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

Thursday, March 21, 2002

0900

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

0910

0915

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

Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

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

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

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

Mr. McCormick

0920

The Chair

Mr. Rupert Bernard (Mayor of Miramichi)

The Chair

The Hon. Rodney Weston (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of New Brunswick)

0925

0930

0935

The Chair

Mr. Rodney Weston

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Rodney Weston

0940

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

0945

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Rodney Weston

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Rodney Weston

0950

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Rodney Weston

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Rodney Weston

0955

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. Clair Gartley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Agriculture Development and Innovation Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of New Brunswick)

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Clair Gartley

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

1000

Mr. Rodney Weston

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Rodney Weston

The Chair

1005

1010

Mr. Reginald Perry (Representative, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Speer (Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick)

1015

The Chair

Ms. Betty Brown (President, New Brunswick Partners in Agriculture)

The Chair

Ms. Betty Brown

1020

1025

The Chair

Ms. Hannah Searle (Representative, New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture)

1035

The Chair

Ms. Hannah Searle

The Chair

Mr. Ben Baldwin (Director, New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association)

The Chair

Mr. Ben Baldwin

1040

The Chair

Mr. Jack Christie (General Manager, Northumberland Co-operative Limited)

The Chair

Mr. Jack Christie

Mr. Percy Scott (President, Northumberland Co-operative Limited)

Mr. Jack Christie

Dr. Ram Aneja (Representative, Northumberland Co-operative Limited)

1045

Mr. Jack Christie

The Chair

Mr. Larry Jewett (Representative, Ste-Marie-de-Kent Farmers' Association)

The Chair

1050

Mr. Larry Jewett

1055

The Chair

Mr. Patton MacDonald (Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick)

1100

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Patton MacDonald

1105

Mr. Anderson

Ms. Hannah Searle

Mr. Anderson

Ms. Hannah Searle

Mr. Joe Brennan (President, New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture)

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Joe Brennan

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Larry Jewett

Mr. Anderson

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Anderson

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Robert Speer

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Robert Speer

1110

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

1115

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

Mr. Steckle

Ms. Betty Brown

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Jack Christie

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Ben Baldwin

1120

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Hannah Searle

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Hannah Searle

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mrs. Ur

1125

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Joe Brennan

Mrs. Ur

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Borotsik

Ms. Hannah Searle

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jack Christie

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jack Christie

Mr. Borotsik

1130

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Borotsik

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Borotsik

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Patton MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Joe Brennan

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

1135

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mrs. Ur

Mr. McCormick

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Patton MacDonald

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Patton MacDonald

Mr. McCormick

1140

Mr. Patton MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Joe Brennan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Joe Brennan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Joe Brennan

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Ram Aneja

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1145

Mr. Larry Jewett

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Larry Jewett

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Larry Jewett

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Larry Jewett

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Larry Jewett

The Chair

Mr. Larry Jewett

The Chair

Mr. Patton MacDonald

1150

The Chair

Mr. Patton MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Joe Brennan

The Chair

Mr. Patton MacDonald

1155

The Chair

1205

The Chair

Mr. Roger Richard (Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick)

1210

1215

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Cook (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Cook

1220

1225

The Chair

Mr. Neil Gardner (Individual Presentation)

1230

The Chair

Mr. Neil Gardner

1235

The Chair

Mr. Denis Belliveau (Individual Presentation)

1240

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bremner (Individual Presentation)

1245

The Chair

Mr. Hans Bouma (Individual Presentation)

1250

The Chair

Ms. Velna Dickson (Assistant Organizational Leader, Napan, 4-H Club of New Brunswick)

1255

1300

The Chair

Ms. Velna Dickson

The Chair

Mr. John Schenkels (Individual Presentation)

1305

The Chair

Mr. Ben Baldwin

1310

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Hans Bouma

1315

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. John Schenkels

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mr. Steckle

Mr. John Schenkels

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Cook

1320

Mr. Steckle

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Mr. John Schenkels

1325

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mrs. Ur

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

1330

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Denis Belliveau

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Denis Belliveau

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Jerry Cook

The Chair

Mrs. Inka Milewski (Individual Presentation)

1335

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Neil Gardner

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Robert Bremner

1340

Mr. McCormick

Mr. Hans Bouma

Mr. McCormick

Mr. John Schenkels

Mr. McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Roger Richard

The Chair

Mr. Roger Richard

1345

The Chair

Mr. Roger Richard

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Ben Baldwin

Mr. Anderson

Mr. John Schenkels

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 060

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We'd like to begin our meeting this morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are here as part of a study by the House of Commons standing committee on the future role of the government in agriculture.

With that, we'd like to briefly mention that we've been crossing the country. In fact, this will be our ninth province. We represent all parties in the House. We're missing today the representative from the Bloc Québécois, who was with us yesterday; he had to go back to Ottawa. We're hearing a great number of presenters who are giving us their concerns with agriculture, their recommendations, and points that we as a committee should take back with us.

Following our hearings, we'll be going back to Ottawa, to the capital, and sitting down as a group to draft a report that will reflect the information we've received. We'll be presenting it to the House of Commons sometime before the end of June.

We're very happy to be here in Miramichi, New Brunswick, today. We're very happy to have the Minister of Agriculture here with us. We're very happy to have the mayor of the city here with us.

¿ (0910)

I think we'll ask each member to introduce themselves very briefly.

Following that, Mr. Mayor, maybe you'd like to say a couple of words on behalf of the city. The main point this morning, in the first part of our hearings, will be a presentation by the minister.

Mr. Minister, we want to welcome you here.

Howard.

¿ (0915)

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

I'm Howard Hilstrom, the vice-chair of this committee, and I am a cattle rancher from Manitoba. I was first elected in 1997. I am the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance, of course now taking direction from our new leader, Stephen Harper.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): My name is David Anderson. I'm a rookie Canadian Alliance MP from Saskatchewan. My riding is Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which is right in the southwest corner of the province. I grain-farmed and especially crop-farmed for 25 years, until the fall of 2000, when the voters of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, in all their wisdom, saw fit to send me here.

It's been fun travelling with the committee, and I look forward to your presentations this morning.

The Chair: Dick.

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

My name is Dick Proctor, and I'm the New Democratic Party member from Saskatchewan. My riding is Palliser. I was first elected in 1997 and I've been a member of this agriculture and agrifood committee since then.

This is the last day, I guess, of our tour across Canada. It's been very instructive, and we look forward to the presentations from everybody here today.

The Chair: Rick.

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

My name is Rick Borotsik. I'm the member of Parliament from Brandon--Souris, in the southwest part of the province of Manitoba. I'm the ag critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. I was elected in 1997 and have been on this committee since then, sharing it with my colleagues from all sides of the House.

I'm very happy to be here in the province of New Brunswick. I have a lot of good friends here, a lot of good friends in your caucus.

Rodney, it's nice to have you here, Mr. Minister. Certainly I'm prepared to work with the ministers provincially to try to achieve better for all of agriculture in Canada.

Thank you.

The Chair: Rose-Marie.

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

My name is Rose-Marie Ur, and I'm the member of Parliament for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex in southwestern Ontario. I was first elected in 1993 and worked for the previous member. I live on the family farm, which is presently rented out. I'm vice-chair of the rural caucus and I too have enjoyed the travel across Canada.

I certainly appreciate the warm hospitality we're sharing here in New Brunswick with our host MP, Charles. He's done an excellent job of entertaining us, arriving a little bit earlier than usual for some meetings.

As I indicated to the mayor, my sister worked with a lady in London, Ontario. My sister moved to Sudbury, and this lady moved to Miramichi, and last night at 10 o'clock she and her husband joined me in the lobby for an hour's visit, like we were long-lost friends. I think that's typical of eastern hospitality.

We look forward to a continued good working relationship and also to your presentations today.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): Good morning, witnesses. It's a pleasure for me to be here. I'm Paul Steckle from the Huron--Bruce riding of southwestern Ontario, the western coast of Ontario, actually, bordering Lake Huron. It's an agricultural riding in its totality. It's very diverse, from fruit farming to grain, from cash crop farming to supply management--everything.

We have a fairly extensive fishery in my riding, given that we live right on the lake. We have a lot of rivers and tributaries that have been noted for their fine fishing. I'm also vice-chair of the fisheries committee, so I share your enthusiasm for this part of the country. Certainly last evening I shared in those nice lobsters that you have down here, and those mussels. But for my own embarrassment, I would have asked for a third plate.

Let me tell you, we look forward to coming to this part of the country, perhaps more for the food than for anything else. Really, we look forward to your testimony this morning, and hope to incorporate it into our report, when we report later this year. So I do bring that component to it.

The Chair: And Larry.

Larry answers in the House when the minister isn't there. He's the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Chair, Mr. Minister, Mr. Mayor, and ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Larry McCormick. I was elected in 1993 and also worked on a farm, grew up on a farm. I drew milk cans for a couple of years, and probably can still twist wrists with the cattle ranchers here.

I was also the government rural caucus chair, and we're in a rural part of Canada here in your beautiful city, small-town rural, and that's why this committee has the reputation of getting along so well, of working together for important reasons. Now, I have been parliamentary secretary to Minister Vanclief for the last two years, but I just want to say to the witnesses and the other ladies and gentlemen here that I'm not sure we needed to come to New Brunswick, because we hear so darn much about Miramichi and the province from Charles every day.

No, it's great to be here. Thank you,

¿ (0920)

The Chair: I think, Mr. Minister, you can see that this is the Liberal side of the House and this is the other side. We have about 16 members on our committee, and eight here. The House is in session, of course, and they don't allow all of us to travel at any given time.

Mr. Mayor, we're very glad to be here in your fine city. I certainly appreciate the fact that you took some time off from your busy schedule to be here and say a word of welcome.

Rupert Bernard.

Mr. Rupert Bernard (Mayor of Miramichi): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not very often that the Miramichi is graced with the presence of a parliamentary committee, so I would like to very much welcome you to New Brunswick's city of festivals.

I've actually come bearing gifts. Maybe you should be worried about that, but the attempt of course is to get you back to Miramichi with your colleagues and your families for your vacation or other travel.

I have welcoming packages for you. David Adams Richards is a prize-winning Canadian author, a Miramichi native. While there's more to Miramichi than fishing, this little vignette this morning from me is going to be about fishing, salmon fishing in Miramichi. David Adams Richards won the Governor-General's prize for non-fiction for Lines on the Water: A fisherman's life on the Miramichi. I'm telling you, I am not a fisherman, but I could not put this book down. It is a tremendous read.

The other part of your gift package is a salmon fly broach. While it will not catch a salmon, I promise you it will catch attention. If you run into Miramichiers...and we are all over the country, from the west coast on. In fact, there are too many of us in other parts of the country than there are here. We're working hard to fix that.

There's a one-page community profile that I hope you read so that you get to know us just a little bit better.

There's also a pin for the City of Miramichi with a card that gives you an explanation of the thought that went into the design of this pin.

The success of your deliberations is very important to Canadians, and I'd like to wish you all the very best success in your deliberations. I'm happy to hear that our Miramichiers are keeping up the hospitality part of the bargain, and I do invite you back to Miramichi any time you wish. The same hospitality will be waiting for you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We certainly appreciate and enjoy being here, I'm sure. I don't think anyone feels let down by what was said about it before. I'm sure Dick here, as a writer and as a newspaper person, would appreciate the writings here of one of our more famous Canadian authors. His work has received recognition almost throughout the English-speaking world.

Mr. Minister, sorry to have delayed you somewhat, but we do want to welcome you here. We also this morning visited Northumberland Co-op. I know you were there on Saturday, so it's twice in a week here in the Miramichi. It just shows what a fine place you regard it as being.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours. We're glad to have you here and we want to thank you for coming.

The Hon. Rodney Weston (Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of New Brunswick): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I really appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee this morning and make a presentation on behalf of the Province of New Brunswick.

I'll get right into it. I'd like to thank you very much. This gives me a great opportunity to discuss New Brunswick's thoughts on the future role of government in the agriculture industry.

Before I get to those thoughts, though, I'd like to provide you with a brief snapshot of the state of agriculture and the agrifood industry here in New Brunswick. In spite of the overall difficulties in Canada's agriculture industry, New Brunswick's agriculture and agrifood sector has experienced remarkable growth over the past 10 years.

Farm cash receipts have grown 50% to over $400 million. Processed food and beverage sales have grown over 25% to $1.2 billion. Exports have increased by over 160% to $345 million. This latter export value represents over 50% of Atlantic Canada's total agrifood exports.

In New Brunswick, for the first time since the 1800s, the 1996 census showed an increase of 11% in cropland areas rather than the expected decrease. However, for the previous 45 years, New Brunswick had a much larger decline in the number of farms, at 88%, than did Alberta and Saskatchewan, who experienced a 30% and 50% drop in farms respectively.

Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that Atlantic farmers in general, and New Brunswick farmers in particular, generally receive relatively low rates of government assistance. In New Brunswick, the average assistance rate, including federal-provincial support, was 2.6% of farm cash receipts from 1996 to 2000. This is the second-lowest rate after British Columbia's 2%, and considerably lower than Quebec's 10% and Saskatchewan's 8%. This illustrates how many of the national support programs in the past have been designed for regions other than Atlantic Canada, and thus may not have been as effective for our industry. Flexibility remains our key requirement for any future programming, as I'll discuss later on.

As many of you will already know, the agriculture sector in this province has been dealing with a great deal of uncertainty, given some very public concerns. The merger of agriculture with fisheries and aquaculture as part of the general program and service review, when my government came into power, caused some initial concern during that transition period. But by listening to the agriculture industry and by maintaining an uninterrupted level of service, I believe we have retained the excellent working relationship with our agricultural producers that is so key to the progress in this industry.

Secondly, the mounting public concerns felt throughout Canada with regard to some forms of confined livestock operations have been mirrored here in New Brunswick. In response, on March 7 of this year the government clarified its intentions to enable farmers who follow environmentally acceptable practices to conduct their businesses without the threat of nuisance actions. And we will do this by enacting the Agricultural Operation Practices Act. This act sets up a mediation process that should help avoid the costs of a legal intervention for issues surrounding noise, odour, and other nuisance concerns.

We believe the future of agriculture in New Brunswick is bright, given the many opportunities to improve the province's overall prosperity, as identified in the recently released Greater Opportunity: New Brunswick's Prosperity Plan, 2002-2012. This is a 10-year strategy that focuses on the economic fundamentals of innovation, productivity, and export orientation—determinants of success in today's knowledge-based economy.

One of the many benchmarks of this plan is that New Brunswick will join the top four provinces in research and development expenditures, per capita, by 2012. Improved research and development funding is critical to the continued growth in New Brunswick's agriculture and agrifood sector.

The prosperity plan has been formed on four main building blocks: investing in people; creating a competitive fiscal and business environment; embracing innovation; and building strategic infrastructure. Each building block has four cornerstones, or priority areas, that will be undertaken in each category with specific actions, programs, and progress indicators that will measure success. More than 60 action priorities to put this plan into action are identified already.

The province will implement these actions through three implementation strategies integrated across the four building blocks. These are: economic diversification and clustering; community economic development; and strategic partnerships with government, business, universities, community colleges, workers, and communities.

As an example of how agriculture will fit into this model, New Brunswick already has a significant industry cluster in the potato sector with a combination of several players. These include: our primary producers; the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada Potato Research Centre; McCain, the world's largest french fry processor; the recently established french fry research centre; and related industries.

¿ (0925)

We also have opportunities to further develop our wild blueberry production clusters in the northeast and southern part of the province, and our dairy cluster around the Sussex area.

One of our main goals is to attach the new knowledge-based economy to our existing clusters. While we feel that we can still increase our primary production, we are also anxious to develop new products for such exports as potato genomics intellectual property.

Pairing our university strengths in information sciences and process engineering with our potato genetic resources and the potato production and processing cluster, as per New Brunswick's current proposal before the Atlantic Innovation Fund, would result in New Brunswick becoming the world centre for potato genomics.

Nutraceutical opportunities from wild blueberries represent another area of research that we are currently targeting.

We have received support from the research centres of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in these and other areas in the past, and we look forward to increased support in the biosciences area.

To sum up this overview, New Brunswick feels that there are many opportunities to continue to grow and be more prosperous, to be leaders in the use of safe technology and the new bio-based economy. We have excess processing capacity and idle land resources and markets that cannot be satisfied with current primary production. We are therefore seeking federal policies and programs that will let our agrifood sector grow and prosper on an equalized national fiscal playing field.

In terms of the agricultural policy framework, or the APF, New Brunswick strongly supports the federal government in its attempt to consolidate support and risk management programming. We do, however, note that there are significant differences amongst agricultural regions, and that the programming must still retain the flexibility to deal with these differences.

To that end, we have initiated a consultation process with our stakeholders, and we have already had three meetings with that group. Early concerns from the stakeholders include: the importance of maximum transparency through the process; that the initial goals included moving people out of farming, the opposite of what the New Brunswick industry needs; that costs have not been discussed adequately; and that industries and some provinces will not have funds to participate fully, leaving them at a disadvantage in the marketplace relative to other producers.

Concerns were also expressed that some sectors will be burdened more heavily than others. Concerns arose about whether there will still be room for companion programs. And one suggestion included delivering some aspects of the APF through provincial farm organizations in order to strengthen them.

The number one issue on New Brunswick's list of priorities on the APF is the environment. Along with the common national environmental objectives that the FPT working group has identified, New Brunswick will be focusing its efforts upon aspects of farm management dealing with improved risk management and nutrient management planning, improved water, soil, and pest management, and reduced occurrence of farm-related nuisance issues.

With respect to the renewal concept, we see no need for specific actions to move farmers out of agriculture in New Brunswick. Instead, our issue is with the shortage of qualified young people to either take over existing farms or build new ones. Any new programming must reflect this need to train and support a real renewal in our industry.

With respect to on-farm food safety in New Brunswick, while all health inspection roles have been centralized into the Department of Health and Wellness, my department still has an important role to play. We have supported New Brunswick's chicken, turkey, and pork producers' efforts to employ a person to work specifically on farm food safety, and will do so for other commodity organizations.

One difficulty our industry faces is that in order for an on-farm food safety plan to be credible, it is important that it be perceived as being at arm's length. This implies added recruiting and operational costs for qualified personnel, costs that my department is working closely with the provincial Department of Health and Wellness to identify.

As for the science component of the agricultural policy framework, my department has recently completed an industry consultation process regarding the life sciences economy. We hope to launch our new bio-economy strategy soon. Within New Brunswick my department is recognized as having the expertise and leadership for the bio-economy, and we are hopeful that the recently announced research and innovation fund will help us to leverage additional research dollars in this field.

¿ (0930)

Undoubtedly the most problematic aspect to the agricultural policy framework is risk management. In the past, New Brunswick farmers have taken advantage of the programs available through the safety net programming. As an example, the potato industry, the largest user of the crop insurance program in our province, has had relative stability and prosperity, in part, due to this program. So we do have some concerns that the new federal approach to risk management will send mixed signals to the farming community.

First, we are concerned about the timing. It will be very difficult to consult with industry and design a new program in time for the ministers meeting in June. We think it is essential to build a consensus and have a constructive debate on risk management within the context of the agricultural policy framework prior to signing a new plan. To that end, I am pleased that the federal government is planning to begin the consultation process soon. Secondly, a timetable for implementation of new programming should be set as soon as possible so that everyone involved can adjust accordingly.

With respect to other issues that impact upon the role of government in agriculture, maintaining and improving trade access for our exports is a critical function of the federal government. At the same time, however, we are not interested in sacrificing our supply management system in order to meet the arbitrary demands of other nations in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. It is critical that our federal negotiators maintain a balanced approach and that an open dialogue be maintained with industry. To that end, I am pleased that a regional consultation session on the WTO has been tentatively scheduled in Moncton for next month.

As well, we recognize the important role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in trade, food safety, and other areas. The agency must be well funded if it is to achieve all of its important work.

With respect to agricultural research, it is common knowledge that New Brunswick has a difficult time competing with other provinces for research dollars. However, given the breadth of the life sciences area, we believe our universities can play an important role in developing a bio-based economy if we receive our fair share of the research dollars available. At the same time, we are very pleased with the work that is done by the researchers at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Potato Research Centre in Fredericton. We trust this centre will be maintained as a key component in our desire to be the global centre for potato science and technology.

As you probably know, this facility is undergoing a major renovation at this time. It's one that I witness every day from my office window. We are extremely pleased to see this level of commitment and look forward to the excellent work that will be produced.

