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

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

0900

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

0910

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

The Chair

Professor Daryl Guignion (President, Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation)

0925

The Chair

Dr. Timothy H. Ogilvie (Dean, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island)

0935

The Chair

Mr. Mannie Gallant (Individual Presentation)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Mannie Gallant

0940

The Chair

Mr. Mannie Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Orville Lewis (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

0945

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane (Individual Presentation)

0955

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Carter (President, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative)

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Carter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Carter

Mr. James Rodd (Member, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative)

1000

The Chair

Mr. James Rodd

The Chair

Mr. James Rodd

The Chair

1005

Ms. Sharon Labchuk (Spokesperson, Earth Action)

1010

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1015

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane

Mr. Hilstrom

1020

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

1025

The Chair

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Desrochers

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Mannie Gallant

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Mannie Gallant

Mrs. Ur

1030

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mrs. Ur

Mr. James Rodd

Mrs. Ur

Mr. James Rodd

Mrs. Ur

Mr. James Rodd

A voice

Mr. James Rodd

1035

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Gordon Carter

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Carter

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Proctor

Mr. James Rodd

1040

The Chair

Mr. Alfred Fyfe (Treasurer, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative)

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

Prof. Daryl Guignion

Mr. Steckle

1045

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mr. Paul Steckle

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

Mr. Paul Steckle

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

1050

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

1055

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Carter

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Carter

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Carter

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

1100

Mr. McCormick

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

Mr. McCormick

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

Mr. McCormick

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

The Chair

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Carter

The Chair

1105

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

Mr. James Rodd

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane

Mr. Anderson

1110

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Orville Lewis

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Ms. Sharon Labchuk

The Chair

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie

1115

The Chair

Mr. Alfred Fyfe

The Chair

Mr. Orville Lewis

The Chair

Mr. Don Northcott (Prince Edward Island Institute of Agrologist)

1135

The Chair

Mr. Robert MacDonald (First Vice-President, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture)

1140

1145

1150

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey (Director of Development, Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network)

1155

1200

The Chair

Mr. Vernon Campbell (Chairman, Prince Edward Island Potato Board)

The Chair

Mr. Vernon Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Vernon Campbell

1205

1210

The Chair

Mr. Stan Sandler (Individual Presentation)

1215

The Chair

1220

Mr. Stan Sandler

The Chair

Mr. Ron Flynn (Individual Presentation)

1225

The Chair

Mr. Robert MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Robert MacDonald

1230

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Doug LeClair (Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture)

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Doug LeClair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mr. Anderson

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

Mr. Stan Sandler

1235

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Ron Flynn

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Ron Flynn

1240

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Stan Sandler

Mrs. Ur

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Don Northcott

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Robert MacDonald

1245

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Robert MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Vernon Campbell

1250

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Vernon Campbell

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Vernon Campbell

1255

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Robert MacDonald

1300

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Vernon Campbell

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Vernon Campbell

Mr. Borotsik

Ms. Brenda Simmons (Assistant General Manager, Prince Edward Island Potato Board)

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

Ms. Brenda Simmons

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. McCormick

1305

Mr. Vernon Campbell

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Ivan Noonan (General Manager, Prince Edward Island Potato Board)

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Ivan Noonan

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Ron Flynn

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Hilstrom

1310

Mr. Ivan Noonan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Ivan Noonan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1315

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Vernon Campbell

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Vernon Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Robert MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Robert MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Noonan

1320

The Chair

Mr. Stan Sandler

Ms. Brenda Simmons

Mr. Robert MacDonald

Mr. Stan Sandler

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 059

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We will call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is undertaking a study on the future role of government in agriculture. Today, we're here in the beautiful province of Prince Edward Island. It may not be the best day for tourists, but the sun is out and we certainly appreciate that we have it.

The committee has been travelling across the country. In fact, this will be our eighth province. We were in Nova Scotia yesterday, and we're in New Brunswick tomorrow. With that, I should say we've heard from dozens or maybe even hundreds of witnesses, from people who have come to the committee offering their advice and their concerns.

The committee is an arm, shall we say, of the House of Commons. We have people here from all parties, although today we are short one member from the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Odina Desrochers was with us yesterday. He may be dropping in today, but he does have to go back to Ottawa today for a meeting of another committee.

We would like to point out that we are here to listen. We are here to give you an opportunity to present your concerns, which are being recorded. For those who want service in their other language, we do have the translation system, and maybe some of the presenters will want to make sure they have one of these, because some of the questions to you could be in your second language.

Before we begin, I would like to introduce the committee. As I say, they are from all parties and most areas of Canada. Our vice-chair is from the great province of Manitoba.

Howard, would you briefly introduce yourself?

And you can follow him, David.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Howard Hilstrom, and I'm the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake, which is the geographical area between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, north of the city of Winnipeg. I was elected in 1997, and I've served as the chief agriculture critic for the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, since 1998.

I grew up on a small mixed farm in southern Saskatchewan, and I currently cattle ranch in Manitoba, running a 200-head cow-and-calf operation, with a bit of a background in feedlot.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): My name is David Anderson. I'm a rookie Canadian Alliance MP who was elected in the fall of 2000. I have been a dryland grain and specialty crops producer for 25 years. I farm in southwestern Saskatchewan, my riding is called Cypress Hills—Grasslands, and I look forward to your presentations today.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning everybody. My name is Dick Proctor. I'm an NDP member from the riding of Palliser, in Saskatchewan. It takes in Moose Jaw and southwest Regina, and there's a lot of farming land around there. I was first elected in 1997, and have been a member of this committee since then. I look forward to the presentations.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Rick Borotsik. I'm the Progressive Conservative member and agriculture critic on the panel. I come from southwestern Manitoba, and I represent the riding of Brandon--Souris.

Brandon, Manitoba, is obviously very dependent upon agriculture. We have a very diverse agricultural climate in our area, with everything from a lot of livestock operations to grains, oilseeds, and specialty crops.

We have been across Canada, have heard a lot of very good opinions, and I look forward to hearing your presentations. Thank you for being here.

The Chair: Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Rose-Marie Ur, and I was first elected in 1993. I represent the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, which is in southwestern Ontario. It's a rural riding, with agriculture, supply management, grains and oilseeds, nurseries, and orchards. You name it, we have it in my riding.

I'm also vice-chair of rural caucus. I was a farmer in my previous life, and I still presently live on the family farm. I look forward to your presentations.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): I'm Paul Steckle, and I'm from southwestern Ontario. I've been a member since 1993. For the most part, I've spent the last eight or nine years on this committee. I'm also the vice-chair of the fisheries committee, which is near and dear to my heart as well, because I think it's also another area of farming—particularly aquaculture—that we haven't explored to its potential because of the freshwater fishery.

My riding borders Lake Huron, and it is a rural riding that is agriculturally diverse and almost a carbon copy of Ms. Ur’s.

I'm a livestock farmer from Ontario. I live on and own the family farm. Unless somebody takes it away from me, I'll probably continue to own it for a long time into the future.

I look forward to your presentations, just as we have, in the past number of days and weeks now, looked forward to and listened to presentations from across this country. We hope the report that we will finally produce will represent the views you express this morning.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.): My name is Larry McCormick, and I'm the member of Parliament for the eastern Ontario riding of Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, which is in the Kingston–Belleville area, halfway between Toronto and Montreal. I was first elected in 1993.

I live in a small village of 200 people, in a riding that's very diverse. It's not as great an agricultural riding as some, but agriculture is very important to our people. Our rural and small towns are also important to our people from the urban areas of the small cities of Kingston and Belleville.

I have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minister Lyle Vanclief, who is also responsible for rural economic development, which I think is very important.

I look forward to another great day on the island, as we have visited it many times before.

The Chair: Thanks, Larry.

And my name is Charles Hubbard. I'm from Miramichi, New Brunswick, and I'm chair of the committee.

The member from this area, Joe McGuire, was in fact the chair of the agriculture committee a few years back. He's not here this morning, but I understand Robert Millar is here from his office, and we thank him for coming. Joe will be home for the weekend. We're sorry we missed him. He's in Ottawa and we're here, so we'll keep an eye on his good riding here. Hopefully everything is going well.

With the report that we will write, we're hoping that we'll sit down as a group when we get back to Ottawa and that we'll look at any other submissions that may be put to the committee in terms of written submissions. As we said, we also have to hear presentations from New Brunswick tomorrow, and ones from Newfoundland later. Hopefully, a report will then be presented to the House of Commons sometime before the end of June. With that, if you, as presenters, leave your names and addresses, we will of course attempt to see that each of you gets a copy of the report that the committee does.

Sometimes we hope a committee report will be unanimous. That's not always the case, though, because what we have here today are various parties, and parties quite often do differ in philosophy. But we will do our best to make sure all your views are represented as we report to the House.

In each of the forums—what we call round tables—we have set aside about five minutes for each of the presentations. As chair, I will attempt to give a little sign when you are getting close to the end of your five minutes. Members, too, are allocated only so much time, so as you answer the questions during the second part of the presentations, please remember that your answer and the member's question count as part of the number of minutes that I can allocate. It's almost a little bit of a staged affair in terms of time allocations, but that's the way the committees and the House of Commons work.

Our first presenter this morning is Professor Daryl Guignion, from the Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation.

Professor Daryl Guignion (President, Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. It's interesting to hear about your diverse backgrounds and the fact that many of you are from, obviously, not only different parts of the country, but from farming backgrounds.

I note with interest that aquaculture was mentioned. Actually, when you start talking about farming, it really has a very direct and influential impact on an awful lot of other sectors, including the recreational fishery, as well as aquaculture, of course, and everything associated with drainage basins, which take in most of the basic resources that make this country a wealthy place.

In terms of my background, very briefly, I did grow up on a one-horse farm as well, but I decided it was much more profitable to become a teacher. This morning, I'm representing the Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation, which was incorporated in 1906. We are an affiliate of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and we have been involved with enhancing and trying to improve wildlife and wildlife habitat on Prince Edward Island for almost a century.

What I have to say today is in regard to wildlife, as well as agriculture. I have a few points that I have written down and passed along to the secretary, although they are not necessarily in order of priority.

To start off, the best land for production of wildlife in Canada also happens to be the best farming land in the country. Therefore, to stop the population declines in many species and to protect biodiversity, farmers have to be given incentives to maintain and restore odd areas, wetlands, diversified hedgerows, remnant old-growth forests, vegetation and groundwater recharge areas, and healthy riparian buffer zones. Financial incentives must be substantial to get marginal lands out of production and into permanent cover, since this will benefit all of society.

Federal programs in the past have sometimes led to reverse or reduced biodiversity. I'll just mention a couple of examples. Some of us in this room can probably remember the development plan in the 1970s, when farmers were urged to take out hedgerows, and this then happened on a very large scale. Or perhaps you'll recall that, in the 1990s, there was a soil conservation program on Prince Edward Island, sponsored primarily by the federal government. The bulk of the money went to subsurface drainage in lieu of soil conservation. That did create large fields, but it also eliminated some very important wildlife habitat.

Secondly, with global warming and climate change becoming a reality, we can expect extremes in climatic conditions. Agriculture at the best of times is heavily reliant on good weather patterns, so steps should be taken to prepare for weather patterns more stressful to the land and crops. On Prince Edward Island, we have an abundant supply of groundwater, provided that the annual aquifer recharges continue to occur every spring.

It would be prudent to consider the summer and autumn drought of 2001, this past summer, as a precursor of things to come. Federal funding could be used perhaps to provide a sort of base funding for various potential projects such as the viability of clay line dugouts that might serve as sources for irrigation. At the same time, of course, they would provide a good habitat for a myriad of wildlife species.

This is a very serious problem on Prince Edward Island. Both our surface water and groundwater have had many problems over the past few years, and the situation is something that has to be dealt with sooner rather than later. If not, we could be in a rather delicate position, shall we say, if we continue to lose ground in terms of pollution and in terms of the water supply being limited.

By their nature, row crops like potatoes are hard on the land. Recent techniques adopted by some farmers—for example, residue management and four-year crop rotations—are steps towards more sustainable farming, but the soil organic level in fields under intensive row cropping remains too low. This contributes to a variety of difficulties, including production problems, nitrate contamination of both surface water and groundwater, and sedimentation of our water courses. All of those have been rampant in the past. Research and development strategies should focus on crops and agricultural practices that assure sustainable land use and prevent environmental degradation of our water courses.

On Prince Edward Island we are blessed with soils that are easy to cultivate, but they're prone to erosion and, contrary to what most people think, are lacking in richness. We don't have any class I soils, and depressed levels of soil organic matter lead to costly applications of lime and fertilizers when combined with our maritime climatic conditions. Therefore, niche marketing of “green” products or development of crops that fit better into the naturally occurring ecosystems—perhaps things like ground hemlock, or ground yew, as it's sometimes called—is essential to the long-term survival of competitive agriculture, in our opinion.

Development of crops that can grow on marginal lands, such as exposed sandy soils and steep slopes, especially for value-added products, is necessary—and I'm giving the example of rosehips.

Very quickly, there are three other things. Support should be provided for the development, processing, and marketing of organically grown crops. The development of and change to alternative production methods or crop varieties that are ecologically friendly and less pesticide-dependent should be supported. And finally, more effort is required on the international scene to have countries reduce subsidies and put farmers on a level playing field. This level playing field should also apply at the provincial level. For instance, when one looks at the announced and unannounced grants given to potato producers by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to upgrade facilities and to presumably increase the workforce, there is an unsettling, repeating pattern for the rich to get richer.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thanks, Daryl.

Next, from the Atlantic Veterinary College, we welcome their dean, Dr. Timothy Ogilvie.

Dr. Ogilvie, I think we've had representations across the country from the various veterinary colleges, and it's certainly good to see you this morning. We'll listen to your presentation, because we know there are concerns.

Dr. Timothy H. Ogilvie (Dean, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island): It's great to be here. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a brief presentation, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'll try not to repeat very many of the things my fellow deans have perhaps told you, but I wanted to perhaps give you a perspective on animal agriculture and animal health from the perspective of the east coast.

The Atlantic Veterinary College serves the whole Atlantic region in terms of training and research in veterinary medicine for the four Atlantic provinces. We receive funding from the Atlantic provinces in support of this educational mandate, so we feel we're very much a part of the Atlantic region.

The college has a role to play in animal health, research, teaching, and service, as well as in public health. I'd like the committee to perhaps think about that during my comments, because human health and animal health are very much interrelated. I'll give you three examples of where I think the federal government and investment in agriculture and in the new agriculture are best exemplified as we begin to frame this.

The mandates of any educational institution of veterinary medicine are teaching, research, and service. I think public investments in animal agriculture might best be framed and best be thought of in terms of innovation and risk mitigation or risk management. We hear these terms a lot, but I think there is a great role for veterinary colleges and animal health research in terms of innovation for farmers today and for risk mitigation and risk management. I'll give you three examples of things we're doing in this regard.

The Atlantic Veterinary College, at the University of Prince Edward Island, where Daryl and I both work, is trying to attract a National Research Council institute in bioactives. We're very interested in working with the National Research Council in order to think about alternative uses for both natural products and agricultural products. We're working very closely with the National Research Council to think about creating a centre here on Prince Edward Island that uses products harvested both from the land and from the sea to use bioactive compounds or value-added compounds and natural resources for animal and human health products.

We are very close to working out an agreement with the National Research Council. In fact, I've received a $90,000 grant from the National Research Council to investigate that opportunity. Again, it's in bioactives and alternative products, and in value-added materials from both crops and animal by-products.

A second example, a second initiative that we're working on in terms of the innovation and the risk mitigation themes that I talked about, is to try to continue to encourage the Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council to invest research dollars in animal health and real-world animal health research.

We feel that of the tri-council granting agencies across the country, those being the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, NSERC, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR has the right idea of trying to integrate research dollars across various themes and of being more thematic. NSERC is probably the best home for our researchers in a veterinary college to try to recruit dollars for doing research, but unfortunately it's not a very good fit for the research dollars available in NSERC and for what we want to do in the research on animal health, animal production, and where those link up with veterinary medicine. So we have a proposal and will continue to work with NSERC to try to address those issues within that council funding.

We presented that message to the PM's caucus task force when it was here last year under the guidance of Bob Speller and very many good people, like Susan Whelan, Senator Jack Wiebe, Mark Eyking, and others in that group. It was a very good way for us to try to continue to get that message across.

The third initiative is one the committee is very well aware of. The deans of the veterinary colleges across the country, together with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, have a proposal to secure federal reinvestment in capacity-building in the veterinary colleges. That's for capacity-building for the maintenance of our accreditation and our most-favoured trade status across the country; emergency preparedness for things such as foot-and-mouth disease; encouragement of and continued research in animal health issues outside of those issues that are involved with CFIA; and, of course, the training of high-quality people.

So those are three initiatives that I thought the committee might be interested in hearing about and that we are actively involved in as veterinary colleges, particularly on the east coast: bioactives; trying to work with NSERC in terms of recruiting more research dollars into animal health agriculture; and the proposal for capacity-building across the nation in the veterinary colleges, something we consider to be a reinvestment in the needs of the nation.

I have two brief comments to perhaps get the committee thinking about other things as well. I was very pleased that Mr. Steckle talked about aquaculture. At the Atlantic Veterinary College, fully 30% of the research energies that we expend and the research dollars that we receive into the college are devoted towards aquaculture. It's a very important niche for us. When you think about a protein biomass and a production species, farmed salmon, farmed trout, and farmed char are not much different from poultry or swine, for that matter. It's the holistic use of agricultural products that's very appealing in that. I believe we'll see more and more agricultural products and crops used in aquaculture nutrition systems, so it's very appealing to us.

And when we talk about public health and where public health and animal health together have an interface, the other thing to keep in mind is that fully 70% of new, emerging, and re-emerging diseases in the human health sphere have a home, if you will, in animals. When we talk about the West Nile virus, E. coli, raccoon rabies, and tuberculosis—and the list goes on—an incredible number of animal health diseases find a resident host in animals and impact upon the health of the human population. In terms of risk mitigation and preparedness, I think we would like the committee to consider supporting the efforts of veterinary colleges in capacity-building for research in these areas.

And just as one final comment, the clerk does have a copy of my presentation, Mr. Hubbard.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Ogilvie.

Mr. Gallant, we have several individual farmers. I assumed what product you're in, but it might be good for you to just mention where you're from and what your main farm commodity is.

I guess it would be the same for you, Mr. Lewis, but we'll start with Mannie.

Mr. Gallant, will you begin?

Mr. Mannie Gallant (Individual Presentation): First of all, I appreciate being here. I'm Mannie Gallant, and I'm a shellfish fisherman here on Prince Edward Island. I also belong to the PEI Shellfish Association. I'm one of the directors.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Shellfish don't pollute the soil, either.

Mr. Mannie Gallant: No, that's one thing they don't do, for sure.

Anyway, the PEI Shellfish Association enhances shellfish here and there. We put spat collectors out, but we haven't been catching too much spat in the last couple of years for some reason. We put our collectors out, but there hasn't been any catch of them for two years. We don't know exactly what the problem is. It could be the type of weather we're having, but I really believe it has something to do with the runoff and the pesticides coming from the fields. I just don't think there has been enough testing to try to prove that. They seem to go around the situation or the problem when you mention it to them.

Anyway, I'm totally against pesticides being used on Prince Edward Island, but I know banning pesticides on Prince Edward Island is going to be a big problem. I'm totally for banning them, though. Some pesticides that they're using here on Prince Edward Island have been banned in a lot of other different countries, so using them on Prince Edward Island is totally inexcusable.

