:
I believe I'm going to go first, and then Kalissa and then Bob.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before you today, ladies and gentlemen. We didn't find out until Monday night when we were driving down Highway 401 on the way home from our 38th annual convention of the National Farmers Union in London that we were requested to appear. It just so happened that Kalissa came home with me. So rather than have a couple of days off, here we are. But it is a pleasure, and we thank you very much for this opportunity.
We represent the National Farmers Union of Canada. We're both on the national executive and on the board of the National Farmers Union.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my local member of Parliament, . I live and farm in the area of Iroquois, Ontario. Mr. Lauzon has visited my community, and he has also attended my church.
I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Lauzon. Thank you.
In focusing on Growing Forward, which seems to be the topic of the study today, I'm going to give an overview, and Kalissa is going to talk about her vision for agriculture.
Over the past 10 years, there have been numerous studies, submissions, recommendations, and proposals, which many of us around the table are very familiar with, that focus on the ongoing demise of the farming sector in Canadian society. The 2007 release from Statistics Canada on the agricultural sector shows there is an ongoing crisis in rural Canada. The loss of farms and farmers, the ever-aging demographics, and the average net income, well below Canada's national average, point to what can only be considered an incurable cancer in the countryside.
Whereas Growing Forward recommends some progressive steps in addressing issues of concern to farmers and consumers, many of the principles and policies actually lack meaningful or truly progressive and informed rationale. I've been involved in several of the consultations over the past several years, right from Lyle Vanclief through to the more recent consultations. I've travelled right across Canada to be involved in these consultations.
The competitive success that is referred to several times in Growing Forward has not brought financial success to the vast majority of farmers across Canada. We have indeed been competitive. According to Agriculture and Agri-food's own data, agriculture has been responsible for over $15.4 billion in export in the first half of this year alone, yet the majority of farmers will show a net loss, or at least a significantly low on-farm income, again this year.
Policy outcomes in Growing Forward embrace a competitive and innovative sector, a sector that contributes to society's priorities, and a sector that is proactive in managing risks. These can be achieved only when profitability on the farm is addressed once and for all without further enhancing the culture of never-ending dependency that we have in agriculture today. We need to break that cycle of dependency.
The so-called modernization of our regulatory systems and the harmonizing of our standards across international boards will simply allow profitable input suppliers and processors the ability to access products that would otherwise be deemed potentially unsuitable for use in Canada.
According to Growing Forward objectives, highlighting the value of buying Canadian products, which is referred to in the paper, can be achieved when we address the misleading labelling regulations that are currently being used. A program that is not dissimilar to country of origin labelling will give Canadians the information they need . An increasing number of Canadians seek to support “grown in Canada”, not simply “processed and packaged in Canada”.
Further, with regard to society's priorities as referenced in the Growing Forward paper, when we're buying locally or buying “grown in Canada”, risks to health and safety can be easily mitigated, and profitability to the farmers will be better and more easily achieved. This goes beyond sound science; it's simply common sense.
As a farmer, I've always managed my own risks. I've had to. I've been farming for over 25 years, and I'm still in the business. Now, that has to say something. This may be statistically impossible, but it's true. I have diversified and strategized to meet market demands locally, nationally, and globally.
The new suite, proposed and soon to be implemented, may be a short-term solution for some farmers, but in the past we have seen those who are truly in need receive insignificant assistance in the form of payments. The Auditor General's report--and I have a copy here--on CAIS highlights flaws that are best avoided in the future. Once again, I want to emphasize that we need to get out of this cycle of dependency.
I'm going to skip some of this, because we're running short on time.
What we need is to focus on programs that equip farmers to extract money from the marketplace, not from the taxpayers. Orderly marketing and supply management have ensured profitability for farmers and must be protected in the international trade arena. These mechanisms serve as an existing business risk management program and are in fact supported by the majority of farmers, not only in Canada but also around the world.
If farmers are to be more successful, they need to be more profitable. The real causes of the farm income crises cannot be mediated by a business risk management program or suite of programs.
