begin with Helen Forsey.

Ms. Helen Forsey (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I'm here as an individual, but I was mistakenly listed on the program as representing an organization.

I worked on a farm when I was 17. That was many years ago, and I guess I've been a wannabe farmer since then. I have friends who farm. I graduated in agriculture from Macdonald College in the 1960s, and I've worked in South America and the Caribbean as well as in Canada. I've also been in farming, sort of part-time, for about seven years. I'm a writer and I do some work for the National Farmers Union.

I just wanted to note that I don't see a lot of women here, either on the committee or among the people presenting. I would suggest that as far as witnesses are concerned, certainly many of the farm women I know are either at home this week with the kids or off with the kids somewhere during March break, or else they're looking after the farm while their husbands are doing some of the other things. It's not that I represent the women of Canada in speaking here today, but I do kind of feel an onus on me to mention those who are absent and are every bit as much involved in producing food and in processing it and eating it as any of the rest of you.

I want to quickly say I very much appreciate many of the points that have been made this morning, particularly in this panel by Mr. Lee and Mr. Dowling and Mr. Parker. I won't spend my time repeating the things they were saying.

I want to point out that it isn't only farmers who are saying these things. This is not a question of rural versus urban or of farmers versus non-farmers. The issues we're talking about here today, just about any of them that have come up, break down in another way, and that is between people, women and men, who care about people and communities and about the land and the water and the air and the animals, who operate from a basis of respect, and people or interests or entities that have a corporate mentality that cares about profit, mainly short-term profit, I might add. When you look at the dividing lines that way, the other questions of definition of what's a family farm and what's sustainable and all these other things, become clearer.

The mentality that lacks respect, the mentality that focuses on profit and money and competitiveness in that narrow economic sense, is fertilized by language and by propaganda, not least that of the federal government and other governments. Language is a very powerful tool. It can put your thinking into a box, and then you can't see out.

An example, one of the more subtle and perhaps least obnoxious but one that's still there, is referring to agriculture, to farming, as an industry or, even more so, the industry. I'm sorry, but food is a basic human right. Food, like health care or health services, is a human right. It's something we need to live.

¸ (1405)

What farmers produce is not just another commodity; it is the stuff of life, along with water and air. To refer to agriculture as the industry already sets the scene for the corporate industrial type of agriculture, whether it's done by a particular family who have bought into that line, unfortunately, or whether it's done by a distant company with shareholders sitting in apartments or office towers somewhere.

Another example of how language is distorted and used by governments and by industry, properly speaking, by big corporations, as a tool for their purposes--they have all the money and can hire all the lawyers and wordsmiths they want in order to put this stuff across--is to describe biotechnology, the genetic manipulation that is generally, among the ordinary people, known as biotechnology...to try to fool us by saying that beer and bread...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...biotechnology that has been going on for years. I'm sorry, that is not what people ordinarily understand, and it's not what we mean when we talk about it.

I really resent my government, again and again, in print and in words, trying to convince me it's something it isn't. When we're talking about biotechnology and criticizing it, the opponents of that kind of biotechnology are talking about gene manipulation. So, please!

¸ (1410)

Mr. Rendell, in one of the earlier panels, suggested that government should be providing information on agriculture to non-farmers. Well, I think we non-farmers need a lot more information on agriculture--there's an immense amount that we don't know about agriculture--but I hope it's not the same people who have been telling us about so-called biotechnology, at immense cost, as Mr. Parker pointed out, who are going to be trying to tell us about agriculture.

There's resistance to this kind of mispropaganda. I've been very inspired by the examples I saw in Ecuador a year ago, when I went back after 30 years. People in Ecuador are still planting corn, bean, and squash together in the same field. They've been told that's not the progressive way to do it; they should have monocultures. They have resisted that and kept on doing their planting. I was very encouraged by that. There are more and more people, both farmers and non-farmers, here in Canada who are seeing that the way to go is not this bigger is better, more and more industrialized, more and more chemical.... They are seeing that's not the answer and are trying to find a better way.

Thank you, by the way, for letting me say this on this occasion--not like a year ago in April, when I was tear-gassed and attacked by my own government for saying similar things. Thank you.

¸ (1415)

The Chair: Well, Helen, the genetics are coming out and maybe this is--

Ms. Helen Forsey: --conventional breeding.

The Chair: --a constitution for agriculture. Your genes, I guess, were your father's, so I'm saying genetics are coming out.

Mr. Larry Wannamaker.

Mr. Larry Wannamaker (Lennox and Addington Community Economic Development Coalition Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure to be here. I thought when I registered I had mentioned I was representing the Economic Development Coalition Committee of the county. That wasn't put down, but I guess I'm here speaking on Lennox and Addington County agriculture.

To give a little bit of history, I live on a farm five miles south of here that my mom and dad bought in 1944. Mary and I have raised four children. To date, we have six grandchildren and two more are on the way this year. Our adult children have chosen other fields of work, for various reasons.

I would like to express a thank you to Larry for bringing this committee here and to the rest of this committee for taking the time to come to Napanee and Lennox and Addington County. I hope when you leave you'll have a day to remember here in the county and in Napanee.