On the subject of soil, they're farming too close to the brooks. I do a lot of trout fishing. I've walked the brooks for forty years, or since I was a kid anyway. I see an awful difference in the brooks on Prince Edward Island. They're filling up with soil. As you people know, we've had fish kills here too, and they're totally because of pesticides and runoff.

I visit these brooks. I'm not sure about 1995, but in 1996, 1997, and 1998, we had fish kills in an awful lot of brooks, with major kills in 1996 and 1997. I don't know exactly how many, but I don't believe as many were mentioned as there should have been. It was totally terrible when I walked up those brooks and saw these fish drifting downstream or dead on the bottom. Since then, buffer zones have been legislated and stuff like that has been happening. And cattle are also being kept out of the brooks. That's a big help, because cattle are a big problem in the brooks for sure.

As for the buffer zones, my opinion is that they're not far enough away from the brooks. I think the buffer zones are 90 feet on the old scale, but that's not far enough. In some places, they won't allow you to grow any potatoes at a 9º angle at a distance of 90 feet. For places where there's a 5º, 6º, or 7º angle, 90 feet is not enough. It should be no less than 300 feet, as far as I'm concerned. That's ground that has been taken away from the natural place around the brooks, and it should be put back again. They should plant trees. In fact, they are doing that, yes, but they're still not far enough away from the brooks, because the soil on the island is very soft soil and it runs very easy.

They're also using a kind of chemical that's on the verge of being banned in California, called Thiodan. It's restricted. You have to have a special permit to use it in California, but it's a chemical used on Prince Edward Island quite a bit. It's very dangerous around waterways. In California shellfish, it has something to do with...I'm a little stuck here.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: You have had your time. During questions, things will come out. I know it's hard to keep within five minutes, but you're already up to about six or seven. We're going to have to move on to Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Mannie Gallant: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Orville Lewis.

Mr. Orville Lewis (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I appreciate the opportunity to come here to make a presentation. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

Since you've already been at eight other locations, I'm not going to be the first farmer in this country to tell you farming is in a crisis. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the bottom line is no longer there. I've been farming on a family farm in the O'Leary area for approximately 25 years. There have been some good years, but in the last number of years the bottom line has been continually squeezed by governments downloading various costs for things like food inspection. In terms of fertilizer and chemicals, we're looking at increased input costs for growing what we're producing, but our bottom line is not increasing to offset the increase of these inputs and downloaded costs.

Our Minister of Agriculture was recently in P.E.I., and he stated that it's the government's point of view that subsidies to farmers should end. Personally, I think he's probably right, but we need to replace it with something else. My suggestion would be an improvement to the farm safety net programs that are already in existence, such as the Net Income Stabilization Account, crop insurance, and the Canadian Farm Income Program.

In terms of the NISA accounts, there are some problems with them. They're designed to assist a farmer in making it through difficult years, but they don't take into consideration that you can have multiple difficult years one after another and for various reasons, such as the drought conditions that we had this past year and the potato wart issue that we had the year prior to that. The potato wart wreaked havoc with the bottom line for most potato farmers on P.E.I.

The problem is that if, in the initial year, the withdrawal trigger comes into effect and you withdraw the maximum amount that you can from an existing NISA account, then in the second year of having a disaster or a financial problem, if you attempt to access that program again, the trigger is more difficult to attain because of the lower year that you have already gone through.

Quite often, in the second year, after experiencing a year like we had the potato wart two growing seasons ago, most of the NISA accounts were essentially drained anyway. So, in the second year, there should be some improved formula for increasing the funds that are in an existing NISA account when it has been drained by circumstances that are basically beyond the individual farmer's control.

The CFIP program uses a three-year average of the profit-and-loss statements that you submit with your Revenue Canada tax returns. However, using that three-year average, they disallow legitimate expenses that you can use in your Revenue Canada return. There should be some uniformity between government departments, such that if you're allowed to use an expense such as land rentals or lease costs, they should also apply in other government programs although those programs may be from different departments.

There's another problem because of the way the eligibility system is set up in the CFIP program. You really require an accountant to determine whether you're eligible for any sort of assistance whatsoever on this. That's only an additional expense in a year when you don't really need additional expenses. When you're attempting to pay your bills and make the bottom line, you don't need additional expenses just to determine whether or not you're eligible for some government program. It should be simplified so that you can determine in very short order whether or not any assistance is forthcoming to you.

In terms of crop insurance, I believe only about 30% of the farming population on P.E.I.—I don't have the exact percentage—takes advantage of crop insurance programs. Essentially, that's because they're very costly and quite often ineffective. In many cases, the payouts under a crop insurance program will not bring you back up to the cost of producing the crop that you've lost. Accessing the program in multiple years results in a reduced guaranteed minimum yield. Essentially, if you've accessed a crop insurance program two years in a row, for example, or even three years out of the last five, your guaranteed minimums are so low that you're not going to collect anything anyway unless you have a total disaster. So the crop insurance program itself needs to be totally revamped to be more farmer-friendly.

Essentially, the whole safety net system in farming needs more money or needs to get more money to the producers. Not too long ago, we heard in the news that our premier, Pat Binns, went shopping at the local grocery market, and I believe his bill indicated that he had spent approximately $200 at the checkout. It was calculated that the farmers' share of that $200 grocery bill was approximately $24. The problem is that those of us in the farming community are not getting our share of what consumers are paying for the products that we produce. Several years ago there was a...I'd better cut this short.

Essentially, it comes down to the bottom line. If we're going to continue to have family farms and small producers who are attempting to grow crops for us, we need to make farming's bottom line more attractive to them. If that's done through the social safety net programs, then apparently that's the only route we have to go.

The Chair: Thanks, Orville.

Ranald MacFarlane.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane (Individual Presentation): Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and fellow presenters. My name is Ranald MacFarlane. I'm a dairy farmer and a hog farmer, and the president of Local 102 of the National Farmers Union, here in Prince County. You're sitting in my local even as we speak.

I thank you for this opportunity. I'll just read our presentation, and then I'll go through a few details at the end. I'll try not to take more than five minutes.

The NFU would like to thank the panel for the invitation to appear before it. This is a wonderful opportunity to realize a transfer of information between the federal government and the primary producers of this region.

The main problem facing farmers across this country is the consolidation of power in areas such as transportation, processing, retailing, and energy. This development has lead to very few companies having the ability to control the prices paid to producers, concerning many commodities. This situation is also reflected in the prices paid by farmers for products such as fuel, fertilizer, and crop protectants.

We realize the amount of land under cultivation has increased, but this has not benefited the producers of this country financially. Even though exports of agriculture products have tripled over the last decade, net farm income is lower presently than it was ten years ago. Any price increase acknowledged by the producer is totally absorbed by inflated input costs controlled by a few multinational companies.

On Prince Edward Island, per farm potato production is up sevenfold, from 92 tonnes to 657 tonnes. While realized net income was higher in 1999 than in 1969, looking at a 10-year average reveals a different situation. Average realized net farm income for the 1990s was almost exactly the same as for the 1970s despite the sevenfold production increase.

The income crisis is real. Low prices and incomes have seemed to be a chronic feature of agriculture since the late 1980s, since international trade agreements and government actions deregulated agriculture and stripped farmers of vital productions. This happened at exactly the same time when agribusiness corporations began to dramatically increase their market share through global mergers.

It is important to note that neither Canada, the EU countries, nor the U.S. will admit that markets are failing due to manipulation by monopolistic corporate control. Instead, politicians blame market distortions—tariffs and subsidies—and they rush to the next WTO negotiations to rid us of these impediments that might hamper the perfect functioning of the free market.

The federal government needs to immediately develop a comprehensive agricultural policy that will stabilize prices for all commodities and decrease input costs to farmers. Until this transpires, the federal government has to immediately invest dollars in our safety net system in amounts similar to those presently realized by our trading partners. Unless this investment happens, nothing is going to stop the exodus of farmers who are being forced out of the business.

The lack of direction concerning agriculture is facilitating the vertical integration pertaining to control of our food production and supply. It is totally unacceptable if we, as a country, allow this to happen and continue to treat the growing of food as just another resource sector to be exploited.

I would draw your attention to the table in our brief. I'm not going to go over the whole table, but I would note the right-hand column. Adjusted for inflation, our government spending is at its second-lowest level since 1985.

I have a list of concentrations here. I'm not going to go over them all, but some things are pretty obvious. The energy companies, the fertilizer companies...this is a good figure. Three companies control 71% of Canada's nitrogen fertilizer production. Two companies on P.E.I. maintain control of the retail island fertilizer market. Nine companies make and market almost all the insecticides and fungicides. And it goes on like this. There are mergers in agricultural equipment, there are mergers in banking, there are mergers everywhere, and the farmers are even more affected every time. Our bottom line is totally affected by the fact that we are being held in a captive market controlled by monopolies.

Three firms manufacture most of the pasta in Canada: Borden, Nabisco, and Italpasta. And the next one is the one that really ticks me off. Five companies control food retailing in Canada: Weston/Loblaws/Westfair, Safeway, Metro-Richelieu, Sobeys, and Pattison. That's five companies controlling all of the food distribution in Canada. We were told free trade was about choice, but when the consumers go out there, where's the choice? When I sell my product, where's the choice? There is no choice.

In contrast to the single-digit numbers of competitors in each sector listed above, over 2,000 farmers produce food on Prince Edward Island, while over 200,000 produce in Canada. One billion farmers compete around the world for the food dollars.

Anyway, that's my presentation. Thank you very much.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you, Ranald.

Our next three gentlemen are together with Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative, is that right, Mr. Carter?Is it one presentation?

Mr. Gordon Carter (President, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative): It's one presentation, yes.

The Chair: Maybe I'll have to give you a little bit more than five minutes. Who is going to present?

Mr. Gordon Carter: Mr. Rodd.

The Chair: Mr. Rodd. And you're here to keep him straight, is that it?

Mr. Gordon Carter: Basically, yes, but I'll just start off with the introductions, if you don't mind.

I'm Gordon Carter. I'm presently president at Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative. I've been farming for 38 years on a farm that was previously owned by my great-grandfather. It's a family mixed farm. It was a conventional agriculture farm, but in 1997 I shifted to organic production on our farm.

With me are Alfred Fyfe, the treasurer for the Seaspray co-operative, and James Rodd, a member of the Seaspray co-operative and the individual who will be making the presentation.

I also have some copies of our presentation with me should you like to have them.

Mr. James Rodd (Member, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honourable members, and fellow presenters. Welcome to Prince Edward Island. As Gordon has mentioned, we are organic farmers, we have a fair amount of collective wisdom amongst us, and we do have copies of our submission available here.

Our submission today is made from the perspective of producers who are formally recognized as organic by a competent certifying agency. We represent the interests of certified organic farmers.

Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative is a marketing co-operative of certified organic farmers in Prince Edward Island. The co-op was originally established in 1990 as Abegweit Organic Co-operative, and in 1994 was renamed Seaspray Farms as a brand name for marketing purposes. Our motto is “For People Who Care About: Good Food, the Land, the Future”.

Seaspray has marketed a wide variety of certified organic produce: potatoes, cabbage, brussels sprouts, turnips, onions, broccoli, carrots, peas, blueberries, soybeans, and several other varieties of grains. As well, we have a significant production of organic compost mix. We have sold some of these products locally, and have shipped others to Halifax, Toronto, Vancouver, central and New England states, and as far south as Florida. We also have some important contacts in the European market. We are proud of the fact that we have already developed an island-based co-operative marketing system and are presently working on a single-desk marketing system for organics. The stronger we become in the future, the more capacity we will be able to keep in our control in our production and marketing.

The federal government has a responsibility in educating the public about the true meaning of certified organic production. The federal government can make a great contribution in the promotion of certified organic production by supporting the Canadian organic standards and a Canadian accreditation system that is affordable.

As certified organic producers we feel we have earned a respectable position in the agricultural scene on Prince Edward Island. We have developed and accessed the science and technology of organic farming. We are not afraid to say that today, in this room, you are facing substantial collective knowledge and wisdom, something to the tune of 90-odd years. We do not know it all, but we are probably the island's best resource for the development of the future directions in organic farming. It has taken us years of hard work, commitment, trial and error, and financial sacrifice, for what we consider to be a major contribution to the well-being of farming on Prince Edward Island. We feel justified in saying that present and future generations of consumers and earth guardians will thank us for taking the first, often lonely steps. We expect the federal government to honour the progress we have made by acknowledging certified organic production as an already-established sector of agriculture.

Most of us had our beginnings as conventional farmers. We know the worry that comes from knowing we can easily abuse and destroy the ecosystem in sometimes vain attempts to make a few dollars. We have opted for a change in the very nature of our mode and manner of production. However, our decision to change goes far beyond revising our improving farm practices. It is an essential change of mind and of heart. We had to leave behind our old concepts and practices. We have learned from others and have taught ourselves and our land a new way of producing food. There are basic differences between us and conventional farmers, even those involved in some sustainable practices. We do not stand in judgment of conventional farmers, we just claim for ourselves a position as a recognized, distinct sector.

The viability of certified organic farming comes from consumers' increased concerns about health. Consumers, many of whom have experience with environmental illnesses, are becoming more and more aware of the dangers of synthetic chemicals and toxins in food. They are demanding safe food and the protection of the environment.

In a supply and demand system, effective demand for the product is an essential aspect of viability. Study after study reveals to us that the organic food market is continually expanding at the rate of about 20% annually. In regions of the world where organic agriculture is established, systematized, and promoted, farmers make a reasonable living by commanding a higher price for their produce and by reducing their input costs.

Many advocates of modern intensive farming methods say “going organic” will not produce enough food to feed large populations. On the other hand, scientists such as Liz Stockdale, of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, in England, claim that even on a worldwide scale, organic production may be best equipped to deal with world hunger.

We are sure the time is right for governments to direct resources towards the development of at least a five-year plan for certified organic production. In some ways, we can be proud of the level of careful development of this small sector of Canadian agriculture. On the other hand, we are miles behind other parts of the world, like Europe, for example.

Just as no other sector of agriculture is expected to make its own way without structured support and an investment of public funds, so the advancement of certified organic production requires a fair share of the resources. We insist that in order to develop sound certified organic farming, governments must develop and maintain a long-term plan. To accomplish this, it is necessary to establish a system whereby organic farmers will receive economic incentives, machinery and technological support, and a secure footing for adequate organic produce marketing. Immediately and in the years to come, it is necessary to put in place public policies, processes, and services that acknowledge and support organic farming as a full-fledged sector of Canadian agriculture.

Victor Hugo is quoted in Marketing Opportunities:

There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.

We feel organic certified production is not only an idea whose time has come, it is an idea in bloom. The federal government's involvement and investment is essential and absolutely necessary.

Mr. Chairman, we have a small number of—

À (1000)

The Chair: I'm sorry, but we have rules in place. You're way over your time limit. You're at about eight minutes, and I have to enforce—

Mr. James Rodd: We have some recommendations that—

The Chair: They'll have to come out during questioning. People will probably ask questions.

Mr. James Rodd: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Sharon Labchuk, from Earth Action, would you like to make your presentation now? You have five minutes.

À (1005)

Ms. Sharon Labchuk (Spokesperson, Earth Action): My name is Sharon Labchuk. As you mentioned, I'm an environmental activist with the organization called Earth Action. My work in the last seven years or so has focused on agriculture issues, and specifically pesticides.

I am also a rural resident. I live in the country, I work in the country, and my kids go to school in the country. We live about a third of a kilometre from a potato field. In between me and the potato field are trees. I'm one of the very lucky people on P.E.I. who lives that great a distance away from a potato field and who actually has trees between my house and the potato field. I'm very lucky indeed. Most people on this island do not live that far from potato fields or do not have trees to somewhat buffer what is coming at them from the fields.

Over the past number of years, from 1982 until about 2000, we had a tremendous increase in pesticide use in P.E.I., at an increase of about 632%. That's by sales of active ingredients, and that's a P.E.I. government number.

People on P.E.I. don't like it, and I don't like it. I get calls from people all summer long who don't like it. Spray season is approaching and people are getting very nervous. On P.E.I., when spray season comes, people start getting stressed out, scared, and very nervous because of what is about to hit them.

People who live in the country are subjected to tremendous quantities of spray drift. The air is full of it. Environment Canada studies in 1998 and 1999 looked at pesticides in the air on P.E.I. There are detectable amounts. It's no big surprise. Everywhere in North America where pesticides are used, they can be measured in the air, the fog, the snow, and the rain. It's no different on Prince Edward Island.

The quantities are increasing, and the kinds of pesticides that are increasingly being used are toxic. By and large, the fungicides have increased much more than anything else. For example, insecticides are 6% of what's used here, but fungicides are more like 80% of what's used. Of the fungicides in use, most of them—some 70%—are classified as carcinogens by the American government.

I'm not go into a big spiel on the health effects of pesticides, because I think most people and most scientists do recognize that there are risks. On P.E.I., these are risks that people have been forced to assume involuntarily. We have no choice. We have to breathe, and the air is full of pesticides.

I'm also a small-scale organic beekeeper. I would like to expand because there is a market for it, but I can't be certified. I cannot sell my honey in a shop with a certified label on that honey. I can sell by word of mouth to people who know me and who know I don't use chemicals in my hives and that I don't use antibiotics and so on. But there's no point in expanding without certification. As long as pesticides are used within three kilometres of my bee yard, I can forget about ever being certified.

Pesticide use does have impacts on other people in this province. As much as they are doing everything right, the produce of organic growers is covered in pesticide residues to a certain extent.

We know Europe is going organic and that the United States is increasingly becoming organic. When push comes to shove, when consumers start looking at the markets and find out how much pesticide is used in P.E.I., and when they have a choice of picking a product that comes from Europe—where much less pesticide is being used and they are getting away from it—or this one that comes from P.E.I. and is totally polluted with pesticides, guess which one they're going to pick. So it does have an impact on people's incomes in this province.

In terms of the cost of food, if you factor in all of the subsidies that provincial agriculture gets, along with the environmental effects,the cost of health care, the implications for other growers like the organic growers—people like me, beekeepers—and the incredible regulatory system that the federal and provincial governments have and have paid for with taxpayers' money for conventional industrial agriculture food, we're paying through the nose. Organic food is a tremendous bargain when it's compared to what we pay for conventional, industrially produced food.

We are asking the federal government to move away from an industrial agriculture system. It is totally a dead end. Industrial agriculture is going nowhere. It's ruining the environment and it's poisoning the planet. You can find pesticides in glacial water coming out of Alberta, in the breast milk of women in the Arctic, and on our food.

People don't want it. We don't like it, so let's move away from it. Europe's going that way, and so are Australia and New Zealand. If you look at the number of acres in organic agriculture in those countries, that number is far and above what's happening in Canada. It's the way of the future. It's what people want, and what people want is what we're going to get. It doesn't matter what you want, it doesn't matter what anybody wants. What the market wants is what they'll get, and they want organic food. All surveys are pointing to that.

As the federal government, we expect you to start getting rid of subsidies to people who are poisoning the place with pesticides and are destroying the soil, the environment, and human health. Move away from that. That's the way European governments are going. Start subsidizing a transition to an organic system. Do whatever has to be done to do that. That's something the federal government can do. The regulatory system is costing us a huge pile of money. Take some of that money and start putting it toward the transition to organic agriculture.

Thank you.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Sharon.

We have two CBCers here, and we're glad to see them. We also have at least one newspaper represented, the Charlottetown Guardian, and it's certainly good to see them. We've had some very positive comments being made in the press, and it's certainly good to see the press on P.E.I. is showing due respect to an industry that's so important to your province. So we'd like to welcome them.