Farmers in western Canada—and Kalissa will talk more about this—require adequate, well-maintained, accessible, and affordable transportation options that include rail lines. Our commodity-based, export-oriented farms in remote and prairie regions require that specific provisions be made that ensure that farmers' needs are a top priority in the Canada Transportation Act.
At this time the alarming crisis in the pork and beef sectors cannot be ignored, and I myself am a cattle producer. As we think about what business risk management is supposed to do, we need to in fact stop crises of this magnitude altogether. This past week the NFU passed a resolution calling on the federal and provincial governments to assist farmers with graduated payments to farmers up to a cap of $100,000 based on current market losses. These payments would be outside of CAIS and targeted directly to farmers in order to ensure that this taxpayer money is not captured by the dominant packers or by packer-controlled feedlots, as happened during the BSE crisis.
As with all programs, the NFU is adamant that any and all government interventions go first and foremost to family farmers, and that farmers such as cow-calf producers be targeted for assistance. Further, the NFU asks the House of Commons standing committee to force the dominant beef and pork packers and food retailers to open their books, so that farmers, policy-makers, and taxpayers can find out who are taking the profits out of our livestock. Also, an inquiry into sudden and dramatic crises in the farming sector that also provides primary producers ample opportunity to participate should be launched.
The NFU is currently preparing an advisory document for policy-makers with recommendations on how to ensure stability in the livestock sector and to restore viability to family farms, preventing the need for future taxpayer support. Finally, the NFU advises the Government of Canada to curtail its predisposition to consult with and heavily fund corporate-based think tanks such as CAPI, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute. This supposed arm's-length think tank is exclusionary in nature and far removed from on-farm realities.
In closing, I would like to mention government's role in safeguarding and indeed protecting the public trust. Policy that puts food producers and consumers at the centre of development will ensure stability and fairness. Failing to provide policies that preserve, pursue, and strengthen rural communities and economies, health and safety of our food, sustainability for those who produce our food, and the ability for farmers to thrive is a matter of public trust.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to talk to you on behalf of the very few young farmers who are left in Canada.
I'm a fifth-generation Saskatchewan farmer. I was raised on a family farm north of Saskatoon with three older siblings, who are all now engineers. When I came back to the farm four years ago, it was a typical prairie grain farm. In the last four years it has undergone some major changes.
I am now the primary operator of our 1,500-acre family farm. We've been licensed to produce hemp since 2004 and have recently been certified for organic production. The farm also produces wheat, barley, lentils, peas, flax, oats, and rye. I have recently renewed another term with the National Farmers Union as the youth vice-president.
It is a very difficult time to work around the issues involving young people in agriculture in Canada. In the last 15 years, the number of farmers under the age of 35 has gone from over 80,000 to under 30,000. That's a loss of over 60%. The average age of Canadian farmers has gone from 50 to 53 in one year alone.
These statistics are not surprising, given that the last several years have seen the lowest farm incomes in Canadian history. Until long-term profitability can be ensured for our young farmers, their numbers will continue to decline.
One of the keys to sustainable profits for young farmers lies in market stability. All too often young farmers lack the financial flexibility to take advantage of our open markets. They are often required to sell their products as soon as they can at a lower price in order to make their payments. The Canadian Wheat Board, along with other supply management strategies, plays a critical role in providing stability to farmers in an increasingly volatile industry.
The initiatives put forward by the new business risk management programs of growing forward are short-term solutions that are effective only after income loss. A true agri-stability program would focus on policies that strengthen farmers' collective bargaining power, thereby lowering individual risk and the need for federal support.
Making the decision to return to rural Saskatchewan and commit myself to a career in farming goes radically against what statistics in agriculture would recommend. Social norms make it acceptable and reasonable for young people to desert their rural roots.
Food and farming are fundamental components in our society as a whole. As a young farmer, my success is dependent not only on my own knowledge and expertise, but on farm policy that is fair and just and puts the interests of farmers first.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation.