I'm here because I have concerns about the declining number of farms and the declining number of young people getting into agriculture. I have taken a few figures on the economic impacts of agriculture out of the economic study that was done last year by Harry Cummings and his colleagues. These figures are a little out of date because they were done in 1996, but the trend continues. For every farm job in the county, there's an additional 1.7 jobs. For every dollar in farm sales, there's an additional $1.90 in related businesses.

In Lennox and Addington County, from 1991 to 1996, the receipts were $43 million in this county, up 4% in that timeframe. The expenses were up 8%. So you see the problem in agriculture. In this county of Lennox and Addington, the largest industry is farming and the largest employer is farming, but it's very disheartening. When our government was asked last year for extra funding for agriculture because of two bad years, we were told there was no money for agriculture. But within a very short period of time a very large amount of money was given to a large corporation to help win an export contract for their products. The agriculture industry cannot have more money, but you can vote yourself a very large pay increase without opposition.

I have a message for Mr. Vanclief. He says that cash crop farmers must be doing all right because the majority are not withdrawing from their NISA account. Well let me tell you that when I was in supply management I couldn't have a NISA account. Now that I'm in a beef and cash crop, there's never been enough money to start one.

You can put your head in the sand and say that there will always be farmers and agriculture, but this is not a very positive position to take in this free market world of easy access to cheap imported food.

Onions are already being trucked into the Toronto food terminal from south Texas and Mexico. Why can they truck onions 2,000 miles more cheaply than Canada can grow them? Do you know the chemicals that were used and the additives that were used on those products when they were grown? I'm sure you don't.

I thought very long and hard about coming here today because I figured it would probably be strictly a waste of time. I could spend my time better at home looking after the new business we started a year and a half ago.

The perception in agriculture is that government does not care and it will not take a stand on major issues against our large trading partners. Farmers are concerned about the public perception of them. Politicians need to voice support for agriculture and not just listen to the voices of negativity via faxes, e-mails, and media.

With environment issues controlling agriculture in the future, we need political support in all levels of government, from municipal councillors all the way to the provincial and federal levels. When I mention provincial and federal governments, I wish you would quit bickering back and forth and blaming each other because there are different party politics.

Farmers need to be listened to, and not just when things are going bad. Farmers, too, need to stand up and tell politicians their side of the story. In the past, farmers have been too busy working their land and making a decent living for their family to take time to do something like this.

Farmers have been forced into getting bigger in animal units and crop numbers because of the rising costs. This is causing a major concern with people, especially in this area...they view intensive agriculture or wrongly labelled factory farms coming in.

Also, on factory farms, it was mentioned earlier about DFO inspectors coming in. I was one of those four fellows who received one of those registered letters in the mail that said, “You either get your cattle out of the creek or we'll fine you $300,000”. So I've been there.

In ending, I challenge politicians not to walk around agricultural issues but to confront them, and also to ask the grassroots for help and input, not just government advisers and heads of major corporations because they make a bigger donation. Thank you.

¸ (1420)

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

Mr. Piercy, I'll be with you in just a minute.

Is there anyone else in the hall who wants to make a presentation?

Harold Piercy.

Mr. Harold Piercy (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been a farmer and a market gardener in this area for over 40 years. The weather conditions we've had in the last few years have been very severe and very hard for us to deal with.

Two years ago our problems started with hail, which ruined 90% of my early tomatoes, followed by cold, wet weather, resulting in delayed maturity and more diseases than I've ever seen before.

The OFA organized meetings with the politicians, hoping they would understand how bad the farmers were hurting. We had lots of speeches about how other things like health care were more important than agriculture, so we got nowhere.

Last spring the weather was dry, but with the help of irrigation our crops looked fairly good, until the end of June when the hot weather really set in. Pumpkins were small and many had small blossom ends from the lack of moisture.

The general economy was worse than the previous year. No one was concerned with crop conditions, so no attempt was made by the OFA to hold meetings with the government last year.

With another uncertain growing season approaching, it seems unlikely anyone will take us seriously until many of us are out of business. At that time, people will wonder why food is getting scarce and more expensive and where all the farmers went. That time will likely be here soon, and if you would like to have enough food to eat, I have something to give you today that may be of some help to you.

You can grow a portion of your food in your own backyard. A hoe is good at making furrows to put your seeds in and cover them. Since every shovelful of soil in Ontario contains weed seeds, the hoe can be used to work around your plants to dig out young weeds, hill potatoes, etc. It is environmentally friendly. But after the first day's use, you are apt to have blisters. Don't worry too much about the pain, for it will likely go away in four or five days, and from then on your skin will be tougher and won't blister. It's the consumer who needs to be concerned.

¸ (1425)

The Chair: Well, Harold, when we go into the station tonight in Ottawa with these over our shoulders....

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's a good thing we're not flying tonight.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think, Harold, as you have a number of politicians here, a shovel would have been more appropriate.

The Chair: Speak for yourself.

I see they're good and sharp. It's hard to get one--

Mr. Harold Piercy: But if you have stones in your garden, it would be good to have a file in your back pocket.

Mr. Larry McCormick: There are no stones in his riding, of course.

The Chair: They're good quality and we appreciate that, Harold. We'll have to check on Dick's crop next summer, to see how he makes out.

Mr. Harold Piercy: You have a potato, I think.