We now start our round of questions, and Howard starts it off, being the chief critic from the opposition. He has about seven or eight minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

Our questions may seem disjointed, but we're filling in information over and above your presentations.

Timothy Ogilvie, could you tell us if the college is having any problem in regard to losing its accreditation? Secondly, how much money is required to have your college operating at the level it should be?

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: Thank you for the question, Mr. Hilstrom.

Our college is the newest of the four in Canada. We're in no immediate danger of losing accreditation, as two of the other three colleges are. However, we need continued investments to maintain our status and to ensure that we can continue to graduate accredited veterinarians. We're looking at a total of $268 million being required urgently for the four schools across the country. In terms of the Atlantic Veterinary College, ours represents approximately $50 million of that request.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much.

James, I'm going to get into some environmental issues very quickly, but I want to clear something up with you. You mentioned single-desk selling. Are you asking the federal government to legislate possibly the three maritime provinces into a designated area, such that every organic farmer would be required to sell through that single desk, i.e., an organization that would have a monopoly on sales? Is that what you're asking to have happen?

Mr. James Rodd: No, Mr. Chairman, that's not what we're asking for. That information was given based on what Seaspray Organic Farms has accomplished in the last number of weeks, in working with other organic farmers in the Maritimes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much, because that's exactly what is a good way to operate: as a co-operative that has producers voluntarily participating in it in order to accomplish a common goal. Of course, I'll just mention quickly to the crowd that I raised this because our western farmers, in regard to wheat and barley, are forced into that very type of monopoly and it's just killing us out there.

On the other issue now, we've seen here today the very debate that's raging across this country in regard to environmental issues and farming with or without pesticides and chemicals. The other component of that, of course, is land use as the urban people encroach upon what are prime agriculture areas for producing food, whether it's produced organically or traditionally. These are the gigantic, fundamental issues that I don't think we're going to be able to settle in our report, but we're certainly going to be highlighting them.

Mr. Lewis, we've heard a request for riparian areas or zones of 300 feet that would be grassed down. Is that a practical thing for Prince Edward Island?

À (1015)

Mr. Orville Lewis: We already have buffer zone systems in place around waterways and brooks, but they're not up to a 300-foot margin. I think it would be very difficult to convince producers to take—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Should the determinations on those kinds of issues, such as the number of feet, be left up to the provincial government or the federal government? I would suggest that it should be left up to the provincial, for the simple reason that each province is significantly different in its number of riparian areas. What would you think?

Mr. Orville Lewis: At present, it's provincial legislation that has put the existing buffer zones in place, but there is always room for improvement in the system. I don't think the federal government would garner a lot of support through a blanket declaration saying every brook or every stream in this country—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The Whitehorse agreement that was put forward contains roughly five components, and one of those deals with environmental issues. It's going to be important to understand whether or not the provincial or federal government should be laying this out.

The other issue is the debate over pesticides and chemicals. I don't know if anybody could really answer whether or not it's possible to achieve the goals of the Province of P.E.I. under a totally organic system. I'll leave that question for you to think about just for a second, and then I'll ask someone for an answer to it.

Ranald, I have a question for you. You've done some studying in regard to the concentration of processing, retailing, and those sorts of things. You know the price of a tractor and you know the price of inputs. Have you looked at the fact that the major cost of any one of these items is the cost imposed by organized labour? The labour component of anything is the largest component of anything, like a tractor or food processing. It's not the cost of the food, it's the processing and it's organized labour. Would you have any comments on that?

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane: I do not think organized labour is a problem in regard to our costs. I know a trucker who trucks combines in the west, and in one particular case, a brand new combine fell off the truck and was destroyed. The insurance value he had to sign for on that combine was $60,000 to replace it from factory. The cost to the producer was $200,000. Are you going to blame that on organized labour?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's the question that I'm asking.

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane: I don't think organized labour is a problem. To tell you the gospel truth, Howard, I don't think it is. I think Canadians need to get fair returns on their dollars. I think they need to get fair capital returns on their investment. I think Canadians need to get fair returns on their working days. I don't have a problem. I wish the National Farmers Union had the power of a union. I wish we were too aggressive, I wish we were making too much money, and I wish people were questioning the fact that we had so much coming in that we were getting bloated and sluggish and were dinosaurs rolling in money.

So I don't think it's a problem. The realities of manufacturing in Canada should be quite obvious. With the auto sector, the auto pact, Bombardier, and all that stuff, I don't think the unions are too well fed.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom When we talk about money generally for safety nets and that, and for our vet colleges and any other uses, personally it just drives me crazy. As a rancher, we have to use firearms in our daily operations; we don't use them daily, but we certainly use them monthly, for various reasons that you're well aware of. This Firearms Act registration of rifles and shotguns just drives us crazy out west. I don't know what you think about it down here, but it seems like it's a pretty big waste of money.

I guess I'm getting close to being out of time, Mr. Chairman.

À (1020)

The Chair: I'm not sure that's our purpose for being here, but does anyone have a comment on the Firearms Act? Would anyone like to make a comment in regard to that, or is it not a big issue with you?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: : Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have to make sure my hired man has the licences he needs in order to use the firearms. I have to provide them, because he's not going to provide his own firearms. As a producer, that's a cost to me. That $60, plus his training time and the costs of his training, are all covered out of my cattle ranch operation, not by him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Hilstrom, but I'm not sure the farmers on P.E.I. need to be armed.

Anyway, Mr. Desrochers, would you like to introduce yourself, first? You missed out on that half-minute.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ): Good morning, everybody. My name is Odina Desrochers, and I'm a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois. I represent the most rural riding in Quebec. My riding is close to Quebec City, at a distance of about 30 miles.

That's all for my English. I'll go back to my original language, so you'll want to put on your translation devices. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Do you all have them? Good. C'est bien, oui.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Canadian linguistic duality is a reality.

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for coming here this morning to meet with the Agriculture Committee, which is looking at the major issues that should be included in any future vision of Canadian agriculture.

I listened to your statements. You have raised points which we have heard elsewhere in the country, in western Canada, on the prairies, in Quebec and here in the Maritimes. You have said that the agriculture model, which is increasingly industrial in nature, seems to leave little room for other producers wishing to use a different model, such as organic farming or small-scale farming.

In the current context, do you think that there is room for organic farming? I ask you this in light of the legislation that we're all aware of, which seems to demonstrate a desire by both the federal and provincial governments to exclusively support industrial agriculture. My question is addressed to all of you, therefore, to any of you who can answer it.

[English]

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: The question was whether or not there is room for organic agriculture within the industrial system. Within the system the Canadian government has set up, there's very little room for organic agriculture. How can organic producers compete against the massive subsidies that, for example, the potato industry receives on Prince Edward Island? That industry would not exist but for subsidies.

Producers in the organic industry gets virtually nothing. Only in the last year have a few dollars started to trickle into their pockets. They get virtually no support. What little support there is that is coming now is geared toward a recognition by the provincial government that, yes, we now see there could be a niche market for organics. All they're looking at is a niche market. For the federal government it's the same thing.

The federal government is looking at the potential for a niche market. It's not looking at getting rid of industrial agriculture, which, in my opinion, is the only way forward. We need an end to industrial agriculture, with a move entirely to organics, the way Europe is going.

The support is just not there from the federal government at all. I don't think the financial support is there, and the belief amongst the people who are making regulations in organic agriculture is not there either.

À (1025)

The Chair: James.

Mr. James Rodd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly, when you look at the European experience, Germany, for example, has committed over $10 billion and expects to have at least 10% of its agriculture production in organics by 2010. In the same manner, Great Britain has committed tremendous amounts of dollars to the organic sector, in the eventual hope that it will also have a significant percentage of the production.

I don't know what the problem is in Canada as far as the subsidy is concerned, because we know that for every dollar in the United States that is contributed in subsidy, about $2.35 of it comes from the government. In Canada, something around 30¢ on the dollar comes in the form of subsidy. In Europe, of course, it's must higher.

On industrialized agriculture versus organics, I mentioned earlier in our submission that we are moving on by 20% per year and that consumers are demanding more of organics. At some point, governments will be making the decision. We are trying to put to you today that there is a move afoot that is opening it up as far as our country is concerned. As a result of that, we will see increased growth.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I have one further question. In your presentations, you raised many concerns. You will be aware that industrial agriculture has brought about the mass use of pesticides and chemical products. This is the reason why I'm asking you this question.

Given that the Canadian government and the majority of Canadian provinces have opted for the industrial model over the past few years and given the damage which has already been done to the environment, to rivers and to the air, do you think that organic agriculture can survive against such a backdrop? Do you think that the federal government should adopt greener policies and shift towards policies which would genuinely change the current face of Quebec agriculture, and agriculture in all the other Canadian provinces, for that matter?

[English]

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: I'm very optimistic that we can change, yes. You only have to look at the European experience. They are changing, and they are changing in large part because government policy is facilitating that change. Of course, government policy in Europe is only facilitating that change because the public wants it. In Europe, as we know, they have hit the wall. They have had more food scares than we ever want to see here. That's why they're moving towards organics. They have hit the wall, but we have yet to hit the wall in Canada.

Some time this week, I believe, the federal government is bringing in legislation on cosmetic pesticide use. That's because people in cities don't want to be exposed to that stuff. Most people live in cities in Canada. For the most part, they don't realize what's going on in the country in terms of pesticide use. If they knew about and had to put up with what we have to put up with, they would be outraged and they would be horrified.

You can see very easily that the public does not want this kind of exposure, but what it takes is public pressure. We're just not quite there yet in order to get to where Europe has been, but we're getting there.

The Chair: Thanks, Sharon.

Rose-Marie Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Every day is a learning experience, they say, so I'm going to show my central Canadian ignorance and ask Mr. Gallant what spat is.

Mr. Mannie Gallant: We set collectors out. They're like Chinese hats that are dipped into cement. We set thousands of them out in the water to catch little oyster spat when the oysters let go of their spat at certain times of year. The spat catches on these hats and produces oysters, and then we knock them off on our public grounds. This is what the shellfish association does.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you. I wasn't aware of what—

Mr. Mannie Gallant: I said earlier that we haven't had a catch for two years now, though.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I appreciate that.

Ms. Labchuk, yours was a very interesting presentation. Are you aware of any information...the conventional farmer feeds 125 to 135 people. Can you tell me how many people an organic farmer would feed? In terms of statistics, is there any information available?

À (1030)

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: No, not that I have.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So you're suggesting that here on the island, conventional farming should be removed and that it should all be organic farming?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you really believe the numbers would substantiate covering the feeding of the people on P.E.I. if P.E.I. reduced conventional farming? Is that realistic?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: If you're talking about P.E.I., that's a walk in the park. There's no doubt about it. We already produce about 20% of what we eat on-island right now, and in terms of acreage, we produce virtually a fraction of what is actually under production here in potatoes. Most of what we produce goes out of here, and it's in Wendy's and McDonald's french fries and in potato chips.

In terms of potential, if you're talking about feeding the island, of course it's realistic. I grow enough food on my own property all by myself to feed my family of three. That's an easy thing to do. If you're talking about export and trade and producing money for the economy on P.E.I., again it's no problem.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So are you saying that, at the end of the day, the agricultural dollars would be substantially higher if the farming was organic and not conventional?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Yes, without a doubt.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: And you have information to—

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Well, how about checking out David Pimentel, from Cornell University. He's very well known for this kind of work. He has done extensive studies on the economics of food production. I would go to him first for numbers.

As I mentioned before, if you start factoring in the hidden costs of food or the money we spend every year in P.E.I. to put high school and university students into the streams to dredge them out and restore them from the damage from agricultural production, if you talk about the health care costs for children born with birth defects or neurological problems or the cancers that pesticides cause, or if you factor the health costs and environmental costs in, for example, Arctic women who have contaminated breast milk and whose children can't be vaccinated because their immune systems are so damaged—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you not believe, though, that conventional farmers don't appreciate that? They live on the farm and they do have families.

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Oh, I'm not saying that. That's not my argument whatsoever.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Pesticide use is down considerably over past years in—

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Not on P.E.I.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: —conventional farming.

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: No, it's up by close to 700% on P.E.I. Government stats for P.E.I. show it going up every year. It's not going down.

My argument is not that conventional growers don't appreciate the fact that pesticides cause harm. I never said that at all. I do believe many of them are perfectly aware that what they're doing is causing harm, but—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think we should also look at our urban centres. You keep going at the agricultural community, saying they're the worst offenders with pesticides and whatever. I only wish I had kept a newspaper article I read that actually said that if we look at our urban neighbours, with their the lush lawns and the beautiful green landscapes around their homes, they probably tend to apply more than the farmers.

Farmers are continually looking at how they can reduce their input costs, so as to not use pesticides and whatever. They're trying to reduce those numbers, not increase numbers. So I'm going to have to beg to differ with your presentation.

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: You're wrong.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I'd like to go to Mr. Rodd.

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: Your numbers are absolutely wrong.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Rodd, you indicated that the government should introduce a policy on marketing for organic farming. Do you really believe the government should be involved in marketing organic farming? Should that not be left up to the industry itself?

Mr. James Rodd: Could you just repeat the last portion of that? I didn't quite hear it.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I could be wrong, but in your presentation, I believe you made the statement that the government should be more involved in developing a policy on the marketing of organic farming. I would hope the industry would be better versed in finding markets— working with the government, of course—and providing marketing opportunities for itself.

Mr. James Rodd: Certainly, if you look at traditional organic marketing at the moment, it is the person on the farm who is doing the marketing. As a producer, though, I would much rather be doing the producing instead of having to go out to find the markets and take the risk of that on my shoulders.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You would be looking at a marketing board, then.

Mr. James Rodd: Well, we would be looking at something that could be established. It's not something new that the government would be taking on. We already have the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the poultry and egg marketing boards, so this would not be something new for government to establish. We believe the government can provide the expertise in terms of getting the marketing people in place through the use of...what's the export corporation?

A voice: It's available through the Export Development Corporation.

Mr. James Rodd: Working in tandem with them, export markets could be developed. We just don't want the burden of marketing being put on the producers.

À (1035)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gordon Carter: Can I give you a bit of an answer on that?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's up to the chair.

The Chair: Gordon, I'll give you half a minute.

Mr. Gordon Carter: Okay.

No, we're not looking for the federal or provincial government to set up marketing boards. We're looking for assistance from the federal and provincial governments so that we can establish and maintain those marketing boards. That's basically where we stand.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, all of you, for your very informative presentations. I'm going to end up with Mr. Rodd, because I want to give him an opportunity to put some of his group's recommendations on the table. But I do have a couple of questions, first of all.

Dr. Ogilvie, I don't know whether there was an editorial comment in your statement or not, but you said something to the effect that we need to continue to invest money in animal health, “real-world” research. By “real-world”, are you suggesting that some of the research going on now is off the wall?

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: The national research agencies, and particularly NSERC, do a fine job in funding fundamental discovery research, with selection panels made up primarily of biologists who are very good researchers. We think there's a great need for studies on populations and on-farm studies, in order to take this to the farm and do research in the real world. That was my comment.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I see. Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify that.

Secondly, Mr. Lewis, I thought you presented a very good analysis of our current safety net programs, but I wanted to zero in on crop insurance. You talked about the very low take-up rate. Mr. Vanclief has mused that in any new safety net agreement, everybody is going to have to be in crop insurance in order to access any benefits that would be in the safety net program. I just wanted to get your comments on that, please.

Mr. Orville Lewis: Yes, I'm aware that the federal government is moving in that direction. Unfortunately, in many cases, if you require that someone takes advantage of a program, they will, but it's one more bill for which they will never be able to recoup the cost. Under the existing system, for example, in my case, I'd be looking at approximately $10,000 for the season for crop insurance on my potato crop. Under the existing guarantees that I have under the present crop insurance program, I couldn't even recoup the cost of the insurance, let alone my loss.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Do you think crop insurance should be uniform across the country? In going from province to province, because it is provincial-federal, it's obvious that the rates vary. Should it be a uniform program, in your opinion?

Mr. Orville Lewis: There should be more uniformity on certain commodities, although very province should have the ability to modify its programs to fit into certain sectors that may not be apparent or may not be in use in other provinces.

As I suggested, under the CFIP program, there needs to be some uniformity. The regulations vary from province to province, and the manner in which it's accessed varies from province to province. Although it's in essence the same program, each province has its own administration to do the handling.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Finally, to Mr. Rodd, just by way of an introductory question, Sharon said organic farmers can't escape pesticides on Prince Edward Island, that they're here, there, and everywhere. I wanted to get your opinion on that, and then allow you whatever time I have left to incorporate some of your recommendations.

Mr. James Rodd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On Prince Edward Island, there's no question that it is difficult. In my particular circumstance, if I may speak about that, where my farm is situated, my neighbour to the north is organic, the one to the south is organic, and the adjacent farm, which belongs to my father, is not organic but is under the realm, if you will, of organic practices. In my particular situation, then, I feel I'm rather lucky in the sense that about a kilometre and a half on both sides of me is free of any large amount of pesticides. However, that is not always the case. With the reduction of hedgerows and the like that has happened over the years on Prince Edward Island, drift goes for miles when it occurs.

I would just like to read our recommendations to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food: that support be given to the Canadian organic standards; that support be given to a Canadian organic accreditation system that is affordable; that a credible crop insurance plan be developed for organic production; that capital and operating loans be provided for organic production, interest free in the short term and with low interest rates for the long term; that support be provided for existing organic farmers and that support and encouragement be provided for farmers in a transition similar to that in the European system; that moneys be budgeted for organic agriculture in order to provide direct payments to organic growers on a per-acre basis; that moneys be available for organic farming dedicated to providing access to appropriate machinery and other technology; and finally, that moneys budgeted for organic farming be invested in developing a processing and marketing infrastructure for certified organic products.

Mr. Chair, if I might, I would ask just for a few seconds to defer to my colleagues in order that they can give some information on the accreditation system and on the crop insurance plan.

À (1040)

The Chair: I'm sorry. We'll try to get that worked in, but right now....

Could I ask you something briefly, though? In terms of your co-operative, do you have figures on how many acres you have under organic production? Do you have anything on your number of members and number of acres, James?

Mr. Alfred Fyfe (Treasurer, Seaspray Farms Organic Co-operative): We have 78 members farming about 1,000 to 1,200 hundred acres.

The Chair: Thank you.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I would like to start with you, Daryl. You mentioned something earlier this morning about set-asides and land hedgerows. As a farmer myself, I quite understand where you're coming from, because we're seeing that happening in my own province. People who have taken out hedgerows are now beginning to put them back in again because they realize the error of their ways.

I'm just wondering about set-aside programs. There is always a cost involved, but it's generally for the public good. If the public is to benefit from this program, who is to pay for it? It's usually left to the farmer unless we're prepared, as a public, to pay for those issues that are for the public good. But I think it's pretty hard to go back to the resident farmer and to say to him that we want him to do something for the good of others. How do you deal with that issue?

Prof. Daryl Guignion: First of all, let me give an example. Let's use hilly uplands, which are mostly a recharge area for our groundwater and on which we are 100% dependent on P.E.I. If such areas are put back under some sort of forest cover under which evapo-transpiration isn't too great and contributes to the higher water table, who does it benefit? It benefits everyone on Prince Edward Island. If it benefits everyone, why doesn't everyone support the payment for taking marginal land out of production and putting it into these sorts of sites, whether they're riparian buffer zones, upland areas, old-growth forest, or whatever? I think it has to be paid for by all of us because it benefits all of us.