First of all, I would like to applaud this committee for responding very quickly to the livestock situation. I think you had the cattle industry and the hog industry here the other day. All of the other CFA members support 100% the ideas that the Canadian Pork Council put to you on how to maintain the industry and dig themselves out of the hole they're currently in.
We would urge both levels of government to look not only at administrative ease in trying to solve the problem, but at the specific ideas they have. Often it's very easy to just throw money at the problem, but we want to make sure we don't create an even bigger problem through potential trade action. So thanks again for listening to them.
I'm going to make some brief comments on three specific areas. One will be on the federal-provincial ministers meeting that happened last weekend. I'm going to talk briefly about the Growing Forward document that came out of Whistler. Then I will have a few comments about the excellent list of recommendations this committee provided on agriculture.
First of all, on the FPT meeting last week, we think it was fairly positive. We were very happy that the ministers agreed to create an extension for all non-BRM programming.
One of the biggest issues that came up at the industry ministers round table in Whistler was an emphasis on making sure there is no disruption in programs or program funding. The ministers clearly came to grips with that, and we'd certainly like to thank them for it.
We're also very happy they spent the amount of time they did discussing the livestock situation. Again that's a clear indication of how serious they realize the situation is. We applaud them for that as well.
It was very gratifying to see that the provincial agriculture minister stepped up to the plate when it came to disaster programming, or agri-recovery as it's going to be called. As you know, there was a problem with the funding issue. It looks like they stepped up to the plate, and we thank the federal minister for being able to bring them together on that one.
We initially expressed concern about regional disaster programs, but we've since learned that the components for a disaster program would apply to a national disaster as well. When it comes to a huge disaster there might be a difference in the funding, but that's fine as long as there's something in place for it to trigger very quickly.
The one concern we have--and I've talked about this before here--is that CFA members are still pushing for what we call an AgriFlex component in business risk management. That was mentioned in your list of recommendations as well. It is simply the flexibility to provide some federal dollars to provinces to develop a provincial-specific component that would address a regional- or provincial-specific need. It should still meet national objectives. But we feel there's room for something there that would add a very constructive component to the entire suite of programs. So we will continue to ask you for support on that. I know they discussed it at the federal-provincial meeting, and we hope that work will continue and something will come out of it.
When it comes to the Growing Forward document, again we were happy with the document that came out of Whistler. It included a lot of the elements that CFA members had put in what we called our Canadian farm bill. Rather than have three pillars, they have three circles. We think that's a positive illustration, especially when you overlap those three circles and come up with a little triangle in the middle. That's the integration we need in agriculture with all the different policies we have.
We call those three circles the public goods and services element, the business risk management element, and the strategic growth element. We think that the Growing Forward document contains enough flexibility for the industry to continue to provide input to the process and come up with a very constructive final next-generation APF.
I can tell you that the industry is ready and raring to go to work on program details. It's very anxious to get at that. We'd really like to see what the whole thing is going to look like on the ground, so we can't wait to start the next round of consultations.
Let me very quickly touch on two areas.
I know that we've talked at great length about business risk management, and so I'm not going to spend any more time on that, except to say that we were very happy that we got the contributory top tier in CAIS. That couldn't have come at a better time for the grains and oilseeds industry. The only problem is that with the diversity we have in Canada and the different sectors we have in Canada, that top tier couldn't have come at a worse time for the livestock industry. We hope, again, that the governments will look at the suggestion that CPC had on how to deal with that, because in the long term that top tier will be positive for all industries.
Very quickly on public goods and services, I believe you've all heard about the agricultural land use services initiative that we have. There are three or four pilot projects now across Canada. We're very positive about those. Just as an example, one of those pilot projects deals with the community, the municipality, and the provincial government recognizing that there are quite a few farmers in an area where there's a lot of water. They want to make sure that the water isn't contaminated, so they're providing some money for farmers to create bigger buffer zones than what the regulation calls for. That's a very positive thing in that it creates a strong crosswalk between farmers and what we would typically refer to as urban people. Surprisingly enough, only 11% of people living in rural areas are actually farmers, so it's important that we have a strong crosswalk between farmers and non-farm rural and urban people. What the public goods and services pillar is meant to do--and these pilot projects are a good example--is to help farmers do what they otherwise might not be able to afford to do because they can't pass on the added costs on to the consumer. It helps to achieve a social objective in that it works towards maintaining and improving Canada's natural capital. Using public funds to help farmers who provide a public good would also eventually decrease the load on business risk management.
