:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
My name is Dan Paszkowski, and I'm the president of the Canadian Vintners Association, better known as the CVA in this presentation. Sitting next to me is Luke Hartford, the vice-president of the CVA.
We are the national association of the Canadian wine industry. We represent the wineries across Canada responsible for more than 90% of annual wine production. Our members are engaged in the entire wine value chain, from grape growing and farm management to harvesting, production, bottling, research, retail sales, and tourism.
Our industry is a growing one. It is changing amid a global revolution in grape growing, wine production, wine marketing, and consumer tastes. Our members have made significant long-term investments that are inherently tied to terroir or the land. Newly planted vineyards need up to four years to provide a harvest, and unlike other manufacturing businesses, once planted, the vineyard cannot simply get up and move to another country. We are very much tied to the land.
Today, we have more than 400 grape-based wineries producing in six provinces across Canada. We support over 1,000 grape growers and roughly 11,500 jobs.
Canada is a fast-growing wine market, with total annual sales of approximately 460 million litres, valued at almost $6 billion. Since 2003, per capita consumption has grown by almost 40% to 16.2 litres, about 20 bottles per person, which makes Canada an extremely attractive market for any country to sell their wine products in.
We have a growing and sophisticated wine consumer base, but imported wines dominate with 68% of total wine sales. This foreign domination is the exact reverse of most other major wine-producing countries, such as Spain, where domestic wines account for 96% of market share, and Italy, where they account for 94%.
The future of the Canadian wine industry depends, in large part, on continuously adapting to changing domestic and global markets. Twenty years ago, in response to foreign competition and the signing of the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canadian winemakers made significant innovations, including a switch to higher quality grapes, the establishment of VQA standards, the development of wine country tourism, and the promotion of icewine.
Increased foreign competition transformed the Canadian wine industry and enhanced the competitiveness of the Canadian grape and wine sector. This did not come without a cost. Today, foreign competition has reduced Canadian wine sales from 49% in 1987, before free trade, to its current level of 32%. It remains an industry goal to once again command 50% of total wine sales by the year 2020.
While innovation will continue to be a critical driver behind our success, our immediate challenge is to improve access to both domestic and international markets, grow our consumer base, and provide our winemakers with the same oenological tools and approval processes to match our international competition.
A key priority of GF2 must be the unrestricted interprovincial movement of goods. Interprovincial barriers to wine trade are alive and strong in Canada. It remains illegal to deliver or ship wine across provincial borders due to federal legislation known as the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, a law passed in 1928.
Canadian consumers increasingly expect and want to purchase wines in the manner of their choosing, whether at liquor boards, winery tasting rooms, wine clubs, or over the Internet. Today’s consumer wants convenience and a greater choice of Canadian wines.
Wine savvy consumers are part of a rapidly growing interactive social network, and social media offers wineries an effective tool for achieving our e-commerce goals. Yet our ability to effectively use these modern marketing tools is largely restricted by the federal law.
It was not the intent 80 years ago for federal law to discourage interprovincial trade, impede Canada’s competitiveness, and restrict market growth. Yet the unfortunate consequence is that an out-of-province Canadian tourist cannot visit a winery and take wine home with him or herself. Furthermore, out-of-province consumers cannot order our wines directly from their homes.
It is vital that the IILA be sufficiently amended, as proposed in Bill , with the goal of establishing a reasonable personal exemption to permit Canadian wine consumers to order and have wine shipped directly to their residence from an out-of-province winery. Consumer interest and exposure to Canadian wines would stimulate new sales and tourism opportunities and create increased opportunities for jobs, economic growth, and additional federal and provincial tax revenues.
The Canadian wine industry has benefited from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s AgriMarketing program, known as AMP, and its predecessors dating back to 2000. AMP activities have supported participation in prestigious international wine competitions, development of promotional materials, and attracted respective influencers, including foreign wine writers and sommeliers, to experience Canada’s wine and wine regions.