Mr. Paul Steckle: We're basically talking about food, agriculture, and how we sustain a viable agriculture industry in this country. I'm going to put it on the table now, because it follows in continuity with what we've been talking about.

We believe in a national secure food policy in this country—in other words, about access to food, not about the other security measures that we agree we should spend a lot of money on. But what about the food security of this country? We've never been a country that has gone hungry. A few parts of the country have, but generally we haven't gone hungry here. We have an adequate, safe food supply on our shelves every day. You can buy organic, you can buy conventional, you can buy whatever you want, but it's there—anything, in any form you want. And we also have the cheapest food basket in the world.

If we believe this is what we want in this country and that we want it to continue, are we prepared as a public to say we're prepared to support agriculture in the future? Would you be prepared to respond to the question of whether or not a food tax would be acceptable in this country. I see farmers nodding against that kind of thing, but I'm wondering why.

Someone mentioned this morning that the food on the table brought about 10.5% or 12%, I believe. That's what we pay in a tip to the person who carries the food from the kitchen to the table in a restaurant. Are we not prepared to pay 1% for the right and the privilege of having that food as a secure part of our...?

I think this is important, and I wonder how you feel about it. I think this needs to be put on the table. I need some response on that.

À (1045)

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: I'll start.

I don't think Canadians are prepared to pay taxes on food. I don't think that idea would be popular at all, and under an ideal system, it wouldn't be required. If you're thinking of today's system in which it's not...yes, we do have food on the table, but things aren't going well for the present system or we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it.

What is an alternative system, and how would it work? I believe that, under an alternative system, an organic system that is well integrated into the environment, we would not require food taxes. We pay an awful lot for food now. I've said this twice already. If you count all the hidden costs of food today, we're paying a heck of a lot of money for our food.

Mr. Paul Steckle: But as we've travelled across this country, we've already heard that people are prepared to pay up to 30% more for organic food on the shelves. So you're talking about a 30% increase in price, but I'm talking about perhaps even 1%. Are you telling me you wouldn't do that?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: You're right about people wanting to pay more for organics, and I do. I have an income that is well below the poverty line for a single-parent family with two children—well below—but I can afford to buy organics. For organic butter, I pay six bucks a kilogram or pound or whatever it is that they sell it in these days. I pay that because it's important to me and I can afford it. People are prepared to pay more for organics. I'm not prepared to pay one red cent more for food produced under an industrial system that uses chemicals.

Mr. Paul Steckle: But how do you feel confident that the product you're buying can be certified as organic when we heard this morning that spray can drift three miles or more? You have people who are certified organic. You're selling a product. How can you, because you apparently can't detect...unless you can, so why don't you do it? When it's on the shelf, how can you detect whether or not that product has been contaminated? If it has been contaminated, then it's no longer organic, isn't that correct?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: As a rural resident, I see more than simply pesticide residues as being the only issue connected with the industrial system. I see soil depletion, I see wildlife death, and I see atmospheric pollution. All of those things matter to me, so when I buy an organic product, I'm not simply looking for a reduction in the residues that I' m eating. There's much more to it than that.

As far as buying organic food today is concerned, that's as good as it gets. If a certification agency has certified it as organic, that's as good as I can expect in Canada today. That's all I can do.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This has certainly been an enlightening and very interesting conversation. I'll get to some of it, but I'd like to first of all get back to some of the basics.

Mr. Lewis, you talked about the safety net programs. We've heard a lot about them throughout our tour of Canada. One of them was NISA. You suggested that NISA...and by the way, we've heard quite constantly that NISA is a good program, although it should be changed. I guess “enhanced” would be the term.

I'd like to hear your opinions on NISA. You said that if you have some problems two years in a row, NISA is obviously depleted. How do you feel NISA should be contributed to? Should there be an increase in contribution levels? Along the way, we've also heard there should perhaps be some more flexibility built in for the triggering of NISA and the control of NISA. I'd like you to maybe expand on that a little bit.

À (1050)

Mr. Orville Lewis: In terms of the—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Expand on both contribution levels and flexibility.

Mr. Orville Lewis: I'll start with contribution levels. As I suggested in my earlier presentation, when you've had two disastrous years in a row, it's harder to get a trigger to come into effect in the second year in order for you to make a withdrawal. By the second year, your account is usually already drained from the previous year, down to a level that is not really a lot of assistance to you any longer.

It would be nice to see a different formula for making contributions. Presently the formula takes into account federal, provincial, and producer contributions into the system. Obviously, if you've had a second disastrous year in a row, you're not going to be in a position to make a higher personal contribution. Consequently, you'd have to look at a—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In P.E.I. right now, is it a three-and-three contribution, 3% federal and 3% provincial? You may well have a 1% producer contribution.

Mr. Orville Lewis: No, it's a three-and-three.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is a three-and-three. Would you see that being expanded or increased?

Mr. Orville Lewis: I would think it should be expanded in terms of the federal or provincial contributions, in order to keep a farmer on the land at a time when he needs it the most.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Should NISA contributions or funds be seen as a retirement fund? We've heard that comment made many times.

Mr. Orville Lewis: I've heard that as well.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So have we, and that's where Mr. Vanclief has some concerns.

Mr. Orville Lewis: Under the normal scheme of things, at least from the way things have gone in the last ten years in this province—and I imagine across the country as well—we find that by the time a farmer reaches retirement age, there's not a whole lot left in his NISA account.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, I'm going to cut you off, because I want to ask a question of Mr. Rodd.

Mr. Rodd, you mentioned that there is an increase of 20% annually in the organic market, which we have heard. That has been pretty constant. Can you answer two questions? Number one, do you know what percentage of food consumed is in fact organic, not only in P.E.I., but in the country?

Secondly, you've been very positive about the organic marketplace. It has increased. Consumers are demanding it. More and more producers are getting involved. Can you answer why the federal government's financial involvement is needed if there is in fact such positive growth in the industry? Why would you insist on federal contributions when the industry could be quite well poised right now to make its own movement in that marketplace?

Mr. James Rodd: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What's the percentage, first of all?

Mr. James Rodd: What's the percentage of organic consumption? That 20% figure—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's the increase?

Mr. James Rodd: Yes, on a per annual basis.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In terms of the food consumed in Canada, what percentage would be organic?

Mr. James Rodd: I wouldn't know. We have heard some figures; however—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What have you heard? I've heard figures too.

Mr. James Rodd: You go first.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, you're the organic grower. What number have you heard?

Mr. James Rodd: It's somewhere in the vicinity of between 6% and 10%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, our number is 1%, so if you add 20% on a 1% annual growth rate, you have a long way to go to get to the 10% in 2010 in Europe. Based on that, though, you have some good growth potential, so why would you require federal financial involvement in your industry?

Mr. James Rodd: Mr. Chair, if I may, just to take the heat off this chair—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Really, it's not meant to be heat. I'd just like to know the answers.

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: I'll give you an example of the situation we're in currently. Quebec has limited...as of a specific date, we can't ship organic food from the maritime region to Quebec unless we're accredited by a third-party system. Right now, if we wanted to be accredited through the Canadian system, it would cost us somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000. Currently, the Maritime Certified Organic Growers, the group through which we're certified, is working with the United States Department of Agriculture, through their accreditation system. I don't think it speaks very highly of our Canadian government when we have to go to a foreign government to get accreditation to ship organic food, but that's an example of the cost that's involved.

À (1055)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Labchuk did say—and I quote:

As much as they are doing everything right, the produce of organic growers is covered in pesticide residues to a certain extent.

Mr. Rodd, you just said you have about a mile and a half or a kilometre and a half around you. Ms. Labchuk said she couldn't certify her honey because she requires a three-kilometre distance between pesticide users. We also heard from Mr. Steckle, who said the spray obviously does drift. Do you currently have a tolerance level in your certification for pesticides in organic foods? Is there one?

Mr. James Rodd: The Canadian organic standards lay out the criteria, if you will, for all crops and all organic products, but I don't have them right offhand. Again, though, if a product is tested and is found to have any pesticide level, it's taken off the market.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: At what tolerance? That's my question. Is there a tolerance level? Is there a tolerance built in for the pesticides in organics?

Mr. Gordon Carter: No, there's not a tolerance level. But, Mr. Borotsik, we don't live in a perfect world.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We know that.

Mr. Gordon Carter: We're not going to totally take all the—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If we did, we wouldn't be here.

Mr. Gordon Carter: Right.

We remove the pollutants that come from the air and may be adrift for miles or something. Just as we use a buffer from the highways, we use a buffer from a farm that may be using pesticides and whatnot. But, no, there is no exact level. I don't know if you could ever achieve an exact level for which there would be a tolerance.

The Chair: Thank you.

Larry, we'll move to you. The bees have a—

Mr. Larry McCormick: What about the birds, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: The birds are next, are they, Larry?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Well, Mr. Chair, before we take off on your....

I found that little question from my colleague from Manitoba, the one about why the organics people would want the federal government to be involved, to be quite interesting. Rick asked why you would want the federal government to invest tax money when your industry is growing so well.

In the Prairies, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan specifically, where some of the specialty crops have given the farmers a bit of life and some profit, they're still asking us to invest, and we do. So I just want to put a couple of things on the record.

The federal government does recognize that your industry is growing by 15% to 20% per year. We're looking forward to more national standards as they're developed, and those are coming, as I understand it.

Recently, I was just at the graduation ceremonies at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, in Bible Hill, where we, the taxpayers, invested at least $900,000 into almost every facet of organics here in Atlantic Canada—and they're going to share that information both on the island and across the country. I saw many students from P.E.I. that evening.

Again, just so we know organics are growing yet are still so very small, although there are a lot of challenges and a lot of opportunities, I just thought I'd drop one other statistic. I recently read a document from a “green” farmer in Saskatchewan who has an 8,000-acre—I have to stay with acres, because I've been around for a while—“green” farm. That shows this is happening across the country.

On the accreditation program, I'd like to see you working with the federal government, and I'd like to see you working with your industry. I know you are, but I just want to give you an opportunity to add to that. I'll also certainly take you up on your point. I'm not sure where we are in terms of working with your industry, but we understand—or I do, as a parliamentary secretary—that we had a lot of organics people out at our hearings in Ontario, in Quebec, and in the east here, but that there's still a little ways to go yet within your own industry.

Gentlemen?

The Chair: James.

Mr. James Rodd: Mr. Chair, I'll defer to Alfred Fyfe.

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: I was involved with the Canadian Organic Advisory Board for four years, and I went to one meeting in Ottawa, one in Toronto, one in Saskatoon, and one in Vancouver. There were four meetings following those that were attended by another representative, but our member was not at the meeting last year.

We have Canadian organic standards in place, but as I said a few moments ago, I think they somehow got privatized, although I'm not current on what's happening at the moment. But on this $40,000, if you speak to the farmers in western Canada, I have a good friend in Qu'Appelle by the name of Gordon Hamblin, and there are hundreds of guys out there who have tonnes of grain in their bins that they could ship to Europe if we had a Canadian accreditation system that was recognized by the European organic system.

Politics are being played. They always have been played, and I think the federal government probably has a role. Instead of letting us keep turning this stuff over, show some leadership and get it working.

In some cases, it takes some dollars to make this stuff work. Farmers are strapped to the hilt. If you go around the table, you'll realize there's no money in the farmers' hands to do this stuff.

Á (1100)

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

On the standards from Europe, that issue makes me think about the one topic we haven't touched today and won't have time for, and that's the GMOs, the genetically modified organisms. They have set standards in Europe, yet they're not working. They're not able to enforce those at all, because they set a bar too high or too low. So that's part of what we have to look at. But I'm sure we're going to hear a little bit more about exporting that wheat, perhaps in a few moments.

I just wanted to confer with the dean from the university college, on whether you have a—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's okay. My daughter goes to a university college, and it's a very good one.

I just wanted to have you confirm whether or not you have received any information yet. Mind you, this $900,000 was just invested recently on the organic front here in Atlantic Canada.

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: Was that the $90,000 that I was referring to?

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, the $900,000.

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: The $900,000 on the organic—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, we invested—

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: Oh, I see, yes. That would be Professor Ralph Martin, with the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. He received that for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. I think he has a clear vision of how fast and how far he can proceed. I think he's a good man to be leading that, and I think the region will benefit from his expertise and that of others.

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

The Chair: Thank you.

Just following that up, James, how did you hear about this meeting?

Mr. James Rodd: I talked to Alfred Fyfe.

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: He heard it from me.

The Chair: And how did you hear about it, Alfred?

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: I was given the address by Sharon Labchuk.

The Chair: Sharon, how did you hear about it?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: I got an e-mail message from my...we have a network of environmental activists involved in this and that across the country, and I think it was probably...maybe some of you are familiar with the GENE ALLIES network, which I'm on. Somebody sent a message and said, “Hey, guys, did you hear that this is happening?” “No, none of us have heard of it.” “The deadline's two days from now. If you want to get in on it, go for it.” So that's how I heard about it. It was kind of a last minute thing, so I called a bunch of people on the island who I thought would be interested.

The Chair: The reason I ask is that we tried our best to get the message about our business out to the different places. Probably six or eight weeks ago, the Guardian did carry the message about the committee coming to Summerside. But as chair, I'm a little bit taken aback by the organic people being so strong in our meetings across the country in terms of all the representations we've heard in Davidson, Saskatchewan, in Grand Bend, Ontario, in Napanee, Ontario, and in Quebec. I'm just trying to figure that out. Is there a network that...are you overrepresented? I'm not sure. I'm just asking, because I don't know.

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: We heard about it at the very last minute. I don't know what kind of warning people in the other parts of the country got, but we heard, virtually two days before the deadline, that we had a chance to register...actually, no, I think it was only one day before the deadline. But I don't know how much more the rest—

The Chair: One may get the impression that it's a...I know it's a good movement, that it's a tremendous movement in the sense of being organized. I have to congratulate you on that part of it.

David, did you have some questions in terms of—

Mr. Gordon Carter: Mr. Chair, if I could make a comment, I'm very surprised that you would be disturbed. I thought you might be elated.

The Chair: Maybe I used the wrong word, but when you think of agriculture in this country, with so much...you talk about industrial, you talk about traditional, you talk about conventional, and all these other terms, but suddenly organics have become such a big part of our hearings. I probably used the wrong word on that, Gordon. I said it's good, but by the same token, we have to make sure how we weigh things when we present our report.

David.

Á (1105)

Mr. David Anderson: I have a couple of questions.

I spent 25 years as a conventional farmer. My brother-in-law has spent the last 20 years as an organic farmer. After those 20 years, I think it was clear there wasn't any evidence that his production was safer. Usually his production was a fair amount lower, and there wasn't any evidence his land was in any better shape for the long term. I would suggest that both systems worked, and that they were able to work together.

I'm getting a bit tired of farmers continually getting blamed for the problems in this country, because I think we're using less chemicals for the most part, in spite of what your stats indicate today. The chemicals are safer, they're a lot less toxic, and they're used more sparingly. The U.S. and Europe clearly use as much or more fertilizer and chemicals than we do. So as a farmer, I'm getting a bit tired of that.

I want to talk a bit about the systems working together—and this is a comment for the organic guys. Some of your organic certification requirements over the last few years have actually made it harder for people to get into it. They're not safety requirements, but they have made it more difficult. I'm just wondering if you would comment. You have an industry that's growing, yet there seems to be some turf protection going on as well in order to keep some of that to yourselves for a longer time. Do you have any comment on that? I think particularly of the extra length of time it takes to get into it now.

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: I don't think it takes any longer. There's still really a three-year transition period.

Mr. David Anderson: Is it three years here?

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: Western Canada has moved it from three years to four years.

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: I assumed that was the national standard, but it's not, is it?

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: Different certification bodies have different standards, and they may have reasons for doing that.

Mr. James Rodd: Mr. Chair, if I may respond as well, depending on the certifying agency, they may have different standards, but when you're in transition, you want to make sure your land, your soil, is healthy. The longer the land is away from chemicals, the better it will be for the soil and the food produced on it.

Mr. David Anderson: I understand the assumption.

I have another question here with respect to the Species at Risk Act that's coming through the House, Bill C-5. The committee received the bill last fall, did a lot of work—four months' worth—heard 120-some witnesses, considered 300 amendments, worked it through, and took it back to the minister. He basically gutted it and shoved it back to the House, and now they're forcing it through.

One of the things they've said is that there clearly will be no compensation package within that legislation. I said we can work that out over the next five years. I'm just wondering if the Species at Risk Act is a concern. In your part of the area, do you have any of those species? Do you have habitat that could be confiscated? I'm particularly addressing that to the farmers.

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane: Since our inception in 1969, the National Farmers Union has always agreed that we need to farm sustainably with the land, not against the land. We've had great debates at National Farmers Union national conventions, about strychnine, contaminants, and poisons, the great gopher debate, and stuff like that.

The NFU is not opposed to things like the Species at Risk Act. It's necessary. If we've learned one thing, it's that you can't reason with nature out there. Farmers work with nature, so we are environmentalists. But there should be compensation. We're in this business to make food for Canadians, so marginal land and land around here that shouldn't be used for agriculture gets pressed into service, but it's because the bottom line for us is to grow food.

The industrial model of agriculture has not left us a lot of room to respect the environment. We're in a crunch now. We're getting legislated into better environmental stewardship, but our provincial government doesn't tell us where the money's going to come from.

Mr. David Anderson: I'll pursue a different area on that, then. First of all, most farmers aren't in the industrial model, as you say. Most of us are just trying to make our living, and we have different-sized acreages and that. There may be some problems with factory farms in some places, but most farmers aren't involved in that.

The new farm plan has an environmental aspect to it. They're suggesting that they'll take some money and do some set-asides, and some of the programs suggest that there would be permanent easements on land.

I'm just going to ask you what you think a fair figure would be for compensation per acre of P.E.I. land. If you're going to take it out of production and are being asked to put it into grasslands or whatever, what's a fair figure per acre?

Á (1110)

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane: That's going to have to be arbitrated, because land on P.E.I. goes from $3,000 an acre down to $3 an acre. Land that has been pushed into agriculture never should have been in agriculture.

Mr. David Anderson: Would $100 an acre be reasonable, or is that too high or too low?

Mr. Ranald MacFarlane: You'd have to show me the land. We have very diverse agriculture on P.E.I., and everyone would be affected differently.

Mr. David Anderson: Orville, do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Orville Lewis: It's really hard to nail down an exact number that any farmer would accept as compensation. To the best of my knowledge, no province in Canada, no state in the U.S., and no country in this world necessitates that a farmer take land out of production voluntarily, except for P.E.I. now. That's in relation to this 9% slope legislation, as well as the buffer zone. So far, farmers have voluntarily gone along with the legislation.

If you're looking at removing still larger portions, I think people would tend to dig their heels in pretty quickly. It's just another way of cutting the bottom line and putting us out of business.

Mr. David Anderson: Are you in favour of off-island conservancy groups and environmental groups coming in and buying chunks of your farmland and putting permanent easements on it?

Mr. Orville Lewis: Presently, a lot of land on P.E.I. is being controlled off-island, whether it's by environmental groups or by visitors who come to our island and would like to have a summer home so they buy a whole farm in order to realize that dream. Unfortunately, the controls are slipping from our hands more and more. That's making things pretty difficult because, unlike most of the other provinces, we have a very limited land base.

Mr. David Anderson: We have an interesting situation in Saskatchewan. Groups will come in and buy thousands of acres, yet individuals cannot come in and buy more than 160 acres right now.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

I'm not sure if Mannie has left or if he's in the hall, but, Dr. Ogilvie, he seems to be telling us the shellfish are not reproducing.