So that's what we mean when we talk about public goods and services. They don't have to be only LS initiatives. They can be environmental farm plans. They can be food safety programs, because food safety programs are for the public good as well, in that they help us to brand Canada internationally. And so we think there's some positive potential there.
I won't mention business risk management again, but I would like to talk a little bit about the strategic growth pillar. In the last APF, there was recognition that we needed funding pillars. That's what the first APF was. There were very important funding pillars, but not enough time was spent on developing strategy to make sure that our industry grows and that it can achieve better profitability.
Aside from the usual things such as making sure we get better market access or profitable market access internationally either through the WTO or bilaterals, maintaining our ability to have marketing structures such as supply management, voluntary marketing boards, legislation for co-ops, or even single-desk selling--all these farmer empowerment tools--I would like to touch on two things that we started working on. They are certainly not a magic bullet for the entire industry but, we believe, an incremental step towards being strategic in agriculture. One is what we call the co-op investment plan. I don't think I've mentioned this to this committee before, but we looked to Quebec for the model. All of you know how co-ops work. Typically if they work everywhere else as they do in Manitoba, you have a $10 membership or a $20 membership in a co-op, but there's no incentive for you to invest any more in a co-op because you don't get any investment return.
In Quebec they've created a tax concession if you invest in a co-op, because that's the only benefit then that accrues back to you, other than, of course, patronage payments by either buying volumes or selling volumes through an input or buying co-op. So they've created a tax concession, and in Quebec $6 million worth of tax concessions has resulted in $36 million of direct capital investment in co-ops and a further $100 million investment by the co-ops in rural areas.
We're saying that if we were to apply that nationally, somewhere between $16 million and $20 million of tax concessions would eventually result in hundreds of millions of dollars of direct capital investment and the accruing of further benefits to rural areas. We think that would be a great model, at not too much expense, to create a stronger environment for co-ops, because we know that the co-op system can be a good farmer empowerment tool.
Secondly, I want to touch very briefly on what I talked about the last time I was at the committee. That's the “grown in Canada” idea. You mentioned that in your recommendations. We did the research. I believe we sent you a copy of the results of that research, which said 90% of Canadians would like Canadian products clearly identified; 50% said--and I know this is easy to say on the phone--that they would be willing to pay a premium for Canadian products; and 73% of those 50% said that they would be willing to pay a higher premium if they knew part of the premium went back to the farm gate. We've initiated a lot of work on this. We're going to create task teams now to talk to other farmer organizations that are not members of CFA. We're already working with Food Processors of Canada, with grocery distributors. We want to include everybody in this initiative and really start branding Canadian products in Canada.
I think I have two minutes left, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, I want to touch on three recommendations. By the way, the entire document, we think, was very positive.
One recommendation that you had was to create an advisory committee to look at agricultural policy. The response there says that they improve consultation by creating task teams, etc., but I have to emphasize the importance and the value of having a strong advisory committee for the federal government, for the federal minister. The advisory committee we had before brought together the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, and the Canadian Canola Growers Association. That table, when it came to a consensus, had a powerful recommendation for the minister, which also then gave the minister help when he negotiated with provincial ministers.
Your recommendation 19 talks about companion programs. I've already mentioned that. We believe that's a strong part of where we need to go. Recommendation 9 talked about “grown in Canada”. Thank you very much for that one. Recommendation 17 talks about programs such as SDRM and SDPI. There I would only like to comment that the horticulture industry across Canada has come up with a very good national production insurance program, better than anything else that could be designed. We'd ask for your support on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll stop there. I would be willing to answer any questions.