The Chair: I have a potato and all kinds of things. My gosh, I'm going to be well served.

So we've heard all the presentations. Howard, would you like to begin the questions?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Maybe David would like to lead off this time.

The Chair: David's going to lead off. Good.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Lee, one of your suggestions was that we needed some long-term third-party studies on the effects of GM. Would you consider the European Union to be a good third party to do that?

Mr. Ormond Lee: I've heard they just came out with a study that identified some GMOs as being safe. I haven't had an opportunity to investigate where and exactly how that study was done, who did it, and what GMOs they were looking at.

Mr. David Anderson: I understand they were looking at the safety of GMO food products over a 15-year term. Their conclusion was that those products were as safe or safer than the original non-GMO plants they were testing. So that might be a study for you to look at that would have some validity.

I'd like to talk to Mr. Morrison a bit about Bill C-5. The committee did a lot of work over the fall on Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. You have opposed it in the past. It went through committee, where they did a lot of work and made the changes. They heard 127 witnesses. I understand over 300 amendments were made to the bill. It was brought back to the House. The minister gutted it and resubmitted his bill, basically in its original form.

I'm just wondering which one of those two bills you support. Are you aware there's been a big change in the bill?

Mr. John Morrison: I'm going to refer that question to my chief adviser here.

Mr. Jim Caldwell (Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Cattlemen's Association): We prefer the last one, the final draft that was put through.

Mr. David Anderson: Do you mean the one that went through the committee or the one the minister brought back?

Mr. Jim Caldwell: I believe it's the one the minister brought down.

Mr. John Morrison: In short, we support a program or a bill that will compensate fairly for lands that are taken out of production because of endangered species.

Mr. David Anderson: The bill presently clearly does not do that. The minister has also said it will take them up to four or five years to determine what the parameters of that compensation-type thing will be. They're also limited to about $45 million to $50 million to apply to that bill.

I think agricultural organizations need to take a serious look at supporting that bill. It's going to be very dangerous and foolhardy for our farm community to support that bill.

Mr. Jim Caldwell: I agree with what John is saying, but the cattlemen are concerned you may lose the bill altogether because of the opposition on the other side, not necessarily from within government but from extremists. There's no way you could get a species at risk bill that would be supported by all these groups.

Mr. David Anderson: Are you aware of how many pages of animals are listed right now on that list? The Speaker had the good fortune one day to read them through as we were dealing with amendments. There are seven double-sided pages presently on that list.

¸ (1430)

Mr. Jim Caldwell: It may be, but we are concerned about losing the bill totally, or the idea of the bill. We're concerned that the next time it comes, it could be a lot worse for the cattle industry.

Mr. John Morrison: I have one more comment. We're concerned that the endangered species list must be based on sound science and not just the whim of some biologist. It has to be sound, science-based....

Mr. David Anderson: As I understand it, the bill that came back now is leaving that final decision to the politicians, not to the scientists. Maybe you'll want to check that a bit.

Mr. Dowling, you talked about the $70 billion that's been lost in farm revenue. That basically goes up the food chain and the farmers don't get it. That's interesting. That's one of the best arguments I've ever heard for voluntary marketing. In the area I come from, we need opportunity to begin to process some of our products, to bring them up that chain a bit and to be able to do something with them. I'm just wondering if you have a comment on that. We may be at odds on this.

Mr. Peter Dowling: Yes, we may. I find it is one of the best arguments for collective marketing too, cooperative marketing, such as supply management boards and, dare I say, the Canadian Wheat Board. They have enough volume and enough infrastructure to meet demand around the world for specific types of wheat in this case.

Mr. David Anderson: I find it interesting that your position has been fairly consistently that you want smaller communities to strengthen themselves, that you want it to come back to the local communities, food self-sufficiency and economic self-sufficiency in those small communities. That is one of the best ways we could have to ensure that. I just want you to think about that.

Did you want to answer that before I go back to Jim? I don't want to cut you off.

Mr. Peter Dowling: Well, we support that idea too. Maybe 50% of our members are organic producers who have pretty close contacts with people in their community who eat their food, for example.

Mr. David Anderson: Back to the cattlemen, do you have a position on regionalization with the CFIA, dividing the country into regions to protect us if there's a problem with disease and that kind of thing?

Mr. John Morrison: It's something that's being talked about, regionalization within Canada, a way of quarantining or corralling a disease in case of disease outbreak. Yes, there's a need to do something like that eventually.

Mr. David Anderson: Do you think that needs to move fairly quickly, or are you taking a fairly slow approach to that?

Mr. John Morrison: I think the quicker the better, with the foot and mouth disease that's going on around the world. If there's a disease outbreak in New Brunswick, for example, we in the west don't want to be restricted from carrying on business. It needs to be regionalized to be able to take care of those kinds of disasters.

Mr. David Anderson: From what you know of that, do you think that will protect us internationally as far as trade restrictions go? Is that an effective way of doing that?

Mr. John Morrison: It will certainly go a long way. There's no doubt about that.

Mr. Ormond Lee: Can I ask Mr. Anderson a question?

The Chair: No, we're not here to answer questions. Sorry about that.

Mr. Ormond Lee: Sure, okay.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I'll stay with Mr. Morrison for a moment.