In summary, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the state of agriculture in New Brunswick and the future role for government in agriculture. If you have any questions, I will be pleased to try and answer them for you now.

Thank you very much.

I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the staff with me here today--the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Maurice Bernier, and the Assistant Deputy Minister of agriculture development, Clair Gartley. They'll be assisting me with any of the technical questions you get into with me.

So I'll throw it back to you, Mr. Hubbard.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm glad you introduced those with you. I intended to do that, but thank you, on my behalf.

Mr. Bernier, you have a portfolio that's pretty complicated, getting into both fisheries and agriculture, and Mr. Gartley is the assistant deputy.

Mr. Minister, we don't want to impose on you, but would 10 o'clock be sufficient to ensure your getting away?

Mr. Rodney Weston: That's fine.

The Chair: I'll try to divide up the time here. We have some questions back and forth.

Howard will begin.

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

There are many, many things. It's nice to hear that your government seems to have the agriculture sector here working reasonably well, especially towards the export side.

In their trade issues in 1995, our government signed an agreement on supply management that puts supply management back onto the table, in this current Doha Round, with a view to reducing the tariff levels we currently have that protect our industry. Do you have any reason to believe the government won't live up to the agreement it signed in 1995 and continue this lowering of tariffs in the current round of talks?

Mr. Rodney Weston: No, actually, we don't have any real reason to believe they won't live up to that agreement, but we do express caution in that sense. Obviously, we're very protective of that. It's a system that's worked well here in New Brunswick, and we do want to maintain that system.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I think domestic supply management has worked well, and will continue to do so, but of course we have the tensions with the effort to export under that system. So it will be interesting to see how these negotiations go, and I'm certain you'll be following it closely.

Among the other issues you mentioned as being of primary importance to New Brunswick is the issue of environmental plans. Now, the federal government has indicated that they want to have...or you ministers agreed that there would be an environmental plan on every farm.

Have you had any detailed discussions with the federal ag minister as to whether it's going to be federal standards or provincial standards that are going to apply? Will your province have the opportunity to set environmental plans that you feel are pertinent to New Brunswick, or are you going to be negotiating one that comes right from the federal government? And who is going to pay for that? We don't want to see the farmer paying for it.

Mr. Rodney Weston: I apologize; I've only been the minister for five and a half months, so I haven't been involved in all those discussions that have taken place. But to my understanding, there are still discussions being worked on right now, and the details haven't been worked out about who is going to pay for it. And about the questions you're asking, those are the discussions that are taking place, and probably will be continuing in June, in Halifax, I believe, with the federal minister and the provincial territorial ministers.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

With regard to these issues, it seems that environmentally each province is certainly different, although with some overriding goals. But one of the issues that's been put forward is the land set-aside, protect your riparian waterways, and this kind of thing.

There's been a proposal put forward, one by Ducks Unlimited and by other farm groups, in regard to this set-aside. What they're proposing is that in order to have a clean water supply, to help maintain a clean groundwater supply, clean air, and other environmental issues, farmers should be paid for the land that gets set aside. Seeing as how that's the objective—clean air, clean water, and this sort of thing—do you think it's fair? Or what's your position on paying farmers for that land that they will be agreeing to set aside?

Will it be fair to pay more in, say, British Columbia than in New Brunswick for an acre of land? That's the proposal right now, that there'd be a big differentiation, and I don't see why clean water and clean air in New Brunswick should be any less paid for than in another province.

What's your position on that?

Mr. Rodney Weston: It is certainly something that has been discussed. We do support the position you're stating there, about paying for land taken away from the agriculture industry. As I say, it's certainly something we've been discussing quite a lot, but that is our position, that we would be in support of that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. It seems to me that clean water and clean air are as important in any province, and shouldn't be paid more for in, say, P.E.I. than in my province of Manitoba. Because that's what's being put forward now, and I would certainly want to see equitable payment for clean air and clean water across this country as opposed to one area being paid a lot more for than others.

I guess I'm getting close, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Yes.

Paul, are you going to...?

Mr. Paul Steckle: We are limited in time, so I want to put a question to you. I think it's something that is so vitally important if we want to continue an agriculture industry in Canada—that is, intergenerational farm transfers.

What can the federal government, along with the provincial governments, do to make it a viable transition between one generation and another? I mean, unless we have new farmers coming on...I don't know what the average age is here, but I presume it's similar to what it is in the rest of the country, between the mid-50s and 60s. How can we do that? What can we do?

Somehow, in the spirit of this report, we need to give some clear indication, if we believe in an agricultural policy for Canada, that we believe there's a future for young farmers, for our graduates. How do we put in place some sort of a policy that allows fathers to allow their sons to take over the farms, or new people coming into the farming business, whether they be family members or otherwise?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Rodney Weston: As I said, I've only been around for five and a half months, but certainly it's something I heard just about every day in those five and a half months from the agricultural community. It's an issue that very much concerns the agricultural community here in New Brunswick.

As we stated in the brief, the number of farms is dropping but the farms are getting larger. The value is much greater, and it's not as easy to transfer that farm, move it on down through the line, as was seen in the past.

I think what we need to do is clearly establish with the stakeholders—and this is something we're doing here in New Brunswick, and I'm glad to hear the federal government is planning on doing so as well—what exactly the needs are in the respective areas, and find out how we can work with them. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I have the answer to it, but I am going to sit here and tell you we're talking to the industry to find out what the needs are, and how we can work a program that will meet those needs and meet those challenges.

So it is a big issue. Agriculture has been around for generations, and we want to see that it's around for generations to come. We need to see that the agriculture industry is a viable industry.

Mr. Paul Steckle: And how can we communicate our message, as a farm community, to our urban counterparts, to consumers? We're down to 1% of the active...Canadians in actually viable agriculture.

How do we communicate to the rest of our consuming public that we have the safest food, that we are working hard to ensure that continues to be the policy of this country?

How can we coexist as urban/rural people? We have the urban people believing we are the polluters of our lakes and streams when in fact we all contribute to that. How can we jointly share that responsibility so that we don't constantly blame each other? We each have to assume our own responsibilities, whether it's urban or rural.

You mentioned environment. I think that is so important, and I think there's an appetite for cleaning up the environment in this country. How can we do that together, collectively, and be seen by both parties to be doing our part?

Mr. Rodney Weston: The government has a real role to play there, I really believe, in awareness, in making the general public aware of the necessity of the agriculture industry and the viability, how it contributes to the economy and how it also contributes to our well-being here. I think we do that by working with the stakeholders as well, working with industry to get the message out of how important the industry is.

We also do that by letting the public know, in our awareness campaign, that the agriculture industry is actually a good steward of the land. They have a lot at stake. They have their livelihood at stake. They're not there to pollute the land. They're not there to contaminate the land. They're there to continue the lifestyle they've had for years.

We need to get the message out that agriculture is working hard to maintain a sustainable industry, and maintaining a sustainable industry by using good, environmentally sound practices. That's how they're going to maintain a sustainable industry, by using good, environmentally sound practices. We need to get the message out. I think we as a government have a role to play in that, but we do that with the industry.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the presentation, Mr. Minister.

Just very quickly, could you elaborate briefly on this mediation process that you talked about on overcoming litigation around environmentally acceptable practices? How does that work? Can you just flesh it out for us?

Mr. Rodney Weston: What we're proposing as a government... We passed through the legislature in early 1999 the Agricultural Operation Practices Act, and it's been sitting there waiting for regulations before it can be proclaimed. Part of the proclamation process is setting up a mediation committee that would mediate conflicts between the agriculture industry and the general public.

It doesn't take away anybody's recourse to the courts. What we're saying is, basically, if there is a conflict and you come before this committee, and you lay out your case as a concerned neighbour or whatever, and the producer lays out their case, the committee will examine the merits of the case and determine if the regulations have been followed.

We've been very clear about this Agricultural Operation Practices Act. We will only support the ones following the rules, the ones abiding by the regulations.

Those are the practices we're going to support, and with this mediation process it just kind of streamlines or speeds up the process. It puts a process in place, and it's not as costly for the producer.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Dick Proctor: So it may not eliminate litigation, but it would probably reduce litigation.

Mr. Rodney Weston: Well, if you go before the courts and a judge asks you if you went before the mediation process, and you say no, he's probably going to tell you to go back before the mediation process. If you say yes, then he's going to look at the decision from the mediation process and say, well, they took into account all the regulations, and the law has been followed, so this man or woman can continue on with their business.

That's what we want to ensure. These people are farmers. They want to do what they do best. They don't want to be spending all their time and efforts constantly... As long as they're following the rules, they don't want to be spending their time out there fighting one battle or another. They want to do what they do best. They want to provide a living. They want to produce commodities. They want to farm.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Second and last, Mr. Minister, on the safety nets, are you in favour of the Fredericton formula, based on farm cash receipts? There's a bit of a debate going on in this area as to whether safety nets should be based on farm cash receipts or on another formula. The current one is based on it. The argument is that the supply managed areas are doing relatively well and grains and oilseeds are not.

When we were in Nova Scotia a couple of days ago, we were told very clearly by the Nova Scotia government that they do agree with the so-called Fredericton formula. I'm just wondering what the position of the New Brunswick government is.

Mr. Rodney Weston: We did agree with it at the time, but I guess what we're saying is, if you want to take farm cash receipts and add in value-added, we'd certainly be more in favour of that.

That might sound like a shift in position, but it's updating our position, I guess you could say.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Rose-Marie, do you have a question?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you as well, Mr. Minister. I was interested to hear about the 10-year strategy program you put together. Is that available for the committee?

Mr. Rodney Weston: Yes, we can make it available.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I'm sure I can speak on behalf of the committee when I say that we would like to see a copy of that, because it's certainly something that is lacking in some areas.

You mentioned the good work CFIA does in inspection. We've heard this through several meetings that we've been at, that they do good work but the numbers are few, and there's going to be a substantial number retiring. Is there a problem with numbers, with having sufficient numbers of inspectors here in New Brunswick? Is it an across-the-country problem?

Mr. Rodney Weston: It's not currently a concern, but we are concerned about the future, that we don't lose any. Obviously we don't want to go behind, but right now there haven't been any issues raised about the number of inspectors.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right.

I'm a strong supporter of supply management. When I was farming, I worked under that system, or a marketing board. I didn't mind working from morning until night as long as I knew that at the end of the day I had a market for my product. So I am a strong believer in supply management.

My question to you, Mr. Minister--and this may be the devil's advocate question--is do you have any concerns in the dairy industry, say, where they may want to produce for export markets? Do you think that will be taken to WTO as perhaps looking beyond what supply management was set up for in terms of the dairy producers? Will it have a negative impact, do you think?

Mr. Rodney Weston: We've been able to enjoy both worlds, and we've been able to depend on it so far. But actually, no, we don't see it as a problem. We don't see it as an issue.

¿ (0955)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

Rick.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here. I really appreciate it.

I enjoyed your priority list, but one of the things we heard yesterday from some of the potato producers was a concern with respect to the federal cost recovery program, particularly with their export certificates. I notice you export a lot from New Brunswick, potatoes particularly.

This is sort of a think-tank we have here right now in terms of where policy should be struck at the federal level. The federal government in its wisdom decided that they wanted to try to recover the majority of costs from the producer. Do you think it's necessary now to go back and rethink that policy, and perhaps have the federal government recover less of those costs from the producer? We know we've had some reduction in levels of funding from the federal government, and this would be one way of putting dollars back into the pockets of producers. Have you talked about that at all...from your ministers?

Mr. Rodney Weston: Yes, there is concern about cost recovery. I mean, you can only go so far before it starts to harm the producer, and we do have concerns about that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So if we went back with a recommendation that perhaps the ministry should rethink the levels, if nothing else for the cost recovery, I'm sure we could count on New Brunswick's support.

Mr. Rodney Weston: I think so—as long as you don't shuffle them down to the provinces.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Or the municipalities. I'm sorry the mayor left.

You mentioned in your priority list the bio-economy. I really appreciate that. As you're aware, the federal government too has a lot of support for the bio-economy. You talked about potato genomics. We have a problem with that. We had a potato that obviously had some genetic manipulation to it, and now we have some difficulty with consumers.

Does the Province of New Brunswick have any plans in place as to how the consumer can be brought into the process, can be better educated? If you have a lot of your future depending on that, how do you see getting their approval, if you will, of this GMO product, which we hope to be able to develop, here in New Brunswick?

Mr. Rodney Weston: I'd like to ask the assistant deputy to respond to that, if you don't mind. He's been working very closely on that issue.

Mr. Clair Gartley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Agriculture Development and Innovation Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of New Brunswick): I think it's an important issue you raise, that whatever we do, the consumers at the high-value end of the chain are the people we have to focus on when we're producing products. We've had experience in New Brunswick with the early stages of the development of this new biotechnology, if you will. I think we feel that the science is evolving and that the next round of this technology is going to produce products that consumers are going to be much more interested in. For instance, they may be more focused on higher nutritional value and—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Gartley, I appreciate all of that, and I think you'd get support around this table. Some of your future depends on the biotech. What kind of a plan do you have in place to make sure the consumer does support this? Do you have any kind of education plan as part of the project?

Mr. Clair Gartley: We have an organization in the province, BioAtlantech, that does a lot of education and awareness activities. It works with teachers from the school system and offers summer courses that explain biotechnology. We also have through our community college system a biotechnology program in Grand Falls. So there's a lot of awareness activity going on because of this BioAtlantech organization and the affiliates they're working with.

You know, it's far from over; we're just getting started. There's lots more to do.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no, we've just begun, unfortunately.

Last question, 30 seconds...?

The Chair: No, you've had your time now.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, just very briefly, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the excellent presentation. Agriculture is like the glass of water, with a lot of challenges, whether it's half-empty or half-full; there are challenges and there are opportunities. For example, your comments on the renewal; I think the renewal in this whole agricultural policy framework is about maintaining the family farm. You talked about the young people, whereas somebody else takes a negative view and talks about removing people.

I do want to say—and it's more of a statement—on supply management, Agriculture Minister Vanclief and Trade Minister Pettigrew have said very strongly and repeatedly lately, and the Prime Minister has said, that there's a commitment. The reason our commitment is so strong, and will be, is simple: It works.

The dairy people would certainly be wanting me to remind us all that they are one of the sectors that don't come along and look for money.

On this biotech, complimenting you so much...and Rick will be thanking me later. But education is key there. So I look forward to this.

Now, my question is, on your consultations, who have they been with, and how are you conducting them? I'd just be interested in hearing a bit about what you're doing.

Thank you.

À (1000)

Mr. Rodney Weston: The consultation process we've undertaken has representatives from all commodities in New Brunswick and representatives from the federations of agriculture. We have two federations, the francophone federation and the Federation of Agriculture. Representatives from each of those groups sit on what I call the “minister's advisory committee”. They've met three times, as I've said, and it has been very constructive, the work they've done.

So I do feel that we are reaching out, and to where we need to, the actual stakeholders. That's what we're doing in terms of a consultation process.

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

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

David.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you for spending your hour here. I know you're a busy person.

I don't have a question, but I do want to make a comment, I guess. A long time ago, I was told that attitudes lead to actions that lead to habits. I've been impressed this morning with your positive attitude. I've waited a long time on this tour to hear about the importance of local people and communities taking initiative. I've been waiting to see positive leadership as well. I've been impressed this morning with the fact that you seem to have a positive attitude to what's going on in this province, and I guess I'm encouraged by that.

I've been in agriculture a long time, and I think some of the problem has been the attitude of the producers. In our area, we're trying to get away from that, and I see it in some other areas. So I'd just like to encourage you to keep that up.

Mr. Rodney Weston: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Would you like to conclude with a few remarks?

Mr. Rodney Weston: I just want to say, once again, thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee this morning. It's a great opportunity.

Agriculture is a very important part of our culture here in New Brunswick. It's a very important part of our economy and it's a very important part of our future, as far as I'm concerned and as far as the Province of New Brunswick is concerned. So I wish you well in your deliberations, and I look forward to reading your report.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, along with Monsieur Bernier and Mr. Gartley. I'm glad you had a safe journey here. Hopefully the roads will be a bit better getting back this morning. On behalf of everyone, I want to thank you for coming.

We'll take a little break for a few minutes before we invite our next presenters to come to the table.

À (1002)

À (1004)

The Chair: Good morning, again.

First of all, we would like to explain how the system works here. We would like to welcome you each as panellists. We call these round tables, and we will be having two of them here today in the Miramichi. If anyone else in the room would like to make a presentation and your name is not on the list, we certainly would welcome you. As we've travelled across the country, we've always tried to give some time to anyone who is interested in agriculture or the future of agriculture.

À (1005)

With this system we have representatives from most parties in the House, except for the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Desrochers had to return to Ottawa yesterday. There are eight of us around the table. Howard and David haven't come back, but they are from the Canadian Alliance Party. We have Dick Proctor here from the NDP, and Rick Borotsik, who's from the Progressive Conservative Party, looking for friends here in New Brunswick, I guess. And from the Liberal Party, on the other side here, Rose-Marie Ur, Paul Steckle, and Larry McCormick.

In our work we listen to the presentations, we ask questions of the presenters, and eventually, when we get back to Ottawa, we'll be sitting together as a group. In fact, the whole committee is about 16 people. We will look at the presentations.

As you know, everything we say is being recorded. I have to be very careful when I'm kidding my friends sometimes about being at the table or not being here, because it all goes into the so-called blues in the House, and as chair I have to be very impartial, of course, and make sure we operate quite fairly.

But we will sit down as a group and eventually draft a report and write a report. As chair I will then present that report to the House of Commons sometime before the end of June.

You may think that five minutes is not very long, but you are welcome to present written statements or written reports. The clerk would take those, and they too would be entered into the information we are to go through.

We will signal you as you approach your five minutes. I don't like to cut people off, but when I give you the sign, hopefully you can conclude your remarks.

After we've gone around the room we start asking questions. We have roughly five minutes for each member to ask questions. The answers you give are part of that five-minute process, so please try not to answer a one-minute question in four minutes, because the member may have a second to ask as well.

We'll start this morning with Reginald Perry from the Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick.

I will time you here, Reg. We certainly recognize the importance of your industry, and there are several around the table here connected with it. In any case, we look forward to your presentation.

À (1010)

Mr. Reginald Perry (Representative, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick): Mr. Chairman, Robert Speer is chairman of the Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick, and he's going to make the formal presentation. I'll be here just as a backup.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Speer, Robert, the floor is yours.

Mr. Robert Speer (Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick): Thank you.

What I'm going to do this morning is just give you a very brief outline of the dairy industry in New Brunswick, and then I'll go into some of the points that, as dairy farmers, we figure are important.

The New Brunswick dairy industry annually produces 125 million litres of milk, with a farm gate value of $75 million. An additional 10 million litres of milk are produced for the export market.

New Brunswick's 300 dairy farmers are scattered throughout the province and supply stability to rural communities with year-round jobs. The dairy industry spins off benefits to a multitude of other industries, including feed companies, equipment dealers, and so on.

Supply management is the basis on which the dairy industry depends. It has allowed stability for the industry, which provides consumers with a consistent supply of quality product at a reasonable price. This has been accomplished without significant government subsidies. The strength of supply management systems lies within its three pillars—import controls, production planning, and producer price-setting.

The issue of import controls is one the federal government must address. The next round of World Trade Organization negotiations must not erode our effective border controls. The control must be broad enough to pick up blends and other products designed to circumvent the import controls.

With regard to production planning, this legislation needs to remain in place to enable the agricultural community to manage supply.

In terms of producer price-setting, the farmer's price is based on a cost of production study, and legislation needs to remain in place to enable this to happen.

Food safety is an issue for all consumers. We require consistent, fair regulations across the country. Government certainly has a role in the area of food safety from both a regulatory and enforcement perspective.

From the producer's perspective, the New Brunswick dairy industry is in the early stages of setting up a HACCP-based Canadian quality milk program. Government will have a role to play in verifying or auditing this program.

Environmental issues are of major concern to all Canadians. The need for sustainable environmental practices is recognized by agricultural producers, but we recognize that a major challenge is that environmental issues related to agriculture are changing much more quickly than the physical structures and equipment on the farm can economically change. In essence, the rules are changing more quickly than the economics on the farm. Government has a role to play in supporting new technology transfer to assist producers in this area.

Research and renewal is another key area that requires the attention of government. New Brunswick no longer has a federal dairy research facility. Therefore, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick has taken a proactive approach to research and renewal through the producer-owned and -directed Atlantic Dairy and Forage Institute. Certainly there are opportunities for government to make use of this facility in conjunction with dairy farmers in the province.