I was with the Canadian Pork Council last night when they presented to a Senate committee, and they're not complaining about the price of grain, that's for sure. They realize that grain producers are finally getting what they deserve. For example, across Canada this year, the price of barley increased between 70% and 75% over last year's price. So they're getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, it is hitting the livestock industry hard, and so is the increase in the dollar. The dollar went up somewhere around 10¢ between January and September of this year, and then in the last two months it suddenly jumped up close to 14¢. So it's also the volatility of the dollar, and of course that has all created very low margins.
In regards to regional flexibility, we recognize that agriculture in Saskatchewan isn't the same as it is in P.E.I. So while we support a national approach, we think within that, there should be some regional flexibility. Quebec has a program themselves. Alberta is always doing little companion things with their own money: they have a floor price in grain and they manipulate their reference margins a little bit. So they do it already anyway. We know the eastern Canadian provinces would like to use some companion money to develop a strategic proactive program. Saskatchewan could use companion money. They have 45% of Canada's arable acres and they have the worst crop insurance program in Canada. They could use some companion money to improve their crop insurance. So that way, we could create equity rather than have Alberta spend lots of money on provincial-specific...Quebec, and of course Ontario would like the RMP program. We think that would be a very constructive addition.
Regarding the “grown in Canada” label, you are right. I don't know how many of you saw Market Place and, I believe, W-FIVE. I think we have the opportunity now to ride the wave and really get consumers onside on this issue. I spoke to the Alberta beekeepers a few weeks ago, and I didn't realize that for years they have had a problem with the Canada number one designation on honey. It's really only an inspection or a grading standard, but it makes it sound as if it's Canadian honey, and they said that half of that honey is probably from another country. The only legislation we have on labelling is that it has to be truthful. So we think there's an excellent opportunity to add to the “buy local” initiatives. This isn't meant to undermine the “buy local” or the provincial initiatives that we have, but simply to add on a constructive component that really brands the Canadian products in the country.
Colleen and Kalissa, it's good to see you again, and you also, Bob.
We spent some time at the NFU convention this last week. There were really interesting topics, such as food security, and a lot of doom and gloom. I should tell my colleagues that one of the highlights was the music of Kalissa; I had hoped she would have brought her keyboard here today to perform for us, but she didn't, so maybe next time.
We seem to be talking a lot about P.E.I. today, when Wayne is not here, and that's kind of interesting, but there is a question from an organic farmer in North Milton, Prince Edward Island. A statement he has is that in his opinion federal policy with regard to agriculture calls for the intense capitalization and mechanization of farming, and that's reflected somewhat in the NFU report in Ontario. Then he goes on to say, “These policies have resulted in astounding profits for agribusiness companies at the expense of rural farmers”.
His question to the NFU and also to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is whether they support the implementation of a formula that would compensate farmers for the difference lost when the market price for their commodities drops below their cost of production. That's my first question; I hope I'll have a chance to ask another one.
Kalissa, as a young farmer, maybe you could give us a reflection on this.
:
I've already mentioned it once before, if you don't mind my being the person to address this. Our trade agreements have stymied us. They've kept us in a constant state of poverty. And what do we hear? We need more market access.
I was in Hong Kong. I was at the WTO ministerial meetings. When I heard people who were representing industry and who have already hugely.... There's a lot of money in food. There's a lot of money in the agrifood chain. There are a lot of stakeholders who are doing very nicely. They're the ones, and some of their colleagues—I call them farmers farming farmers—who were asking for more market access.
So in order for them to get this market access that they already have--and hasn't actually benefited them--they feel that getting rid of supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, the only two chips we have left on the table.... Which one are we going to give away first? Supply management? No, it's going to be the Canadian Wheat Board. That's going to get them more market access, and they naively think that's going to give them profit.
We are stymied by our trade agreements. Why are we held hostage and captive to these trade agreements that we never should have made? I will be radical enough to state here right now that we need to take agriculture out of WTO. I'm not saying no to trade. Trade is a reality; we are a trade-based country. But we need to not be trading away agriculture through the WTO and then let it handcuff us so that we're in a constant state of poverty in the countryside.