Three weeks ago today we were in Davidson, Saskatchewan, and we heard from the dean at the veterinary college, who was very concerned about the lack of veterinarians in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I had some follow-up correspondence from him, and he says there are now about 30 vacant positions. The reason for that is that the starting salary is simply too low. It's at $45,000, and most of these young people are emerging from one of the four colleges with debts in excess of $50,000.

So when you say we need financial resources and we need to work with government as a partner, I'm hoping the Cattlemen's Association is bringing that to the attention of the CFIA and the ministry.

Mr. John Morrison: Yes, we have, and we certainly continue to. There are vacant spaces in CFIA. They are not moving as fast with some of the projects as we'd like them to, particularly the animal disease assessment with the regionalization and the United States. Those kinds of things aren't moving nearly fast enough. Of course, if we don't get this into place pretty darn quick, we're going to see another countervail action from the United States. It's imperative that we hurry and get these things done, and we need more staff in CFIA to get these things done. You're absolutely right; that's something we do bring to the forefront often.

Mr. Dick Proctor: We're hearing about the Americans raising their heads again about country of origin and labelling on the red meat industry. No doubt you're taking a strong position against that. What exactly are you doing?

¸ (1435)

Mr. John Morrison: We've been working with our counterparts in the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. We have legal representation in Washington, D.C., and we communicate regularly with them.

We just returned from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Denver, which is our counterpart down there, and we were able to sow the seeds of doubt within the minds of some. They elected to go with a voluntary system, rather than mandatory. So that was a major step and a good thing for us.

Mr. Jim Caldwell: Might I add though, Dick, that does not mean that the legislators may not push ahead this whole idea of food security and security in the United States. They still may want to do it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right. Thanks for that.

Rick and I were talking when you were making your presentation. You said we're the third largest exporter of beef. We were trying to guess which one is second.

Mr. John Morrison: I believe the United States is first, Australia is second, and we're third. I think that's the way it is.

Mr. Dick Proctor: We were thinking South America, not Australia.

Mr. John Morrison: South America is not doing a lot of exporting right now, with their foot-and-mouth problems.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I wanted to quickly get Mr. Lee's opinion. You mentioned, sir, infrastructure for local produce as something we should be doing. Could you expand on that and tell me what it is you have in mind there?

Mr. Ormond Lee: We were thinking of beef centralization in general, of food production, and, again, having local dairies, having local bakeries, having local grain mills, so people know where their food is coming from, who is growing it, and what's in it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Incidentally, we lost Macdonalds Consolidated a few years ago in the Regina area, which meant that all the produce that comes into the Safeway stores in Saskatchewan now comes from Alberta. When we were in western Canada--I think it was in B.C.--we were told that they're closing Macdonalds Consolidated in Alberta. Now all the food coming into the prairies, I guess, or at least Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, will come from Denver, Colorado.

So we really need to be concerned. As one of the people said, we don't think our fruit and vegetables should collect air miles.

Mr. Ormond Lee: Good point.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Jim, we met in Ottawa, probably about six years ago. We're all components of the beef sector. We're drawn together, along with the minister. At that time, TRQs were the issue. As a result of that meeting, I believe there were further meetings where the industry sat down and worked out some of the differences. You might want to tell us a little bit about the experience of that time and how TRQs are working today. Has government learned from that experience, or have you learned from it?

Mr. Jim Caldwell: That was a memorable period, because that was probably one of the worst meetings I was ever at in my life, when we had all these factions, with the processors against the producers and everyone fighting with each other. Thank God, they've got over that. We are all working together now as much as possible. We now sit down regularly with the packing industry, with the processors, further processors, anyone who can.... We've had seminars, all these kinds of things, with government people involved as well.

The TRQs, are they working? Our TRQ is 76,409 tonnes. We're importing in excess of probably about 116,000. So from that, from the 79,000 up to 116,000 is all second-level quota. We've never refused anyone to bring beef into the country.

We do get concerned when we get this amount, because the Americans start looking at it and saying, “Well, you guys, are you trying to ship through Canada into the United States?” One cure for that is high beef prices, and we've had reasonable prices over the last couple of years. But certainly they're keeping an eye on it, and it's something we're concerned about.

We talk about TRQs or quotas in the beef industry. We don't talk in the same tone as we do in the dairy or the poultry industry. But the industry is working much better than it used to.

Mr. Steckle, while we're on this, we've had people on the panel talk about profit. I don't think we can exist without having a profit at some stage of the game. I don't think profit is necessarily a dirty word. If we don't have profit, if the producers aren't making a profit.... I remember George Morris of the George Morris Centre. Someone got up at a beef meeting one time and said “I haven't made any money in the beef industry for 25 years.” George said “I'd be embarrassed to get up and say that.”

Certainly, there have to be profits at all levels in order for the industry to succeed.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I thank you, Jim, for that. I think we've been apologetic as farmers for saying we haven't been profiting in the farming business. We should never apologize for saying that. We should always be in a position where we should be proud to pay income taxes.

I want to direct my questioning now to Mr. Albright. You talk about cheese. I have a small cheese plant in my riding, and I know how important that little plant is to my particular area. I'm not quite sure I clearly understand the dilemma you're in.