We have quite a bit of aquaculture with shellfish on P.E.I. Has your university done any research? Are there any concerns about what he's saying? I ask because if you don't have reproduction, then your industry, in terms of the commercial aspects that are combined with the natural commercial aspects, is going to disappear.

I was going to ask him if he's on the north side of the island or the south side of the island. Where is he expressing these concerns from? Does anyone in the hall have any information on that?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: All I can tell you is that Bedeque Bay is where he fishes. That's just outside Summerside, on the south side of the island.

The Chair: Is it a major problem here, or is it a minor problem? Is it because of the aquaculture farms? Does anyone else have any information?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: I know a few other shellfish fishermen, and for them, it's their living, of course, so it is the major issue in their minds. They've had problems with siltation, and they've had problems with algae growth affecting them in some rivers.

I have a very old Environment Canada study on pesticide residues in shellfish. As far as I know, there is nothing new. If there is, we don't have the information on it.

I don't know if Mannie brought this up, but I can say that in California, for example, the use of one chemical called endosulphin, an insecticide very commonly used on P.E.I., has been severely restricted, such that it's very difficult to use it in California because it has been found in shellfish. It has been running off of the land into the mud flats, etc.

The Chair: Sharon, is Mannie part of your group?

Ms. Sharon Labchuk: No.

The Chair: No, he's separate from you.

Dr. Ogilvie, maybe I'm putting you on the spot, but it seems that he's making a very strong assertion about the future of shellfish here.

Dr. Timothy Ogilvie: It's a very fertile area in which research can be done. P.E.I. is a microcosm of where agriculture meets the sea very closely and where our estuaries are very productive. But I don't think we know the cause and effect yet. We need to do the research on this subject. Is it because of increasing pressures on the estuaries for shellfish production? Is it a decrease in nutrients? Is it an increase in other causes, such as siltation or pesticides? I'd have to say the research has not been done, but we would be interested in doing it.

Á (1115)

The Chair: So we really don't know if the shellfish are there and not reproducing or if they are just not there.

Alfred, are you also going to give an answer to this?

Mr. Alfred Fyfe: Well, it's a related subject. Dr. David Patriquin did some research on a number of our organic farms in 1989. His background is in marine biology. His doctorate was on coral in the Caribbean.

He claimed that there is a direct relationship between the soil and the sea, and that as the people on the island grew more stuff on the land and raised more beef, pork, chickens, etc., the fishery went down. There was more run-off. There were some protocols set up to try to restrict areas and do things with the soil. I suspect we are in a similar situation here on Prince Edward Island.

The Chair: You talked about spraying. Of course, the Colorado potato beetle is one of the big things you spray for. You had a type of potato here that didn't require much spraying for this--in fact it didn't require any--and it was withdrawn from the markets because of the pressure from certain processors who said they weren't going to buy any more biotech potatoes.

What is the reaction here on the island to this, Orville? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you have probably been involved on both sides, have you?

Mr. Orville Lewis: Yes, I have. I have actually produced some of these GMO potatoes that were resistant to Colorado potato beetles, and, yes, they do work. There is a lot of...I don't know if you could really call it misinformation, but maybe it's misunderstanding of the existing information about what is actually taking place.

Almost every variety of potatoes or wheat or whatever is really a genetically modified organism, except that now, instead of crossbreeding and going through extensive programs, gene splicing is used. The potato that was resistant to Colorado potato beetles had a gene spliced in it that produced a protein the Colorado insects couldn't digest. Essentially, they died with a full stomach because they weren't able to achieve any nutrients from the food they ate.

This protein is benign in humans, as far as anyone knows. But there was some public pressure and the potato processors came to a decision that they weren't going to use it because of this and the lack of information being given to the public on this particular genetically modified variety.

The Chair: Again, we would like to thank the presenters.

I am sorry, Gordon, if you had the impression that I was... It seemed as if we were getting a lot of information on the organics and not much on the others. I believe firmly in organics, but maybe I used the wrong word.

In any case, we would like to thank you for presenting. We have had some good information here. It is going to be a complicated task to put it all together.

In terms of your work with the university, Dr. Ogilvie, we recognize that one of the five pillars everyone talks about is research. We need to make sure we have a very viable, scientifically approved and intensified program that will offer help to farmers across the country. Please go back and tell all the good people at Holland College how good it was for us to hear from you this morning.

We will adjourn for about five minutes and then we go on with panel two. If there are other people in the hall who want to present and aren't on the list, give your name to the clerk and we will make sure you have a chance to get your few minutes in. Thank you.

Á (1115)

Á (1130)

The Chair: We would like to resume our hearings. If the presenters would come to the table, I think they will find their names there on a card. Some of our members are checking out of the hotel. At least three of the best are here, David--us.

The clerk has already indicated that you have about five minutes each for presentations and we go around the table. As we approach five minutes, I will give an indication that you should try to conclude your remarks.

Following all the presentations we begin the questions from members. Members, too, are allocated so much time for the question and the answer, so try to keep your answers as succinct as possible.

With that--I guess Danny and Paul are both missing--from the Prince Edward Island Institute of Agrologists, Don Northcott.

Don, would you mind starting first?

Mr. Don Northcott (Prince Edward Island Institute of Agrologist): That's not a problem.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow presenters, the Prince Edward Island Institute of Agrologists would like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture for this opportunity to attend and air comments relating to our vision for the future role of government in the dynamic enterprise we call agriculture. Our presentation will raise some issues of a general nature that have a bearing on the Canadian population.

The government's role, as well as the roles of all members of the agriculture community, involves change. The early efforts of government in times past focused on production, the introduction of new techniques, genes, and machines, and the demonstration of better practices through the Agriculture Canada Research Stations and Experimental Farms.

In the past, the private sector focused on survival and derived benefit by incorporating Canadian research, research that has fostered rewards for Canadian farmers and has propelled Canadian agriculture to the global front ranks.

Private corporations, through growth, consolidation, and technical advances, are now in many cases addressing tasks with which the federal government, through Agriculture Canada and its associated experimental farms, was formerly charged.

The study of the future role of government is timely, as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency must examine their roles in light of the reduction in funds to these departments and in light of the evolving importance of agriculture in the total economy of our country. We suggest the federal departments responsible for agriculture seriously consider their roles in the following four areas, which I'll outline.

The first is research. Industry has assumed a greater role in research. Agriculture research and research in basic sciences supporting agriculture conducted by universities and corporate industry are making greater contributions than was the case in years past. Government should not compete with industry and must examine its role in areas where private industry is undertaking an active role in research.

A second area would be in the area of regulation. A role for government exists in the area of regulation and compliance, but it may be a different form of regulation than the current application. Corporations, some recognized internationally, offer inspections of various kinds and offer certificates of compliance to companies that follow prescribed methods of operation and quality control and that pass performance inspections. A role for government may be found as a monitoring agent for corporate certification companies.

A third area would be in the area of testing. Emerging products, technologies, processes, and marketing systems are entering commercial arenas at a rapid rate. Government's ability to test and evaluate information and products is becoming stressed because of financial constraints, technical complexities, and the sheer volume of requests. In some cases government has abandoned its former role of testing and is relying to a greater degree on information supplied by industry. Public confidence in industry-supplied information may require reinforcement by an unbiased body such as government. To maintain or in some cases regain public confidence, the testing agency must not have a role in product development or promotion.

And finally, our fourth point would be information interpretation. Government has a role in this area of information interpretation. It somewhat echoes our third point. What is required is an independent body that can distill technical and scientific information in an unbiased and layperson-friendly manner. If a national newspaper targets an audience with a grade 8.5 reading and comprehension level, how can the Canadian public keep pace with the expansion of new scientific information and the introduction of novel products? I assume many Canadians are unable to understand the concepts and benefits of these technologies, and that leads to a point. If people are unable to understand concepts, they're also subject to influence by strongly held opinion presented as fact. I feel that government, as a credible sounding board and information source, would find a hungry Canadian public.

In summary, government's role in agriculture and the role it must assume for the future will undergo a change from today's role as an active participant in its current span of activities to a role one can liken to that of a sage mentor, able and ready to advise and direct but not disposed to enter the fray.

Thank you.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, Don.

Moving on, then, we'll go to the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, with Robert MacDonald, and Doug LeClair.

Mr. Robert MacDonald (First Vice-President, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture): Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert MacDonald.

On behalf of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, I'd like to welcome you to P.E.I. and thank you for the opportunity you've given us today to present and discuss the federation's views and the future role of agriculture and the agriculture sector.

In partnership with two brothers, I manage a mixed farming operation in southeast Queen's County, Prince Edward Island. Although our main crop is potatoes, we also produce grains and hay as rotational crops. Along with this we manage a cow-calf herd and a small beef feedlot too.

With me today is our general manager, Doug LeClair. Although the subject we're discussing today is complex, we shall try to be brief and hopefully answer any questions you may have at the end of the presentation.

By way of background, the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture was founded in 1941 to provide a united voice for island farmers. The P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture is the province's largest general farm organization, with representatives from all commodity groups on its board of directors. As per its vision statement, the federation exists to help improve the sustainability of island farms and farm families.

On Prince Edward Island, agriculture is our most important industry. At 13% of the provincial GDP, farm gate sales can reach approximately $300 million per year. This represents the largest percentage of GDP of any industry in any province in Canada. Over 75% of our provincial exports are generated by food products.

The last several years have been a tremendous challenge to the agricultural industry of P.E.I., particularly for the hog, grain, potato, and vegetable sectors. Low hog prices in 1998-99 caused tremendous losses to producers. Some were unable to survive, while others are still trying to claw their way out of debt. The low grain price cycle has resulted in mounting losses and revealed the ineffectiveness of safety net programs like CFIP in dealing with the crisis, leaving many producers to ponder the future. The potato wart crisis of 2000-2001 devastated most of the potato industry, and the financial effects will be felt for years to come.

Marketing problems aside, our climate has, until 2001, always somehow provided us with growing conditions to produce and harvest a decent crop. This past summer the rain simply did not come, and P.E.I. experienced a drought, the likes of which haven't been experienced for over 40 years. The effect on the potato and vegetable sector was crippling, with yield reductions of 40% to 60% commonplace. With production costs in the $2,000-per-acre range, the losses, when finally tagged, will be massive. The devastation of the drought extended well beyond the potato/horticulture sector to most farmers in the province. Grain and forage yields were also substantially reduced and resulted in either reduced sales or increased input costs for most farms in the province.

Safety net programs as currently designed are grossly inadequate to deal with a disaster of this magnitude, the worst our provincial industry has ever seen. Every producer has been affected.

Our provincial industry mirrors the national trend of an alarming decrease in the number of farms. In fact, in 1971 farm numbers on P.E.I. were 4,500. Since then, decline has occurred at over twice the national average to a level of approximately 1,600 production units today.

This introduction describes in a very brief way the tough challenges that a provincial and national industry face. Farmers, however, are a resilient and optimistic lot and will somehow forge on when possible, producing some of the safest and cheapest food in the modern world, while receiving far less government support than our main trading partners and competitors, namely, the U.S. and the EU. We will continue to be innovative and at the forefront of environmental responsibility in food safety.

Getting on to the role of government in agriculture, there are four areas where we feel changes have to be made. One of them is user fees and cost recovery. As industry becomes increasingly more regulated, the demand will continue for government services to monitor those things. Some sectors under user fees and cost recovery have been tremendously impacted. For those of you who are not familiar, I'd like to give you an example of some of the things I'm talking about.

In the potato sector, to ship a load of table-stock potatoes to the United States costs us $150 for a trailerload of potatoes. That is 500 hundredweight. Five hundred hundredweight on the provincial average is about two acres, give or take. So, theoretically, it costs me $75 per acre to get a piece of paper to go across the border. That $75 equates to pretty nearly all the cost of my fungicide application to protect that crop for a full year. That's how much the potato sector has been impacted by user fees. In the early eighties, that inspection certificate cost $5. That is all it cost.

User fees for inspection services have long been recognized as trade green for government support. That was mentioned here earlier today, yet when government is asked to participate in helping us get through some of the problems we have financially, they continually resist paying more of the cost or eliminating the cost altogether. Even though it is trade green, it is something other countries are doing all the time, but we can't seem to get our government onside to help us out in that fashion.

Á (1140)

There is a need to ensure that the fees are structured to services rendered, not cost-recovery-based.

Again I get back to the potato inspection fee example. It's a piece of paper that allows me to export my produce to the United States of America. Neither the buyer nor the seller want it or use it. It simply gets me across the border. It's a tremendous amount of cost for just a simple border-crossing paper.

On agriculture literacy--in other words, ag awareness--we think there's a place for the government to play a role here. We need a focused industry-government national strategy to raise the level of education within the Canadian public, the reason being that a lot of us feel that today's consumer is three to four generations removed from actually being on the farm, involved, seeing how the chickens lay the eggs and the cows are milked. They've lost touch with how food is produced, and they need to be re-educated.

We need to have the good-news stories about Canadian agriculture promoted. We heard comments this morning about the cattle in the streams. I would hazard a guess that very few people, even on P.E.I., are aware that 90% to 95% of the beef cattle on P.E.I. that have access to the streams are now fenced out--a farmer initiative. Nobody knows that.

If some of these things are done, it all leads to a better public understanding of what our industry goes through and how their food is raised for them.

On food safety and the environment, Canada is already a world leader in these fields, even though we must compete against the treasuries of other governments. On P.E.I., over 60% of our farms have completed an environmental farm plan, making us the envy of the nation. However, before we have time to get the EFP fully implemented, farmers are now facing the additional challenge of implementing the on-farm food safety programs. We are already being told by both government and the marketplace that in the near future both environmental farm plans and on-farm food safety plans will become a requirement for not only government programming but also market access.

Farmers know they are producing the nation's food in a safe and sustainable way. They also realize that consumers want to have some sort of formal assurance that the quality of food they are purchasing is safe to eat. But farmers are left to ponder, who's going to pay the cost? All these systems cost money to put in place and to monitor, but who's going to pay the cost?

Even if Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada assists with start-up costs, the ongoing costs to the producer of maintaining a bureaucratically designed system such as this could become overwhelming, and all the while the retailer for non-supply-managed commodities has free rein to purchase products from any other country, which has no such regulations in place.

To totally enhance this concept, producers need to have assurance that a fallback system exists in the event they are not able to recover their costs in the marketplace. All society benefits from improvements in these areas; it is not unreasonable that all society should help bear the costs. If nothing else, the farmers need to have assurance that these additional costs will be covered by government until such time as the Canada brand rewards producers or an international trade agreement such as the WTO levels the playing field.

On safety nets, the current agreement expires at the end of this year. We don't know where we're going with it yet. There are consultations going on to try to figure it out, but here we are, going into a crop this year, we're supposed to be wise managers, and yet we don't know what this part of our business plan is yet.

CFIP is severely underfunded. Initial payments for 2001 are at 50%. The balance is unknown, and we are told that it will depend on the national demand. Unused portions from previous years have not been rolled forward. If this were to happen, it would go a long way to help address the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the underfunding of the CFIP for 2001.

The new program needs to be, number one, straightforward and predictable. NISA is a prime example. It's a very good program here. It works in P.E.I., for the most part. The problem is, when we get into situations like...I don't want to take the potato board's thunder away, but potato wart is another prime example. When we had potato wart, totally a trade issue, we were told that NISA was there to be used for something like that. That's not what NISA was designed for.

Á (1145)

NISA was designed to look after market fluctuations in price and yields. It was never meant to be used to handle a trade issue. It needs to be based on solid accounting procedures. It needs to be adequately funded. It needs to be long term, at least five years. It has to be quick in response to a crisis. It needs to have a young farmer initiative, a transition or exit strategy, and continued commitment to protect supply managed commodities.

As a side comment to the young farmer initiative and transition/exit strategy, I think if we could look after the other things sufficiently, we would find people who would be interested in becoming farmers. It would be financially viable for them to become farmers. A retiring farmer would have somebody to sell his farm to. That's the big problem. Farming today is not the kind of business you want to get into unless you have a lot of money to back you up.

The current agriculture policy framework consultation strategy is very broadly based. There is a real concern in the industry that there is not enough time to allow for proper consultation with the major stakeholders. It's incumbent upon Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials to use industry input in the final design of a new program that effectively serves its target, the farmers of Canada.

Hopefully this exhaustive process will result in the design and implementation of a comprehensive agriculture policy that will effectively address the short- and long-term challenges facing our industry.

In closing, I would like to say that the importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy and social fabric is well known and documented. Low food prices in Canada have enabled our society to grow in leaps and bounds. Canadian farmers compete in a very inequitable arena where our major competitors are heavily supported by their governments, which is society. Canada needs to adequately support its producers to sustain food production in Canada until such time as international agreements and national policy--i.e., the Canada brand--enable Canadian farmers to get a fair return from the marketplace.

Currently, if farmers were to give away the food they produce, the consumer would only see a decrease in their price of 10%. One of the examples that was stated this morning, about the average weekly grocery bill, is a fact. The other example is the farmers share-a-meal deal that we did last fall. A restaurant meal costs $30. If the farmer were to give that food away, the customer would still pay $28 for that meal.

An investment in agriculture is an investment in the future of our country and in our rural communities. Primary food production is a most noble profession. It serves the most basic of human requirements. All of Canada needs to work together to help restore pride, confidence, and profitability in this honourable industry.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of our presentation. We'd like to thank you once again for inviting us today.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thanks, Robert.

From the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network, we have Kevin Jeffrey.

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey (Director of Development, Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network): Thank you very much for inviting me here today.

Our acronym is ACORN, and that does stand for the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network. ACORN has been in business for about a year and a third. We are a group that was put together to consolidate all the stakeholders in the organic food industry in Atlantic Canada. That includes all the Atlantic provinces, and it includes everyone who feels they have a stake in producing or consuming organic food. So that includes farmers, industry professionals, retailers, wholesalers. A very important point is that it also includes government and it includes conventional farmers who are interested in organics and in at least considering the possibility of making a transition.

We've had a lot of successes over the last year and a quarter, and I think a big reason for that has been that we've gotten away from the confrontation between conventional and organic agriculture. You can spend a lot of time debating the science and debating the validity of one farming system versus another. We find we're flat out just responding to people who are intrigued with organic agriculture. That has made a huge difference. It's brought people to the table who normally would not be there.

Several years ago, at least, the provincial governments were not represented in organics. There was a lot of confrontation. Now it seems like everybody recognizes that organics at least have some place. All we're doing is trying to respond to issues or interests surrounding organic agriculture.

I'll just list a few things we've been able to do. We've been able to host a major regional conference, both last March in Charlottetown and then just last week in Moncton, New Brunswick, where we had almost 500 people from around the region interested in organics. We had speakers from across the country and down in the States. It was a vehicle for people to network and find out more about organic agriculture.

We've been able to do a lot of things that the ag college in Nova Scotia.... As you brought up in the last session, they've received a chunk of federal money, but that money is targeted for some very specific things, mainly formal education and what I would call “scientific” research. That leaves a whole field of things that still need to be either put in place or accomplished--other parts of a comprehensive organic industry, for example, hands-on training. ACORN was able develop a two-day comprehensive training course that is based on a model that was developed in Ontario, and we just put our first course on at the beginning of our conference. Over a two-day period we had almost a round table discussion like this. That was the format for the two-day training course. They were four people who couldn't attend a university or even take one of the web-based courses that are being developed over at OACC.