Getting back to the public trust, that's what we're saying. When we trust a government, and we have incredible poverty—let's just call it what it is, and that's what it is—do we have a safety net? When you're already on the ground, how much further are you going to fall? What's with the safety net? There's no net. You don't need to fall into a safety net because you have no further to fall.
We need to radically turn around--and that's why it's too darned hard. We talk about OMAFRA, but it's not the employees at OMAFRA. The Liberal government in Ontario has said some wonderful things about what they want in agriculture. It's the senior bureaucrats in OMAFRA who have not delivered, and that's what we want.
We see the same thing in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and I can name names. They have a different vision. We need to separate corporation from government, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and OMAFRA. When we go to the WTO, whose interests do we see best served? The corporations, which are still doing very well, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
I don't know if that answered your questions, but that's my little rant.
:
I don't believe in reference margin programs in the long term. They're like crop insurance; when you have deteriorating crops over a series of years, it doesn't work for you. This doesn't either.
If we look at what we've seen happening in terms of our exports, in 1993 we exported $12 billion, and today we're exporting $24 billion, $25 billion, $26 billion. We've never seen agriculturalists so poverty stricken as they have been for the last three or four years.
Colleen, you're absolutely right. If we're simply going to feed into this export concept so that the multinationals are going to make huge money on it and the primary producers are going bust, then I don't know what we're busting ourselves up for, because really it's for no good cause.
You were also wondering about whether we should be talking about having a report and asking for the books to be opened. Those books have been opened, and we have a report that you can read. You need only read that someone was making 600% when in fact they were taking $200 an animal for offal. It was not true at all. We have that report and we'd be happy to share it with you. So that's been done. We don't need to do that again.
Let me tell you that we, as farmers, have been taken for suckers. We've been taken for suckers for far too long. The supply management system has worked, and until we're ready to move forward boldly and do things differently.... We can call it whatever we want, but unless we're prepared to change what we have done in the past and move radically forward.... I quite believe--and you talked about doing certain things--we need to take a great step even further than that. I believe agriculture needs to be brought under the umbrella of one single government in this country.
The U.S. has one farm plan for 50 states. We have 10 provinces, three territories and a federal government trying to do agriculture. It doesn't work.
What are your comments?
An hon. member: That's a good question.
:
I have a 23-year-old daughter. She turned 23 this November. She is graduating from university in December. She used to want to be a doctor and got accepted into a science program, but now she is telling me that she's going to farm. It was a little distressing for me, honestly, as a mother, that my 23-year-old daughter has been so influenced by us that she now wants to farm. She wants to be a farmer and a chef and she is actually a brilliant artist.
I have to facilitate that, but the way it is in agriculture right now our farms become our retirement, and we shouldn't look at it that way. We need to look at our farms as who we are and who are children are. That's the way it used to be, but because we have such incredible debt, I look at my farm as my security for hopefully a few years down the track. Before I get to that point, I hope I have my debt as low as I can so that when I sell my farm I can keep a bit more of that money. The reality is that my kids want to farm and I have to make that happen because I am the only way they're going to do it.
There are new programs coming out, though, such as apprenticeship and mentor programs, especially in the greenbelt areas around Toronto and Guelph, where there is a higher population than we have here in eastern Ontario. There are a lot of young people coming from the cities or even coming off farms who may not be able to farm on their property. They are learning how to farm, especially doing horticultural-type farming, community-shared agriculture, market gardening, and supplying to restaurants or independent grocery stores. It has been really encouraging to see these programs.
There's a farm called Everdale farm, and it's a learning centre outside of Guelph. There's the Ignatius Jesuit Retreat Centre. The Jesuits on the Ignatius farm are members of the NFU. They also have a mentorship program where they are growing farmers. It's called farmers growing farmers. Some of that is happening.
I know a young farmer who is actually running a very success CSA just outside of Ottawa, with about 200 clients. She is not farming on her own land; she is farming on somebody else's land. It's a wonderful family that has about 400 acres, and they said, we can't do that, but we really love what you want to do. They opened up their land and gave her the opportunity. She is a farmer; she just doesn't have to own her own land.