Do you want us to resort to the mechanisms the Americans have in terms of their milk production, where they pay $19 a hundredweight one quarter and then down to $13? Is that the kind of industry you want here in Canada? Who is losing out on this? Is it the farmers who are losing out, or is it the middle people, like yourselves, who are in the import-export business? Where are we losing out in Canada because we have a supply management sector?

¸ (1440)

Mr. Gerry Albright: I think it's coming to a crunch at the sales and marketing side because without that nothing's going to move behind it.

The U.S. system is not perfect, and I'm not saying the Canadian system has perfection either. It's something that has to be tweaked. I'm not sure I have the answers. There is no ideal scenario as long as there are subsidies undercutting a level playing field.

Mr. Paul Steckle: There isn't a great deal of point in producing milk at world price levels to supply Nestlé a product at below our cost of production. What's the point of that? We just finished talking about the beef industry and admitting that we're making a profit. I think dairy farmers would agree, because they have a secure system in the supply management. How we deal with quotas and how we transfer it to another generation is another issue. That's something they have to look at. I think government has to work with them on that.

As far as the industry is concerned, you can't always have it both ways. You can't have both a domestic and an export market in some cases. I believe that's probably true both in the poultry and in the other sectors. We're not paying any more for milk products in Canada than the Americans are, where they do not have that system. Or are we paying more for poultry products as well? Both of those industries have comparably priced product available to the consumer at adequate and safe supply levels. I think that's important. I realize you may be in a business where that's affected, but I think there are more people, probably, who are possibly affected by that, although you may disagree with me.

Mr. Gerry Albright: I think the transparency of it is going to cause some concerns. We have $63 milk, $63 per hectolitre. It's fairly open that people are quite willing to sell their milk at $22. People in my business are saying where's the spread. Who is happy at what level? What is the cost of production?

Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't think there's a farmer in this country who is willing to sell milk at $22. I don't agree with you.

Mr. Gerry Albright: It's happening now in the export mechanism. It's very open on the--

Mr. Paul Steckle: I know, but they don't want to. They want to sell their milk at $63 or whatever the price is. They don't want to sell milk for $13 U.S. either, but they are because they're forced to.

The fact is the end consumer product is priced right. Why are we trying to undermine that system? I'm not a dairy producer, so I have no vested interest in it. I have friends in the dairy industry, and I'm happy to call them my friends, because they're doing quite well, thank you, and they don't come to see me very often because of their problems either.

The Chair: Thanks Paul.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to Mr. Morrison, you said in your presentation--and I've heard this before certainly from cattle producers, and legitimately so--you're obviously dependent on trade, so you don't want to have any distortions, and you certainly don't want any countervail or anything like R-CALF. But you also said the cattle producers don't want any subsidies or any assistance. Does that include NISA as well? Would you consider that to be an unfair subsidy at the present time?

Mr. John Morrison: NISA is something that makes us nervous. It's supposed to be trade neutral. We don't believe it is. We believe that if we are faced with another countervail from the United States, that's one of the things they'll look at.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We've heard from most of the panels before us in the past weeks that most of the grains and oilseeds producers, particularly, would like to see an enhanced NISA program. Do you see an enhanced NISA program? Some of those enhancements, by the way, would be to improve the contribution from 3% to perhaps 4% or 5%, inclusive of the government contribution. Would you see that as being a danger with respect to the cattle producers?

Mr. John Morrison: Yes, most definitely. Our friends south of the border are looking for ways to restrict movement of product and cattle south. If that's one of the things they can use, they will use that eventually. We're nervous about that, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Could you help me? What are the percentages of your exports right now from cattle to the United States, and what would the value of those exports be?

Mr. John Morrison: Of our exports, 80% goes to the United States.

As to the value, would you have a number on that, Jim?

Mr. Jim Caldwell: It's over $3 billion now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think 80% of what's exported goes to the U.S. About 50% of your production is exported.

Mr. Jim Caldwell: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'll now go to Peter from the NFU. You said there's no need for exports. You've given us this wonderful finger and thumb and said there's no value in this because right now having exports just seems to be subsidizing food costs somewhere else. We now have been told that exports have a value of over $3 billion for cattle producers. So how do you explain that finger and thumb?

¸ (1445)

Mr. Peter Dowling: What I'm talking about with my finger and thumb is the increase in exports over a long period of time versus the realized net farm income, which is really what we're talking about. If anybody is concerned about farm income, they should be looking at the realized net farm income.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you suggesting that the cattle producers don't have any increase in realized net farm income?

Mr. Peter Dowling: Our figures would be an average, so you would have highs and lows.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm trying to get a handle on this. Are you saying that perhaps exports are necessary?

Mr. Peter Dowling: In general, farmers do not benefit from exports over the long term.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think you'd probably get an argument from the cattle producers on that one.

Let's go to organic. Larry, you made a comment about how the declining number of young people in agriculture is a serious problem, and that has been echoed by a number of people. First of all, Larry, in your opinion, what could be put in place to try to assist young people to get back into the industry?

¸ (1450)

Mr. Larry Wannamaker: I don't have all the answers, and I've been mulling this over for many years. On your question of Kevin MacLean, Kevin's is probably an ideal situation, and there are very few ideal situations.