AMP has also supported the Canadian wine industry’s engagement in international trade policy discussions. These efforts have helped support harmonization of national and international standards, elimination of barriers to trade, and promoted the sharing of information to ensure science-based decision-making. In addition, AMP has helped improve market share in traditional markets, expand exports into emerging markets, promote Canadian wines in Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, and provided brand exposure to elevate our international sales profile.
In light of fierce global competition, GF2 should continue to support AMP through a well-funded, timely, and business friendly program that is cognizant of the reality of business operations.
Foreign wine producers around the world are financially supported by their national and regional governments, for both export and domestic marketing programs, to support wine sales and economic development. For example, EU wine reform dedicated $1.2 billion to support the marketing of wine over the period 2008 to 2012. Our foreign competitors are using government funding for their marketing efforts in Canada. Annually, wine producing nations hold country-specific wine tastings in major centres across Canada to build brand and country exposure. These successful ventures have resulted in market share growth and the development of relationships with key retailers, namely the liquor boards.
To help the Canadian wine industry cultivate a stronger internal market, we recommend that the federal government officially proclaim the week leading up to Thanksgiving Day as National Wine and Food Week. This would provide the impetus for farm producers, industry associations, communities, retailers, restaurants, and all Canadians to “go local” and take notice of the excellent wine and food that farm businesses across Canada have to offer. This will also open the door for new domestic sales opportunities and generate greater demand for home-grown products, with significant economic spinoffs for local businesses.
Proclamation of a national wine and food week should be supported by federal sponsorship of domestic market development activities. For example, past programs, such as Canada à la carte, were very successful in promoting Canadian wine and food products across the country. Alternatively, adding a domestic component to the AMP would also support the same objective.
Finally, Canada has strengthened its relationship with key international partners and continues to harmonize technical requirements and standards. Additives and processing aids are a critical part of the Canadian wine industry’s future competitiveness, and Growing Forward 2 should seek opportunities to revise the current approval processes to allow for international equivalences based on sound science. This is particularly true for wine additives or processing aids that are not approved for use by Canadian winemakers but are permitted for use in foreign wines sold in Canada under existing oenological practices agreements.
The federal government needs to identify and track where Canada is behind other wine producing countries and dedicate resources toward greater harmonization in support of competitiveness and jobs.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
:
Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for inviting me here today.
My name is Kevin Klippenstein. I'm the chair of the Organic Farming Institute of B.C. We're situated in Cawston, B.C., the organic capital of Canada.
The institute has created three courses to date: introduction to organic soil management and nutrient cycles, organic soil management practices and transitioning to organic methods, and organic soil management field training. We're also now working on developing another course on ground crops, to be completed by spring 2012.
My wife, Annamarie, and I also run a successful organic market garden in B.C., which we started from scratch 10 years ago on five acres of land. We now farm 40 acres of mixed fruit and vegetables, selling everything at Vancouver farmers' markets. On November 18, we were recognized as Canada's outstanding young farmer of the year for 2011.
Organic agriculture offers compelling solutions for today's challenges in agriculture. Organic is a low-input system that has much to offer all agriculture in terms of innovative methods to reduce input costs and reliance among producers. Organic relies on the science of crop rotation, nutrient cycling, and integrated pest management. It is shown to increase biodiversity and resilience on and around the farm, to sequester carbon in the soil and reduce energy usage on the farm, and can lead to lower nutrient runoff into our waterways. These are challenges that all agriculture seeks to address.
I believe one priority area for Growing Forward 2 is to encourage young and new farmers into the industry. Organic production tends to offer an attractive financial model with a market growth, high customer demand, and fair income for farm families. Organic farming attracts a high number of new entrants to farming, which in turn requires significant knowledge transfer, infrastructure supports, and extension services. The Organic Farming Institute has begun creating courses because we found an educational need and wanted to fill that gap.
When I started farming 10 years ago, there was not much out there for organic agriculture courses. We need mentorship and apprenticeship programs for young people to get into the industry. We personally have created a successful on-farm mentorship program on our farm, which has been running for the last five years with no government support and has turned out over 20 young farmers already. Growing Forward 2 should address support for such programs. Agriculture Canada also needs to keep supportive programs such as Outstanding Young Farmer to recognize leaders in agriculture and help promote excellence in agriculture.