Another vital area of research is the actual transfer of new technologies to the farm community. Government has a role in ensuring that research developments are transferable to the farm in a forum that is economically viable for the agricultural producer.

Through a joint venture between New Brunswick dairy producers and a dairy processing facility, we are developing a new and innovative product to supply an underdeveloped market within Canada. We feel that this demonstrates the cooperative spirit and forward-thinking initiative of the New Brunswick dairy industry. I believe some of you actually were touring the plant this morning where some of this activity is taking place.

In keeping with our vision towards the future of the farming industry, government has a role to play in ensuring there is a next generation of agriculture producers in our country. The number of farmers is decreasing across Canada, and the average age of the remaining farmers is increasing. The high cost of entering the dairy industry is prohibitive, and there must be a focus on new entrant programs or other such initiatives to encourage and assist the next generation of agriculture producers.

In closing, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick feels that the government should continue to play a role in the areas of food safety, environmental issues, and research and renewal. With the phase-out of the direct payment dairy subsidy, we envision the federal government's role as continuing to ensure a regulatory framework that allows supply management to function effectively.

Again, the key elements of supply management system that must be upheld are controlling borders, planned production, and maintenance of producers' price controls.

Thank you.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Robert.

From the New Brunswick Partners in Agriculture, Betty Brown, president.

Ms. Betty Brown (President, New Brunswick Partners in Agriculture): Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as a farmer and as president of N.B. Partners in Agriculture, a farm organization committed to preserving a family farm style of farming, as a business, a science, and a lifestyle.

Is there a future for the family farm? Our future is dependent on many issues that must be addressed immediately.

The Chair: Betty, I'm going to ask you to slow down a little bit. I know time is...but we're trying to translate. You're worried about having only five minutes.

Now, this is your way of getting more time, I know, but I will give you more time.

Ms. Betty Brown: Farm income is a priority issue. Low farm gate prices, loss of local markets, and government-negotiated trade deals eliminate almost all government support to farmers, forcing many farmers out of business and detouring future farmers from entering into the business of farming. Increasing public demand for food safety and environmental regulations poses an added cost to the farmer, a cost that must be borne by the taxpayer.

We must have a realistic and sustainable vision for Canadian agriculture. Governments to economists are coming up with a vision for agriculture, but the vision for agriculture must put farmers first and put farming back into agricultural policy.

USDA commissioned a study on small and medium-sized family farms and acted on the recommendations of that report. President Bush has stated that American farmers will have a Farm Bill that will enable U.S. farmers to continue producing food, as a healthy U.S. economy begins with a healthy agricultural economy.

Where does this leave Canadian farmers?

England's study on the future of farming and food, released January 29, with the key objective that public policy would include...to reconnect food with the farming industry; to reconnect farming with its market and the rest of the food chain; to reconnect the food chain and the countryside; and to reconnect consumers with what they eat and how it is produced.

Will Canada follow the lead of United States and England?

We have lost over 450,000 family farms between 1941 and 1996, according to Statistics Canada. With this demise, we have lost rural communities and the culture from agriculture. In Thomas Friedman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Mr. Friedman states:

Culture at its best can be one of the most powerful forms of voluntary restraint in human behaviour. It gives life structure and meaning. It sanctions a whole set of habits, values, behavioural restraints, expectations and traditions that pattern life and hold societies together at their core.

Farm families are subsidizing Canadian agriculture. The low commodity prices leave little money to pay the farm family for their work. CBC's Rex Murphy, in a national debate on farm subsidies, stated:

Farming is a part of the way this country was built. It reaches deep into history. For many, it stretches over generations of family life and is as much a part of how people are and why they live as it is merely an occupation.

There's talk about farm subsidies that rather neatly ignores the fact that on this country's farms, the biggest subsidizers are the farmers, men and women, who work day jobs, second jobs off the farm to keep the farm family alive.

I ask, what other profession forces a second job to pay the bills?

Barry Lee Stratford, Edmonton, Alberta, in an article in Grainews entitled “Where's that woman gone”, stated:

We'll not only have lost a way of life, but also one of our most ambitious and industrious occupations, that of a farm woman.

To quote Franklin Roosevelt:

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has a right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level—I mean the wages of decent living.

Does this mean we should shut down Canadian farming? If we do, who will grow the food for Canadians?

Projections indicate that 120,000 farmers, one-third of all Canadian farmers, could retire in the next ten years. Who will take over the family farm? The Royal Bank's Agriculture Business Review of June 1998 calls succession the “unseen farm crisis”.

In the role of government, we must have a full-time minister with an independent Department of Agriculture, fully committed and loyal to all farmers. Farmers must have stable income, preferably from the marketplace. Government must review farm gate prices, marketing systems, food distribution systems, and the Competition Act. Global trade brought the merger of companies controlling the price of farm inputs and the farm gate price with an attitude of take it or leave it.

The federal government must examine the impact of the free trade agreement and the WTO in regard to the primary producer in Canada.

We must have a national food policy. Agricultural policy development must include open consultations between farmers and government, beginning in the rural areas, forwarded to a national level, and back to the provinces in order to allow for a level playing field for all Canadian farmers. Often farmers hear of consultations after they occur.

All government departments must put special emphasis on the health and well-being of farm families to ensure future generations continue to be the basis of a safe, secure food supply, environmental sustainability, and a healthy democratic society with an equitable standard of living, education opportunities, employment benefits, health care, and rural services, comparable to other businesses of equal size and capital and labour investment.

Rural child care assistance is essential. N.B. Partners in Agriculture has completed a report on rural child care that identifies several recommendations for future action planning to help shape the future of rural child care in New Brunswick and Canada.

À (1020)

The national Farm Women's Leaders Coalition has requested, through the office of the federal rural development minister, Andy Mitchell, to have child care an eligible farm expense. How can we encourage our youth to take over the family farm and bring up their families in rural Canada without rural child care?

The Farm Women's Leaders Coalition and the Quebec farm women's organization have requested that the federal government make changes to the Canada Pension Act to allow farm men and women, who do not draw a salary from the farm, to pay into the pension plan on a yearly basis.

Urban sprawl and non-agricultural rural development is digesting our precious agricultural land. Investigate the possibility of putting agricultural land in a land bank or land trust for future farmers unable to access capital to purchase farm lands.

In terms of protection of farmers' access to water, the demand for water by non-agricultural users is increasing. The situation promises tension between food producers and other segments of society. Farmers in the northwestern United States are experiencing this problem. The U.S. has made it plain that they want access to Canadian water.

The Canadian government must revisit and act upon the Declaration for the Advancement of Farm Women, signed by the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers in July of 1994.

The federal government must take a lead role in independent agriculture research. We must protect our heritage and new seed varieties. All farmers must have the ability to purchase seeds at reasonable prices and not be held captive under plant breeders' rights.

I had a more in-depth presentation, but due to the limited time I will leave both that with you and a presentation from Carolyn VanDine, president of the Canadian Farm Women's Network, who is unable to be here today.

I will close by quoting Brian Anderson, a B.C. dairy farmer: “One of our biggest challenges in agriculture is educating those who don't understand or have any idea of what's going on in our industry.”

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you, Betty.

From the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture, Joe Brennan and Hannah Searle.

Hannah, are you presenting?

Ms. Hannah Searle (Representative, New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture): Yes, I am.

Thank you very much for the invitation to present this brief today. As New Brunswick's largest general farm organization, we are proud to advocate on behalf of our diverse industry, drawing the broad perspectives of our members in all commodities, of many different types of farm structures and sizes. Of course, we are pleased to be able to serve our members in both official languages.

From a national perspective, it is perhaps tempting to consider New Brunswick a small portion of the Canadian agriculture picture. However, from the point of view of our own population and provincial economy, agriculture is a major player. Our agrifood industry rests on a base of more than $3 million of farm gate receipts per year and produces $1.2 billion through the value-added processing.

About a third of our primary industry employment is on-farm, and a further 5,000 New Brunswickers work in food processing. In a jurisdiction with a population of only one-third of a million, agriculture is of much greater significance than generally perceived. Moreover, New Brunswick agriculture has not yet achieved its potential.

We in the industry know that the potential for increased production, diversification, and value-added activities exist. We are determined to develop our industry in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. To this end, we advocate a well-developed plan that includes strategic investments, good communications, and a balanced approach to responsible development. As industry representatives, we are looking forward to working with our government partners to this end.

Although agriculture is a shared federal-provincial responsibility, we look to Ottawa to ensure equity, express national perspective, represent us internationally, and perform key regulatory and monitoring functions that are in the best interests of the population and the agriculture industry. We also require federal leadership to ensure our sector of adequate stability through time. Modern farming standards mean that necessary levels of investment are high, and some assurances of consistent or predictable development and regulatory policies are required in order to make a good business case. Like available natural resources and other inputs to a viable farm operation, these functions are very much part of the context of our industry, and as such are a major aspect of our interaction with government.

The five priorities first iidentified under the Whitehorse accord fit well with the NBFA approach to development of our industry, providing a suitable format for our general discussion. We can begin by raising a few key points.

First, our industry is science-based. An effective research strategy must incorporate issues of equity and timeliness, as well as relevance to all jurisdictions involved. Here again we can see the balanced role of the federal government as a major factor in delivering a strategy that provides the greatest good.

There is a role as well for industry-funded research, but clearly this would be focused on a different type of goal than publicly funded, publicly available research.

The need for a public research strategy is pressing. Some challenges include the possibility of climate change and its impact on resource availability, changing pest and disease patterns, and cultivar research. New opportunities need to be explored in such areas as biofuels, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals; these could be extremely rewarding avenues of research.

The concept of a New Brunswick agricultural research foundation has appeal. A mandate could be to guide and support agriculture research relevant to our industry. Farm and processing groups could be represented on the board of directors. Such a government-supported organization could be a cost-effective way to generate direct input from the people who actually use the research results. Key to the success of any research strategy will be the communication of results and access by industry to a range of data used to generate them.

The goal of a risk management strategy should be the long-term health, sustainability, and stability of our industry. Note that we use the term “risk management” rather than “safety net”, to emphasize the need for a broader risk management strategy. One aspect of this thinking is found in the concept of finer and more intensive management of all aspects of farming as an essential competitive edge. Safety net or cashflow stability programs are a component. In this regard, many producers have asked for a whole-farm approach to various programs. A comprehensive risk management program should provide the tools to reduce need for government intervention on an ad hoc basis.

The importance of arm's-length food inspection and product regulation cannot be overstated. It is the key component of the overall image of Canadian agriculture as a safe and reliable enterprise. It is a pillar of public confidence and support for our industry.

The continuing government funding and support is to some extent dependent on public support, at least in the political sense. This is a good reason to place emphasis on a comprehensive campaign of public education on the food system that they enjoy. Further, any international trade advantages offered by our inspection and regulatory system should be well understood and maximized. This is one area where the economic benefits of our approach can be made tangible in the eyes of the voting public.

On a related issue, farmers and knowledgeable consumers often remark that imports should naturally be held to the same safety standards as our own product.

Many food safety tools, such as hazard analysis, critical control points, ISO standards, and so on are emerging areas of farming development. Enhancements of on-farm management techniques, which are aimed at increasing the levels of documentation, data handling, and analysis, are good areas for public funding. Society as a whole benefits, and the human resource development is long term.

Addressing environmental issues is a very significant aspect of farming today. We recognize that the level of public interest has increased and the patterns of land use near farms has changed as well. Many of the activities that farmers will be undertaking in the environmental arena are for the ultimate benefit of society at large, and some, in fact, due to the encroachment of non-farming activities. Adjustments are indeed needed as the context our farms change. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate in some cases for government programs to support the farmer and assist with certain types of environmental developments. Financial incentives could include tax credits for certain activities.

With regard to CO₂ and methane emissions, the role of farm land should be better understood and communicated. Tax credits are again a possibility, as not only is this a general environmental benefit but producers are also directly involved in better positioning Canada as a whole in international trade matters.

A great deal of work has already been devoted to environmental issues in farming, and again, society at large has benefited. We are proud to be part of and in the utmost tier of environmental practices worldwide. This should be part of the message when government tells the story of Canadian agriculture.

The concept of multi-functionality of farming and its benefits to society are well recognized in Europe. In this way, the farm is seen not just as a food production facility but as a tourism and recreation resource, a wildlife habitat, an ozone sink, and oxygen production plant. This is another component of the message we must promote in order for society to recognize our true value.

À (1035)

The Chair: Can you conclude, perhaps, in another minute?

Ms. Hannah Searle: Certainly.

Just briefly, renewal in the New Brunswick context means something different than it does in some other jurisdictions.

Okay?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Dr. Ben Baldwin of the New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association.

Mr. Ben Baldwin (Director, New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I have a two-page written brief as the director of the New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association, but I've been thinking heavily for the last two hours here about changing it and making a personal presentation in addition to this. You can read this later on, because I've left copies here.

Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: If it's a personal one...you know, if you want to appear as an individual later, we have another panel and we can put your name on the list there.

Is that a good offer?

Mr. Ben Baldwin: Since you're the boss, I guess I'll accept it.

The New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association represents groups of farmers from around the province, and is comprised of eight locals. The association is committed to pioneering and advancing leading soil and crop practices in New Brunswick and exploring new ideas and innovation through research. We are committed to continuing education of producers, industry, and the public. We are founding members of the New Brunswick Agriculture Environmental Council and are working to establish conservation clubs around the province as part of our organization.

The New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association sees the role of government in agriculture to be that of an unbiased third party. The public's perception of our industry is an ever-increasing challenge. As the public becomes further removed from the farm, their susceptibility to misinformation increases. In order for the farming community to combat this misinformation it is imperative that there be some publicly accountable body that also confirms the position of the agricultural industry.

Food safety is becoming a major issue. In order for the public to believe their food supply is safe, there is a need once again for there to be an unbiased third party policing the system. We see this as the role of government. The public is not likely to accept the farming community policing itself.

Pesticide and seed registration is another area where there is a need for the government to act as a watchdog. Our organization is not comfortable with the idea of chemical companies being allowed to put whatever they like onto the market. The soil and crop association would like to see independent testing of such products. This would involve either the government itself testing the products or providing the necessary funding to have the testing done.

The same is true for seed. Farmers need to be assured that the products they are using will perform as stated, and are safe. The government should continue to support, both in principle and financially, the regional testing of varieties prior to registration.

As an aside, I must say that we are starting a suborganization to do trials in agriculture throughout the province. We're going to hire a small group of professional people to do this, as a business within the organization. We are a hands-on organization as opposed to policy, with respect to our friends from the federation, as I see it.

There is a role for government in the area of disease and pest control. The expertise necessary to protect us and our crops needs to be available. There is also a need for government involvement in research so that farmers and the public can be assured that the research work being conducted is credible and that the results are available to our industry.

Research funded by corporations is very susceptible to bias and is used for the profit of the company and not for the good of society. The government should be involved in conducting and funding unbiased research. There are also areas of research that would not take place if there were no public funds available. Private corporations are only interested in research that could turn a profit. Research that could enhance the quality of life and the sustainability of our environment would not be a priority for them.

It is also the role of government to provide a fair and equitable playing field for all farmers, both within our own province and around the world. Our ability to compete is greatly affected by the varying levels of support for the agricultural industry, within Canada and beyond. We do not mind competing if the competition is fair. We feel that the security of our food supply is of vital importance, and our ability to feed ourselves needs to be maintained.

Investment tax credits need to be enhanced. This has already been mentioned this morning. Farmers need to be able to invest in their industry. The margins in farming are exorbitantly low, and the demands for improved technologies and capital investment to promote environmental sustainability are growing. Investment tax credits would allow farmers to receive a tax benefit, of course, from investing in their own business.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you, Ben.

Apparently CARD is meeting today. That's one of the reasons why, I guess, the name I had originally was Fraser. I think he's away, probably, at that meeting today.

For the other members, CARD has an executive group that is meeting today in Fredericton. That has caused sort of a conflict with our hearings here in New Brunswick.

From Northumberland Co-operative we have Jack Christie, the general manager; along from the board of directors, Glenford Copp and Percy Scott; and Dr. Aneja from the research group.

Welcome, Jack, and thank you for the visit this morning. Are you presenting?

Mr. Jack Christie (General Manager, Northumberland Co-operative Limited): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. It's nice to see you once again.

This is sort of a team effort today. We even brought our own timekeeper. We have a brief that we want to pass around. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to wait until the end or pass it around now and you can makes notes as you go. That's your choice.

The Chair: I leave that up to you. The clerk perhaps could pass that around.

Mr. Jack Christie: Okay.

Our president, Percy Scott, will make an opening statement.

Percy.

Mr. Percy Scott (President, Northumberland Co-operative Limited): Thank you.

On behalf of our members and employees, the Northumberland Co-operative Limited would like to welcome the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to our home base of Miramichi.

Our cooperative has operated in the Miramichi since its founding on October 1, 1942. The cooperative has 350 members, including 37 New Brunswick dairy farmers. It also employs 300 workers throughout the province, with over half located here in the Miramichi.

The Northumberland Co-operative serves New Brunswick with a significant amount of its fluid milk requirements. We have a particularly strong market share in the eastern half of the province. We also distribute other dairy products processed in neighbouring provinces.

The cooperative operates a frozen food service business consisting of institutional frozen foods, ice cream, and novelties for distribution throughout New Brunswick. Locally, the cooperative operates a hardware and lumber retail business.

Thanks.

Mr. Jack Christie: We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns about how the federal government interacts with the agricultural community. Globalization or consolidation is a major factor in the Canadian dairy industry, with three players controlling roughly more than 50% of the business.

In order to allow for the survival of small provincial or regional dairies such as ours, it is important that the regulations governing fluid milk operations remain within the domain of the provincial government. If interprovincial trade rules were to change, the consolidation of the remaining fluid milk dairies would just be a short matter of time.

We believe small dairies such as Northumberland should have the opportunity to use its core fluid milk business as a base to launch new innovative products. Last year we introduced to the Maritime marketplace our Northumberland Max! Cranberry Cocktail. This chilled beverage is a unique, cold-pressed product made from New Brunswick cranberries.

We've also entered into another joint venture—referred to by our partners on the right—to develop, on a pilot basis, ethnic East Indian dairy products for markets outside the Maritime region. We're fortunate to have assistance for financing from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as well as the New Brunswick Agricultural Council. We appreciate and wish to acknowledge that.

I'll ask Dr. Aneja to continue in terms of the East Indian project.

Dr. Ram Aneja (Representative, Northumberland Co-operative Limited): We would like you to know that the food regulatory requirements set down by the federal government have been a challenge for the introduction of these ethnic products. It sometimes seems that they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

We need to have flexibility in food laws for ethnic food products. The diversity in the Canadian population can contribute positively in the process of globalization that not only opens other markets to Canadian products but also opens markets for ethnic products to be developed and exported out of Canada.

It will open new markets for Canadian agricultural commodities. Milk is a case in point. While Canadian dairy farmers are struggling to find markets for their milk, there are ethnic markets for dairy products that are not fully catered to in both Canada and the U.S.A.

This market, estimated to be worth $500 million, is grossly underserviced because of the absence of technologies to produce and market these products on an industrial scale following well-accepted food manufacturing practices.

For most of the ethnic products, good manufacturing practices simply do not exist. As a result, some of these products are produced in North America on a limited scale under sanitary conditions that are questionable--just as many of the mainstream Canadian dairy products were produced 50 years ago. The current technologies to make these products are centuries old, and only recently some efforts have been made to make these products on an industrial scale. Canada can help lead the technology development in this area and derive benefits out of it.

The major difference between the Canadian processed dairy products and the East Indian dairy products is they are made from unpasteurized milk after boiling. The Indian products are also processed in the same container in which the milk is initially boiled.

Canadian regulations require that all raw milk be first pasteurized before it is further processed into products. As a result, in order to comply with regulations to manufacture East Indian dairy products, we are required to follow the unnecessary step of pasteurization before proceeding to follow the boiling steps necessary to manufacture various Indian dairy products.

One of our products, paneer, is made by coagulating boiled milk with vinegar, citric acid, or acidified whey. While paneer may have some similarities with cheese, it is also very different. It is a cooking cheese that is usually deep fried before making a curry. It's not eaten like cheese. Furthermore, paneer does not have any bacterial cultures, which are necessary to produce cheese in Canada.

However, once paneer is described on a label as “cooking cheese”, it is required to be processed under the same conditions as cheese. Canadian laws do not permit the use of any vinegar in making cheese, even though vinegar yields a better product in making paneer from cows' milk; most paneer in India is made out of buffalo milk. However, because of Canadian cheese regulations, we are not able to produce the best paneer without the use of vinegar.