Some young people don't want to work that hard for that little amount of money. Some young people see how hard their parents work and don't want to have to work that hard. I'm not sure how we solve that problem, but unless we make a concerted effort to solve it, the industry will continually go down.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Taking that theme to Mr. Parker, you seem to think--and I agree with you--there's a real opportunity there on the organic side of it. What percentage of the food produced now is organic? Are you attracting young people into the farming family on the organic side of the business?

Mr. Doug Parker: The answer to your second question is yes, we are, partly because they are idealistic and see their activity in a very positive way. So they are comfortable, in that sense, with themselves and philosophically.

Secondly, they have found there are local markets.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What percentage of food production right now is organic?

Mr. Doug Parker: I have only heard figures of 20%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Whoa. You're saying of all the food production in Canada, 20% is organic?

Mr. Doug Parker: No. I'm not saying that. I'm not going to answer that question. I don't know the answer to that question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. You did say, however, I believe, that a lot of the organics are being imported right now.

Mr. Doug Parker: Yes, that is a concern.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you tell me what percentage of organics purchased in Canada would be imported?

Mr. Doug Parker: I cannot.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, fair ball.

Mr. Doug Parker: But I can answer one part of that question. Because the large retailers are importing organic goods from California, New Zealand, and so on, they are not interested in buying from local producers. So how do you break this chain of the large, let's say, A&P buying only from huge producers, who probably sell them products for less? That is the problem.

The local A&P in Picton, where I live, is not interested in buying my organic products. There is a small retailer in Picton who is very interested and does so.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's interesting. That's a new twist. We haven't heard about the imported organics coming to the large retailers. Again, I'd like to have some numbers, if I could, on the consumption of organic food here in Canada.

Peter, do you have a handle on that?

¸ (1455)

Mr. Peter Dowling: No, I don't. I can ask around on that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'll ask around on it.

Mr. Peter Dowling: Sure. You guys get the research budget.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Obviously, there's a huge market, as you're saying, and it's growing all the time. If you can get into the A&Ps, then you're going to have more distribution networks. But how you get into that is an interesting question. I think we'll have to delve into that one as well.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to ask Mr. Piercy a question. I did raise some onions and strawberries, and I have had blisters. I would like him to tell us if he belongs to any organization, because I'm really concerned that our market gardeners and people like that, who I buy from at the farm gate, are falling through the cracks with their programs.

I walked by Ms. Forsey and said that I was going to confess to her that I have used the story of the cheese and the beer with regard to GMOs. I'll try not to do so again. Why I have done that is probably because the other side of the equation has said to me--and they also say it on the street and in the market--that yes, there are fifth genes in those new GMO tomatoes, which is false.

Let me talk about this mandatory labelling bill in Ottawa. I, together with the cooperation of other people, led an effort to defeat it, and here's why. We have parliamentarians here from almost all parties. We have never yet passed a bill in the House of Commons that we couldn't enforce. We can't make a law we can't enforce.

Mr. David Anderson: What about the one on firearms registration?

Mr. Larry McCormick: If we were going to stay for another day, we probably could talk about Bill C-68. It is the only bill the Prime Minister will let you refer to by number rather than name. There's an inside story there.

The other day Mr. Calder, who is not with us today, said that ultimately consumers will decide. We're moving in that direction. There's voluntary labelling. Today you can label your food genetically-modified-free. People are doing it. At home I have a bag of potatoes from B.C. You can find it, including for beer in Quebec. I was the first person to say that in the House of Commons. Yes, you have to be able to prove to what extent it is GMO-free. We have tests available to tell whether the wheat, oats, or corn are GMO-free, even though corn is used in a lot of different ways.

I don't know if my daughter got me a ticket to go to Quebec tomorrow, but if we get on the train tonight, there is no test that will tell us whether or not the pizza we order has GMO in it. There's not a test available in the world today. There may be tomorrow. I just wanted to clarify that.

I also want to mention that we regularly have women on this committee. One is in the hospital having a hip replacement and the other one's husband had a health problem. So we'll just mention that.

Helen, you brought up the subject of profit. My colleague Paul said, “I know how we can get youth back into farming: make it profitable again”.

I think we should let you clarify your comments on profit before I ask Peter why he's against exporting organic. The Nova Scotia college was given $900,000 of taxpayers' money so that we could help organic foods and help them to be exported as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Helen Forsey: Thank you very much, Larry.

I realized that even though I consider myself to be a professional communicator, I had really messed up on this one about profit. Sorry about that. I think the NFU would never contract me for anything again if I were against farmers making a profit.

I think we should have two separate words for profit. One should be the legitimate profit that a small business person or somebody working on contract, such as myself or a farmer, makes as a return on their labour and management and to help cover their inevitable risks. That I have no problem with whatsoever.

I do have a problem with profit that is excessive, for one thing, but also goes to people who have had nothing to do with producing whatever it is that's being produced or providing the service that's being provided. That is the corporate model where you have shareholders sitting in fancy apartments or boardrooms raking in the profits and calling up their broker and checking on who has made what kind of profit. It's a form of gambling. It's a form of something for nothing.

We have a government in this province that says the people on welfare are getting something for nothing so we have to chop it down. Well, If ever there were an example of something for nothing, it's playing the stock market. I object to that kind of profit. I'm not objecting to the profit people make from their labour and the sensible management of resources for which they have stewardship.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to explain this.