Also, a new wave of farmer in Canada will also be our immigrants. Our immigrants may also be our new farmers. There are some programs out now to train immigrants to farm in Canada, to supply local ethnic markets. That will be the new face of farming in Canada.
:
I'm last, so it has to be me.
Thank you very much. It's nice seeing you again, Colleen, and Mr. Friesen, Ms. Regier.
I have to say that I'm a little shell-shocked almost on hearing your comments, because when I go through my riding and speak to my agricultural people, I usually feel pretty good. They're saying, way to go, Guy, things are happening--generally speaking. There are some exceptions. I should say upfront that I don't have huge hog farms in my area, or not many, and it is the same with beef.
I was proud when I was asked to be parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister because in the last less than two years we have put $4.5 billion into agriculture, and that has resonated extremely well with most of the farmers in my riding.
You mentioned, Mr. Friesen, that the minister has had some federal-provincial negotiations with his counterparts at the provinces. One of the first things he said to me when I got this job to work with him was, here are your marching orders. I wanted to know how he wanted me to help him. He said that the one thing to do was put farmers first. If you notice, what we've been doing here since we've taken government is we've put farmers first. That is what I've been told to do by my farmers in my riding, and I've tried to do that. It's certainly up near the top.
The other thing he said was that what we have to do is get every farm to the point where they are profitable and they are sustainable. He said that if we don't understand anything else, at least we must understand that. Really, for the grassroots farmers, the guys who milk the cows and harvest their crops in my riding, that's all they want. They want a level playing field. I thought, and I still think, that we're getting there, and as a matter of fact, with Growing Forward the feedback I'm getting is very positive.
Mr. Friesen, you said you thought there were exhaustive consultations throughout the country for Growing Forward. I thought the farmers had input on this, and this is what they tell me, and they like it. I'm assuming that you think there are many good things about it, or at least some good things. I'd like to get your opinion on Growing Forward--what the good things are and maybe where the consultations have lacked, because I understand there was a lot of input from the grassroots up. Could you just elaborate on what you think about Growing Forward, the positives of it, and where we can improve it?
I agree, Canada is a leader internationally in science and technology, and in agriculture and innovation. I studied at the University of Guelph in the early eighties. I've seen a lot of farmers embrace a lot of technologies, but as I said, technology has often not embraced us as far as our bottom line goes. We need to have appropriate technologies--my emphasis is on the word “appropriate”--whether that is plant breeding, livestock, or the equipment we use on the farm, to ensure our bottom dollar is affected in a positive way. The methane digesters, which some people are developing on their farms, and biodiesels are good technologies, but they need a lot more work.
We do have an issue in the National Farmers Union with growing food for fuel. The world stockpile of food is at an all-time low. I was in New York City this September, and they only have three days of food at one time. It's the same in Washington and in Canada. Around the world, stockpiles are at an all-time low. A lot of these technologies are actually creating poverty and hunger. We have to be very careful about taking good arable land out of production for growing food and growing fuel instead.
The conversion ratio for what it actually costs in natural resources to grow that food that's going to be turned into fuel just isn't there yet. We need to do a lot more work on that technology before we get too excited about it. And of course a lot of industries are going to profit very nicely from that technology, especially the seed and technology companies that are pushing for that.
So I would provide a caution on that. But certainly I'm a progressive farmer, and I embrace what I believe is going to be environmentally and morally responsible. I weigh things a lot more broadly than just embracing the latest technology.
:
I find this very interesting because when I was appointed as spokesperson for agriculture in 2005, one of the first activities I took part in was a large demonstration, the theme of which was “D'abord nourrir notre monde” (Feed our People First), and it was organized by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec in the heart of downtown Montreal.