By the way, ACORN is working very closely with OACC and other organic entities in Atlantic Canada. So we make sure we're not duplicating effort and wasting what little or moderate levels of funding that we do have. But that two-day course was an important one.

We've been able to reach out to consumers, bring some awareness to what this industry is. We've actually been able to create an industry in Atlantic Canada. There were lots of good people doing good things, but not as a coordinated effort. ACORN was able to bring the industry together, speak with a common voice, and deal with issues in an efficient manner.

I'll mention just a few things regarding what government's role could be in organic agriculture.

I think there's a reason people are so interested in organics. It's dealing with something at a gut level that deals with our desire to create a more sustainable world. I think what's going to happen is that to some degree we're going to evolve in a similar fashion to what's happening in Europe. Again, you can debate the science, you can debate the validity, but what's actually happening is that consumers are speaking about their environmental concerns, their social concerns, and they're speaking with their pocketbooks, with their wallets. And food seems to be one thing that they feel they can have some control over--what they eat and what they feed their kids.

I won't get into a debate over whether organics respond to that need to deal with these issues on a personal level, but I will say there are a lot of people requesting that more information get out and more land get converted to organic agriculture, that we at least make an effort to move in that direction. So we've come up with a few main things the government could do.

One is certainly creating a national standard that does evolve. We have a national standard in place. It's been in place for a few years. It's been stagnant for a few years. It needs to be constantly evolving. There needs to be a national organic program where certification bodies can get the accreditation that was talked about in the last session.

What happened was Canada was out in front with developing this national standard, and down in the States, the USDA took up the organic standard, they actually took ownership of it, and for right or wrong, it jumped them ahead into a situation where there is now a body that can accredit. It's a national entity.

Á (1155)

All of a sudden, Canada is trying to catch up and find out how they can have this same sort of evolution both in standards and accreditation. We need to find a way to get around the log-jam. Part of the log-jam is the fault of our own industry because of the dozens and dozens of different certification bodies and interest groups who all want some input into this national program.

If government can in some way facilitate this process so we can move ahead, we can make sure we still get into the available markets. Marketing doesn't seem to be the problem at the moment. The markets seem to be there. In Atlantic Canada, one of our problems is distribution. We are a young industry.

Aside from national standards and some way of assisting distribution, our situation requires us to seek assistance with production as well, including help with formal research; scientific research and education; all sorts of on-farm research, education, and training; specialty equipment; production techniques; and on-farm consultants--all of those sorts of things.

Thank you very much.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you, Kevin.

Now from the Prince Edward Island Potato Board, we have Vernon Campbell, the chairman, along with the general manager, Ivan Noonan, and the assistant general manager, Brenda Simmons.

Vernon, who is making the presentation?

Mr. Vernon Campbell (Chairman, Prince Edward Island Potato Board): I am.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honourable committee members, fellow presenters. My name is Vernon Campbell. I farm just 15 miles north of here. I am the seventh generation of Campbells to farm in the New London area. We farm 1,800 acres, pretty well equally divided between cereals, forage, and potatoes.

We are indeed a family farm. We are not a factory farm. We are not an industrial farm. We are a family farm that produces safe, affordable, nutritious food for our fellow Canadians and for the export market.

I have three teenagers at home, and I am not the least bit interested in poisoning them with my use of crop protection chemicals. I have, I have to admit, threatened physical harm to them on occasion, but I haven't done any irreparable damage as of yet.

I am here today to speak to you as chairman of the P.E.I. Potato Board. As Mr. Hubbard mentioned, I am accompanied by Mr. Ivan Noonan, the general manager, and Ms. Brenda Simmons, our assistant manager.

I have a ten-minute brief that I have to present in five minutes.

The Chair: No, no, we will give you the time, but please keep it to 10.

Mr. Vernon Campbell: I could speak quickly, but I have noticed that most of you speak with an accent, and if I was to speak more quickly, you wouldn't understand me. So I will do my very best, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Vernon, we recognize that your industry is one of the main ones here in P.E.I. and we will give you 10 minutes.

Mr. Vernon Campbell: That's great, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate that. You have heard from a number of presenters so far, but we are the auto industry of P.E.I. We are the economic engine that runs this province, and we appreciate the opportunity to be heard today.

I would like to start out with a very quick overview of the Potato Board. In the interest of time, we have given a one-page summary of our industry to your clerk to be distributed later.

Our board represents over 600 growers in this province. Our board doesn't buy or sell potatoes. Instead, we license dealers, exporters, and so on to market our potatoes throughout Canada, the U.S., and around the world. We also promote the production and marketing of quality seed, table stock, and processing potatoes.

P.E.I. produces 30% of the Canadian potato crop. Potatoes are the economic engine of this province through both potato production and value-added processing activities such as packing houses, grading activity, and those types of things.

The provincial economy and the people of P.E.I.--not just P.E.I. potato growers--feel the direct impacts of good and poor potato years. Our industry has endured two extremely difficult years in a row. First we had the potato wart crisis and then a severe drought in 2001. These experiences have helped refine our thoughts as to the role government should play in making Canadian agriculture a more competitive and economically sustainable sector.

This can be summed up in one sentence: we believe it is the responsibility of government to create a good environment in which we can conduct our business and then to get out of our way. Let producers compete on the basis of a level playing field. That sounds simple, but the current agricultural trade and regulatory environment in Canada is a far cry from that.

We agree 100% with the position the Federation of Agriculture has outlined with respect to environmental farm plans and on-farm food safety. As evident from some of the views expressed earlier today, we are facing intense scrutiny from the media and the public for our environmental practices, even though the measures in place on P.E.I. farms are as good as, and in many cases superior to, those used in other areas, and certainly the world.

In recent years, P.E.I. potato growers have made major investments towards sustainable farming. Close to 70% of potato farms in P.E.I. have already completed their environmental farm plans for their operations. However, they are doing this largely without the assistance of the federal government. We would like to see more acknowledgment and support for these initiatives federally.

In a speech to your committee in early February, Minister Lyle Vanclief stated that environmental farm plans would be in place for every Canadian farm within five years. While this would be positive, and our industry has already demonstrated its commitment to such actions, the federal government needs to back up its words with concrete and significant investment in this area.

Also, the federation's position on on-farm food safety mirrors our concerns. We all want safe food; that's a given. Canada already has the worldwide reputation for producing safe, high-quality food. Despite this, we are told by government that we must have formal, on-farm food safety programs in place on every farm in Canada within the next few years in order to satisfy consumers' wants, needs, and demands.

Ladies and gentlemen, two things come to mind. As we already have a safe food supply, someone needs to pay for the development and implementation of such a system over the long term, and it should not be farmers. Unlike other businesses--take car manufacturers, for instance, who can build the price of increased safety features such as airbags into their pricing formula--by and large, primary producers do not have the opportunity to pass this increased cost on to the market.

Over the years we have absorbed many, many additional costs without the accompanying increase in price, and we simply cannot continue to operate this way.

The government is promoting this policy in order to meet consumer demands. Therefore, the government should either cover the cost of the program or else develop some means by which producers can receive this elusive premium from consumers.

The second point is that the government has to do a better job of countering some of the media fear-mongering and become much more vocal in telling Canadians that we do have a safe food supply, so that their expectations and needs are based on reality and not hype.

At this time I am going to take a pause from my presentation just to note that the CBC has left. There is no confrontation here; there is nobody waving banners here: we are speaking on behalf of our industry, but they are not here to listen.

The issue of safety nets I think has been adequately covered by Robert from the federation and by Mr. Lewis' statements earlier.

Trade policy is another area of significant concern for the potato industry, based, of course, on our experience from potato wart. The federal government has pushed an agenda of increased exports for several years now. On the surface that sounds great, and as our industry has been successful in exporting potatoes around the world for over 100 years, we support improved access to export markets.

However, the same agricultural trade officials who recommended our government sign new trade agreements, which give our growers and exporters very little in the way of improved access, wash their hands and refuse to act when phytosanitary barriers to trade are erected to replace quotas and tariffs. We have seen this time and time again, and our experiences through potato wart with the U.S. and PDY with Mexico are prime examples of this.

What we have learned is that under NAFTA the U.S. has rights and Canada has obligations. Our producers lose under this attitude or approach.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, we believe it is government's responsibility to create an environment in which we can compete fairly. However, when we were told that Canada has so drastically reduced its support to farmers--it now provides only about 40% of the assistance it is entitled to under the WTO rules--while countries like the U.S. are actually exceeding its WTO limits, it is evident we are competing at a disadvantage in both domestic and international markets.

Â (1205)

We are not here today to look for handouts. However, our government has cut back on GATT-green areas, such as inspection services, research, and environmental initiatives. This is wrong and it must be reversed.

Our growers in P.E.I. alone pay about $1 million per year to the CFIA for inspection services. The Treasury Board has taken a look at the CFIA's cost-recovery policies and found them to be inequitable.

We are bearing more than our fair share. We feel governments should reduce or eliminate those fees.

I would like to end by saying that our growers are proud people indeed and wish only to achieve a fair return from the marketplace. However, returns have not kept pace with increases in input costs, federal cost-recovery programs, etc. Also, developments such as the concentration in the Canadian and U.S. processing, distribution, and retail sectors have limited our growers' ability to achieve this fair return.

When disasters such as potato wart or the widespread drought hits, we truly feel that the Canadian government must assist growers in a significant and effective manner in order to keep agriculture production here in Canada.

What is the alternative? Is it to rely on imports from other countries where we have little or no control over production practices and no guarantee of supply? We don't think Canadians want this either.

Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my presentation. We would be pleased to provide you with any more information later on or try to answer any questions your committee might have. Thank you very much.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Thank you, Vernon.

Mr. Stan Sandler, would you identify your group or your farm? You will then have five minutes.

Mr. Stan Sandler (Individual Presentation): Since this committee is looking to the future, I think it would be wise to look at what the trends have been in government agricultural involvement and consider where this is going to lead if those trends continue.

I have milked cows for about 20 years and I have kept bees for 25 years. I have bee yards on 50 different farms all over the eastern end of Prince Edward Island. I can give this committee my views on what the trends I see are doing to me, my local community, and beekeepers around the country.

The most obvious trend is the cutback in almost all government farm support programs and the institution of user pay and government services. The reasons for this are also obvious. The government has been going further and further into the hole, and there was public pressure to balance the budget and start paying down the deficit.

It seems to me that the result of this trend is that the average farmer is getting older, fewer in number, more efficient, and more insecure. As family farms have declined in number, the number of corporate farms has increased.

Mr. Anderson does not believe that.

The biggest beekeeping operation now in the Atlantic provinces is a corporate farm. The Bragg Lumber Company, Oxford Frozen Foods, has about 12,000 beehives. That is a little over half of all the hives in Nova Scotia and it's about ten times the size of my operation, and I have over half the hives in P.E.I. So that one place has taken the place of what before was a large number of small beekeeping operations.

I have only five minutes to speak, and many people I am sure will talk to this committee about that most obvious trend, so I want to narrow down to one facet that does not get much attention: the cutbacks in government agricultural research. The trend here has been for research to shift from government to the private sector, and I note that the trend is worldwide. But the private sector only takes over research when there is some possibility of profit. Government bent to that reality when they allowed companies to patent seeds and germ plasm. But if you look at a small, unique agricultural group like beekeepers, you will find that the private sector is not picking up the slack as government bows out. The group is not large enough to generate sufficient profits.

The dollar-value contribution of beekeeping to the Canadian economy is huge if one includes the value of crop pollination. But how does the private sector get an investment return from a research investment in bees? That dollar value does not come back to them. It is only what the beekeepers could afford to put in.

In fact, even in the huge agricultural economy of the United States it has been difficult to get any company to put research into products for the control of bee diseases and pests. The cost of researching and especially the cost of the massive testing needed for registration of a new product are higher than the return the corporations think they will get from the beekeeping sector.

Cutbacks to government research on honey bees have reached the point where the following resolution was made at this year's Canadian Honey Council meeting. This is resolution 7, and the ABA is the Alberta Beekeepers Association:

WHEREAS Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's sole researcher on bees will be retiring within the next few years BE IT RESOLVED the Canadian Honey Council supports the ABA in having this position filled with a honeybee Pathologist whose main responsibility will be the management and control of honeybee disease.

Cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces have meant that those programs in the provinces are also not in existence. We no longer have a single apiarist in any of the Atlantic provinces, professional or otherwise--not a single one. So at a time when our industry is threatened with a host of new diseases spreading around the world, namely old diseases developing resistance to drugs we have been using and new and deadly parasites, we have no one doing research on our behalf. We raise some money through the Canadian Honey Council to subsidize some research, but we can only raise money based on the honey we can sell and on some pollination fees.

Our value to the agricultural economy is actually far greater than this because of the need for pollination of various fruits and vegetables. However, that is not an economic commodity we can pull money for research from. As with most agricultural commodities, the price of honey has only increased marginally while our input costs have skyrocketed, so there is little for us to skim and put towards research. It is the role of government to see that and recognize the importance of research on honeybees for the future of the whole agricultural sector.

Now, the privatization-of-research trend has also meant that governments worldwide have left the testing of new pesticides up to the companies. Pesticides impact on beekeepers quite a lot, especially if they're insecticides. They do hire university researchers frequently, but there have been several studies on this practice in the drug industry that show that researchers do not tend to be totally independent in their assessments of products of companies that are employing them, nor are the companies always free and transparent about giving access to the research they've paid for. For example, I became concerned about the persistence of a relatively new potato insecticide that is extensively used here called imidacloprid and its possible role in bee problems. A study existed on its persistence, done on P.E.I. and submitted by the company Bayer to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. I tried to see that study through the Access to Information Act, and I was told that since the company had paid for the study, it was not in the public domain and I could not get it, even though it had been presented to a government agency.

In the end, the company admitted that it did not have data on the residue amounts of insecticide in crops important to bees following potatoes, and it funded a study on P.E.I. last year, one that did not find large residue amounts in pollen or nectar. To their credit, the Bayer company has committed to a very ambitious research program this year that is intended to continue to explore our bee problems here and in New Brunswick, with the aim of finding the causes. It's something to the tune of over $200,000 the Bayer company is going to put in.

Agriculture Canada has proposed to partner in this project, using, among other things, their expertise in virus identification. I would ask this committee to recommend to the Minister of Agriculture that this proposal get a favourable review, because it is not often that beekeepers have been able to access a large source of private funding. I realize that governments are strapped for cash too, but here is an example of where the private sector would put money in. They are asking for some matching funding from the government.

Nevertheless, the trend of leaving all the research to the company seems a dangerous one to me. Another new insecticide called Helix or thiamethoxam has been registered by PMRA--

Â (1215)

The Chair: Stan, you're running over quite badly. It's interesting, I know, and we want to hear more, but can you conclude just in a...?

Â (1220)

Mr. Stan Sandler: Yes, okay. Possibly somebody would give me some time after. But I'll conclude quickly.

Nevertheless, the trend... Helix has 55 pages of registration, and there's not one word of bees in it. It's all rat and monkey experiments.

I don't think that putting PMRA in Health and Welfare was a good idea. I think it should have been left with Environment Canada. Since it's gone to Health and Welfare, the Canadian government does no private research on any of the insecticides; it all comes from what the companies say.

The Chair: Thanks, Stan. We're going to have to get back in questions.

Ron Flynn.

Mr. Ron Flynn (Individual Presentation): Good morning, Chair.

I'd like to thank the chair and the honourable members of the committee for accepting me and for listening to what we have to say.

I'm a little different from some of your other organizations that have been here this morning. I'm an individual. I'm not a scientist nor an economist nor a farmer. I'm bringing my beliefs and that of fellow people in Alberton, a small town about 45 miles west of here. The town is only about 1,100 acres in size, a small town. We have over 1,100 residents. And in the town we have a hospital, a manor, a community care facility, a school, some shopping. Within the town limits there are about 300 acres, everything from potatoes to strawberries to a little bit of hay mixed within the town.

The concerns that I'm here for today were brought to the forefront back in October. One of the farmers used chemicals, Vapam and Tolone C-17, and I'm specific on the chemicals that were used. The day they were used was actually October 17. For the week prior to that they'd been announcing there was a hurricane coming, the tail end of a hurricane, and we were taking precautions. It continued up until the Saturday, and we thought it won't be as bad as a tropical storm. Sunday was still windy. Monday morning the spraying took place, probably around 6 o'clock, 6:30 in the morning. By 8 o'clock, we had 13 of the workers show up at the hospital. Later in the day, four more showed up at the hospital. We had some residents. One young child who had been waiting for the school bus just a short distance from the farm had to go to the hospital and was administered oxygen.

Now, Tolone, in their own MSD sheets and the company's labelling, is quite simple: it's fatal if inhaled, absorbed, or in contact with. And this same chemical is not allowed to be used in these conditions. When it goes in a field, it's spread as a fumigant; it's not a top spray or a dust. It's a fumigant; it goes into the soil. In the States it's banned in some places. In other places, California and Florida, there's a 300-foot minimum buffer zone. And it's known to be toxic to fish.

For that particular chemical, the MSD sheets and the labelling from the company, Dow AgroSciences, have stated that you cannot go in the field within 72 hours unless you wear protective clothing, full respirator mask, chemical-resistant gloves and boots. If you should go in with leather gloves, even a leather watch-strap, it should be disposed of--you can't do it. And there's no known antidote if you're poisoned with it. It's terrible stuff.

What the citizens of Alberton were looking for.... We went to the town council shortly after to see if there was bylaw or something to protect us from it. It's the only farm in the province that uses this chemical. I think when the chemicals were used they may have been thinking of huge provinces like Alberta. Our whole province is small, very small. We're the highest populated per capita in the whole country. Like I say, Alberton is 1,100 residents.

We're squeezed in there, and there are no buffer zones. If you're a fish, you can get a buffer zone, or if you're a stream, you can get a buffer zone. But if you're a homeowner or if you have your well within a certain distance, there is no buffer zone--none, period.

My home is actually 10 feet from a field that is being sprayed; my well would be approximately 50 feet. We have no municipal water source. We're each on domestic water; that's the water we're getting. The MSD sheets and the labelling from the company says it attracts water; it wants to go to the water. I don't know what we have to do to get protection from it.

When we go to the level above this, the provincial legislature, and ask for information on the Pesticide Control Act, they say--and I have the act with me--spraying shouldn't take place when winds are in excess of 25 kilometres per hour, for which our province is one of the highest there are; in other provinces, it's 15 kilometres per hour.

The property of one of my friends was being sprayed. He called the Department of Agriculture inspection services. They came down with a little wind metre that they hold up, and it was blowing at 60 kilometres per hour. So he spoke to the farmer and said, “Where did you take your reading?” He said, “Well, follow me.” It doesn't say where to check it or how to check it. It does say check, but you go in the valley, in the field, and you crouch down behind your vehicle and you hold it in the road. The wind was 25 kilometres then, so he could spray, but if he was standing up, it would blow the hair off your head--that must be happening to me. So it's kind of wishy-washy.

I spoke to a local politician on that and he said, “You know, the reason it's 25 kilometres per hour is because the winds on P.E.I. always blow at least 18 kilometres per hour, on average.” He said “If we cut it down to less than 25 kilometres per hour, we couldn't spray at all.”

The other incident that happened in Alberton was at our local school. This happened in mid-October. One of the farmers was spraying Roundup, a top-kill chemical, just to kill off before he plowed under. There was clover in the field, and he just wanted to plow it under. They had to close the windows. The kids were on puffers. As to the numbers from that school, you can check with the past principal, but there were 240 children in school; 180 of the children at school have a pre-determined illness, whether it's asthma, a breathing problem, or ADDs.