A second priority area is to improve infrastructure and services to the organic industry. Growing Forward needs to bring back the organic extension agent. Extension services and outreach will [Inaudible--Editor]...to grow with the organic community and its public support. It is essential to new and young farmers who are just finding their way around certification and the regulations that must be followed, and also to the seasoned farmers who are diversifying to help diminish risk.
Growing Forward should put funds towards physical infrastructure at the farm level to help with such things as season extension technologies, including hoop houses, greenhouses, and geothermal and solar technologies; and items such as food processing equipment that enhance the ability of farmers to help store their crops, such as coolers, freezers, and dryers. The reason our farm has succeeded is that we have put up our own coolers, freezers, and dryers on farm winter storage. We use hoop houses to extend the growing season and solar and geothermal on our farm, which enable us to sell our produce year round.
A third priority is to support the establishment of permanent farmers' markets. Farmers' markets enable small family farms to be competitive in the marketplace by providing a place for farmers to sell products locally, reducing the carbon footprint. Selling at farmers' markets allows for more return directly to the farmer, thus helping farmers to farm year round and not depend on outside employment to sustain the farm.
Look at us, for example. Since we started farming 10 years ago, we have sold 99% of everything we grow through farmers' markets. That is what helped us to succeed by creating year round cashflow. Local farm markets are now responsible for over $1 billion in sales across the country. That generates more than $3 billion in economic spinoffs. I know that this year alone, Vancouver's top four markets have done over $4 million in sales already.
Permanent infrastructure is very important for helping new and current farmers to be competitive, but it is absolutely critical in B.C., where a majority of produce grown is for the export market. Very little infrastructure exists for large B.C. producers to sell to the domestic population. Nearly no infrastructure exists outside of a few small distributors and small buyers in insecure outdoor farmers' markets for small growers to sell domestically. Without ready, secure outlets and markets to sell domestically, small farmers have no security to build their farm business, develop products, or clientele, etc.
In B.C., this is especially pronounced, as there are over 20,000 small farmers across the province. This is the way farming developed in B.C., on small lots and where only a small percentage of land was arable. B.C. has more small farmers than any other province in Canada. As you know, it has among the highest cost per acre of any region or province. For small farmers to be competitive, new domestic markets must be cultivated, and new infrastructure is required to allow that to happen.
A fourth priority is to level the playing field in the B.C. organic industry by regulating the word “organic”. This is an uneven playing field and there is consumer confusion in the B.C. organic marketplace due to the implementation of the national regulations. Currently in B.C., nationally certified operations can refer to their product only as “organic”. Any non-organic operation, regardless of their practices, can also refer to their product as “organic”, unless deemed false and misleading by CFIA. Regionally certified operators can and do continue to use the phrase "certified organic" in an effort to distinguish their products from those making unsubstantiated claims. We feel that in Growing Forward 2, there needs to be more marketing put in place to bring awareness to organic practices.
A fifth priority is in regard to GMOs. Genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered crops need to be extinguished. We still do not know all of the implications of these items or what they will do to our food. It is vital to farmers that they can save their own seed. The ability of some large corporations to own seed, or DNA in seeds—which can then move into another farmer's field—makes it really hard for farmers to save their own seed.
The input of GMOs has caused conflict in the organic industry, as the farmers fear cross-contamination. For example, we grow over 200 varieties of tomatoes. As you may or may not know, there is a tomato on the market that has a fish gene in it to make it last longer on the store shelf. We do not want that gene passed into our fields and contaminating our seeds. With over 250 varieties of tomatoes, they are a show-stopper at the markets and a major income source for our farm. If they are crossed with a fish or animal gene, we would lose our organic certification and our reputation in the marketplace. We cannot legalize contamination from unapproved GM foods. Low-level presence is unacceptable and unjustifiable.
On labelling, for competitiveness reasons, all foods should be labelled with ingredients, including GMO and genetically engineered ones. It is the consumer's right to make an educated choice when buying food. Any nutrient label on any packaged or processed food should include any GMO or GE item within the product.