There are not very many farmers there, so why was it held in Montreal, right in the city? It was to show consumers, many of whom obviously live in cities, that many of the products they find in grocery stores come from nearby farms and that, if we were ever to lose what our farmers provide, we would become completely dependent on farmers from other countries and, with a bit of bad luck at some point, this could cause shortages in certain sectors, disease, out-of-control and uncontrollable price hikes and so on.
The subject had therefore already been raised. That is why I am saying that I find it interesting. Just recently, the Union des producteurs agricoles and Équiterre invited MPs to come and listen to speakers talking about food sovereignty.
I find this interesting because we are sort of drawing a parallel with what happened in the cultural industry. Quebec had been a forerunner in that area, asking that culture not be considered a commodity in international trade. It took seven years, but it managed to have culture excluded and not be considered commodities; in other words, to have cultural diversity finally gain recognition.
I would like you to summarize, if you can, the discussions on food sovereignty held in your area. That could fuel the debate here, too.
I've been invited to meetings with the Quebec UPA, the UPA DI also. The National Farmers Union are members of la Via Campesina, which is an international farm organization that represents hundreds of millions of farmers and fisherfolk all around the world. It's the alternative to IFAP.
I have the international food sovereignty declaration here. Food sovereignty cannot be redefined. As you describe food sovereignty, that's exactly what it is. It is respecting people's right to culturally appropriate food. When I spoke earlier today, a lot of my language was really based on food sovereignty. We're so tied to our trade agreements. They actually are null and void of consideration for human rights and culture. And food is not a right, because if you give somebody a right, you can take it away again. Food is something that everybody should have access to, and food sovereignty ensures that.
Actually, I was in Africa this year, and so was Kalissa. We were invited to attend the International Forum for Food Sovereignty. It was the first-ever international forum on food sovereignty. We met in West Africa, in a tiny little village in the middle of the desert. It was no Sheraton, believe me. We slept on concrete floors, on mattresses this thick. Five hundred people from all around the world who are fisherfolks and peasants and pastoralists and farmers met together and came up with a consensus document, and this is what it is. This is the international food sovereignty declaration.
We believe that if governments use this as a basis and a foundation for agricultural policy and food policy--and this also talks about economic stability, that we should be economically stable if we are producing food--we would in fact have incredible prosperity. We would have vibrant communities. We would be protecting the environment. Consumers would benefit, farmers would benefit, the environment would benefit. It's like a win, win, win.
Food sovereignty is an excellent model. But let me remind you that it cannot be redefined. This is a declaration that was brought together...and the 500 of us represented millions of farmers. It was a real honour to be there. There were representatives there from UPA DI. They were there as observers only. They couldn't actually participate, because they're not members. They had not really engaged.
:
Well, I just quickly wrote down three, so I'm going to stick with three.
First of all, there is money. We have to be able to make a living. That's simple. Everybody has to be able to make a living. We need to be paid appropriately for what we're doing, and all farmers need to do that. Until all farmers are making enough money, young farmers are not going to be interested in getting into this. They're going to be moving to Ottawa and getting jobs with you guys.
The second thing is--and this is where it starts getting a little bit vague--we need to reinstill the pride in farming. Farmers have been marginalized so terribly in the last 30 years. When I was growing up, nobody wanted to be a farmer. It's starting to change now a little bit, but farmers have been pushed down so far into the ground that there's no pride. Rural communities are so devastated. What I get asked every day is why I would want to live in a small town in Saskatchewan. So we need to put that back into it somehow.
This is a good occupation, and there is a lot of opportunity for young people to make a good living and to have a really great life. We need to somehow bring that pride back.
The third thing I wrote down quickly was community, and that goes in with the pride thing. Young people need to feel as though they have a community they can be a part of and contribute to in a rural area as they're farming. When I say this, I'm thinking specifically of Saskatchewan. That's really my only reference point. There are so many areas in Saskatchewan where there are no neighbours. You don't have neighbours. You live on a farm, and your nearest neighbour is 10 miles away. I know that's probably hard for you guys to relate to, but that's the reality of the situation. Nobody wants to live like that. People aren't going to live like that, so we need to turn that around as well.
Those are, quickly, my three points.