Canadian food labelling requires that the moisture and fat content be clearly identified on all dairy products such as paneer. However, the technologies and practices to process paneer are not quite as sophisticated as those of other Canadian dairy products. The current system of manufacturing paneer does not allow for an exact fat content on the final product. It allows only for a stated minimum to be indicated.

Here again, we suggest that ethnic products should follow all the Canadian regulations concerning good manufacturing practices, but not be required to blindly be placed in certain boxes as far as food labelling requirements are concerned. After all, it has taken decades to establish the standards for Canadian dairy foods. However, it is very difficult to compress the timeframe for developing labelling standards for ethnic dairy food products that offer significant potential to our Canadian economy.

Approximately 10 years ago our dairy also met resistance from the federal government when we attempted to better educate our consumers on our fluid milk.

Jack, would you like to take over there?

À (1045)

Mr. Jack Christie: Ten years ago we changed our milk cartons to indicate on the label that it was not only 2% but also 98% fat-free. For some reason, this was unacceptable to our federal government. Bureaucrats suggested that to indicate the fat-free percentage of butterfat on a milk container is misleading, but we don't really understand their reasoning. For small cooperatives such as ours,it's very difficult to discuss such issues over the phone with an Ottawa bureaucrat.

The introduction of new milk items and food packaging to the marketplace is very high-risk and expensive. It is often said, or at least this is what I say, that one in ten new products actually succeeds in the marketplace.

We suggest that your comittee consider, as has already been recommended, for producer- or cooperative-owned organizations, that a market research incentive be offered to encourage small producer-owner organizations to launch new products into the marketplace, similar to what is offered currently as a scientific tax credit. We believe the same incentive should also exist for market research.

Again, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity. We wish you a pleasant experience here in the Miramichi.

The Chair: Thank you, Jack, and thanks to Percy, Dr. Aneja, and Glenford.

We're moving on now to the New Brunswick....They're called here “New Brunswick Potatoes”, but Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Jewett are here together, are they?

Mr. Larry Jewett (Representative, Ste-Marie-de-Kent Farmers' Association): I represent another group, actually.

The Chair: Okay, Larry, sorry about that. Good place, Kent County; you should grow some potatoes down there, you know.

À (1050)

Mr. Larry Jewett: We've tried.

The Chair: I think you could succeed.

Mr. Larry Jewett: We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present today. I must add that I'm also in the livestock export business. I've had the opportunity to take advantage of federal programs and travel on international missions, and I'm proud to say that we've exported cattle from every province in the country.

I'm here today representing a small group of farmer operators located near the village of Ste-Marie-de-Kent, Kent County, New Brunswick. The topic I would like to address today is environmental sustainability on our livestock farms, our large farms, our small farms--all of our livestock farms.

Believe it or not, little old Ste-Marie-de-Kent is quickly becoming a centre of environmental excellence with regard to livestock production, on-farm odour control, manure handling systems, and manure spreading technology.

Local farmers in Ste-Marie are now familiar with terms previously unheard of in the community. For instance, we now hear about environmental farm plants, coliform bacteria, E. coli, low-level spreading equipment, buffer zones, grassed waterways, ozone odour control systems, ILOs, CAFOs, even poop patrol, and I might add a few phrases I'm not able to repeat today. Ste-Marie-de-Kent is home to mixed farms, too.

In Ste-Marie-de-Kent our provincial government is preparing to invest $1.5 million to help develop and demonstrate new technologies that will help our most famous farm, a large farm, reduce and eliminate odours to a point where it is expected not to smell like a farm ever again. This same government has already invested $200,000 in a water quality monitoring program and has successfully demonstrated suitable manure spreading techniques in an effort to eliminate field runoff into our streams and rivers.

We commend the provincial government on such a strategic investment in environmental technology development. However, this is only the first step down the environmental road, because there are 30 other Kent County farmers who have the same challenges as this large farm. Our pigs smell like pigs, our cattle smell like cows, our manure smells like manure. By the way, we even have the odd protestor, just like the big farm.

A future role the federal government must play, in the eyes of Ste-Marie farmers, is that government must invest in new environmental technology suitable for small farms also.

You should understand that one large farm that has 10,000 pigs and spreads manure on 1,500 acres has exactly the same environmental impact as 10 small farms with 1,000 pigs each, spreading 150 acres each. The difference is that it will be ten manure lagoons instead of one, ten manure spreaders instead of one, and ten manure spreading schedules instead of one. But at the end of the day, there will still be 10,000 pigs and 1,500 acres to spread.

The only deviation from this trend that could be expected is that the environmental protest level may actually decrease. I have no idea why.

There appears to be no scientific evidence that compares large livestock operations with multiple small operations, mainly because that science just is not available to us yet.

The Government of Canada needs to invest in environmental technology demonstrations for smaller operations. We believe Ste-Marie-de-Kent is just the right place to start. Let's finish the job and make Ste-Marie a true centre of excellence for environmentally sustainable agriculture for large farms, for small farms—for all farms.

We would also like to commend the federal government, if the most recent news reports are true, on your consideration of a possible $4 million investment in a technology project. I can inform you that our preferred place for that investment would be Ste-Marie-de-Kent, the budding centre of environmental excellence.

The bottom line is this: Farmers need the Government of Canada to invest in the development of environmental technology for all farms, both large and small. We have a keen interest in environmental science and absolutely no interest in environmental politics.

Thank you.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

And now for potatoes; Mr. Patton MacDonald.

Mr. Patton MacDonald (Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honourable members.

New Brunswick's potato industry represents 57,000 production acres and 400 producers. We have a $90 million farm gate, which generates about $450 million, and 60% of our product goes to the United States. In New Brunswick, 90% of our product is done from Edmundston down to Woodstock in the Saint John River Valley. The other 10%, which is very important to us, is noted with other marks on the map there.

I want to talk about six key agricultural issues in New Brunswick.

The first one is the issue of ag support and a voice in program delivery. We have a number of challenges here. There has been minimal provincial support in the past. There's been a very poor relationship with the provincial government in the past, and in the federal government as well to some extent. And there is a declining farm population and an aging farm population. Those are just some of the challenges.

We have taken actions and made recommendations to address these. We have a new ag minister and deputy minister, and that has resulted in better dialogue from both sides. We think this is a good guy, a good minister, and we're happy he's here.

We have unified our potato industry and we've just finished another three-year strategy following our first three-year strategy. It's paid off in big terms for our industry.

We have a new New Brunswick ag organization; the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture has been greatly strengthened. Every commodity is now on the board, plus almost all ag organizations. That's of tremendous benefit to us.

In terms of recommendations, the feds must ensure that federal-provincial programs allow real industry input. Make it a funding condition.

Agriculture policy framework is the second issue we wanted to discuss. We have some questions and some comments. The goals for the framework seem admirable, but some basic changes are needed.

Two, can the outcome be altered by consultations or is it a fait accompli? That's a question I've been asked a lot.

We do have a concern that cost recovery planning is going on at the same time, and there doesn't seem to be anywhere for farmers to recoup those costs. We do have a plan to partly address that, which I'll talk about.

In terms of actions and recommendations, we think the consultations on the framework should be coordinated better to allow more time for farmer participation. We also think there should be joint provincial, federal, and industry information and consultation sessions, because the messages get mixed at some point.

We are establishing, as part of an action, a three-year strategic plan, as I just noted, around that framework so that we fit our industry into what the rest of the country is going to be doing.

The next issue is declining farm population and succession planning. The issue is so well known I'm not going to waste time describing the challenge.

In terms of actions and recommendations, we believe there has to be coordinated federal and provincial programs for new entrants that include the value of on-farm success and experience to qualify for those programs. We think there should be incentives for succession, and sooner rather than later—for instance, taxes, etc.

Three, one of the actions we've taken is that we have great farmer cooperation on the go. We have right to farm legislation and input on local governance issues all under way right now in New Brunswick. It's a very positive feeling. The minister has already told you about some of those things.

We also support the agricultural leadership program. Dairy and potatoes are major supporters of that. It's a unique educational experience that helps farmers, and we hope it will continue.

On the issue of food safety and environment, we have low rates of assistance relative to other provinces and jurisdictions. There is consolidation in the buying chain and marketing that's a challenge as related to those, and higher costs are not matched by returns to farmers. Other challenges, of course, are clean air, water, protection acts, etc., and other issues.

Our actions and recommendations associated with those include the recommendation that tax and other support be given to offset the costs of adopting stringent environment and food safety controls. That's not to say that we aren't good stewards right now, because we are, but we think there should be harmonization of federal and provincial programs to a greater extent. I've talked to industry sectors—aquaculture, for example, which is not represented here today—that must answer to three different sets of regulations. It doesn't make sense.

Reciprocity and standards for imported farm produce should be given. If we're going to import Chinese apples, they should also reflect the Canadian standards we have to meet.

Actions and recommendations include environmental farm planning and on-farm food safety training, which are well under way in our sector and in other sectors in this province.

Two, the Canadian Partners in Quality program is under way for our shippers and packers and that will save government and industry millions of dollars and further ensure the quality and safety trail is going to be intact.

The other thing we're doing is we operate our own potato disease testing lab, totally funded by farmers.

The issue of international trade is next. There are some basic problems. Market goals are established without direct participation by farmers. Trade professionals often focus on the process and not on the result for farmers. Trade agreements were established on a rules-based system years ago, but today trade barriers are often presented as phytosanitary or environmental issues.

As well, Canada decreased farm income support—you've heard this—while virtually all other members of the various trade agreements have rebuilt their farm income supports to 1986-88 levels. David Cole, one of the authors of the U.S. Farm Bill, told us a month ago that 65% of every net U.S. farm dollar is government income. We need to also better facilitate shipments to the U.S.

We have recommendations there. Trade teams should include input from primary producers up to and during the trade negotiations. They affect our livelihood and we need to be there. By looking at ideas such as set-asides, government could spend less and achieve more, and it would be added benefits for environmental stewardship.

We recommend that legislation be allowed to create a national check-off on imported potato products, such as the U.S. does to Canada. We pay 2¢ a hundredweight for every potato product that goes into the U.S. They do not do it reciprocally, and our own Canadian legislation prevents us from doing that. We would like some help in getting that changed.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the New Brunswick Potato Shippers Association, with the support of Potatoes New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Association of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture, and others are leading an effort to set up a Partners in Quality certification program for shipping potatoes to the U.S. It will save government and industry millions of dollars and a tremendous amount of time if it's accepted by the U.S. So if there's anything we can get help with to make that happen, we would like it.

The last issue here is safety nets and risk management. Primary producers have had little or no input on how the companion dollars are spent by provinces, at least in this province. This leads to sometimes an inappropriate use and even a misuse of these funds. That's a concern of ours. Many safety net programs as they exist—and I realize this is being addressed now—reflect a one-size-fits-all approach. That may work for socks and kids' hats and pantyhose, but it absolutely doesn't work for agriculture.

When I said that to Susan Whelan, she said, “I have news for you, it doesn't work for pantyhose either.” So I guess it's true.

We recommend that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want to improve and not destroy the NISA program. It can be made to work. The feds must insist that the provinces have producers in the decision-making process, and a plan that works for specific farmers, regardless of their commodity, can be done. For example, we have just proposed a self-directed risk management alternative, similar to the one in Ontario, which is an alternative for crop insurance. It's going to be introduced in New Brunswick in the spring.

I encourage you to continue this dialogue. This is an excellent forum and an opportunity for our industry and for you to hear us. We really appreciate your being here, and thanks for asking us, because regardless of what you do, we're all in the same boat here.

Thank you.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Everywhere we go, and every day we go somewhere else, I think we learn something new. I guess someone said that a long time ago.

In any case, David is going to start with the questions.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of things I'd like to address. I don't know if I have enough time to do that.

Patton, you spoke last. You were talking about the ag framework and the importance of consultation. I guess we've had a concern that we're almost a year into the planning on this thing and we still have no details on it, basically. We have no agreement with the provinces, and there's no money committed to it. We've been trying to raise those issues as we've gone.

One of the issues that comes up in that plan is the land set-asides. I would like to get your opinion. We have a proposal, and it may affect the west more than the east, to have some of the environmental organizations and conservancy groups come in, buy land, put permanent easements on it, and sell it back to farmers. Do you have a concern with that happening in New Brunswick?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: Yes. We think farmers are good stewards of the land now, and farmers need to have decisions made for agriculture, that affect agriculture, by people who truly understand agricultural needs. I would have to answer, yes, we would have a concern, but that's not to say that we would fight it tooth and nail.

Perhaps I need to understand it more, but just off the cuff, yes, we do.

Á (1105)

Mr. David Anderson: I guess we've been of the opinion that there should be some short- and medium-term easements, maybe, but nothing permanent to take the control away from the farmers.

Mr. Patton MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: Hannah, I wanted to just ask you about a couple of your stats. I may have heard wrong here, but at the beginning of your presentation did you say “$3 million” of farm gate?

Ms. Hannah Searle: Oh, sorry, $300 million.

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, okay. Dick and I are both from Saskatchewan, and we were impressed with your value-added numbers there; we'd love to see that happen in our province.

I wanted to ask you, what do you do in terms of public education? We've heard in a couple of other provinces they have some programs, by their government or independent from government. I think producer organizations are probably best-positioned to reflect producers' interests.

Do you have a public education program? What do you do, and how much money do you spend on that?

Ms. Hannah Searle: Actually, we're in the process right now of launching a new education...the public perception. Actually, I wasn't able to get to it in my brief, but when you have the copies circulated it's in there.

Joe, I think you can speak better as to the actual dollar values associated with our public perception.

Mr. Joe Brennan (President, New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture): I guess what we have proposed to government is a quarter-of-a-million-dollar project over three years on behalf of the federation and the government to do an intensive public perception program to get the message out. Everybody seems to say the same thing. Like a lot of things, the problems are quite consistent, aren't they, and the issue is that people realize this. The key is to get the plan made to go forward.

The education system is another area that's being looked at—you know, high school science courses in agriculture. The community college program is under review again now. We have two in the province here that do agriculture. So that's being looked at by a separate committee. We're looking at kind of a multi-angled story here, I guess, to get it out.

But the government is involved in the process. They want it out, and we want it out, as an industry, the education system wants it out. So it's a matter of coordinating all those efforts to get the story out.

Mr. David Anderson: Well, we have some important work to do to change people's minds about things.

Mr. Joe Brennan: Yes, we sure do. It's really important.

Mr. David Anderson: Larry, I was impressed with your presentation. I mentioned the minister; I was glad to hear some positive things, but I'm glad to hear somebody taking something negative and really trying to turn it into a positive situation for their area. I just wanted to make that comment.

Mr. Larry Jewett: Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: Ram, I wanted to ask you particularly, how do you think the government can regulate niche products? You've suggested that you want to do some different kinds of development and value-added and processing of products. Do you have any suggestions on how the government can maintain the food safety that's so important to the consumer and at the same time allow people to work outside or alongside those regulations?

Dr. Ram Aneja: In the first place, I think the government should really interact with these people rather than fit them into boxes. Then we can work out procedures and good manufacturing practices and show that consumers are protected. One of the positive things that's going to come out of this project is that we're going to produce these products in a framework that would generally conform to everything else, to all of the food products.

I think trying to fit them into labels that don't apply to them is wrong. And those in the government who are responsible should interact with people who are producing these products.

Take this issue of boiling milk. One has to pasteurize milk, cool it, and then start heating all over again. You make it that much more energy-intensive and that much less viable. I think greater interaction is needed.

Mr. David Anderson: Do you find any ability to interact with the bureaucracy? Have you had any success in that? Does there need to be some changes within the bureaucracy you're dealing with, or...?

Dr. Ram Aneja: I was a bureaucrat myself at one point in time. Bureaucracy finds it very simple to try to fit things into boxes. They don't think they have leeway.

For example, they have to call it cheese. Now, by legal definition, in Canada the product cannot be called cheese, because cheese, by definition, must have bacterial cultures in it. So on one hand, if you try to call it cheese, it fits into some products, but then you are told you must do this and that.

So I think there is a need here; before any of these efforts are made to fit into boxes, there should be interaction to see how we can promote this whole thing.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay.

Robert, you mentioned that you export 10 million litres of milk. Was that the figure you used?

Mr. Robert Speer: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: We've run across it a few times where the dairy farmers are very protective of supply management but also want to move into export markets. I'm just wondering if you can give me your take on this. How do we manage to protect the domestic supply management system when the producers seem to want to go onto that international market, which I would think would cause us considerable problems defending in trade negotiations?

Mr. Robert Speer: From a producer perspective, we see the importance of separating the two systems so that we don't have cross-subsidization, but I think we have to look at how we export. As producers, I would hate to see us hurting the dairy industry in another province.

The problem I see is when we're under-cutting markets in another area. When we can go into an area and build a relationship with a purchaser in that area and supply a consistent, quality product that's not available to them in their own country, then I see it as being a non-hurtful situation for that other country.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thanks, David.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Well, there are so many topics I'd like to touch on.

Betty, I know you spoke fast this morning, but I caught a few of the things you said. In fact, a number of things you said I want to touch on.

You mentioned Canada Pension Plan accessibility to those who currently...spouses of farmers, or perhaps farmers who aren't contributing because their income isn't such that they can. How are you suggesting that we change the system so that we can have people participate in the Canada Pension Plan?

It's been a dream of mine—I suppose it was probably the dream I had coming to Ottawa—that somehow we need to accommodate those spouses who currently are farm wives, perhaps, or are wives who aren't in the workplace but who have stayed home to look after families.

How can we introduce them to the Canada Pension Plan? What would be your way of doing that?

Ms. Betty Brown: We've looked at different ways. The problem is, I guess, we don't have an income—

Mr. Paul Steckle: I know that.

Ms. Betty Brown: —or a lot of us don't have an income. Since CPP is based on your income, what we've asked is that, if possible, there be a minimum point that you could pay into. If you're going to pay in, say, $800 a year, then let the person pay that in.

I know there then comes the problem of the employer share. But we've asked, through the Canadian Farm Women's Network, that we sit down and see if we can't come up with some way that we can pay into this.

Our problem is, we're going to retire with no money, and therefore we're not going to retire.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Would you see it as a voluntary program?

Ms. Betty Brown: It's going to have to be a voluntary program. And then there comes the challenge of where do we get the money to pay into it, too.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay.

Now, because I've only got such a short time, I want to take you to another area.

You mentioned that we need a food policy.

Ms. Betty Brown: Yes.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I believe in our recommendations it is this committee's job to somehow set forth the concept that Canada needs a national food policy. We've come to believe that we need a food policy, so we're going to support that. Then we need to find ways in which we have...using terms we have used in the past, we go to risk management. We have to find ways of accommodating risk management.

The third component of that is finding the money to support that. And considering the fact that we are here for the general public good, food safety, accessibility to food, and all of these things combine to form a food policy. Where does the money come from?

As I've asked in every other province, and must put on the table here as well, would consumers in Canada support a food tax? Given, of course, this is the third component of the three things I've talked about, that this food tax, whether it's 1% or whatever it is—probably in a hidden form—would go into a fund which would be set aside purely for the support of those programs, so that constantly farmers are not going to the trough, going to government, bothering people like ourselves, on an ad hoc program... We're sick of it, you're sick of it.

Can we do this? Would you see it as a possibility?

And I don't want this to be a view of this committee or even my personal view, but somehow we have to identify this. We are paying people to carry food from the restaurant kitchen to our tables, and we pay them 10% to 15% to do that. That's more than the farmer gets for growing it.

I'm just wondering, what is your view on this kind of a thing, given that it could be sold in the right way?

Ms. Betty Brown: A tax on food?

Á (1115)

Mr. Paul Steckle: That's what I said.

Ms. Betty Brown: Well, when we talk about the food policy, we're talking about food for every Canadian. There are people who cannot afford food, let alone a food tax.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Do you really believe that? I don't believe that.

Ms. Betty Brown: On the streets of Toronto?

Mr. Paul Steckle: There are people today who... The poorest people of our country are eating products that are the most costly to produce. Potatoes in a bag don't cost much money, but put them in a little potato chip bag and they cost a lot of money. The poorest kids of our country are eating potato chips.

Ms. Betty Brown: Yes, and that's where the education process comes in, which we lost when we lost our home economists. Young people today do not know the value of the food on Canada's Food Guide. They eat food that, really, they can get by without.

What we've always said is look at Canada's Food Guide and eat the food according to that. It's nutritious food. People don't know how to cook. They're buying prepared foods.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I know that.