In conclusion, as farmers and educators, we feel that Growing Forward 2 should be putting money towards the following: labelling of GMO and GE products and food; helping farmers save their own seed; educating the consumer on organic at the national and provincial levels; establishing permanent markets and infrastructure to sell domestically; improving infrastructure and services to the organic industry, such as the organic extension agent and physical infrastructure at the farm level; and putting money towards new and young farmers through apprenticeships, mentorship programs, access to land, and educational services.
Thank you. I'm looking forward to answering your questions.
:
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I do have a presentation, copies of which will be circulated later. I didn't have time to have it translated.
We look at competitiveness from a business school perspective. I also farmed for 20 years, so I also look at it from that perspective. One of the things we do is try to figure out what farming is going to look like in the future and whether farmers are going to be competitive on the global scale, and we then think about the implications of that for Growing Forward. So I'll go through what I think things are going to look like in the future, and then I'll talk about the implications.
To be competitive, Canadian farmers and food companies—and I think we should think about all of that—need to be much more market-focused than they have been in the past. They need to be more international—and that is continuing. They also need to be more connected to their customers, to each other, and to the public. The people sitting beside me are a very good example of how you can build a good business on the basis of that.
We're seeing much more diversified operations in agriculture than we've seen in the past, and not all of that diversification is agriculture related. We're also seeing a shift in the use of resources, because farming is now becoming a multi-million-dollar business, and some farmers are looking at it from the perspective that other businesses do, namely, that they don't have to own all of the resources they use to actually run their business. We're also seeing farmers really looking at becoming much more accountable and much more sustainable. That will continue in the future.
Farmers also have responsibilities to society, and with those come opportunities. On the one hand, we look at feeding nine billion people, and that means there are new markets that are exploding around the world, particularly India and China. There are elements of those that are really attractive. We're finding out a lot more about the relationship between food and health, and that means new opportunities both for farmers and food companies—and that continues to expand.
The whole area of replacing oil is a factor, and not so much in the biofuel space but actually with some really interesting stuff that's is happening in the bioproduct space and with biochemicals, because then you can insert biomass early in the process and you don't have to change the rest of the supply chain.
Then other major factors concern farmers' adaptations as part of the solution to reducing climate change.
If we think about farmers—successful, competitive farmers in the future—we lump them into a couple of categories. Farmers in those categories will have to be very clear and understand how they're competing. Some are playing in global commodity markets: they're in industrial products markets or in energy markets. You're a commodity in that space, and so you need to be cost-focused, very productive, and also responsive to shifts in the global markets. On the other side, you see farmers who are operating in high-value niche markets. In that case, you need to be differentiating your product and you need to be highly innovative. That means continually connecting with consumers, figuring out what they need, and really getting it to them. Both groups are going to have to be sustainable, more sustainable and more accountable than they've been in the past, and health will play a big role, particularly in the niche.
The other thing that is going to make a difference in the future—and I'm not sure everybody gets it in the sector—is that there are really three levels of management that are happening in agriculture. One is traditional farm business management, which I did when I ran my farm and that farmers do right now. We're pretty good at that space, but when it gets up to moving into creating co-operatives, creating networks to connect with organic customers or local food customers, that's a whole different space, because the realities change, and so being able to manage networks and being effective in managing networks...[Inaudible--Editor].
The one piece that's absolutely critical is this whole piece of industry leadership, because the industry leaders are the people who define research strategies, who define trade strategies, and who interact with you as policy-makers to try to influence policy. From the research we see and in my experience, farmers sometimes have a hard time shifting from being farmers to industry leaders. That's actually one of the reasons we are starting a one-week “I the Executive” development program, strictly aimed at directors of agricultural organizations, because we just see that as a huge need.
What will help farmers compete in the future? It will be market research to understand their customers, both at home and abroad, and then focused market development initiatives.
Some of the policies right now do the following. If you go into a new market, we'll support you; but if you're just developing in the same market, we're not going to. That doesn't make any sense, if you're trying to really extract value from a Chinese market, for example.