¹ (1500)

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, before I go to Mr. Piercy, I have a question for Peter from the NFU.

The other day David and I were on a CPAC channel debating--our positions are much the same except for the Wheat Board, which we'll get around to changing a little more one of these days--when the commentator brought us right into this issue by saying “Are you in favour of exporting food? The NFU is not.” I don't think it's quite black and white on those issues.

Would you like to comment on this, Peter?

Mr. Peter Dowling: Actually, when we looked at exports we also looked at the government's analysis, its study on the effects of exports on farm income. When these targets for export were being set, we were told the--

Mr. Larry McCormick: Are you against exports, Peter? I'm trying to help--

Mr. Peter Dowling: I'm saying they're not proving to be as effective as we were told they would be.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Peter, again I'm interrupting you, but we invested $900,000 in the Nova Scotia School of Agriculture for organic study. Also, we believe a considerable amount of organic food can be exported to the New England states. I'm glad to hear you're bringing these people into your organization, but you're not against this, are you?

Mr. Peter Dowling: No, we like the turn to organic agriculture and we're very supportive of it. If you want to talk about organic agriculture and exports...we support organic exports.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's great that you do support it, Peter.

Harold, there are many market gardeners across this country. Do our provincial and federal programs allow you to access them when there are disasters, or are those people missed?

Mr. Harold Piercy: No, we're missed as far as I can see. We're in a minority in this area. If we were in western Ontario, perhaps....

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, I think it's the same everywhere. I want to get this on the record.

Thank you, Harold. You know our chair is a very....

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The clock was broken I think there for a little while.

Go ahead.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say that I'm going to come back to Napanee because we've had more discussion, and more invigorating discussion, than I've ever heard in any committee across the whole country. Obviously, people here are thinking. That's great.

There are a couple of issues in need of a little clarification. Earlier on we had the issue of the small farm and the big farm, and urban people buying to live out here for the quality of life. This is one issue the minister will have to deal with.

Gerry Albright, on the dairy export issue, are you saying there is economic opportunity in the export of dairy products? One vision, one side of things, is that there is opportunity there. This is going to be coming up at the WTO, and of course Canada has the position that there will be no changes to the supply management system. Is your basic message that there are opportunities in exports?

Mr. Gerry Albright: There are tremendous opportunities for Canada to sell dairy products throughout the world because of our clean food chain. When you compare us with some areas in Poland, where everything is black, as I've seen in National Geographic, or with Romania, we're somewhat on a pedestal. Canada could feed the world on dairy, but we seem to be getting tripped up on certain issues now before WTO.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The country is in the process of working all these things out. Any time you have more than one opinion being debated in the public arena, you somehow hopefully could come out with a solution.

I have a question for you, Helen Forsey. When this agriculture committee travels around, we really try to listen to each presenter, no matter what the views, and treat presenters with respect. At the start of your presentation you said there was a committee or something out of Ottawa, out of Parliament, that you felt attacked by. What committee was that?

Ms. Helen Forsey: I was rushing at the end of my presentation to fit this in. I was talking about April last year in Quebec City. I had a contract to work on organizing the inter-American agriculture forum for the People's Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

The people at the forum were people from the Caribbean, from South America, Central America, the United States, and Canada--small producers mostly--and other people from rural areas were making very many of the same points that have been made here this morning by Mr. Dowling and others.

¹ (1505)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you. That's enough of an answer for that, because it was important. The reason we're doing this is to advise the minister what the future of agriculture and the government's involvement in it could be.

Doug, I've got to ask you a question. If we went to this small farm initiative thing and the government brought out policies and funding and everything else to make it happen, would you be in favour, for instance, of having 30 small farmers in a two-kilometre radius--an area a little bigger than a square mile, a mile and a half square--with 10,000 hogs in that radius? Would that be your idea of small farmers? There's 30 of them there, independents. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Doug Parker: I was almost seduced by your scenario until you brought in the 30,000 hogs; you really tripped on that one. But no, I wouldn't be in favour of that kind of usage--and particularly what happens to soil when you have that many animals excreting that amount of excreta.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you. I didn't trip on that, because that's exactly the farming scenario you have in Europe. In Germany there was an outbreak of swine fever, and those were the statistics that came out in the media. I quote them and I hope they're accurate.

To me, that is a really big concern. When you compare a farm with 5,000 or 10,000 hogs in a barn that's contained, so that disease doesn't go in or out, and then you've got these 10,000 hogs running around on 30 little farms, with people traipsing through and the outbreak of disease, that's a big concern.

The reason I asked that question is that I don't think we probably, as a country, want to go there. So can you tell us any specific legislation you think the federal government should be putting forward in order to foster your ideas of small farms? Is there something specific, or is it just a generalization?

Mr. Doug Parker: First of all, I think whatever could be done to make farm incomes for newly entering people--the young people so many of you are concerned with--should be done, so there would be some kind of basic level those incomes could be guaranteed at. Second, when they are trying to get into the industry through a dairy quota, there should be some way it would be possible through the government to sell the quota at a very high price, but so that a smaller farmer would be able to buy into it instead of, say, one of the huge Beatrice Corporations or something like that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: You see the dilemma we're in here? There's a small engine business we came past on the way over here. Should the federal government guarantee that small business a profit?