Ms. Betty Brown: But there are people, though, when you talk to the food security conglomerates in Toronto, who really do not have money to—

Mr. Paul Steckle: They have money for their wants but not money for their needs, and that's the problem in this country. We have determined that we have money for those things we want, but not very much money for those needs we have.

Ms. Betty Brown: And we as farmers are selling our products so low-priced that we don't have the money to buy the food that we need.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'm a farmer too. I understand that.

Ms. Betty Brown: If you put a tax on food, every Canadian is going to pay. Somebody has to pay the farmer to grow the food.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Every farmer benefits, every person should pay.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul. You've had your five minutes.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I've had my five?

The Chair: I guess it's all out on the table.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Oh, I'm sorry; we just got started.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speer, this committee has heard quite a bit, but not recently, about butter oil/sugar blends. You did mention it, I think, in your remarks. Does that continue to be a big concern for the dairy industry here in New Brunswick?

Mr. Robert Speer: It's certainly one of the concerns, and I think when we're going into the next round of WTO negotiations we want to make sure that we have the rules in place so that all countries operate by the same rules and so that the rules are inclusive enough that they'll pick up these attempts to get around the rules.

I guess what I'm saying is, we should close some of the loopholes that were in the previous system.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You also talked about the prohibitive cost of entering the dairy industry and that we must find alternatives. I think nobody would disagree with that. Do you have any suggestions for us?

Mr. Robert Speer: I think what we need there is good consultation between the various groups as to what can be done. We need some method that allows the parent-to-child transfers to take place.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Intergenerational.

Mr. Robert Speer: But we also need some method that allows the energetic young person who does not come from a farming background to get into it. I don't have answers. I see it as a problem, and I see it as something that we have to sit down and talk about to come up with solutions.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

On this matter of the unnecessary step of pasteurizing milk and then boiling it later on, it seems to me that we import cheese from France that is unpasteurized. Is that correct?

Mr. Jack Christie: I believe that's been an issue in the past. I'm not sure how it was resolved, but the fact that you couldn't import French cheese certainly was very controversial.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But you don't know, Jack, whether that's still the case or whether we've amended it. I thought it was still the case that there were some places in Canada where you could still acquire unpasteurized cheese.

Mr. Jack Christie: I'm not sure.

Mr. Dick Proctor: We'll have to look at that.

Mr. Baldwin, you talked about the government's need for funding unbiased research. There has been a trend in recent years for governments and industry to get into partnerships on research and development. Are you suggesting that we need to be funding at universities pure research that doesn't have a partnership involvement attached to it?

Mr. Ben Baldwin: No, what we're doing at the moment is making application to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, for funding to match our funding. We're going to put $150,000 altogether into this new venture we have of doing trial research on farms throughout the province. This will not be basic research, it will be trials. It's just a continuation of work that was done before this, mainly by the provincial government.

Á (1120)

Mr. Dick Proctor: And is it matching funding, dollar-for-dollar funding, that you're after?

Mr. Ben Baldwin: At the moment, the initial funding will be dollar-for-dollar, we hope.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, I have one or two questions.

I'll address my question to Hannah. In the last several presentations we've heard, organic farming seems to be quite a growing industry in the Atlantic provinces. And I don't know whether we're going to have any organic presenters after this, as individuals.

Within your federation, are there many organic farmers in the province of New Brunswick?

Ms. Hannah Searle: I'm not exactly sure on numbers of organic farmers. I know our departing director was an organic farmer herself, and we have two organic organizations, one I believe New Brunswick-based and the other more Maritime-based. But there is a strong presence, and certainly within our organization there is, yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are they amicable with the conventional farmer? Are they able to coexist?

Ms. Hannah Searle: Oh, I think so; I hope so.

Mr. Joe Brennan: They have a seat on our new board of directors.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Good, because as Betty had said, she didn't know if people would be interested in paying 1% more in their food products, but I believe organic farming does add to the price of food. If individuals are willing to pay 30% or 40% on organic products, perhaps the window of opportunity of getting dollars to our primary producers may come in through that venue, somehow. I just wondered how active organic farming was in New Brunswick.

As to education...and I've brought this question up continually on our travels. I'm from southwestern Ontario, and through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture we have a program that was set up for educating students in the elementary schools. Is that what you're trying to base your program on, getting to the elementary school children?

Ms. Hannah Searle: Part of the public perception, yes, is working through the schools. There's a number of components with it, but that is certainly one, to get into the schools at an elementary level, as well as with the parents.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think they bring the message home to mom and dad. We have to get them at an earlier age.

I think Mr. Baldwin had mentioned in his presentation as well that perhaps a third party...because there has been some discussion as to whether farmers, who are good stewards of the land and are certainly held in high esteem, for the most part. But the consumer would sometimes wonder whether you're actually putting out the best message on your own behalf. After all, it's your livelihood; what else are you going to say? And then to put it into politicians' hands, we're not exactly on the top rung of the ladder, being recognized as delivering the best message.

So in your third party, who are you suggesting?

Mr. Ben Baldwin: Well, obviously, in our society, in my opinion at least, the third party is the government. I haven't separated it into the three levels of government, but it has to be the government, because they're the people who, presumably, most people have faith in, and trust in.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But the fact of the matter is, before I became a member of Parliament I worked for the previous member... When material was presented to constituents, you could go pick up your mail, and unfortunately the bins were always full when that kind of information was produced. So it's very difficult to get that information out to the public if you don't have a medium available that will pick it up.

We were presenting earlier, and it appears that the issues that were a little controversial—and controversial may be the wrong word—appeared to be what was picked up, and not the good work that our Canadian farmers do day after day.

Mr. Ben Baldwin: I think it's really up to the government, the elected officials, to come down on this. They're supposed to be impartial. If they don't do it, there's nobody else in society who can do it. I think it is a big responsibility of elected officials.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You can print it and you can send it, but how do you get someone to read it?

Á (1125)

Mr. Ben Baldwin: Again, it's a matter of trust, I believe.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Joe Brennan: Part of our angle, too, that we're working on—and this is still in the early stages—is that we think we have a big responsibility as producers to do a better job ourselves of being more positive, being more proactive.

The media will listen to businesspeople, by and large, if we have a good story to tell. Of course, they want bad stories, too. We have to be a bit more conscious of and aware and energetic about putting out the good stories, the good part of our industry. I think that would help a lot as well. We have a responsibility.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: To the doctor, I thank you for your good presentation this morning, albeit it was very early. We appreciate your coming into the office so early.

Do you think it would be beneficial, with the new products you want to introduce into the plant, to create another box, per se, so that it wouldn't have to fall into that box of cheese? Do you think that's feasible? Have you passed it by bureaucrats? What don't they want to do to help you in this particular phase?

Dr. Ram Aneja: Ultimately, a new box would need to be created for these products. I think what we need is another box for products that would need a box later on, not just fit it into existing boxes.

That's where some flexibility is needed. It will take years for these products to be standardized. If we had a box for non-standardized products, work with those who are producing these, then we could move on to separate boxes for these products.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Chair: Rick.

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

It never ceases to amaze me; we've had a lot of these sessions, and we hear new ideas at every one of them. I do appreciate the presenters.

Just as an editorial comment, we've heard about the 1% food tax since we started. I firmly believe there should be support for agriculture, but I firmly believe as well that it should be a societal support that comes from general revenue, not a food tax. We used to have that. It was cut back. Now maybe we can get back to some reasonable levels.

We also have a 4% excise tax on gasoline that was supposed to go to roads. It now goes to general revenue. So I would be very concerned about grabbing this tax to general revenue. That's just my editorial comment.

One of the things we did hear today that was different had to do with tax credits. Both Hannah and Ben talked about them.

In fact, Hannah, your comment was “tax credits for certain activities”. I'd like you to expand on that, if you could, please, because this is setting policy, government taxation policy.

Ben, you talked about an investment tax credit.

Could you sort of expand on both of those, briefly? I have one other question as well.

Mr. Ben Baldwin: The investment tax credit is just what it says. If you have money and you invest it in your own business, you should get more, maybe faster write-offs, or an improved write-off regime for farmers for investing in their own property.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They have that now. There is a business--

Mr. Ben Baldwin: Well, obviously, since we're going out of business, we should have it accelerated, or even... I don't know how you'd do it, but it should be addressed.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Hannah.

Ms. Hannah Searle: As I said, we feel that perhaps that is a possibility, that a farmer is able to get a tax credit for being compliant and for helping out, expanding on the trade issues and things like that. It's something to look at. I'm not sure I have all the answers, but we've been discussing it at different levels. It seems to be an avenue people would like to explore a little further to see what's available.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's a discussion point.

Jack, you said in your presentation today that you would like to see those interprovincial trade barriers maintained in your particular business. Right now governments, both federal and provincial, are trying to knock down those barriers. Is it just your industry in which we should maintain that protection? Or should we protect interprovincial trade barriers for all industries?

Mr. Jack Christie: I realize there are barriers in other industries. For instance, I'm a chartered accountant, and I understand they have the monopoly in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. to perform audits. There are some other issues—for instance, margarine in Quebec and some other things of that nature.

My main interest is in the fluid milk. It's a mature product. I don't believe it's in the interests of small dairies or small provinces like New Brunswick to open up those barriers, because there's not a lot of upside. The market's already well served. It's pretty well now dominated by major players.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But in general would you agree that the interprovincial trade barrier should come down?

Mr. Jack Christie: For some items, but I think the agricultural-related item is another matter, because there's a lot of protection related there, not just at the processor level but also at the producer level.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Ram, are there any jurisdictions that have gotten rid of those boxes or that have more flexible boxes? Are there any other jurisdictions that will allow the industrial production and manufacturing of your product?

Á (1130)

Dr. Ram Aneja: Unfortunately, there are no other leeways where it could be fitted in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we would be cultivating new ground, then, if we went into this area.

Dr. Ram Aneja: Absolutely.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And that is not unnecessary. I think, again, we're trying to open our minds here. We talk about biotech, we talk about being a centre of excellence into the new life sciences. I think, and I'm not going to put words in your mouth, we have to sort of get out of that box of our thinking in order to accommodate some of these new biotech developments, particularly the one that we see with yourself now.

Would you agree that in order for us to be the world leaders we have to do things differently from what we've done in the past?

Dr. Ram Aneja: I would think so, and I think there is opportunity here to be world leaders. You have the technology to make all kinds of food products. Bear in mind that where ethnic products are made, those technologies don't exist in those countries. So it's far easier to develop technologies here than in any other country.

As well, you have the best milk in the world. For us to export any of these products should be easier. And these products don't find any mention in the WTO regime, either, so we are then going into an area where there are no restrictions.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Patton, you talked very briefly about set-asides in the potato industry, in your industry. There was a program in New Brunswick not that long ago where they actually encouraged the clearing of land to put in more potato land. How can you talk a set-aside program on the one hand and a program for clearing land on the other?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: There was a program discussed that didn't really... The clearing of land is not at all, in potatoes, subsidized or under a program. There's no such program. It was discussed very heavily and publicized by the then provincial government, I guess, and got a lot of press, but it didn't actually exist. What was actually done was there was a study to determine if the industry could indeed expand. The land had never been studied to see what type of soil was in potato-growing areas. That's where it stopped. There's never been, in the last four or five years, for sure, since I've been involved in this, a program to do that. There are about 1,000 acres, per year, cleared of potato land, paid for by farmers themselves. That's been going on for many years.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Joe, do you have a comment?

Mr. Joe Brennan: One of the reasons the government was pushing that, as industry probably supports clearing land, is that it does increase the rotational aspect and the better use of land. So it's not as intensively managed and it does improve the environmental aspect of the industry, because you have more land to rotate around. But there is no program, and there hasn't been since the early 1980s.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: This is just a comment, Mr. Chair, before I have a couple of questions.

As to the clearing of land, of course, I see it happening in many provinces as I drive across this country. I don't think that has anything to do with buffer zones or anything. I mean, we're going to need that land. In fact, we talk about major buffer zones in urban areas, and next to urban areas, and water beds, so I think we'd want to keep clearing some land. Quite often it's in a remote rural area.

My question is for the dairy people, and for Dr. Aneja. There have been some challenges with small companies marketing certain products, sometimes from home-based operations. That probably has put some thoughts in the CFIA...but you know, timing means so very much in business. In your report you talk about ethnic food, and I think about the city of Toronto, a couple of hours away from where I live, and the markets that are there and elsewhere across this country.

You people at this dairy have a very established business, very clean and very modern. And thank you for the tour this morning.

I have aspecific question. I know the CFIA have been busy with hoof and mouth, but have they actually visited with you? Have they actually visited your location? Have they discussed with you personally. Have they tried to work with you?

Á (1135)

Dr. Ram Aneja: We have had both the provincial and federal inspectors come over to look at the plant. We informed them right in the beginning what our plans are, what our products are, what we would like to put on the label. Unfortunately, these people have to operate within those boxes that we mentioned.

Mr. Jack Christie: One of the difficulties, of course, is that the people who visit us are out of the regional office, and then they probably have to take it back to a head office. So the people we're actually liaising with really don't have the authority or the latitude, other than to figure out which box this pin goes into. If it doesn't fit into anything, they don't have any flexibility or negotiating latitude in what takes place.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm just trying to make this even more clear for the record. It would be nice sometimes to have people take part who could even make decisions.

There are, no doubt, other companies within your industry in Canada, I don't know whether in New Brunswick or not, who are looking at new products. I'm going to ask you whether you've attempted to work with these companies as you contact and lobby the provincial and federal governments to pay more attention to what you're trying to do. You're trying to add value, create value for this country, which is what we want. I think you could work together with your opposition. You don't have to share your secrets, but I think sometimes numbers make a difference.

Dr. Ram Aneja: That's a very good question. We have been working with these companies. We find that some of them in other parts of the country are able to get away with the labels we would like to have. What we were told was that we should complain about them. I said, we're not here in the business of complaining.

Mr. Larry McCormick: We can't get into the numbers now, but if there are other companies doing similar types of operations, some would get away with labels, some would not. Again, an association probably has more strength in a letter. When a member takes something to a ministry, an association probably means more than just an individual or company does. That's partly what I'm saying.

Now about potatoes, I'm probably going to ask the same type of question, because you're talking about a national check-off program. I expect there is a bit of competition. We have Manitoba potatoes represented here, and we've been in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. With this national check-off program, have you, again, strength in numbers? Are you working with other provinces on this?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: Yes. We're a member of the Canadian Horticultural Council's potato committee, which is the national body that represents every province that grows potatoes. As a committee, we've looked into this, but we've continued to run into a stone wall. The legislation does not permit us to put in place a similar check-off on American potatoes. We could use that money as a national committee to promote our industry. The funding in the U.S. goes to the Potato Promotion Council, and they make up to $3 million a year U.S. from Canadian product. We've even tried to join their committee, and their legislation prevents us from joining them. So we're stuck in the middle.

Mr. Larry McCormick: And you've made this very clear to some of the people you've submitted this to besides us, what is the legislation and what would have to be done?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: I'm not sure which particular name it is, but we have the study that was done. The legislation, essentially, says that unless you are prepared to add 2% more to whatever your members pay now, you can't charge 2% to the U.S. That's the simplistic view of it. In actual fact, most provinces now and most organizations are already charging their farmers levies, it's legislated. They say every province in Canada has to do that. Most provinces in Canada have potatoes, seven out of ten, but there are some that don't, so it's impossible for us to do.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Also, at the time of the potato war, I understood that the provinces worked together quite well. P.E.I. took the hit, as they should have. We had to be careful about that, our potatoes going into the States. We didn't want to have the United States shut down the border for all our Canadian potatoes. You export a major amount of your crop, as I'm sure Manitoba will, one way or another, whether it's processed or not. Is there a good working relationship between the provinces, especially in regard to exports?

Á (1140)

Mr. Patton MacDonald: I think, for the most part, there's an excellent relationship between provinces, a lot of cooperation. That's a simplistic answer, but it's the truth. We work very well. We have a number of different initiatives that we work on together.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a couple of quick questions. I'm always interested, of course, in talking about taxes. Betty, you were opposed to a food tax, I believe, and I think that's pretty wise.The question I want to ask, though, is to Hannah and Joe--you're both in the same organization. Would you be in favour of eliminating the 4¢ federal excise tax on diesel fuel and the 10¢ federal excise tax on gasoline for farm use?

Mr. Joe Brennan: It would appear to be a very easy answer. Yes, we'd be in favour of eliminating them.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's in relationship to the user fees and other impacts governments have on farming and agriculture that detract from the net bottom line. So I would expect that would be the answer, but it's important, for the purposes of our report, that we hear it directly in the testimony. So that's fine.

The other question I have here is in regard to training. I'm not sure just who brought up the issue of training, you maybe all did, but is there an agriculture college in the maritimes that serves this region?

Mr. Joe Brennan: Yes. In the maritimes there's one in Truro, Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, which has a technician program and is a degree-granting institution as well. In New Brunswick we have two community colleges that have agricultural technician courses.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So what is the training you're asking the federal government to become involved in that isn't already available to our current farmers and young farmers just entering? Can somebody be more specific on what you're asking for?

Mr. Joe Brennan: In New Brunswick now the community colleges are going through a renewal process. The numbers of entrants into the program are down, so they have to really review what they're trying to target as a market. That's the problem. What do we, as an industry, want an agricultural college to put out to us as employers or as an industry? That is being discussed now.

The new entrant program is a bit of a different thing. What the party alluded to as training that's required for the new entrant problem and the renewal process is more of a risk management problem. The risk is so great that a lot of institutions don't want to lend money to people. So that is a different area.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, that's great. I think keeping education and training of that nature in provincial jurisdiction is pretty important. In Alberta we have Olds College, a great place. I can send my kids there. Sure, it costs me some money, but that's part of post-secondary education. So that clarifies that.

For the last question, Ram, to overcome the hurdles of research, have you referred your product to the federal Canadian agriculture research facility—we toured the one in Quebec—so the federal government can be reassured that the science is there, that it could be processed the way you want to do it and still meet our standards?

Dr. Ram Aneja: I have visited the place there, and we know the products they are working on. They weren't doing much on either of the two products we are now working on, but we are planning on collaborating with them. There are other products that are in line. They have an excellent facility there, and we are planning on collaborating with them.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's great.

My one last question is designed more towards repairing areas, as opposed to a general set-aside of land. Larry, you were dealing with this, and Patton. One of the proposals that's come forward to the federal government is that the purpose of this is to have clean water, clean air, to protect our waterways, and this sort of thing. It seems to me that clean air and clean water are as important in New Brunswick as in P.E.I. Do you believe the dollar payment per acre for any land set aside should be the same in New Brunswick as it is in P.E.I.? Is that the way you'd like to see the government policy put out, or do you want to see a differentiation? I just used P.E.I. because it's close; it could be any province. Do you see that it should be equal, or do you feel there should be a differentiation?

Á (1145)

Mr. Larry Jewett: I believe there's certainly a great difference in some of the land base producers are using today. My personal belief is that it should be pro-rated, depending on what the use has been.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: But this is not to do with agriculture production. This is to produce clean air and clean water. The land in Miramichi isn't as productive as the land in P.E.I., but your water and your air are every bit as important. Why would P.E.I. be paid more than Miramichi?

Mr. Larry Jewett: My point is that if we are taking land out of agricultural production, it depends on what the financial impact may be on that particular situation.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So you would say the government should disregard the objective and just look at it from a point of view of reducing productive capacity?

Mr. Larry Jewett: No, what I'm saying is that if the federal government will earmark private lands and wish them to be set aside as non-agricultural production or whatever it may be, I believe it needs to be looked in respect of the land value today, the production on that property today. That's a very quick and simple opinion on the issue. I would have concerns that some producers may be affected more than others.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, exactly. I think environmental groups and all of us together want to have the clean water and clean air. If a given producer is going to allow his land or her land to be used for that purpose, my marginal land may have a better capacity to produce clean water and clean air than the highly productive land, so why wouldn't I receive as much for my land as the farmer who's growing potatoes?

Mr. Larry Jewett: It's a good point. Some of these potato crops are worth $2,000 an acre.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Ben, do you have any comment on this?

Mr. Ben Baldwin: I agree with you 100%. I think the objective of keeping our environment clean is universal, it should be respected, and I think the economics of the equation should be second.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much.

That's fine, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Larry, you indicated that you were involved in the livestock industry too. Could you give us a comment on genetics?