We need support for innovation in both products and processes, and the process piece is one we don't tend to pick up as much. The work we've done with food processors shows they're doing of an equal amount of both.
I recommend investment in new technology, new products, and risk management tools that address real risks quickly and effectively, and maybe don't waste money on other things.
To me, one of the things that I would like to see is a shift in focus and investment, from putting almost all of our money into BRM programs, to really talking about some of the new opportunities. Whenever we talk as a group, what you hear are all kinds of discussions about new opportunities, new markets, and issues with regulation. When people look ahead, they don't think farm income. They think it's a basis, but they don't think this is where their future is going to be determined.
We've done a fair amount of looking at farm income. Just to give you a sample of the sorts of differences involved between large and small farms, if you take the smallest farms under $100,000—there are 73,000 of them—and compare them to the 2,000 biggest at $2.5 million and over, you will see the shrinking of the smallest and big growth in the largest. One of the things that you see from those 73,000 farmers is that they sold about $2.9 billion in product. The 2,000 biggest ones sold almost $12 billion. For the smaller farmers, it takes almost $18 of assets to produce $1 of revenue; for the larger ones, it's takes $2.31 to produce a $1 of revenue. From a competitiveness perspective, that's a significant imbalance. Also, when we look at off-farm income, the smallest farmers as a percentage of sales are at about 111%. They earn more off-farm than they actually sell on-farm. For the largest farms, it's about 0.5%. So there's a very big difference there.
That means you really need to think differently about policy, because there's no way in you-know-what that one policy will address the competitiveness of both those groups. We do see small farmers who are competitive, if they connect to attractive markets; but, as a class, they basically always lose money. There's this population curve that looks like this, and there's an income curve that looks like this.
Also, if you think ahead in terms of investment and how this is going to change in the future, you will see that the largest farms—the ones over $1 million—are investing almost $300,000. The biggest ones are investing over $500,000. The smallest farms are investing $7,000 to $10,000 a year on average. So you know that difference is going to continue.
We're getting a little concerned about the level of debt that farms are taking on, and the extent to which land is being bid up.
What should we do to be more competitive? I think we need to ask ourselves if we want to put all of our money, or most of our money, into BRM programs. I think we should shift some of it into investing more in innovation, into improving productivity at all levels, and into research and development. By this I mean some of the basic research like crop research and animal research. We're moving out of that space, but I still think that's an important underpinning. We need to invest in new market development and also in food industrial processing.
What works? It's really a matter of focusing on key objectives and key markets. We've seen some good examples of that. I'll talk about them later.
It's important to be regionally connected within a national framework. One of the things we've noticed is that national frameworks are great for setting policy, but that the regional or provincial adaptation councils, and things like that, seem to be a very good model, because you have industry players who know the sector, who know the businesses and can help direct investment.
I'm a researcher. I'm well-funded, but there's a small pool of money, about $1.25 million, that goes to fund five networks across the country. I know that's up to be cut. I wonder why you wouldn't want some of the smartest people in the country doing research on policy questions relating to agriculture. I don't quite see that it makes a lot of sense.
We also need improved access to StatsCanada data. That place is a big problem in terms of its funding....
Some of the challenges include the lack of a national strategy; industry structure, which I mentioned; lagging innovation and productivity. Regulation and interprovincial barriers to trade, I think, are important issues, and they've been raised before. I'm encouraged by the Regulatory Cooperation Council trying to coordinate better with the States. I think that's really good. As for the singular focus on BRM programs, right now is not a bad time to make a switch, since everybody is doing better than they've done for quite a few years. There's a lack of distribution networks to help smaller farmers access organic, local opportunities. We need to build some of those networks. Another challenge is leadership at the industry level. Also of significant risk to the future of competitiveness is the high value of land and the high value of quotas.
Thank you very much.
:
We have been looking at amending the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act for many, many years. We first attempted to work with the liquor boards to establish and put in place a personal exemption. However, we had no success. Their alternative was to make an attempt to sell more 100% Canadian wines in their retail stores across Canada. That has happened to a certain degree, but not to a level that would enhance our competitiveness and grow our market share in Canada.