Mr. Doug Parker: I'm sorry, but I really think your analogy is not valid, because between small engines and food there's no comparison. The concern we have is that unless we protect the soil base and keep the farmer population young and productive, we are heading down the path to disaster.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you. My daughter and her husband are going to be taking over our cattle ranch, I hope, and in fact they're preparing already to do it. So we're trying to bring these people in.

The Chair: Thanks, Howard. I have just a couple of points.

Harold, with your market garden, what types of vegetables are you growing? I suppose you watch this over the year. A lot of us are quite amazed this winter at some of the prices that are on the grocery shelves for cauliflower, for broccoli, for types of lettuce and so forth.

Mr. Harold Piercy: I grow maybe 30 acres of vegetable crops. What I've done is build myself a cold storage. I used to grow stored potatoes, but that got unprofitable, so I quit it. I store a lot of cabbage and sell that to stores during the winter. Last winter, the crop wasn't very good with that heat. They're a cool weather crop and they just don't like it.

We had a farm in Prince Edward County. I seeded in the nice, light, loamy soil there, because the crown can crust so and they won't come up very well in just any soil. So I had lots of plants. Out of 50,000 seeds, I had about 30,000 plants, and perhaps 20,000 cabbages out of that. So it kept going downhill. I don't have as big a crop as I would like. And I'm going to be out at the end of the month.

¹ (1510)

The Chair: We see some of this with your industry in Atlantic Canada. There are a great number of problems with it in terms of marketing and getting the so-called grocery chains to purchase and so forth. What would you suggest that a government could do to help your industry in terms of...? You talk about storage. You use a lot of water in terms of cooling your vegetables after you take them from the field.

Mr. Harold Piercy: No, you don't do that a whole lot. It's the end of October or into November when we're harvesting the cabbage, so the main expense is the hydro for the cold storage equipment. That can be fairly expensive. I have two storages. When I get one empty I'll shut that one off and then just use the other one. I have local stores. I go to Belleville, Foxboro, and Picton for the winter months, and I have people who quite like what I have.

The Chair: But do you have any suggestions for this committee? I gave you a way there for a couple of things, but with cauliflower, with broccoli, you're not into those kinds of products, I guess.

Mr. Harold Piercy: I grow some of that, and I'm afraid of that.... You can take a good winter storage cabbage and store it for five or six months, whereas if you're looking at cauliflower, perhaps two or three weeks, and broccoli, a week. What's scaring me is this weather. Your broccoli is no good in the heat we have.

I try to grow for the market I have locally, and the area we are in has not grown.

We came from the seaway area in 1957 when our farm was going to be flooded. We came up here to Deseronto and then the population was 1,750. So I was thinking things were going to expand. In 40 years it's gone up to 1,900. There were three good industries in town and now there's only one. The canning factory went out of business years ago, and there were a lot of farmers who depended on some crops grown for this canning factory. But that isn't an option now.

The Chair: Again, we haven't heard much since we've been here about irrigation, especially with crops such as yours. Is there a problem with irrigation in Ontario, the availability of water, the access to water? Are you involved with irrigation?

Mr. Harold Piercy: Oh, yes. I do a tremendous amount of irrigation; we have ponds on the farm. My father, at one time, wanted to have lots of trout and he dug all these ponds. Well, there's no trout there now, but I use these ponds. You can have your ponds full, but then when the dry weather is there they evaporate quite a bit, so you're down quite a bit. I have one that has a good spring in it, and we give it five or six days and we can go and pump some water. For the vegetable crops, without irrigation you would be way out of luck.

The Chair: Has DFO been bothering you about the access to water?

Mr. Harold Piercy: Well, they're right on my own property.

The Chair: Yes, but that doesn't....

Mr. Parker, I have a question in terms of this organic farming. I take it you have maintained a livelihood for you and your family with organic farming. Is that correct?

Mr. Doug Parker: That is not correct.

The Chair: When the organic people come before us this is one thing we have to assess. Is it a way of life, is it a way of supporting a family, or is it more or less a hobby activity that you do and then you earn your money somewhere else? Could you tell us something about organic farming in terms of that?

Mr. Doug Parker: I work in partnership with an organic farmer, and his family income is entirely dependent on organic growing. He has been certified organic for I think five years, and he began organic farming eight years ago, so I can only give you anecdotal evidence.

Peter might be able to give better evidence, because he is a full-time organic farmer.

¹ (1515)

Mr. Peter Dowling: Yes, I produce organic milk on my farm. It's expensive to do, but the prices are better. I'm not sure if I'm making a living at it yet--I've just started recently--but I also have off-farm income in the form of my partner's work.

The Chair: Well, we could probably continue here for a long time with some very interesting and varied presentations and so forth.

We will eventually have a report written up. I believe the clerk has all your names, and hopefully a report will be sent to each of you to indicate what we have gleaned.

We're probably over 200 witnesses right now across the country in terms of the five provinces we've been to. Tomorrow we're in Quebec, and again on Thursday. Hopefully you'll be patient to hear and won't be too disappointed in what the committee might write as a report.

On behalf of the committee, I want to adjourn the meeting and to thank each of you for being here. Your views are very much appreciated. Thank you.