Mr. Larry Jewett: Much of our company's involvement has been in the U.K. That was our bread and butter market on dairy genetics. I'm sure you're aware of the ban that is on for embryos and cattle going to the U.K. We had a huge market there, we thought, five months ago. It doesn't look as if it will be an easy problem to solve. It's based on our scientific data of feeding meat and bone meal. I'm not sure how their regulation concerning feeding meat and bone meal got changed to mammal to mammal rather than ruminant to ruminant. We've lost a big market.

The Chair: Your markets in that are what countries basically? Is it mainly Holstein cattle?

Mr. Larry Jewett: It's mainly Holstein. We are shipping right now mainly into the Caribbean. We also operate a livestock transportation business, which has given us in Atlantic Canada an economic advantage, because of ocean freight rates compared to air freight rates. We've benefited greatly from a lot of the international missions with Agriculture Canada and so on. Agriculture Canada is very aware, the trade people and the science people developing health charts are very proactive.

The Chair: And, Patton, or maybe Joe, yesterday we had information on the cost per acre of shipping potatoes into the United States, with reference to the so-called levies or fees the farmers are now paying. Do you have any information on that? What do you think it costs?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: The fees alone are about $150 per load for fresh potatoes to go across the border, at least that's what we're paying. In New Brunswick we pay about $900,000 a year in special fees for export. Per acre, I don't think I've ever actually worked it out.

Á (1150)

The Chair: No, but that was the way it was presented to us. So do you think you get $900,000 worth of work from those inspectors?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: No, we don't, and it's not because of the inspectors. One of the things I should have offered was that yesterday I had a long discussion with CFIA on the way down here on the issue that the U.S. now requires phytosanitary certificates for us to get into the U.S. Canada has known about that for a year and a half, and they have, for example, out of a staff of 20 in one of the locations in the Perth-Andover area only 2 people who can write a phyto certificate. Out of a total of about 35 in the potato belt there are 4 people who can write phytosanitary certificates. So I asked him why this is. Well, they haven't got the A something or other course. Why don't they have the course? I don't know; you'd have to ask this other part of it. I said, when people ask me questions about my staff, I know the answers, so why don't you answer me? How many people do you have reporting to you? I said, I'm not here to argue about people, I just want to know the answer.

They're trying to get me the answer still today. I just had a phone call when I came in here, and the fact is there are two things. One is that there are not enough staff with enough knowledge. There's extremely low morale. The people on the street are the people who got hit hardest, and they're the best of the bunch. The other thing is that we're not being treated the same in all parts of the country. From Ontario west there's no need for an inspector to write an export certificate, the farmers do it. From Ontario east we have to pay. They still will not tell us why that's the case, and we've been trying for three years to get that changed.

The Chair: Joe, I know Hannah gave the presentation, but with soil erosion and what you're doing with potatoes on crop rotations, could you just put into the record a little bit of what's going on?

Mr. Joe Brennan: There's always the thrust for new land clearing in the industry, and it is coming from the industry. There's market for selling more potatoes, but we do know we're limited in capacity. So for most farmers, it's a self-realization. There's no industry- or government-led initiative, as there is in P.E.I., at this point in time to put mandatory crop rotation in place. That's for sure. There's a lot of work being done on terracing to stop erosion and new types of rotation crops, but it's mainly industry-led, a lot of times individual farmer-led. There's no overall plan.

The Chair: We've heard rather serious complaints in some areas, especially in P.E.I., about pesticides and sprays that are being used. Is this a problem in New Brunswick? Are you getting a lot of concerns, and are there regulations?

Mr. Patton MacDonald: I have two comments. One is that we're getting paid in Canadian dollars, and we're buying in U.S. dollars. Any farmer for any equipment currently is paying that mostly. Second, we do not have access to the same products that are available to our American counterparts.

A fellow named Alan Schreiber, who is very well known and, although he's a U.S. citizen, a neutral observer of this, puts out a paper called the Agrichemical News that people in the west may know better. He was down at our potato conference a month ago. He compared EPA as very slow and PMRA as dead. He has research from around the world on offices charged with that responsibility that are very slow moving, and he says, by light years, they are the slowest on the minor use registrations, which is all that potatoes are under. We are a a minor use crop, and we have an incredible time getting things resolved in time to take part. Alan Schreiber does have a study, which I can forward to you, that shows that we lose hundreds of millions of dollars in our industry because of that discrepancy in ability to use products.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you, all, for coming. We certainly enjoyed your presentations. We have them pretty well recorded. If you have additional information you want to give the committee, you can mail us in Ottawa or make contact here with the clerk.

With that, we'll recess for a moment while we get our next panel ready. Thank you for coming.

Á (1157)

Â (1203)

Â (1205)

The Chair: We'll call our meeting to order again.

We have short presentations of about five minutes. As you get around five minutes, I'll try to signal that you should try to conclude your presentation. After we've gone around the table, we begin a series of questions, followed by answers. Each member has a few minutes to ask his questions and to receive the answers.

Eventually, of course, we'll go back to Ottawa and read the transcriptions of the information that you present. You may also submit written submissions. They'll be looked at, reviewed, and considered. A draft report will be written and the presentation of a final report will be made to the House of Commons.

As we mentioned earlier this morning, we represent all the parties in the House. You may find our questioning differs on the basis of what our party platforms and policies are.

Welcome to our hearings. You may present in either language. We do have a translation service. We would encourage you to speak in your own first language. We have Roger Richard from the Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick. Bienvenue, Roger. I've asked you specifically to speak in French. I'm glad to be here in a community that does represent both languages. Others too may want to present in their own language.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Richard (Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick) Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for bringing your colleagues to the Miramichi, which is near to where I come from.

On behalf of the Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones, we have prepared a brief, which I will not read entirely. I will leave a copy with the Committee. I will read some extracts and probably add some points.

The Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones was created in June 1985 following a study on the management structures of agriculture in New Brunswick, and the will of Francophone producers to set up an organization that would represent their needs and aspirations.

The provincial federation is based on the dynamism of our three regional federations located in the northeast, southeast and northwest regions of the province. These regions in turn represent their various regional crop productions. The regional federations have their own boards of directors. Each federation delegates three representatives to the provincial board of directors.

The FAAFNB and its regional federations promote and defend the interests of Francophone farmers, at the federal and provincial levels. They are involved in the development of agriculture, as well as in the full development of francophone farmers in our province. It is our duty to participate in this exercise to promote our members' views on the future orientation of this review.

New Brunswick farmers have shown that they adapt quite well. They have been able to face structural and cyclical changes that have shaken their industry. Over the past years, they have faced new problems, which have destabilized agriculture, such as the fall in commodity prices, increased production costs, environmental concerns, the lack of young people entering the field, globalization of markets, and natural disasters such as drought, which has seriously affected the beekeeping sector.

The brief we are submitting today draws attention to these concerns, and to the hopes and expectations of Francophone farmers in the province as entrepreneurs and citizens. It also presents solutions or clues that you may find unusual or unfeasible.

We have taken care to identify problems related to our industry so that we can find appropriate solutions, within a reasonable timeframe.

In our brief, we have identified ten sectors, and I will name them: climactic change; research on climactic change; social change; the right to farm and the rural community; environment issues; food safety; economic change; financial needs of companies; the Net Income Stabilization Account; and the New Brunswick crop re-insurance program.

Â (1210)

The three last sections in our brief, sections 8, 9, and 10, deal with the financial needs of businesses, various programs, such as the NISA and crop reinsurance programs, which are very important for us, the producers. Without a strong and prosperous agriculture sector, the seven first sectors covered in our report will be difficult to accomplish.

As for the Net Income Stabilization Account, in our brief we state that many farmers have also complained that the bureaucrats working on this program are lacking in knowledge regarding the agricultural reality in the Atlantic provinces. For example, a blueberry producer had to explain to account managers that he had not purchased seeds during the year because the blueberry is a perennial crop that does not require seeding. We wonder about what these managers know, since they are located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and have to make important decisions regarding our farmers here in New Brunswick.

Along these lines, the federation has recommended that the government of Canada commit to establishing a NISA office in New Brunswick to administer the accounts in Eastern Canada, and also review the NISA program to adapt to our regional realities.

On behalf of the board of directors, we thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. We would be happy to speak to you about our concerns, and we hope that this opportunity will help lead to a stronger agricultural industry, geared to the future.

I have a recent news clipping. It is an article entitled “The groceries have been paid for”. The article states: “Already, on February 7, the average Canadian household earned enough money to pay its annual grocery bill.” Think about this. The Canadian taxpayer will have to work for several more months before paying the tax bill, but has already earned enough to pay the food bill for the entire year. The consumer obtains the best in agriculture products, the safest and most affordable in the world, thanks to us, the farmers.

While food prices increased by 10% between December 1997 and December 2001, the average price that farmers received for their crops increased by only 2% during the same period. We ask ourselves how long farmers will be able to continue doing what many of them like doing.

It has been a pleasure to appear before you. Thank you.

Â (1215)

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Roger.

Jerry, is each of you presenting individually or are you a group?

Mr. Jerry Cook (Individual Presentation): I think we each have a separate focus, so we'll present individually.

The Chair: Very good. I'm glad you were able to come. Welcome.

Mr. Jerry Cook: Thank you, sir, and thank you to the committee for allowing us to speak.

I want to explain that I am here to represent the citizens of the area of Ste-Marie-de-Kent in Kent County, who lived for more than 200 years in complete harmony with their farming neighbours until three years ago, when an industry, a hog factory as we like to call it, moved into the area. I'm the chairperson of the local service district. For those of you who are not familiar with New Brunswick's backward system of political representation for unincorporated areas, I'll point out that most of this province is represented by these advisory committees. They do not have any particular power and are not properly elected through representation. Also, you should know that New Brunswick is probably the sole jurisdiction in Canada, and I dare say in all of North America, with no zoning bylaws outside municipal incorporated areas, not one single zoning bylaw. This also means that there are no building permits. This makes us fair game for anything, not just agricultural industry, to move into our region.

So I preface my remarks with that and go on to say that this is what we are sold as agriculture. Lovely rolling hills, lovely little red buildings, happy farm houses, happy animals--what do we get? We get industry, factories that spew--and you can argue this one whichever way you like--emissions and have huge quantities of waste, which I would suggest are industrial. We're also sold on television: Eden Valley Farms. No doubt you've seen them. No doubt they're selling eggs or chicken products, but they make light of the boardroom and the pecking order among animals. This is not the reality of farming today.

There have been a number of talks here about the amount of money that's going to be spent in an attempt to change the image of farming, to talk about the good news stories. Well, the good news stories are promotion, are advertising, are cover-ups for what actually is going on behind the scenes. We pay for federal government departments to help police the activities of industries of all sorts, in this case agriculture, but we don't really get value for our money.

I participated in Andy Mitchell's rural initiative. This initiative is sponsored by the large producer organizations, whether you're aware of that or not. What did we talk about at the table? We talked about soft issues, like high-speed Internet to rural areas, like health care access in rural areas, access to government programs. Not once did we talk about the effects of the agricultural industry on rural areas.

I also sit on a multi-stakeholder committee that is to develop an environmental management system for Canadian hog farms, the Canadian Standards Association. This is a group of 30 people. You would expect that as a multi-stakeholder organization, at least we would have a good representation, let's say, of all of the issues. This is supported and paid for through the Canada Pork Council by the Department of Agriculture. This standard may eventually be available, but representing the ordinary person, the little guy, representing the environmental point of view, really there are only 2 out of 30 people at that table. A quarter of the people at the table are pork industry, who, obviously, are going to support whatever standard is going to make it easiest for them to produce pork at the highest possible profit.

But there are two other groups there that are a big concern to me. One is government organizations, and these are both federal and provincial. They almost wholeheartedly support the pork industry. If we're talking five more members, four out of five support the initiatives of the industry. Then we have services to the pork industry. Those people, four out of five, support the industry. Of course: where does their money come from? The last group consists of academics and people like myself.

Â (1220)

There really is no effort to strengthen what the ordinary person sees as what's going on in agriculture. I really have a problem with the gap between the sales pitch and the reality. More sales pitch is only going to make people less believing. I can conclude that the people at Agriculture Canada have two ears: one ear is plugged, and the other is listening to the industry.

We've built this little drawing here and it says, “Restore the balance between profit and poop, because poop comes in many forms.” The people who are left with it are the public, and so I can say it's time we start looking at the one-sided issue here. It is extremely one-sided. Generally speaking. the industry portion of it gets about 60% of the grocery store price of food. The rest of it is divided up, and the people who are around this table here this morning are essentially fighting over the last little crumbs that are left. That industry—and I'm going to be blunt here—are the Hells Angels of the food chain. They want to control it all. I find that government agencies, both federal and provincial, are the pimps for the industry, and farmers are left to prostitute themselves for what's left. I believe we have a government that is paid, and paid well, to look after our interests. Their interest should be third party, as has already been mentioned, and they should be protecting us, not in bed with the industry.

Thank you.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cook.

Neil Gardner.

Mr. Neil Gardner (Individual Presentation): I'm a part-time farmer from Ste-Marie-de-Kent. I'm a member of the National Farmers Union. The submission I'm giving today has actually been approved by the National Farmers Union, so in a sense, I'm submitting this on behalf of the National Farmers Union as well.

I was kind of hoping Mr. Weston was going to be here. First, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity of appearing here today, but I also wanted to congratulate Mr. Weston on taking such a courageous stand from his office in Fredericton against democracy, the wishes of the people of Ste-Marie-de-Kent and area, and the committee of experts appointed by the premier last summer to study the issue of mass farms, hog factories, and especially for being willing to sacrifice his colleague from Kent South in the next provincial election.

This brings me to the first point I wanted to make, which is what I believe is an unholy alliance between the various levels of government and big agribusiness. The Government of New Brunswick is about to proclaim what they call right to farm legislation that effectively strips all rural citizens of their rights to a clean, healthy environment. And who's going to benefit? Not the small and medium family farms that have been the backbone of rural Canada for the last 150 years, but the large polluting animal factories that are, with the approval of government and help from the federations of agriculture, pushing the small farmer out of existence.

Ever since I can remember, our governments and agricultural experts have been using the state farms of the old Soviet bloc as an example of inefficient agricultural practices. They've told us, and I agree with them, that because the farmer didn't control his land, he had no stake in improving his operation. With corporate farming, we're replacing a faceless government bureaucrat in Moscow with a faceless corporate manager on Bay Street or Wall Street. What's the difference? Agribusiness has convinced many small and medium farmers that they are farmers just like them. Yet what's happening to agriculture? The factory farm is replacing the family farm all across the country, and the statistics speak for themselves.

What we, the small and medium farmers, are dealing with are the wolves in sheep's clothing our grandmothers warned us about. Governments both federal and provincial tell us that we have to become larger to survive. Globalization means that we must compete in a global market against the producers of the United States and the European Union. Subsidies are happily handed out, not to the small and medium family farms, but to the corporate farms.

There's a case in point here. Metz Farms in New Brunswick has received over a quarter of a million dollars from the taxpayers each year since it moved to Ste-Marie in work provided by provincial government employees. It's apparently about to receive well over $1 million in the next year to implement an unproven technology that may alleviate some of the problems that it created with what it called three years ago its state-of-the-art facility. This money will come from the Department of Agriculture budget and is money that could have been used to help small and medium farms improve their operations. Will there be any money left for them? I doubt it. The only thing known for sure about the technology to be used is that it will increase productivity in the barn. Why should we, the small and medium farmers, have to pay out of our taxes for technology that helps our competitor become even bigger and stronger?

The second point I wanted to make here is that the agrichemical companies who often supply the seeds and fertilizer and control the processing and distribution of our food invariably dictate the practices that will be followed by a farmer under contract to them. Why is the farmer allowed to exist at all? He's the scapegoat, should anything go wrong with the system.

There's a case in point here too. The farmers who have agreed in Ste-Marie to receive the liquid manure from the Metz operation are, according to their contract, responsible for the spreading on their land, and legally, if the manure should go into the river or pollute a neighbour's well, it's the farmer and owner of the land receiving the manure who is responsible, not the producer of the manure, not the recipient of the finished hogs, and not the supplier of the food.

Third, regarding genetically modified organisms, growth regulators and antibiotics that are being used almost continually in the livestock industry, agribusiness, with the help and connivance of the government, has decided that this is the way of the future of agriculture in this country. Our federal government, with the prodding of agribusiness, is taking the European Union to the World Trade Organization in an effort to force the countries of the European Union to import Canadian meat and oilseed products. The countries of the European Union, having just suffered through two agricultural disasters, hoof and mouth disease and mad cow disease, have decided to encourage sustainable agricultural practices and reduce the likelihood of further crises by banning growth hormones, GMOs, and the unnecessary use of antibiotics, and by placing limits on the growth of agrifactories. Why are we taking our customers to court? Isn't the customer always right? Maybe next year we'll allow the car companies to take us to court to force us to buy their cars--it's certainly much better than making the cars we want.

Fourth, related to this is the issue of foreign trade, especially as regards the trade with the United States, our biggest customer, and also our biggest supplier of agricultural products. It's become obvious that the United States is not our friend in matters of trade. They're quite willing to subsidize their agricultural producers, usually by the back door, yet when we subsidize our producers, we're penalized with trade sanctions or we're threatened with the infamous chapter 11 of NAFTA. Two cases come to mind.

In the Ste-Marie area up until four years ago there were three fairly successful dairy farms. When the United States announced they were going to take Canada to the World Trade Organization to force us to eliminate our marketing boards and supply management system, all three farmers, understandably, promptly sold their quota and their dairy herds. Why would they want to compete with U.S. farmers who receive hidden subsidies and can, as a result, produce milk at a fraction of the cost of their Canadian counterparts?

Recently, there have been two instances of the U.S. Department of Agriculture claiming that Canadian potatoes were infected, first with the PVYN virus, and then with potato wart. Apparently, according to friends who are potato farmers, both the PVYN virus and wart already exist in the United States, but because of a lax self-regulating mechanism in the United States, it's never reported. However, its presence in a tiny sample of Canadian product was used to ban imports of millions of tonnes of Canadian potatoes and destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of Canadian farmers.

The U.S. per capita budget for agriculture is many times that of the Canadian. The overwhelming majority of U.S. agricultural production, particularly in meat and milk products, is owned and controlled by very few massive agribusinesses, who are now looking at Canada as a place to expand and move to. To do this, they are using their power and their government to force Canada into adopting their practices, as they buy up Canadian companies such as Schneiders.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Can you sum up now?

Mr. Neil Gardner: Yes, I just have one more paragraph.

The multinational agrifactories, both Canadian and foreign, will continue to extract subsidies from our governments and from our taxes until they're forced, as they have been in Europe and North Carolina, to move on to the next unregulated, unsuspecting country, leaving behind leaking cesspools and abandoned family farms. There has to be a better way. I hope this committee will send a message to our governments, both federal and provincial, that they need to work with the real farmers, not just agribusiness and the federations of agriculture, who are often one and the same, to find a Canadian solution to the farmers' crisis. We, the farmers, don't want massive subsidies that usually end up in the hands of corporate agribusiness. We want a system that allows us to produce and supply the people of this country with a safe and environmentally sound healthy source of food and, at the same time, make a reasonable and secure living that will encourage our children and our children's children to take over the family farms.

Thank you.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you, Neil.

[Translation]

Mr. Belliveau, please.

Mr. Denis Belliveau (Individual Presentation): Thank you for allowing me to make a few comments. I hope that my brain will have more energy than my stomach.

First, I must say that I am here on my personal behalf. For two or three years now, I have been a concerned citizen concerned by a specific aspect of agriculture, namely agricultural intensification. We are called all sorts of names, but I am here and I have been involved as a concerned citizen.

For two or three years now, I have heard hundreds of people who are experiencing the consequences of intensive farming, or the operation that was set up in Sainte-Marie. In addition, I have met with farmers in person on many occasions and in various places in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the three Western provinces; I have also met farmers from North Carolina, Michigan, etc., who have shared the same concerns we have, and who have more specific information on what their concerns are.

We have heard a lot about the way things happen when an operation follows all of the environmental rules, etc., but in a way, we take things for granted each time that is said. We take it for granted that regulations in place are sufficient and take into account the real environmental stakes involved, the public health considerations and the socioeconomic issues of the communities involved.

We have also talked about the industry's and the government's intention to change public perception about the farm sector, improve it and make it more positive. There is a concern that I share with many people, and that is that we have this concern once the rural community is torn by a company that comes in and disturbs the harmony that has existed for hundreds of years. It seems to me that the federal government should have a word in this, and that it is urgent that this role be assumed before such operations be allowed to set up in communities, where citizens and the public in general have nothing to say, and where no dialogue is possible with the parties, whether it be government, or industry.