Taking a look at Mr. Albas's bill, the best benchmark that we have is the United States. In 2005, the Supreme Court made a ruling to open up the borders to interstate trade in wine. Since 2005, 37 states have amended their state laws to allow for direct-to-consumer delivery, including 70% of controlled states in the U.S., the equivalent of the liquor board system we have here.
The total direct-sales market in the U.S. represents about 2% of total wine production, of which 1% would be wine purchased at the tasting room—in other words, the type of sales that are taking place right now. When he's selling a case of wine to a tourist in his winery, the vinter has no idea whether that consumer is an Ontario or a British Columbia resident. It's a sale.
The other 1% of direct sales in the U.S. are shipped by the vintner from a tasting room to another state, through a winery wine club, via the Internet. Believe it or not, you can sell wine on the Internet in the United States. Or it's done over the telephone or that form of direct shipment. That's what we're seeking here in Canada. We anticipate that it would probably be similar or about 1% of total Canadian wine sales.
Now, speaking about 100% Canadian wines, not the international Canadian blends, 95% of the international Canadian blends sell for under $10 a bottle. Shipping a bottle of wine from British Columbia to Ontario, or vice versa, costs roughly $4 per bottle, so you're looking at wines that are probably over the $15 price point.
If you follow that mechanism of 1% of total VQA sales in Canada, you're looking at probably somewhere between 25,000 to 30,000 cases of wine per year. That's a small amount in comparison to total wine sales in Canada, which approach 500 million litres, but it would be extremely beneficial to the small and medium sized wineries, most of which can't access the liquor board system. It would encourage their ability to grow, it would keep more margin in their pockets, and it would give Canadian consumers an opportunity to taste the fantastic wines that we have, thereby encouraging the liquor boards to sell more 100% Canadian wines. As a result, when they're stocking more wines on their shelves, they're going to make more sales.
The wines we're talking about aren't currently sold in the liquor board system. If they were, you wouldn't want to purchase them and pay the $4 a bottle transportation charge. These wines are not available because liquor boards are not listing them.
:
In regard to the strategy, there are a number of initiatives. The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute has one; the Federation of Agriculture has one: and now the Conference Board of Canada is starting into this space. The common themes you see in a national food strategy are that somehow we have to make sure this industry remains competitive on an international scale, because we do compete. We sell a lot globally and we have to compete with imports. That's come up very clearly.
The second leg of that whole thing tends to focus on the issue of food and health. So what are we doing, first, to take the unhealthy ingredients out of food and, second, to add more healthy ingredients, and what are we doing to change the way people consume food and think about food as well?
Looking ahead, whatever we do needs to be sustainable, and farmers understand sustainability because they have to. But it's becoming much more significant, and it's going to be driven from a number of sources; for example, the Walmart initiative is going to change the way a lot of people have to deal with it. So there are those three elements.
In terms of the benefits to the country of having a national food strategy, first of all, a national food strategy has to be a pretty big picture and say these are the large targets. We want to increase our exports by so much. We want to expand organic local agriculture by so much. We need to have some specific targets, but at a very high level.
If you do that—and this is why I've been talking to industry leaders a lot—then it's easy for government to ask what policies would align with that strategy and make sense and what policies would actually impede that. Some of the regulatory issues are obvious impediments to achieving a healthy diet, for example, and the ability to even talk about a healthy diet.
So there's that interaction between the two. I've been encouraging the three main groups that are doing it to get together—and they have been slowly coming together, but not very quickly—and come up with a national food strategy to say here's what we're going to do. I think the CAPI one is probably the closest, but the Federation of Agriculture's aligns very nicely too.
Realistically, is that going to reshape Growing Forward? I've been involved with the national consultations on that, and I don't get a huge sense that the national food strategy is going to come into play fast enough to really influence the Growing Forward policy framework. But there are elements that are very clear: what can we do to support more innovation through the Growing Forward; what can we do to support more international market development; and what are the things we can do as programs that will support sustainability? It's those elements, and also, within the BRM programs, looking at those to see which ones make sense and which are probably not doing exactly what we want.