We have the highest incidence of asthma and the second highest incidence of cancer in the country. There has to be something that's causing this.

With our petition--403 people actually signed it--we're just asking for some help, some consideration. We've gone to the provincial government to get legislation put in place that will treat us all the same--that's a reminder.

Â (1225)

The Chair: I'll have to let it come out in the questioning. But there's one thing I didn't pick up. You say you're not a farmer, but what is your occupation?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I actually work for the provincial government as a housing officer.

The Chair: A housing officer. Okay.

Moving on, then, to questions, David is going to be first.

Mr. David Anderson: To start off, I have a question for Robert.

You mentioned that we need a focused national ag strategy to educate the public.

In eastern Canada in particular, you have the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and provincial federations of agriculture. Why do you call on the government to do that educating when you represent the primary producers? It's clear to me that the agricultural organizations seem to do a better job of getting their message out than filtering it through government. Also, the government gets pressure from all positions. The message sometimes isn't clear because they don't represent just one group.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I guess the main reason, or one of the reasons, we'd like that to happen is that we've been trying to do it. I know regionally, provincially, and federally they've been doing that, but the comment that comes back from some people is that it gets to be a credibility issue from those people who are not aware of what we're talking about. They question why you're saying what you're saying; it's a “where's your proof” type of thing.

I personally have always felt that the government represents everybody, and they should look fairly at both sides of an issue and find out what the truth is and publicize that. I think that is the main reason we'd like to see the federal government take a more proactive stance in this.

The federal government has the people who are approving or disapproving products. If they approve a product that's safe for me to use on my farm and somebody in the public is using it in a slanderous fashion, then they should stand up and defend it. They made the decision. We're just farmers. We won't use things that we're not allowed to, but when we are using these products and we are allowed to use them and they are safe, and we are using them in a safe fashion, then we need some help to defend why we're doing what we're doing.

Â (1230)

Mr. David Anderson: One of the objectives of communicating is usually that you're trying to portray a positive message. What's happened is we've gotten back on our heels a bit I think and we're trying to defend some things. I wonder if there isn't a positive message we can still focus on that will convince people that we're doing a good job.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: Well, some of this is not only on the use of chemicals or protectants. It's just the little things that people seem to overlook, like that stat about the beef cattle that I mentioned this morning. We tried provincially to get that message out, but it sort of... It's not all government's fault either. Vernon alluded to the media. It's quite common that if you're doing a good-news deal, nobody wants to listen to it. They can't make their money by promoting good-news stories, and that is part of the problem.

I still feel that both the federal and provincial governments need to do a better job than what they're doing.

Mr. Doug LeClair (Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture): Just to add to that, the CFA currently has a proposal called Growing Canada. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but it proposes to partner between CFA and Ag Canada to do some of this more proactive ag literacy. I guess that's the new term.

Mr. David Anderson: Will you have a press release going out about your meeting today?

Mr. Doug LeClair: We haven't talked about that, but quite likely, yes.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. As Vernon was talking and I was thinking about that, I thought there were some basic things we need to use to advertise ourselves as well. If the media won't come here, sometimes they will use those because that's their information source.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: Usually that's what does happen. After you do something like this, it's the only way the story does get out. At that point in time, they still have a choice of whether they want to publicize it or not.

I don't want to speak on behalf of the Potato Board, but I know they've issued press releases in the past. Sometimes they get used and sometimes they don't.

Mr. David Anderson: Kevin, you called for a national standard for organic issues that was able to evolve as time goes on. I'd just like to talk a little bit about the issue of certification. Rick had talked earlier about pesticide tolerances. I've been thinking about this. Are we going to have to put some tolerances in that standard for seed pollution and for pesticide tolerance and those kinds of things, do you think?

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey: It all comes down to what consumers are demanding. All the certifications that are out there are trying to give some sort of guarantee to consumers about the way a food was grown. The more sophisticated the consumer gets, the more sophisticated our certification will need to be. That will include things like tolerances and more information to back up what those standards are saying.

Mr. David Anderson: I guess I take issue with that; I don't think consumers are demanding specifics as much as they are some labels on things, not in terms of mandatory labelling, but they would like to know that if something's organic, it's labelled organic. They aren't interested so much in the details. Would you disagree with that? The problem is that we don't have national standards in either organic or GMO products right now.

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey: I guess what I meant was that when people see the word “organic”, they need to know that it was certified and certified appropriately. This industry grew organically. It grew from the ground up, and farmers had to create their own standards. We're really just coming into a time now when that's all getting into the mainstream, even though it's still very small. Mainstream consumers, since they don't have that connection with the farmer that they used to, want to see that, yes, that was certified by an accredited body. I do think the consumers are getting what I would call more sophisticated in their analysis of labels.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay.

Stan, you wanted a little bit more time, and I'd like to give you that. I just had a comment. You said that one company in Nova Scotia has half of the beehives in Nova Scotia. Is that correct?

Mr. Stan Sandler: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: And then you said you have half the beehives in P.E.I.

Mr. Stan Sandler: Yes, but on an average--

Mr. David Anderson: Would you consider that to be the same level of corporate concentration in each area?

Mr. Stan Sandler: No, because I'm the average-sized family bee operation in the rest of the country.

Mr. David Anderson: You had some further comments you wanted to make. I just wanted to give you that opportunity.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance)): I'm going to have to interrupt here. I'll give you 30 seconds because you did want to say a couple more things with regard to bees, but we've gone six minutes now.

Mr. Stan Sandler: I was going to praise the Government of Canada, but I can do that in 30 seconds.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): You can do that later.

Mr. Stan Sandler: I am likely over my paltry five minutes, and I do not wish to be totally negative in assessing the future role of government, so let me say that I have another agricultural aspect to my business. I import packages of bees from New Zealand and queen bees from Australia for the Atlantic provinces. I pay many user-pay fees to the Canada Food Inspection Agency for import permits and inspection fees at the ports of entry. I welcome these, and I am grateful for the role that CFIA regulations and Canadian inspectors play in keeping many bee diseases and pests out of the country. Despite the serious ones we have, there are some others that we have so far managed to avoid.

There is only one of those fees that really ticks me off. About five years ago there was an environmental assessment fee instituted that amounts to $300 a year for me, $150 for each country. The first year I was told it was a one-time fee. Then I was told there was no reason that the fee was still there. They were not doing the assessments any more, but this particular committee had not yet recommended that it be lifted. They said that when it was lifted the fees would be refunded.

The latest I have heard, five years later, is that the buck has passed from this committee to the environmental department, and they have to make something--anyway, I still pay the fees.

But I do appreciate the role of government in keeping agricultural pests out of the country, and I hope that continues in the future.

Â (1235)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Good. With those comments, we appreciate your wrapping up. Certainly, questions of user fees have come up consistently.

Rose-Marie Ur, do you wish to question?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: To your beekeeper panellist here, how has that other operator affected your industry with the large numbers? Has it been detrimental to your business? How many people did you buy out? Have you bought anybody out, or how have you expanded?

Mr. Stan Sandler: I have expanded at the request of the provincial government in order to try to service the needs of the blueberry industry here. And because I wasn't able to expand fast enough, the provincial government threw open the border, which had been closed for disease reasons for 12 years, to the mainland--we were a protected island--and allowed this company to bring their beehives onto the island. This company has already made the production of honey.... They don't produce any honey themselves, but they have made it so that many of the other beekeepers can no longer produce honey in Nova Scotia because of overcrowding. Now this company is coming here. There is an impact.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What is the reason for people not wishing to get into the bee industry? What is the drawback?

Mr. Stan Sandler: One drawback here was that the bees have been dying and we don't know why. That is what this research is intended to find out.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you very much.

Mr. Flynn, being a health care professional in my previous life, your presentation certainly was most interesting. Telone is a fumigant. Isn't that right?

Mr. Ron Flynn: Yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: We have had that in our area for tobacco. What product was the Telone fumigant used for in your area?

Mr. Ron Flynn: They used a combination. They used Telone C-17 and Vapam. It is for strawberry tissue culture. It grows strawberries from... If you take the strawberry and cut it in slices--I am not sure of the actual process, but it is shipped to Florida and California and that is where the strawberries are actually grown. The strawberries are not grown here from plants.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No. But they have to put Telone furrows in the fields, and when they transplant the plants or whatever, little critters are there in the ground.

Mr. Ron Flynn: Nematodes. Soil is actually totally sterile from the time that... Nothing grows in that field.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Exactly. I'm well aware of the product. Has anything been done healthwise, regarding these concerns, since October 17?

Mr. Roy Flynn: No.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No action by local health authorities.

Mr. Roy Flynn: No. We have had nothing through at all. We have gone to the final level, I think. We have gone to all the levels, the municipal level. We have tried to set up meetings with various farmers to see if we could resolve it, even with buffer zones or something, but we have nothing yet.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is this the only strawberry operation on the island?

Mr. Ron Flynn: It's the only strawberry operation, and according to the Department of Agriculture, these are the only farmers who are using these products, a one-off kind.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: To your knowledge, is there any other product available to do the same job?

Mr. Ron Flynn: I wouldn't know that; it would be a guess.

But I know as a boy, when I was young, 35 years ago, we planted and picked our own strawberries. We had a farm in Nova Scotia. We didn't put anything in, and we grew nice, big, fat, juicy strawberries. We didn't use something whose main label says it's fatal if inhaled or absorbed.

Â (1240)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Sandler, getting back to beekeeping, you said that we only have one researcher, and that person--

Mr. Stan Sandler: He's in Beaverlodge, Alberta.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: --may be retiring in the next couple of years.

Mr. Stan Sandler: Yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What numbers would you suggest would be sufficient to cover the industry?

Mr. Stan Sandler: Well, I think three might be a big help. It would be a 300% increase.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Regional?

Mr. Stan Sandler: And we did have. I mean, in years gone by, we had more than that in various parts of the country.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Proctor from the NDP.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks to all of the presenters.

Mr. Northcott, on your fourth point, about the role of government in information, and the point about newspapers writing to a grade 8 education level so some folks won't be able to understand the concepts, do you have a solution to that problem? What do you think government ought to be doing?

Mr. Don Northcott: I had a short example here. Last week the National Post presented a small clip in our paper relating to potatoes. I use potatoes as a local example. They said consumers were warned not to eat potatoes that are deemed toxic, that potatoes from California could contain glycoalkaloids, and that the effects of consuming them may range from burning sensations in the mouth to death.

I guess the example and the answer to your question is that this is a natural product found in potatoes. It develops under exposure to light, and it's a natural product. But the effect of something like that...I know it was just a short clip in a newspaper, but it damaged the export and marketing of potatoes in Manitoba and Ontario and potatoes coming from California. I guess it left a lot of people in Canada with concerns about food safety, and about potatoes. Are potatoes really a safe thing to eat? Gee, I don't know where these potatoes come from. They're loose on the shelf; they could come from California. I'm going to eat some rice.

I guess government's role here could be to be a sounding board for that type of information as it's printed. It's a capsule that's put in the paper. It sells newspapers. They're targeting an audience with a grade 8.5 reading level. The idea is to sell a lot of newspapers. Those kinds of headlines gather newspapers. And maybe an article that Robert MacDonald's farm was becoming more environmentally friendly wouldn't make that national newspaper.

So as somebody in the general public, who could I call to find out what's going on? Who can I ask? Who is an unbiased body? Do I call the potato grower, or do I call somebody who might have a different opinion? I guess that's the point I'm making.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Good. Thank you very much for that.

To Mr. MacDonald, on the whole matter of food safety, the concern is that in our current agriculture and agrifood budget for this year, there is a high proportion, I think just over 70% of that budget, that's designed for food safety. I think it was pretty clear from your presentation that you feel farmers have been stretched to the limit and can't absorb any more, and that it does benefit consumers, both here and abroad.

I wonder if you could give the committee the benefit of your thoughts as to who should absorb that and how? Or should it be transferred or go to another department?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I have a problem telling you my point of view, I guess.

It should come from the marketplace, ideally. In the free market system there is no mechanism to allow that to happen. If it can't happen ideally from the marketplace, then that's where government should step in. This is their role. As I said before, all society benefits from these things. As it stands now, with any of these new programs we are initiating on our farms, the society as a whole benefits; the farmer pays the price.

My example about the wholesale-retail industry is prime. Sure, we are going to go ahead and do all these nice and wonderful things to grow produce in Canada. It's going to cost me... Well, for on-farm food safety in the hort sector, we just went through a process at the Canadian Horticultural Council. We designed a manual to do hort crops in Canada. Initial studies are showing it could cost between $800 and $1,300 a year just to have the licence--plus accreditation fees, plus, plus, plus. That doesn't include the cost for me to run that on my farm. I have to have a man or a woman hired to manage that program on my farm.

I do all this nice stuff. I go to the retailer: “Here's the price of my 10-pound bag of potatoes.” It's probably, let's just say for the sake of conversation, a nickel higher than the stuff coming out of Idaho. He's going to go to Idaho. They have as much as admitted that. I am being placed in a very uncompetitive situation. It's not that we don't want to do these things. We can't afford to do them any more. We are getting shoved right out of the marketplace.

Â (1245)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just quickly, Howard, on marketing locally, is it a problem? You mentioned that example, but generally speaking, do farmers on Prince Edward Island have the ability to market their products locally?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: They have the ability, but it's getting tougher, again because of the consolidation of the people who are... We have only three major retailers, and two of them are very dominant.

To be able to sell to those stores, you basically are the man who puts the stock on the shelf and takes the spoiled product off and rebates them for that. To get on the list to be allowed to sell to their store is another thing. Yes, we have the ability, but the restrictions are getting greater and greater all the time. They are good, as a rule, to support local produce, but it's not an easy business to be in any more.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much.

Now we will have Paul Steckle, please.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I want to follow up, because we are talking largely of potatoes. That is, as was mentioned this morning, the engine that drives this province.

We have Mr. Campbell and Mr. MacDonald here, who are fairly large operators. I think Mr. Campbell mentioned he had a couple of sons. Have you thought about intergenerational transfer of your farming operation? Eighteen hundred acres is a fairly sizeable operation. Certainly there is a lot of capital required to move that to another generation.

What can government do—because this is coming up as we go across the country from place to place—to make it easier for your sons to come into the farming business, if they choose to do so, or for that matter some other young person whom you would like to see in your operation?

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Thank you for the question. I graduated from the University of Guelph in 1979, and at that time the Minister of Agriculture addressed our graduating class. It was Eugene Whelan, whom I regard as one of the greatest ministers of agriculture this country has ever seen. Anyhow, he gave our class quite a boost: “There is a future in growing food in this nation.” That was sort of the incentive I needed. I had the fire inside me to go home and start farming.

The economic climate for my sons or daughter to continue that is not there today. The risks I undertake every year planting a crop have not kept pace with the returns. My returns are diminishing; my risks are increasing. There is no incentive for young people to start farming in this province and, I think I am safe to say, across the nation. The return on your investment has been sweat equity for farmers across the nation. We spoke earlier this morning about endangered species. Farmers are the biggest endangered species that come to mind for me.

I'm not encouraging my sons or daughter to be the eighth generation of Campbells to farm in New London. If they have the fire inside them, then the opportunity will be there. Quite frankly, sir, there isn't an incentive. When there are other opportunities out there, why would you start farming?

Â (1250)

Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. MacDonald, do you want to comment on that? You may think there's something the government can do. I know that bringing profitability back to farming will bring young people back into farming.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: All of these things cost money, and we all know what the government response is. I could quite simply say, yes, you can help by giving us some money. Give me a grant as a retiring farmer or give the new guy coming in a huge amount of money.

You talk about big farms. We are a large farm. On our farm we grow 800 acres of potatoes, 1,200 acres of grains, and 1,200 acres of hay. There are 200 head of fat cattle out every year and a 100-head cow-calf operation. That's big, but you have to remember that three brothers are involved in that. Each of us has a family. All of this stuff costs a huge amount of money. I can't envision a program from any government that would provide me with enough money to transfer it over.

Vern is bang on. Policies have to be put in place so that farming becomes a viable business.

I go to the bank every year. It's torture. I have to do it. They ask me for my business plan. We are being told day in and day out that you have to treat it as a business, which it is. It involves big money nowadays. For a farm of our size, you are dealing with a $1.5 million line of operating credit. It's a huge risk.

The best thing that government can do is put policies in place to make farming a viable business. Once it's viable you will attract capital funds and operating funds. That allows the younger people to say, hey, it is a way of making a nice living. I can afford to buy the farm from my father, and he can afford to pass it down.

I have a son and a daughter. My daughter is in university. With my son I took the same approach as Vernon is taking with his family. If he wants to do it, he can. He has watched us farm. He's 17 years old now, and he says, “I can do something better than that, Dad, and make a real living too. It's easier.”

Mr. Paul Steckle: Vernon.

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Just to tag on to that, Mr. Chairman, in my 20-plus years of farming the most significant change I have seen is the public image of farmers and food production here in Canada. Do you remember the bumper stickers that said “Proud to be a Canadian farmer” and “Proud to produce food”? Now we're almost public enemy number one. Everything we do is under close scrutiny, and I'm not saying that it shouldn't be. But we have made enormous strides in the production of safe, nutritious, portable food. It has been done off our backs. It is not something that we got a return from the marketplace for.

Mr. Paul Steckle: How can we turn that around? Whose responsibility is it to market our safe, affordable food, the safest in the world?

One of our networks was here this morning. They were here primarily to hear one thing. They heard that and they left. That will be the message today or whenever they decide to put it on television or radio.

They say, how do we communicate? We can't even communicate a message to the people we want to come to these hearings. We seem to lose that in the system. We try to do it right, but we seem to fail in doing that. What can we do to change that?

Mr. Vernon Campbell: It is certainly one of the toughest things that we as an agriculture industry need to do. A case in point: when Minister Vanclief was down here three weeks ago, he met with the Potato Board. He delivered funds to the milk board and the food trust we have here in P.E.I. He was interviewed after those meetings. The latest issue is that our old research farm in Charlottetown is being sold through Canada Lands, and there's a big fight between the people who want a rink and aqua complex versus those who want it left green. That's all the media focused on. It wasn't on good stories about the money to the milk board, for instance, and the initiation of an on-farm food safety program and quality Canadian milk. There wasn't a word about that.

Â (1255)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Paul. This certainly touches on one of the key issues this committee has seen across the country, the big question of land use and the struggle between urban and alternative uses for land and its use as an agriculture production unit. No doubt this will be part of our report.

Now we go to Mr. Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Howard Hilstrom.

First of all, Vernon, trust me, there is still pride in agriculture out there.

By the way, in the last survey I looked at, Canadians had identified health care workers--nurses--and farmers as one and two on the list of most respected occupations. Politicians, unfortunately, were the second last from the bottom, just above used car salesmen. So if you're looking for any sympathy from us, forget about it.

Agriculture does have a very good profile in this country. Farmers are respected and certainly appreciated for what they do. I say this coming from Manitoba because I think we produced more potatoes than P.E.I. this year. I had to throw that one in there too, Vernon.

I have two questions. The first is to Robert. This whole committee has been travelling and listening to presentations. The whole concept around this work is to find out where we should be heading and what the role of the federal government should be in agriculture both in terms of policy and legislation. You mentioned something that triggered my thinking on this when you said the requirement for an export certificate was $75 per acre on the one truckload of potatoes you were sending.