There is another worrisome issue. The concerns of citizens are not being heard, not understood, and are often ridiculed. Yet, important things have happened to farming in Europe. Important things have happened in the United States, and elsewhere, and are still going on. You'd think that people just want to close their eyes to it all. There are all kinds of serious studies addressing the issues of public health and natural resources, including water and the soil. We talk about air pollution. There are all kinds of studies, including one that was published in February, in Iowa. There are all kinds of studies for which I can give you copies later. It seems as if we don't take this into account in our studies, or that there is no discussion on these issues.

I will end in telling you that the World Health Organization

[English]

lists hydrogen sulphide and ammonia as toxic hazards.

[Translation]

When citizens talk about it too much, we ridicule them or tell them that there is no means to measure these things. It seems to me that dialogue is necessary and urgent for farming to obtain the image and credibility that it should have in this country. Dialogue is important before industry invades and tears apart our country's rural communities, not after.

Â (1240)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Denis.

Robert Bremner.

Mr. Robert Bremner (Individual Presentation): I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to have this presentation to you.

I live in a small community known as Centre Napan, approximately six miles east of here. I'm a fourth generation farmer, commonly known in our area as a part-timer. In other words, we work full-time at a regular job and farm after supper, weekends, holidays. There are several reasons our farm will not have a fifth generation. My son is not interested, for many reasons.

First, the 15% harmonized sales tax on anything we purchase for the farm is a deterrent for us to continue. Because our volume is under $30,000, it is not feasible to have an HST number.

Second, the income tax department has charged back any claims on losses shown by a farm to us and many other small farms in our area, because they claim we will never have a viable operation.

Third, the environment department has determined that municipal laws are not applicable to a small farmer, for example, fencing our only water supply for our animals.

Fourth, the laws being implemented for slaughtering of our own cattle for sale are a threat to our survival.

Fifth, all the farm programs, both federal and provincial, are geared for large farm operations, and therefore shut out the part-time farmer.

Sixth, even the lending institutions do not want to take a chance on the small part-time farmer.

I'm employed full-time with a farm equipment dealer who has been in business for many years. Our customers were primarily part-time farmers, along with some large operations. Since the above changes have been implemented, part-time farmers have dwindled to a point where our dealership was forced to diversify its operation. It's more the industrial, commercial, and heavy industrial equipment side of it. This has meant a complete change in the dealership, its personnel and premises.

If your panel wants to suggest change to help the part-time farmer, we would recommend the following: assistance with a community pasture program, a place for us to put our animals in summer, to leave more land available for ourselves, for hay and other goods; assistance with freight on limestone application—the lime is expensive for the part-time farmer with little income: a milk quota no-charge entry for new qualifying farmers, similar to the aboriginal fishery program, a buy-back that would give a young man or young lady interested in it a chance to start.

That's about as much as I have to say, but I'd like to thank you again for hearing what I have to say.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Thanks, Robert.

Hans Bouma.

Mr. Hans Bouma (Individual Presentation): I'm a dairy farmer, and I'm a director on the milk board, but I'm also a greenhouse operator, with tomatoes, cucumbers, and bedding plants.

Low commodity prices prompt subsidies and increases in production that further reduce prices, creating the need for—you guessed it—more subsidies. I'm referring to an article written by the Sustainability Institute of Hartland, Four Corners, Vermont. They further make the case that low commodity prices make farmers intuitively try for the greatest possible productivity, adopting all the latest technology and methods, trying to produce more for less, trying for an edge so they can stay in business where others fail or sell the farm to someone who will raise its productivity. Success in this case results in greater surpluses, low prices, and pressure on land and water.

There's the story about two backpackers at a campfire, and a hungry-looking bear lumbers into the campsite. One backpacker starts to put on his running shoes, and the other backpacker asks why he's doing that, because you can't outrun a bear. The answer is, I don't have to outrun the bear, all I have to do is outrun you. The number of farmers keeps declining as each successful farmer outruns his neighbours.

Statistics Canada reported that there was a 26% drop in people employed in primary agriculture in 2001 since 1998, one of the largest drops ever ,with Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario suffering the biggest declines of 30% or more in these four years. There has, however, not been a corresponding drop in food production. The number of hectares planted with major crops was at an all-time high in 2001. While being extremely efficient on an individual level is entirely sensible, collectively, it's disastrous.

Unfettered globalization in trade and the ever-increasing rate of consolidation of the food processing, wholesale, and retail businesses all conspire to result in lowest common denominator prices for the primary producers. Government has enthusiastically embraced globalization and appears unwilling or helpless to do anything about the wholesale vertical integration of the food industry. A small handful of mega-operations control everything from seed and chemical production to food processing.

These pressures on agriculture, exacerbated by subsidies available in other countries, be they called green, amber, red, or blue box, and generally not available to Canadian producers, result in the land's being pushed to produce far beyond its natural capacity, causing top soil erosion and massive application of chemicals. This in turn brings concerns about the environment and food safety, and now we also have to contend with climate change.

The deliberate policy shift by government from local production for local consumption towards intensive commodification of food has kept the price of food low to the consumer. In fact, it has resulted in an ever-decreasing percentage of the consumer income spent on basic food. Food production is fundamentally a public concern, so there's a predominant role for government in setting and implementing agriculture policy that serves the public interest. If consumers do not pay sufficient for food at the checkout counter, they must make up the deficit through taxation. This, in some ways, is more equitable.

Given what agriculture means to this country in employment, GDP, exports, trade surplus, and given the more intangible benefits, the security and social structure of the rural communities, tourism, and biodiversity, it is clear that agriculture not only must survive, but should be helped to prosper. It could even be argued that our very freedom and independence depends on Canada being able to feed itself.

This being the case, government should pursue the following goals: continue to fight hard towards creating a level playing field in regard to subsidies; provide a guaranteed income for those commodities adversely effected by this, while subsidies come down; continue strong support for supply management, as this is one sector that generally is able to survive from returns from the marketplace—perhaps supply management could be expanded to some other commodities; invest in research on all fronts of agriculture directly or with partners, or support private research—and tax credits are a must; provide money for education, training, financing of new farms expansion; have higher capital gains exemptions reflecting the reality of present-day capital investments in agriculture for farm successions; give full compensation to landowners in regard to land and income losses due to endangered species, protection of fish habitat, or riparian rights; work towards national standards in food safety: have an expanded Canadian Food Inspection Agency to carry out training, inspections, certification, and auditing, costs to be paid by the consumer whom this is meant to protect; and refuse to import from countries that do not have the same verified standard as ours.

Environmental and climate improvement are a public concern, and the cost should largely be borne by the public. Government eviscerated farm support after 1995, and Canadian farmers in recent years have contributed over $15 billion in cuts to their programs for fighting federal deficits. It's time to give some of that money back.

Thank you.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you, Hans.

From the 4-H Club, representing New Brunswick, more specifically Napan, Mrs. Velna Dickson.

Ms. Velna Dickson (Assistant Organizational Leader, Napan, 4-H Club of New Brunswick): Thank you.

I'm delighted to be here and have 4-H take a little chance and stand in the department. We are a part of the Department of Agriculture. And I feel strongly that with all the products we heard about here today, I wish to promote the most valuable product, as without my product, the 4-H members, real people's development, the agriculture or aquaculture programs would not be successfully realized to any extent. These 4-Hers are the foundation of any future in our country. They must be nurtured and exposed to these needs. Reaching out to this sector I strongly believe will produce a strong and successful future.

At present 4-H has volunteer leaders. Our local 4-H Club in Napan has 13 leaders, about 60 members, in a multi-project club. We have projects such as dairy, draught horse, crafts, photography, cake decorating, foods, exploring 4-H, light engines, canine, woodworking, and clothing. All these projects develop real life skills, such as leadership skills, social skills, and education development. Meetings are carried out by members as they learn parliamentary procedure, acquire discipline and responsibility through making decisions, and develop concerns for others.

Our motto “Learning to do by doing” is stressed, as all activities are based on it. Also, the pledge indicates that they strive to work better, help better, in their club, community, and country. Our club helps in spring road clean-ups, does fund raisers for charities, such as IWK, and helps whenever they feel they can in the community.

They develop skills through club conferences, trips, public speaking, and other experiences. Conferences always have valuable speakers, workshops, educational tours, farm safety programs, first-aid development, or other great programs to develop the people at the different age levels of 4-H. Trips have been federally funded, such as the award trips available. At present we have a member at a careers conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This conference, being a careers conference, helps the people develop skills to write a resumé. They also have people come here who do interview people, and they are the real people who interview these particular students, helping them to know what would be worthwhile in an interview of their own.

The national conference in Toronto in connection with the Royal Winter Fair has an environmental study at Guelph University as part of that program, among other workshops. The citizenship conference in Ottawa, in the first week of April, is packed with experiences. One of the things is that they are able to take the oath of allegiance of their Canadian citizenship, and they watch while others become citizens of Canada. This is very emotional, and these young people become very emotional in realizing how lucky they are to be Canadian citizens. I was lucky enough to be a chaperone at that conference last year. We were most delighted to have Mr. Hubbard with us at the dinner.

The Fancy Food Show in the United States is another one which is very beneficial. Last year my own daughter attended this conference at the Trade Center in New York. Her interest from that time on in learning about Canadian exports has been unbelievable, because she wasn't really a reader before that. She's reading the paper to find out what is going on at that level. She has moved to Alberta to work, but she's even calling to tell me what's happening in the oil exchange now, something she wouldn't have done a year ago. We also have another member preparing to go on that trip, and he's very excited about that.

Scholarships have enabled some of our students to further their education. One of our own members used her scholarship, and she will graduate in May as a dental hygienist.

Our club also boasts being background to many of the people who are in our local area, our doctors, newspaper reporters, veterinarians, teachers, etc.

These trips and experiences help to discipline and to develop these young people. We have lost some large sponsors in our province, and some government funds have been cut back. We are struggling, but we aim to keep our program going. We do hope it will be a part of the department, as they think about us.

We do have some concerns. Our leaders need leadership conferences. We do have one in the province each year. As a matter of fact, just three weeks ago I was at one. One of the downfalls is that some of the leaders are unable to attend this because of work and the expense of travelling and staying there during that weekend. We would like to see, perhaps, a little bit more funding to make the conferences happen at two or three places in the province. I think our young people would benefit more from leaders who have a wider experience. Of course, they're volunteers, so we can't push there.

Our project books are a bit outdated. At this recent conference, all spoke about it and believe new publications are necessary. How to prepare new ones and how to save funding as we do that seem to be difficult. I sometimes believe that perhaps, with the new technology, we could benefit from some of the other provinces who may have updated theirs. It may help out that way. I was fortunate enough to be in Manitoba, in Brandon, for the quality equation program that was developed two years ago, Manitoba being one of the greatest boosters for 4-H.

Â (1255)

The award trips and the registrations last time gave us a little concern. They received the registration form telling them the cost was $209 for registration, but when the actual money had to be sent in, $303 had to be sent. We were disappointed to find out last night that one of our members could not go, because of the extra $100. We didn't find that out, sorrowfully, until last night. It is too late for him to be able to go.

· (1300)

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Dickson.

Ms. Velna Dickson: I have a little bit more, but my time is up, is it?

The Chair: It will probably come out in the questions.

John Schenkels.

Mr. John Schenkels (Individual Presentation): I think, at this point in the game, we can all say food is becoming very important to us individually. I think we're getting a little hungry in the stomach. I think we have to realize that we have to maintain a viable farm industry in Canada, not only in New Brunswick. We have a great reward. We can pride ourselves that we can go anywhere in the country and have no fear of what we eat. We have no fear that what we're eating is not being produced properly and is not healthy. That is a luxury Canadians have more than anywhere else in the world. The fear of food poisoning and stuff like that is very low compared to anywhere else in the world. As farmers, we pride ourselves on producing a high-quality product.

Our main issue here is to maintain viable farms and a viable industry in Canada. I'm a member of Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick, of the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture, and the Northumberland Co-op, and I agree with a lot of the earlier presentations, those things have to be done, but I don't plan to focus on that at all this morning. We're getting closer to the afternoon here, I guess, but I still feel like morning.

What is the lure of farming for me? I'm one of the few, I'm a younger guy here. Some of the renewal we talk about is in my blood. The lure that got me into farming was the fact that I have that ability to produce the food. I pride myself on being able to do that for my neighbours, for everyone in the country. The joy of farming and the joy of watching the cycle of life go is very important. It's one of the rewards farmers have that many of our neighbours don't.

As farmers, though, we realize that anything we do along that chain is very important. So if we don't feed our calves properly, they're not going to milk well later on. If we don't plant our seeds properly, we're not going to harvest the right crop, or as much, or as high-quality a crop as we should have. It's important that we plan our end product. It's important that we come out with something that in the end, is what we desired: it's of high quality, it's of a quantity sufficient enough to feed not only ourselves, but the world as well.

I think it's important that the federal government take a step in planning as well and they plan in this manner. In a lot of the things we do we're reacting and not planning on where we're going. Our end product is very important. The Whitehorse agreement has been addressed. The five elements really only address the plan for agriculture, not the end product that's desired. I didn't even hear much about that this morning. It's important to me that we have a vibrant and sustainable agricultural industry, creating high-quality food and high-quality employment for the citizens of Canada. That's the important thing that we should be planning for. If we're not doing that, we're not doing our job.

We talk about being first in areas of food safety, environmental protection, innovation, research. We must also be first in generating wealth for farmers. In order to be first in all these areas, environmental protection, research, we have to invest huge amounts of capital, especially on the farm. This is not only capital in the form of equipment, but it's also a huge amount of human capital. In farming today the amount of knowledge we must have is growing not by the year, but by the day. The amount we have to know and the amount we have to direct has grown. Farming ten years ago was not the same as it is today. There are many more issues, especially environmental protection, food safety, and those areas. This human capital we talk about translates into dollars at the farm level, and we can only really recover that when we sell our end product. If we cannot cover that with the end product, we have to find another way to raise this capital, or somebody else has to commit this capital to us, because we cannot get it.

I'd like to allude a little to the form of brain drain coming out of agriculture. We see a flood. We're all aware of the flood of professionals going to the U.S. because the money is there and the money is going there. In Canada farmers are starting to see money elsewhere, not necessarily going to the U.S., but they're saying, this job is not for me, because I cannot make a buck at it any more. The opportunities, even for myself, may be greater elsewhere. The reason to choose it becomes more of a noble thing than economic, and it cannot become that, because even the most noble of us can't stay around forever, we have to close our doors.

I guess I'll allude to taxation and economic supports. Government has the abilities to provide them, and they may have to.

By generating wealth for farmers, we continue to support our goals for food safety, environment, and research. I'm sure that when you drove in here, you didn't see any of us farmers pulling up in limos with bodyguards at our side. We're not that rich. We invest a lot of our dollars back into the farm, back into the environment, back into all those food safety goals. We're committed to doing the best we can. Richness in farming isn't judged by the dollars in the bank, but by the quantity and quality of product you produce for your neighbours and for everyone around you, and the satisfaction of knowing that you've done a good job at it.

If I could conclude on just one other note, going back to Velna and the product of 4-H, the brainpower you're going to get out of investing in 4-H is ten times that of what you can invest any other dollar in. For that program, there should be stuff there, because we need brainpower in the industry.

Thank you.

· (1305)

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Mr. Baldwin, with another hat this time.

Mr. Ben Baldwin (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chair, I won't keep you very long this time. I'll keep it under two minutes, I hope.

The general theme around the table all morning, it seems to me, has been family farms and their decline, and perhaps even the eventual extinction of what we call a family farm now. I grew up on a family farm, and I was the fifth generation. I was the first of those generations who couldn't make a living. Perhaps I wasn't smart enough to make a living on the family farm. So I left when I was 17, I came back 35 years later, and I'm now a part-time farmer. But I should say that when I was a teenager 50 years ago, there were 15 farms along the road where I lived, some five miles from here. I came back 15 years ago, and there were three part-time farmers. Now there's one, and that's me. This is scary.

I've been thinking about this for 15 years. Maybe this morning it's been focused. I used to do a lot of travelling, and what we should do now is focus on a model now somewhere in the world where family farms are thriving and prospering. I'm sure they exist, because I used to spend a lot of time in western Europe and I've boarded with farms a couple of times. They were prosperous. I know this is 25 years ago, but I would like to go back to those places, or a committee of the federal government, the agricultural committee, maybe should send a group of people over there to find out what makes agriculture tick in places like Portugal, France, and Italy, because I believe family farms in western Europe are still healthy.

The main thing about family farms, from my point of view, is that people who grew up and live on one are independent thinkers. They're not working for somebody else, and they're not relying on somebody else. I think our whole society would benefit from people like that.

I think the obvious reason we don't have family farms is economics, as everybody has suggested here this morning. When I came back 15 years ago, I had greenhouses, and I got $4.50 a pound for tomatoes. Now I'm lucky if I get $1.50. I don't grow them any more, because even at $4.50, you barely made a living. I'm an organic farmer.

That's really all I was going to say. It's a national issue. Around the table everybody knows there's a decline in the family farm in every province. I think it's a federal issue. It should be a federal government responsibility to come up with a cure. So I would suggest you go, identify somewhere in the world where there's a model, and let's emulate it.

Thanks very much.

· (1310)

The Chair: Thank you, Ben.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

Europe as the place we should look to for farming—that's a bit questionable, I think. We have in Germany a massive swine fever problem. That problem arose because there were 30 small farmers with 10,000 hogs in a two-kilometre radius. We had the foot and mouth in England spread wildly. I question whether their system of animal production and movement is better than what we're doing. The European Union has billions and billions of dollars of investment into genetic modification of crops, genetic medical research, animal research, genetics. I really think we have to be careful when we start saying we should be just like Europe. In any event, we can't go into that too long. It's a bit of a comment.

The 4-H is where I first learned my public speaking and where I first actually started working on learning how to be a beef producer.

But the one thing that seems to need to be done is this. We all talk about small farmer, big farmer, corporate farmer, intensive farmer, factory farmer. There is, from my efforts to find out, no definition of what a farmer is. Does anybody here have a definition written down that's available to use as to who's a farmer and who's not? In designing a program for the farmer, who are we designing a program for? Does anybody have a definition they could submit to the committee? Ben—I don't want a dissertation, I want a definition.

Mr. Ben Baldwin: I do have a definition, and it's well put out in a letter to the editor in this morning's Telegraph Journal newspaper from Saint John. I would heartily support what that writer, whoever he was, said.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, we'll pick that up. It is a difficult thing to get a handle on.

The Chair: Neil has a definition.

Mr. Neil Gardner: I have an actual definition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Association and the U.S. government. The definition they use is: “A farm is any place where crops are grown, animals are raised, and where the bulk of the feed for the animals in produced on the farm.”

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Should we recommend to the federal government they come up with a definition for farmer?

Mr. Neil Gardner: That would be an excellent idea.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. That can be worked on.

Hans, I have one question for you. We know how supply management works, and there's a bit of a cost of production there, but you still have to be a pretty good farmer, or you're going to go broke doing that too.

You're also, you said, in greenhouses?

Mr. Hans Bouma: That's correct.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Are you advocating that we should be recommending that the greenhouse industry be put under supply management?

Mr. Hans Bouma: With all fruits and vegetables in Canada, when NAFTA was first introduced, when they were in season here in Canada, the borders were closed to imports. This has gradually been opened, and it's wide open now, not just to NAFTA, but globally. If they can buy tomatoes in Timbuktu for 20¢, and it costs them 80¢ to land them here, now the wholesale price for Canadians becomes $1. But people don't seem to realize how much energy is used to move stuff from all over the world.

As I say, you could go back to where we were. When things are in season here, the borders are closed. That's gone by the wayside, and that's the problem. We've gone out of the wholesale business just recently—we got $1.00 a pound for tomatoes, that was it.

· (1315)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're looking for recommendations, and some may not be practical or even possible legally, such as putting in supply management in some of these areas. We know that if you did that in regard to wheat, for instance, we'd have to lay idle millions of acres .

Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much. Work on that definition of farmer, because it sure would be a lot easier to design a program if we knew exactly who we're designing it for.

The Chair: Thank you, Howard.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'm glad to see, John, that you've come out today, because we haven't seen very many people your age doing presentations.

Mr. John Schenkels: I look younger than I am.

Mr. Paul Steckle: You're a young man, then.