:
Thank you very much, Larry, and thanks to all of you for being here.
I'll direct my questions to Annamarie and Kevin, if you don't mind.
First of all, congratulations on winning the Canadian outstanding young farmer's award. You also won the B.C. young farmer's award, so very well done. Thank you, and thanks for being here.
I visited your farm and I can see why.... I saw how you went from your double-wide and five acres with no experience to something like 40 acres, a beautiful house, and mentors. It's just an amazing success story.
Thank you for your position on GMOs.
I'd like you to share some of your success story and recommendations with us. You're also very much involved in the organic institute. Kevin, you are the president. You mentioned that you would like to offer another course on ground crops in the spring. I think it would be interesting for the committee to hear how you would do that. I know it would be online, plus hands-on.
The other thing is this whole farm mentorship idea. You have people living, working, and gaining experience there, and then going into agriculture. What role could government play to make it even better?
On my last question, if I remember correctly you almost farm year round with your set-up of greenhouses. How can government assist farmers in doing that so we can get produce going year round?
That's probably enough for my five minutes. Go for it.
:
There are lots of interesting ideas around that, and there's a different way of thinking now than when you were under the gun and you had to get cash to get going.
I'm going to move on to the Klippensteins.
I want to congratulate you on the outstanding young farmer award. Actually, I was nominated for that program back in '03-'04 in Saskatchewan. I didn't win, but it's a good program.
Mr. Valeriote: In 1903?
Some hon. members:Oh, oh!
Mr. Randy Hoback: You're not going to put that in my time, are you?
It's interesting. We both come from the same Outstanding Young Farmers program, but we're at different ends of the scale when it comes to the different types of production.
As a legislator, my role here is to make sure that Canadians have safe food and food they can afford. When we go through our role of dictating legislation or regulations around food safety, that's foremost in our minds. We really don't care if it's organic or not. We really don't care if it's GMO or not, because science would prove whether it's safe or not. It's hard for me to say, and to hear you say, that we should get rid of all the farmers who grow GMO, just so we can have an organic sector based on market.
Basically you're saying you're marketing organics because you perceive them to be safer. But we have no science-based facts to say that. If we did, we would do that. We, as legislators, would say if a type of food were no longer safe for you to eat.
Then it comes back to what you're really doing, which is marketing a product, and you're doing it based on, maybe, people's feelings, or wishes, or wants. That's fine, that's the free marketplace. But it's hard for me as a legislator to say that I can support you on that, because I can't.
Then I come back to you, because it's going to be really tough as we move forward, as we see more GMO crops and different varieties come forward. Alfalfa is a good example. I can look at GMO alfalfa and probably say it's safe to eat and everything else. There are all sorts of reasons in the organic sector not to do it. But there seems to be no willingness in the organic sector to look at low-level presence, because they are just marketing organic, and the definition of organic can be 90%, or it can be 85%. It's something the industry can decide will be the organic label for Canada, but they seem unwilling to do it.
How do we move forward? Is there any way to move forward? The reality is that GMOs aren't going anywhere. How are you going to survive? The reality is that you're going to be forced to survive with low-level presence. How are you going to react to that situation?
As chair, I'm going to take the prerogative to ask a couple of follow-up questions.
Mr. Paszkowski, I appreciate and understand your frustration with the cross-provincial border thing. I wish you good luck in your fight with that. It's something that should have been ended a long time ago in a lot of provinces.
I was originally a farmer in my other life, and that would always frustrate me. We were sitting beside Quebec, which supports its agriculture much more than the Province of Ontario did. I give Quebec credit for that, but there were some other transborder issues that were unfair to Ontario. The sooner all of those are gone, the better. I wish you good luck there.
To the Klippensteins, congratulations on getting your farmers award. I think that's very prestigious. I've had a couple in my own riding who have won the Ontario version of that. It's very commendable, so congratulations on that.
I have a couple points. My wife does most of the shopping in our family, but being in Ottawa, I do a little bit. When I go into a grocery store, whether it's my wife or me, if it doesn't say “organic”, we presume it isn't.
Is that a fair assumption?