This government wanted to have a program of cost recovery. It's in place, and I'm not suggesting it wasn't the right thing to do. If there should be a policy shift, should there be a cost recovery on the services being provided by government, and if so, at what level should this cost recovery be?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: There needs to be a shift in policy that moves away from cost recovery for inspection fees, period.

I know they sold it to us--well, they didn't sell it to us; they brought it in after much arguing and hassling.

I remember when we first became involved in it four or five years ago. We were called to meetings. I'd go to Ottawa for consultation; they'd come down here for consultation. We'd tell them that they couldn't do it, but they ended up doing it because they claimed we were the ones who were taking the benefits so we had to pay the cost. Our point is we're not the only ones who are benefiting.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I am going to cut in because my time is going to be cut off. I just want to confirm this. You're saying if it's an inspection fee, it should not be a cost recovery for the producer; it should be covered by society as a whole.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: No, no, you're right. As I said before, we have no way of getting that cost from society.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have another question for you and I don't know if it even has an answer. You said in your presentation that P.E.I. has gone from 4,500 production units to 1,600 production units today. Is this correct? And if it is, what type of federal policy should there be? Should there be legislation or a policy that dictates a maximum size of production units? Should we have legislation in place that says P.E.I. cannot have foreign investment, or even offshore investment from the mainland? Should the government be heading in this direction?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: No. Society is changing every day, every year. The days of the small farmer...and don't get me wrong, I'm not against small farmers, but it's getting harder and harder to earn a living off a farm because the margins have gone down to such an extent.

I'll give you an example.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I also have one more question. Can you give us a brief example? I want to talk to Vernon too?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I want to talk about the size of the farms. We consider ourselves to be a family farm. We are three brothers farming 800 acres of potatoes. We farm in southeastern P.E.I. We own and rent land on a 30-mile strip of ground that's about five miles deep, along the shore.

Currently, we only own a quarter of the land we operate. I have a land database of 104 farms as of the day before yesterday, averaging two and three fields per farm. At a time not too many years ago, maybe 15 years, every one of those farms was viable. As the people retired, there was no one there to take them over.

· (1300)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm going to cut you off because I have one quick question for Vernon, if I can, please.

You mentioned, Vernon, that right now in P.E.I. 70% of the producers here have an environmental farm plan. From what I understand you to have said, if that is going to be expanded in some fashion by the federal policy that is being contemplated, there should be a contribution from the federal government to expand that environmental farm plan. Is that a fair understanding of what you were saying?

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Well, the verbal commitment is there, but so far we haven't seen the dollars.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What about the 30% who don't have an environmental farm plan right now? Should they be responsible for coming up to the standard or level you've already set there for the 70% of your producers?

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Well, I would defer to the Yellowknife accord, where in order to access federal programs they will likely have to comply. Have your cross-compliance--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But 70% of your producers have already done that, have already funded it, have already invested into it. What about the 30% who haven't done this? Should they have federal funding available to them to bring them up to your standards, or should they be responsible for that?

Ms. Brenda Simmons (Assistant General Manager, Prince Edward Island Potato Board): If I could, I'll try that one.

There is a difference between developing your farm plan and having it and starting to do some of the higher priority things, but there are certainly a lot of things that need to be implemented over time. That's where the crux is. There's this excellent show of support for this from the growers who have actually gone out and developed the plans, but there's a gap in how they get to actually implement them because of the tightness of money and stuff. We think the federal government should come in and partner with the province and growers and put some money in place to help put those things on the farm.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Larry, do you have...

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair.

This is just for the P.E.I. Potato Board. We certainly hear a lot about your island at our government rural caucus and in the House from Joe McGuire and a guy by the name of Wayne. We've heard a lot.

I have a couple of thoughts, though. Not all potato farmers or growers have operations as large as you people who are present do. Do most of the growers use the spring advance and the fall advance from the federal government, or can they take advantage of them? There's up to $50,000—not a lot for you big people—but that money is available interest-free.

Ms. Brenda Simmons: We have about 135 growers who use the fall advance, but in the spring, as somebody said earlier, we only have about 30% of our crop under crop insurance, and that's a condition for the spring advance. Because of that, I think we have maybe 20, 25 under the spring advance program.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Certainly, one of the things we've heard across the country is that some people believe that the governments--that's the provincial and the federal--probably push for more crop insurance or for a uniform crop insurance everyone can take part in. What are your feelings on that? I think we'd better follow that for the moment.

It's a business decision. I'm very much in support of agriculture, and we certainly do need to invest more money. We also want to invest it where it's going to help people, and of course it's part of that decision to have crop insurance.

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I think you're right. The bottom line is, for a potato producer or a hort producer, crop insurance is not a viable piece of business. All you have to do is look at the figures. This is what concerns us. If we're going to have cross-compliance and all these other programs...some of them are good. NISA is a very good program. There are some little things we can tweak to make it a little better, but it's good. If we're going to go down this cross-compliance road, you're going to force farmers to invest money in a program that is not effective and costs too much money, this in order to access a program that works very well for them now. That is the bottom line for the whole thing.

And if you look at, as I said, the potato production in P.E.I., there are only about 25% to 30% involved in crop insurance. I'd be surprised if there are under 90% involved in NISA. That's a wake-up call. That program works; the other doesn't. There are severe problems in crop insurance.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, as these people know, the federal minister and the provincial ministers will all meet in Halifax in June for several days to move this on to whatever degree.

I am sure that you people will meet with your own provincial minister on the question, where he will be representing you. Mr. Murphy will be there, I am sure, and you have told him that. You will tell him that again.

What percentage of potatoes on the island approximately are grown under contract, what percentage for table, and do you get more money when they are processed into potato chips that I buy in the bag, roughly?

· (1305)

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Roughly half of our acreage is produced mostly under pre-season contracts for french fries--that's the largest one--and some, of course, are for potato chips. Is it higher? Some years it is, some years it isn't. In a year like we are currently living through, with the drought that we have incurred, with between 40% and 50% yield losses, with those locked-in prices, the table market, the open market, those prices are a little better now, but you are still stuck with your pre-season contracts and suffer through a reduction in saleable product or yield.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, of course, these people have done a great job with on-farm food safety in most cases, and I am sure that's going to help, but it's part of our whole program, the agricultural policy framework, so we can do a better job of tracking and tracing. I know that didn't work in the last potato wart situation, but they are not all going to be as protectionist as perhaps some of our neighbours were at that time.

Back to promoting. You talked about Idaho. They have done a good job, but in Ontario I used to run a country store and also sold P.E.I. seed potatoes for 20 years. Actually, one year I had to buy the bags by 100-pound bags. I opened it up and was horrified to see that it was all 10-pound bags inside, and some national company owned those seed potatoes. I was concerned about how much the individual growers got.

When you have part under contract and part not under contract, is your potato board able to promote as easily and as well? For example, the Dairy Farmers of Canada spend a lot of money--and I know they get fair money--in promoting, but are you able to get your producers to cooperate, to invest in promoting your products?

Mr. Ivan Noonan (General Manager, Prince Edward Island Potato Board): Yes. The producers pay a levy to the board, which actually funds our board basically 100%, and we spend over half a million dollars a year on budgets for marketing. We have marketing representatives in Ontario, Quebec, and the eastern seaboard. We have 10 or 11 licensed exporters, of which Mr. Northcott's company is also one, to sell our potatoes around the world. They do an excellent job on that. Unfortunately, sometimes the economic conditions in those countries in the last few years have taken a big hole out of our industry.

In 1976, at this very dock here in front of the hotel, we loaded 36 ships offshore for export. That was the year of the drought in Europe, and I was involved in the stevedoring business then. So it changes from seven or eight to ten ships a year to as high as what we did in 1976. We are very much a peak and valley commodity. P.E.I. potatoes do have shelf space in the grocery stores from Toronto to Florida, and indeed in Vancouver this year and some other points west.

You mentioned the trace-back on the potato wart thing. In fact, the trace-back worked very nicely. What it was, was the weakness on our trade officials' side to stand up and be counted and give your minister the strength and the information--

Mr. Larry McCormick: And protectionism by our neighbour. It certainly was a factor in those actions.

Mr. Ivan Noonan: Exactly.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, for my last question I'd ask Mr. Flynn to comment on the press coverage of this possible disaster that they had in their area, or near disaster. Again, part of our agricultural policy framework is to produce food in an environmentally friendly way, and if someone made a mistake, and I am not doubting you, I am sure the press would make a difference as they looked at their practice in the future.

Was there a lot of pressure here on the island, Mr. Flynn?

Mr. Ron Flynn: Immediately, within a day or so it hit the newspapers, the two papers anyhow, the West Prince Graphic and the Journal Pioneer. It didn't hit CBC until later on through the public input. There has been a lot of press, every week or two weeks, because nothing is happening.

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

The Chair: Howard, do you have some questions?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a couple.

My first question will be to Vernon and Brenda. I don't know if you gave Ivan a sedative before he came down here or not, but I know he is very well spoken and knows an awful lot, and I am glad to hear him speak.

I want to ask you, and maybe Ivan would be the guy to ask, on this U.S. border issue, we've had the new guard, military people on the border. What's the inspection situation now in trying to get trucks across the border? Is there any difference?

· (1310)

Mr. Ivan Noonan: No, and once again, had there been a shortage of potatoes last year in the U.S., or indeed in North America, we wouldn't have had nearly as many problems. And that is the reality of it.

We are not afraid of them inspecting or monitoring inspection of our product. It's the harassment. I know I certainly held back saying that at the time. I think that guy called Wayne did, but he's a politician. I was trying to mend fences, and indeed we had a lot of friends south of the border who felt it was being poorly handled. Even as late as this fall, when we were at the seed seminar in Scottsdale, Arizona, people were coming up and saying they were embarrassed how their government and certain officials had handled that thing. And they meant it sincerely. It wasn't lip service to us.

We have good quality. We're willing to compete anywhere in the world with our quality. If price is an issue, then we will have to indeed compete on that level.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is the issue of GE potatoes still on the back burner and the idea that they could be brought forward, or is any other country growing them right now?

Mr. Ivan Noonan: No. I think they've been basically set back probably 10 years as a minimum. All the processors in the U.S. are demanding GMO tests because of the dehydrated potatoes that went to Asia and they had problems with that. It's an ongoing thing. We had a tremendous setback by that.

You talked about it earlier this morning. Sobey's promoted that in the store here. They promoted it at a higher price. They promoted it at an equal price, at a lower price, and the sales still went on.

I was glad to hear Kevin say this morning that he doesn't waste his time being adversarial towards commercial growers, as we're called, because in fact when potato wart was on, Mr. Carter and others from his association came to see me and said “You know those packaging things you agreed to with the U.S.? We can't do this.” I immediately got an exemption for them to handle that. It was the first time ever those potato growers came to my office.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Thank you very much.

My last little question is to Kevin. If you listen carefully to organic presenters--we can see it in the evidence here today, as we've seen across the country--you get the underlying feeling that there is some insinuation that the foodstuffs on our shelves, unless they're organic, aren't maybe quite as safe and that the reason organic producers don't use GE and don't like to use pesticides is they're just maybe not safe. You don't necessarily say that outright, other than genetic modification, but I think the organic producers have to be careful that they don't get into a marketing situation of running down, through insinuation, these other products.

I have a question for you with regard to this GE. Right now corn is genetically modified. Soybean and canola are the best examples. If we eat lunch today in this restaurant here, we're all going to eat some GE foods. There's no doubt about it. There has never been a documented case of any kind where anybody has ever had any ill effects from eating a GE food.

So with regard to this national certification, the federal government--not this federal government, any federal government--is not going to negatively impact advances in biotechnology by allowing a certification that would say that to be organic you have to be genetically engineered or genetically modified free. Would you accept a standard that would say organic includes genetically modified foods?

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey: I'm probably not the one to answer that question. There are people in the organic industry who are much more well versed on genetically engineered and genetically modified foods than I am. But I will say that from the inception of any standards anywhere in the world for organics, genetically modified foods were excluded from organic certification.

There is a national standard right now that's in place in Canada that has the clause in it that to meet organic standards you can't have genetically modified organisms.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It may be difficult to get a national standard set, then, because they are certainly not going to try to tell the canola, soybean, and corn industry they cannot use that. They are not going to tell the dairy industry they cannot use a genetically modified enzyme in order to produce cheese. And they are certainly not going to tell the hungry people around the world that we have an opportunity to advance food production in the world through the use of GE that we are not going to use because somebody wants to market their products and call them organic.

Those are the issues we're dealing with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--unless you have additional...

· (1315)

Mr. Kevin Jeffrey: Yes. I was just going to say that in places like Switzerland, up to 10% of their agricultural production now is organic. They're doing it without genetically modified materials or organisms. Time will tell whether we can or can't do it. I think in many ways we've only scratched the surface of what organics can do.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Up until 10 years ago, there was no such thing. It was produced without GE. Of course, before that, and before pesticides, agriculture has been feeding the world since the first man walked out of the Garden of Eden. We've been feeding the world organically.

The Chair: Howard...

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Isn't this interesting, though, Mr. Chairman? This is tremendously interesting.

The Chair: I have a couple of questions too, but Rick here is quite impatient. But I want to throw this out, and maybe someone can get their pencils out just before we.... I'm going to ask, for the record, what price you're getting for your potatoes per hundredweight or per pound in 2002.

Vernon, you said your family have been at this for eight generations. Can somebody put on record--if you put say the 1952 price of potatoes into current dollars--what potatoes should be valued at in terms of today? Is there any mathematician or any economist now who can do that? I'll give you time, Vernon, to come up with that, but I just want it in the record. This is part of the overall problem we're facing in agriculture: how much you get for your product.

I'm going to go to Rick, and then we'll come back to my question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: While Vernon's assistant director is working on the math, I would just like, for the record, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that Mr. Campbell did in fact give me some statistics here where in the year 2001 Prince Edward Island still had not only the majority of acres of potatoes—more so than Manitoba--but also of hundredweight.

However, my comment was that this next growing year we will have more acres in potatoes than P.E.I. I would also like to say we now have another processing plant being developed that will in fact require substantially more acreage than we have. That was just for the record. That's all; I didn't want Mr. Campbell to go away thinking I didn't—

The Chairman: I'm not sure, is that a threat or a challenge?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's not a challenge.

The Chair: Vernon, what are we looking at, then, in terms of commodity prices?

Mr. Vernon Campbell: First of all, I've got a great many potato-growing friends in Portage and Carberry and down around Winkler, and they always brag about what great representation they have in the House of Commons. So thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Carberry, Winkler--I'm okay with that. Yes, I've got lots of potatoes in my riding, Vernon.

The Chair: I think there are a lot of parties involved there, though, Vernon. He's the only member of his--

Mr. Vernon Campbell: Anyway, I can't come up with the exact figures you want--

The Chair: No, no; just in rough terms.

Mr. Vernon Campbell: --but in rough terms, in the seventies, when I was a kid, the buying power of a hundredweight of potatoes was tenfold what it is today. A load of potatoes could buy you a tractor, or a car, or something like that.

If you're looking for specifics, we can get that for you, because our board has tracked prices. But it's like a bushel of wheat bought 30 years ago; a bushel of wheat will hardly get you a cup of coffee and a donut now.

The Chair: I looked at that a little bit in terms of... Your present price now for a hundredweight is about what, Robert?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: Depending on what variety, an average price on the table-stock market today, if you're doing 10-pound consumer packs--the price has moved a lot in the last week--I think is approaching the $2 mark. That is no more than what you need to take in on that package, given the reduction in yields last year.

The Chair: So you as a farmer would be getting 20¢ on the pound?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: I'd have to touch base. I've heard those prices. I haven't heard sales yet, but--

The Chair: Ivan?

Mr. Ivan Noonan: Yes. Actually, we've had recorded, just yesterday, $1.95 to $2.00 in Atlantic Canada, but that's for a small pack.

If you take in the yield reduction of 40% to 60% across Prince Edward Island, you're cutting that in half to about 10¢ a pound, with the small packs, with the extra labour involved. That came about because of the drought right across North America.

We have challenged our growers to maybe reduce a little bit next year so we can help the gentleman from Manitoba rise up the ladder here. But we would really like to see somewhat more reasonable pricing from the marketplace. There is tremendous pressure. It could be 65¢ or it could be $1.65, which was the average price throughout the winter for 10 pounds. It was about $1.65, with a nickel of that going to the dealer who sold the potatoes.

So we are very much at the mercy...we are price takers, not price makers.

· (1320)

The Chair: So the corollary to this... I was trying to go back to the 1950s when there were years that you got about the same price per pound on a bulk barrel or hundredweight as you're getting today. What has happened to cause that? Why is the price today...? Back in the fifties you could buy a pretty good car for about $2,500. Today, you are in the $25,000 range. It has gone up 10 times, at least. Why has your commodity stayed at about the same price as you were getting in the best years of the 1950s? Stan has the first answer.

Mr. Stan Sandler: No. I should let the potato fellows answer that first. I wanted to give you the stats on honey.

The Chair: You have the stats, have you?

Mr. Stan Sandler: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, but I would like to hear the potato one here first.

Ms. Brenda Simmons: I don't have an exact number. I certainly have seen graphs that show the consumer dollar, that it has gone up a good degree of the slope on that, but the farmer return has stayed at a fairly flat level. It's the pieces in between, I think, that have made the big, big difference, the concentration that we spoke of earlier.

The Chair: Robert, why do you think you can get the same price today as your grandfather got in 1950?

Mr. Robert MacDonald: In 1950, the technology wasn't there to get the yields we are getting today. We have gotten more efficient about our business. That's the bottom line.

Costs have gone up, we have become more efficient, and yet the consumer is getting food as cheap or cheaper than they used to years ago.

There is a combination of things. There are yields and the technology available. At the same time, we have no control over what we get for our produce and we have no control over what it costs us for inputs.

As Vernon said, back in the seventies a trailerload of potatoes would have bought a tractor. A tractor today is $100,000 minimum, and that's a cheap one. That is the reality of it.

A voice: I tend to blame it on Eugene Whelan myself. It's a rhetorical question.

The Chair: Okay, the price of honey.

Mr. Stan Sandler: As Mr. McCormick said, it is like grain. Twenty-five years ago I sold honey for 80¢ a pound bulk in a bucket. Last year I got $1 a pound in barrels. The year before, all the packers would only offer 70¢, which was less than the price was.

In the same period of time, a package of bees 25 years ago came up from Florida for $19 for 2.2 pounds and a queen. It's around $85 or $90 now from New Zealand.

The Chair: That is the biggest question that we as a committee have to try to give some answers to. As a government, what can we do to keep an industry viable? When I use the words “theory”, “corollary”, and so on, we need the whole thing. You're not making any money. The future generation is not going to survive or be enticed into your occupation because the money is not there any more.

With that, unless another member wishes to ask questions, we would like to adjourn our meeting. We will be going off to the great area of the Miramichi tomorrow, to New Brunswick, and then back to Ottawa to try to think this thing through, but it is very, very difficult.

You talk about supply and demand and so on, but globalization is probably part of it.

One person said to me the big problem in this country is the price of fuel and transportation. I said, “How do you mean that?” He said if we couldn't bring all these products in from down in California and Florida and everywhere, where you have to pay a real transportation cost, our farmers would do better. But today we are shipping...within a day or two, we are getting product from California here in Moncton, New Brunswick, or in Summerside. People are travelling everywhere, and the cost of moving that product and the markets you're competing with are so far away that it's a real problem to us.

Thank you for your presentations. We enjoyed them. Hopefully, we can offer some degree of support and indication of what government might do. As I said before, we will try to send each of you a copy of our report. Thank you for coming.

I now adjourn the meeting.