It's a real concern of mine, and it's a concern of this committee. We would like to find a way to address the issue of intergenerational farm transfers. We have the dairy industry, the supply management sectors, and we believe in the supply management sectors and the way they do business. We know there are things that happened there in costings that are now out of proportion, but we can't turn back the clock, we must move on. Mr. Bouma, we'll assume your son wants to take on farming. How can we help you to help your son get into the business of farming?

Mr. Hans Bouma: I mentioned the taxation system with succession. An average dairy farm today is worth $3 million, whatever. If I were to sell this farm to my son, I would sell it to him at a discount. I wouldn't need $3 million to retire on. Nonetheless, if I were to get this, either from him or from an outsider, I'd pay a hell of a lot of capital gains tax. I'd say I need $1 million to live on, and if I'm not taxed to death, I can leave him with the rest and say, carry on.

Mr. Paul Steckle: You mentioned $3 million. If government could allow the transfer or the deferment of that capital gains tax until sometime in the future, whoever sells that farm, either to a speculator or to whoever, once it goes out of the business of actual farm product production, the tax would be paid. That may be three generations from now, and perhaps tax laws will change by then. But there has to be a way found where we can allow that money. If you want to give your son $2 million worth of equity, you shouldn't have to find the money, because you're going to have to get it out of him anyhow, and you won't have the money to pay the taxes. Of course, government never has money until property is finally sold. It's like the RRSPs, it's deferred taxes.

Would that be a way of dealing with that? I'm asking you, but other people may have a comment on that.

Mr. Hans Bouma: I think that would be very good, and actually that is in place, but the amount allowed for capital gains is so low that...

Mr. Paul Steckle: What would be a reasonable amount?

Mr. Hans Bouma: I would say a couple million, off hand.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay.

John.

Mr. John Schenkels: I wouldn't mind taking a stab at that. It comes down to wealth, and you need enough for two generations to sustain. You need to be able to allow one farmer to get in while the other is getting out. The main problem with most farms is that they are highly capitalized; there's a lot of capital on the farms. If there is some way the older farmers who invested all their money into that capital, instead of RRSPs or Canada Pension, could roll it over and draw out on a deferred basis, rather than pay it all in a lump in the year it is owed, that's got to be a great benefit. Anything that can generate wealth is going to help.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Cook: My day job is doing taxes, so I recognize what you're saying. It's wonderful to say, put off the taxes, because we have something similar with regard to property taxes in the province called the farmland identification program. As long as the property stays in farming, it's fine, but if it goes out of farming, the taxes are owing. But I would say you've got to make a distinction between the farmer who is filing a personal and individual T-1 tax return and those who are behind the T-2 corporate structure.

If I could throw something else in while we're at it, I still don't understand why farming fits under the cash method and is allowed to continue using that method of operating, not accrual. I just throw that at you.

· (1320)

Mr. Paul Steckle: Thank you very much. This is the kind of input we need. We need to have some directive, and who better than yourselves to tell us? We're looking to you for this kind of information.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Dick.

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

It's been a very interesting day. There's a whole range of perspectives here from the three panels we've heard from, counting the minister.

Monsieur Belliveau, you said society assumes that the rules and regulations are adequate. That's probably true, because when the minister was here earlier this morning, he said the environmental issue is number one in New Brunswick, and judging by a number of you here this morning, I would assume that some of you would take issue with that assessment.

Mr. Denis Belliveau: I didn't mean society assumes the rules or regulations are okay. I meant the people who are saying, since we are following the regulations, we're okay, are assuming that regulations in place are okay, because we are not making the distinction between, say, 10 pigs and 30,000.

Mr. Dick Proctor: All right.

Mr. Gardner, you indicated that Metz Farms have been receiving $250,000 in subsidies each year and they're going to be receiving a $1 million next year. What wasn't clear to me was how many years they have been receiving this,

Mr. Neil Gardner: They've been in operation over three years. What they've received so far is work done for them by the provincial government that should actually have been done by them, things like a manure management plan, which they were responsible for, but they've actually had the government do for them. Now they're talking about $1.5 million roughly for this so-called new technology.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. Cook, you mentioned advisory committees, indicating they were not properly representative. I wonder if you could help us understand it in more detail.

Mr. Jerry Cook: If you're going to take the industry itself, the government, and suppliers to industry, they're all the same thing. Let's stop fooling ourselves, thinking they represent four separate stakeholders. They're eating the same steak at the same table. So they represent one group. Then you have consumers, perhaps, and environmental. Maybe people don't like to hear that it should be weighted in the other direction, but unfortunately, in all these groups I've sat on it's always the same way.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Maybe I'm not fully understanding, but I thought I heard the minister say this morning that they did have advisory groups. Are we talking about the same thing? We're not?

Mr. Jerry Cook: No, I don't think so. I don't know what he was referring to.

Mr. Dick Proctor: All right. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Rose-Marie.

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

I have a quick question for John. You said you're in the farming industry. What kind of farming are you into, and how were you able, at such a tender age, to get involved in the industry? I won't ask your age.

Mr. John Schenkels: There's no short answer to that question. Right now I have a 100-cow dairy operation. It's a family farm that was started in 1966 by my father, who immigrated to Canada. It was passed down about 8 years ago. A number of factors came together at that time. I had just finished college. I came home to the farm, and we saw at that point that there was a need to start the process of transferring. As it went through, there was enough wealth there that we could do it. We found ways to get around some things. There was a bit of government support to make that intergenerational transfer, which was not necessarily the catalyst, but it was appreciated and it definitely helped to move that along. That was not from the federal government, but from the provincial government at that time. That program is basically defunct at this stage, but may be starting up again.

It comes from a will as well, and it comes from the knowledge that farms have to be passed on, and I'll give credit to my father, who ended up moving here because he couldn't do that at his farm. It is a difficult issue, and to address it properly, there has to be enough wealth there.

· (1325)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Absolutely.

Mr. Bouma, you indicated earlier that perhaps some businesses needed to get under the supply management umbrella. What businesses were you thinking of? I know you made mention of this earlier. What kind of farming do you mean?

Mr. Hans Bouma: As was mentioned earlier, supply management needs three legs to hold the stool up, and in many areas, like the grain and oil sector, one of the legs is gone. We can not control imports, because that has already been negotiated and we can't go back on that, but there are other ways to have quasi-supply management. I would suggest restricting production, but I know this is going to be a very tough thing to sell to many farmers. There is such a movement under way right now, I understand. Farmers want to take land out of production and try to shorten the market and drive the price up. But it's a little bit like OPEC; even they have a hard time doing that amongst themselves.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Who's going to step up to the table for that?

Mr. Hans Bouma: That's exactly it. That's a dilemma. The only way I can see out of this dilemma of continuing low commodity prices in the near future is that production be restricted. Not only do the Canadian farmers have to agree to that, the large commodity producing countries would have to agree to that as well.

There is, however, I think, a bright light in the future. I read the other day that if every Chinaman decides to eat one extra egg per day, our entire western grain production would go to supply the extra chickens. That's not out of the realm of possibility. These people are getting up to our standards of living, they're using more and more protein, and these things are not impossible. China's economy is booming relative to many of the other economies. This is in the works. So it's not all gloom and doom. The markets may be there in the future.

For the time being, farmers are their own worst enemies, they could never agree to do this, but if they could restrict the production at least, it is supply management, but it doesn't have the import control leg on it, and that's a real sticker.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you Rose-Marie.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Charles.

Velna, thank you very much for that Brandon, Manitoba, plug. I'm the member of Parliament from Brandon. The enthusiasm obviously came from that community itself, although I would like to thank you for all the time and energy you've put into the 4-H organization. It's well received and appreciated.

Jerry, I'm not familiar with Metz Farms or the issues, although I know there are a number of people here who are putting their position forward. The issue, as I see it and from what you've indicated, is the lack of zoning bylaws, land use policy. That's a provincial jurisdiction. Are you suggesting, by being at this panel, that there should be some federal policy put into place to regulate land use within the provincial jurisdiction at this time?

Mr. Jerry Cook: I think someone has to look at the general issue of concentration of this kind and suitability.

· (1330)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And currently, that concentration, that suitability, comes under provincial responsibility and jurisdiction. Are you suggesting that the federal government should tell Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick what should be placed where, at what concentration, and at what level?

Mr. Jerry Cook: Let me put it back to you this way. If agriculture is a BNA responsibility of the provinces, why is there a federal Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Then why isn't the federal Department of Agriculture totally funding agriculture within the country of Canada? We haven't got that either. I'm asking a simple question. This is policy. We're here to try to develop policy. You're saying that the federal government should have land use jurisdiction over provincial governments.

Mr. Jerry Cook: I'm saying there are certain issues to do with environment and health that are, I believe, federal responsibilities, and there are ways the federal government sponsors and reduces the operating costs of these large-scale operations, through taxation, through research, through subsidies. By whatever means, the federal government is aiding and abetting.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: As I said, I'm not familiar with the area or the development itself. You're an accountant, but you live in the area. Are you a rural residential...?

Mr. Jerry Cook: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you are an urban resident in a rural area, basically. Are you a farmer?

Mr. Jerry Cook: No. I own the property.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Mr. Gardner, you said you're a part-time farmer?

Mr. Neil Gardner: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What is a part-time farmer?

Mr. Neil Gardner: Like a lot of the other people here, I farm when I'm not working and making money to try to support the farm.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your off-farm income is your main income then.

Mr. Neil Gardner: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Belliveau, do you reside in this area as a farmer or as a rural resident?

Mr. Denis Belliveau: I reside in the area. I'm not a farmer.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're not a farmer?

Mr. Denis Belliveau: No, but I have great friends who are farmers and share the same concerns.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What I'm trying to get at is that if there were federal jurisdiction and regulation, perhaps part of that jurisdiction and regulation should be the rural residential component of a rural area. Is that also fair to say?

Mr. Jerry Cook: I moved to this province 30 years ago from the urban environment. I long ago gave up on it, didn't want any more to do with it. I came here for clean water, clean air.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fair ball.

Mr. Jerry Cook: Fair ball, right?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're saying there should be some sort of a federal impact on land use, and that would also suggest that there should be a rule or regulation with respect to rural residential development in agricultural areas. Is that correct?

Mr. Jerry Cook: The people who live in this area have lived there all their lives. I'm a newcomer. This factory is a very recent newcomer, with no ties to this region whatsoever previously.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

I'd like to touch on another comment you made very briefly, because I don't have a lot of time, and it will be my last question. Maybe you'd like to expand on the cash accounting system versus the accrual accounting system, because that's the first time we've heard that in our three weeks of travel.

Mr. Jerry Cook: Really?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Really. I thank you for bringing it up. Why do you feel it should be an accrual accounting system, as opposed to a cash-based accounting system.

Mr. Jerry Cook: Every other industry, everybody else, follows the accrual method, which means that whatever you have purchased, whether paid for or not, and whatever you have sold, whether the money has been received or not, and whatever inventories you have on hand are accounted for in your profit.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Why would that be beneficial to agriculture?

Mr. Jerry Cook: I'm not saying it's beneficial, I'm saying it's fair. Everybody else has to do it. Why is agriculture a sacred cow?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the record.

Mr. Jerry Cook: Thank you.

The Chair: Before we go to Larry, we have an intervention. We don't normally do this, Inka, but go ahead.

Mrs. Inka Milewski (Individual Presentation): I'm terribly sorry, but I was sitting back there, and you asked a really important question about whether the federal government should be involved in zoning issues.

I'm past president of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. We're an organization that's been around for 32 years. There is a precedent for this. What we are talking about in Ste-Marie is a building that houses at any one time 10,000 hogs. So it's a contained, confined industrial operation, very much possibly like a pulp and paper mill, which has air emissions, effluent, wastes. The federal government regulates pulp and paper mills, whether they're in New Brunswick, Manitoba, or B.C., so there is a precedent. They could be in an industrial park. They don't have any different requirements from a pulp and paper mill. There are emissions that are equivalent . The federal government, under CEPA, does regulate pulp and paper mills, and the federal government can regulate intensive livestock operations.

· (1335)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not going to get into a debate, though I do appreciate your intervention. I should also tell you that you could not develop that kind of intensive livestock operation, because of the zoning requirements, in my community in an industrial area. We do have in my area at least six, probably more, what you refer to as industrial livestock operations, factory operations, but they are controlled by the local municipalities under their own zoning bylaws and their own land use. There are certain criteria that are set out, and they have to follow those criteria or they won't be developed. So you could not develop that in an industrial park.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Larry.

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

I watched, following my friend's excellent prediction on the leadership of the Alliance Party, last night or the night before—the day has been kind of long—a show about an intensive livestock operation in Alberta, with tens of thousands of cattle. It's a model environmentalists are sending people there for. They're dehydrating the waste. It seems everybody is happy. So it doesn't have to be bad. The federal government does have Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. I think sometimes they've done an excellent job working with farmers, sometimes they have not. I'm on the government side. They've laid charges in eastern Ontario now, and we've had court cases and all kinds of things. There are two and three sides to most stories.

Mr. Chair, I heard someone say factory farms are replacing family farms. Today about 95% of all farms in Canada are family farms, run by the families who live on the farms. They may or may not have hired help. That's a fact. The average dairy farm in Canada has fewer than 55 cows. I have neighbours and friends who belong to the National Farmers Union.

For the organic people here, I do want to repeat, as I have in most provinces, that the federal government believes in organic. We acknowledge that it's a growing industry, at 15%, 20% a year. In fact, I attended the graduation ceremonies at Nova Scotia Agricutural College recently, where we invested $900,000 of your tax money into organic, which we think will help Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country greatly.

Mr. Gardner, we're an exporting nation. Are you in favour of our exporting food and agricultural products?

Mr. Neil Gardner: Sure. I don't see any problem with our exporting, but if we're going to export we should be exporting what our customers want, not what we are going to force them to take.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you. I want to put that on the record for your sake.

Robert, you have a great thought here about the new farmers, those coming into it, and supply management, and it could be for other areas, not just milk. You said there could be a milk quota at no charge for the new entries. That's what we're here for, to look at any possible way of helping young people, getting them more involved and keeping them involved in farming. Any thoughts on that, Robert?

Mr. Robert Bremner: My only thought was that if Hans wanted to retire and had no one to take it over, there would be an opportunity for him to sell it to a government institution, which could then award it at a fraction or under some other set-up to a young farmer who wanted to start up. Basically, it would give the young farmer a chance; instead of his spending the $3 million, it would offset the costs for him.

· (1340)

Mr. Larry McCormick: Whether there's a difference in that and the food tax, or taxes going up, I'm not sure.

John and Hans, some people across this country have said that the quota is excellent, but is now working against family farms and people going into the industry. Has the quota gone too far? What does the future hold? How can you people control the quota?

Mr. Hans Bouma: It's very hard, but we did actually discuss this just yesterday at our board level. For example, we were discussing the possibility that when markets increase and extra quota is handed out, a portion should be set aside for exactly that purpose.

If I may also at this time, they were talking about exports earlier, about milk, and I want to point out that we are allowing imports, and we should therefore be allowed to export a small portion of our production.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's excellent to hear your conversation, because, for example, with chicken and eggs, there's more quota all the time as the market is growing. I like what you just said. It's something we can share for other people to think about.

John.

Mr. John Schenkels: In the dairy industry especially, I think the substantial increase in quota values is more the function of the banks' lending policies over the last three to four years, which have allowed us to finance over a longer period of time and thus increase the value of the quota. I think, in the long term, you will see that price come back down and be more a function of a farm's profitability.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Of course, Mr. Chair, I'm sure somewhere along the line it says on paper that no bank will lend money on quota.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Roger, I enjoyed your presentation, but I was also hoping to hear a little more about your enterprise. Your group were quite involved. Do you want to put anything on the record about the co-operative you organized there and your market garden approach.

Mr. Roger Richard: It is a small organization that 28 farmers started in small fruits. We're not of a size to compete or to have the wholesalers' buying power. So what we are trying to do is focus our energy on local product going to local consumers. We have a small population in New Brunswick, so it doesn't lend itself to expanding the farm, not even to a large scale, because I think most of the farms we are working are in the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-acre range.

When I made this personal decision to go back to the farm, I was told by co-workers—I had also worked with the provincial Department of Agriculture—that I couldn't do it on a small farm, but I decided to go anyway. I don't regret it. It's very difficult financially. I'm still sticking with it, taking some part-time jobs, taking anything that's available out there, because I wanted to do it, even though they said I couldn't. Maybe I was stubborn, and I still probably am stubborn, but I'm going to give it a try. I think most of our group of local horticultural producers have the same idea.

The Chair: Do you have any suggestions for this committee on how we could help your group?

Mr. Roger Richard: The guys are hoping for a small profit at the end of the year that you can feed your family with, give them what other sectors of the population do, whether or not they're working on an hourly basis. For most of the farms it's not possible. I'm not sure how you go about having a decent salary with the size of farm an individual wants to have. I'm not interested in growing 500 acres of product. If that's what I need, I'm not going to be in the business, but I'm competing with farms that have that, the price is set by those people, and I'm selling at the same wholesalers.

I'm doing some wholesaling, which I think not a lot of guys in the province are doing in the vegetable industry, but I'm competing with farms from Quebec and Ontario that have all kinds of different programs I don't have access to. I think there are five or six crops that are covered by crop insurance in New Brunswick. I think in Quebec they have 50 or 55 different crops that are covered under those programs, but I'm competing in the same markets, because the wholesalers that are set up in Moncton buy product across Canada.

So I'm not sure what the scenario has to be for small farms, but I think I'd like to be working with somebody who could...

· (1345)

The Chair: Thank you, Roger. I guess that was the point I was trying to get you to bring out here, that for the farmers in your category there is no crop insurance. Last year you had a bad year.

Mr. Roger Richard: We had bad years in 1999 and 2001. Even though with some crops we did put in the water, we still couldn't put enough water on. There are crops that require a cool climate, and the climate last year in this area was a lot warmer than normal. So even though we do put in what is needed on a small scale, we still are not getting the returns.

The Chair: And it's not available to you.

David.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Baldwin, you talked a bit about looking at farms that thrive and what makes them tick, looking to Europe for that answer. In Europe they've decided it's a social program to keep people on the farms, and they'll spend that money in a lot of areas to do that. I think that ties in a little with John's presentation, where he said we've got a farm action plan, we've got some planning, but we don't have any end purpose it. I would suggest that the government have decided what they want to do. There is an end result that they're satisfied with. They're willing to take a third fewer farmers, they're not interested in putting more money into agriculture, and because of that, we do have an end plan, but it's the opposite of what you're talking about in its results.

Mr. Ben Baldwin: My point is simply that somewhere in the world there has to be a jurisdiction running a department of agriculture that fosters and helps small farmers. It could be Japan. I'm not necessarily restricting it to Europe, where my experience is from 25 years ago. But somewhere there is a jurisdiction, or several jurisdictions, that obviously do this better than we do—and that holds for anything in life.

Mr. David Anderson: If the goal is preserving small farmers, you can do that if you spend enough money, but that's not a choice the government's made in this country.

Mr. Ben Baldwin: I wouldn't know that. I just know, from observing the scene 25 years ago in those three countries I mentioned in western Europe, small farms did exist and did prosper.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay.

John, don't be embarrassed to succeed. It sounds as if you're doing a good job. I was happy to hear your presentation. I've looked for them across Canada, and here young guys are coming out and saying, we can succeed at this business. I just encourage you to keep at it and keep doing what you can.

Mr. John Schenkels: I feel as if I'm preaching to the converted here, and I think there has to be a lot of framework still created at the federal level. We went around the table this morning, and everybody was a rancher or a farmer, and I said, that's great, it's going to be easy to talk to these guys. But I think right now we're charging you to go back and tell your counterparts, the other MPs, that it's a lot more challenging that what our job was here this morning, and it's got to be done. This policy has to come in, everybody has to know about it, and it has to be bought into by the whole industry.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

One of the most perplexing things we have to deal with... You brought out a very good point there, that we have to have some goal at the end. Without that goal, we can have all kinds of steps and stones, whatever it might be...

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank each of you for coming. It's certainly good to be here in New Brunswick. The other members, hopefully, have enjoyed it here, at least for the day they've been here. We had some very good presentations. As I said earlier, every place we go we hear something new. However, we do have to conclude our deliberations today, and we do have to continue. If you've got some really wise points you'd like us to consider, you know our address. Send them in to the clerk or to my office, so that the committee can look at them.

We would hope that when the report is made, each of you will get a copy of it. We won't satisfy everybody. In fact, sometimes it's not easy to satisfy a great number of people. In any case, we'll try to do our best. We want to thank you for coming. Hopefully, agriculture and rural life can benefit from the work we'll be doing.

With that, we'll adjourn our meeting.