EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 16, 1996

.0852

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

Ladies and gentlemen, since this meeting is starting 15 minutes earlier than usual, I think what we'll do for the first two or three minutes - hopefully no longer, but if necessary we can set it aside - is just go over the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure before we have the first witness.

The report outlines the discussion from the steering committee. First is the series of meetings we're in this week on the draft organic food production regulations.

The second issue would be an additional meeting to the one we already had talked about, on the hopper car issue.

The third item is that the committee request the budget number. There may be a question to the clerk on that issue.

Four, at the conclusion of I believe the last meeting, I said as chair of the committee I would put out a press release outlining to folks the agenda, as ambitious as it is, for the committee for this spring and maybe leading into the fall. In that we talked about giving the opportunity to people to come forward to the committee with their views on rural development in Canada.

The fifth is the series of meetings that are on the estimates.

This isn't the order in which they will happen. Remember, we had adapted an earlier report that had issues on that one as well, and that would be prior to these.

Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): I have just a couple of things, Mr. Chairman.

The wording here says ``an additional budget of $10,000''. Are we talking about in addition to something else, or are we just talking about a budget of $10,000?

The Chairman: I'll ask the clerk to speak to that.

The Clerk of the Committee: It's a budget of $10,000. We basically were in a deficit position toward the end of March. This is $10,000 until the end of fiscal year 1995-96. So it's in addition to what we already had. I think for fiscal year 1995-96 we had a total budget of about $35,000.

.0855

Mr. Hermanson: So it was $45,000 less whatever deficit there was last year.

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: The other question, Mr. Chair, is on point two, which says, ``a producer coalition led by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association''. There was some talk about some Ontario organizations looking at the hopper car issue, but unless you're talking about another coalition, this coalition is not led by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association.

The Chairman: I'll ask the clerk to explain that one.

The Clerk: Perhaps that's a poor choice of words on my part. There are indeed several Ontario producer organizations involved. The contact that was made to my office was being coordinated by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association. But you're quite right, there are several groups involved. I am not sure they lead per se. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words.

Mr. Hermanson: I would say it's misleading. The main coalition, or the instigators of this whole decision to buy the producer cars, were western Canadian farm organizations, including the National Farmers Union, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Now there's been some interest by some of these other Ontario organizations to have a look at that.

So in my opinion, that's not accurate.

Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): There are wheat producers in Ontario.

Mr. Hermanson: But that's not the coalition that's been -

The Chairman: The clerk can clarify this. I believe the other group is certainly invited as well.

Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Is the Reform Party saying Ontario is not important?

The Chairman: Just a minute, Mr. Pickard. We'll let the clerk answer. He knows better than to say that.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, basically two producer car coalitions have been formed. One, you're quite right, is mostly western based, and another one is Ontario based. Both coalitions are being invited to appear before the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Item 5 refers to additional meetings of the committee.

I want to talk about a problem that has surfaced in Quebec and in Ontario. I'm referring to raw milk.

I don't know if the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is going to look into this problem or what position it plans to adopt with respect to Quebec and Ontario in terms of regulating raw milk.

[English]

The Chairman: Those regulations, Mr. Landry, are regulations that are being gazetted by the health ministry at this time. I don't know when the date started, but they're put forward and gazetted for 75 days for public comment, as you're aware. I suppose if there is a request for the steering committee to discuss whether this group wants to hear comments on that, it can be put forward before the steering committee.

I remind all of us - and I'm not saying this is not an important issue and doesn't affect Canadian agriculture producers and the whole industry - that we do have a very ambitious agenda ahead of us between now and the end of June. The more we put in, the more we may have to pull out as far as having opportunity to discuss it.

For a matter of information, I do remind all of us that if we know groups of people who would wish to comment, we should make sure they're aware of the process that is always in place. These potential regulations have been gazetted for 75 days for public comment, after which the Department of Health will review the comments and then take action accordingly.

Are there any further comments on the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure? If not, can we have indication as to the action you wish taken? Don't all sit on your hands. Are you for it, are you against it or will you all sit here?

Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): I would move that we adopt the agenda as proposed.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I second the motion.

Mr. Hermanson: Wasn't there some discussion on the steering committee about also having some discussion on the safety net issue?

The Chairman: That, I believe, was on the first report. That's the report we adopted before this one. So that should still be there.

Mr. Hermanson: That's still on the agenda.

The Chairman: I would say so.

Mr. Hermanson: So that is not going to get lost because we adopt this.

The Chairman: I certainly hope not.

Monsieur Landry, any more comments?

Mr. Landry: No.

.0900

The Chairman: The question is on the motion that we adopt this second report.

Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a number of witnesses this morning. We have the room until 11 a.m., and we have three witnesses before the committee this morning for their comments and so that we can discuss with them their comments on the draft organic food production regulations. So we need to judge ourselves accordingly. This doesn't mean to say we must give that much time or each witness has to take that much time, but we do have three to deal with in the next two hours.

Our first witness is from Canadian Organic Growers. We have Anne Macey, the past president.

Anne, we'll turn the microphone over to you and maybe you can tell us a little bit more about yourself and your organization. Welcome.

Ms Anne Macey (Past President, Canadian Organic Growers): I'm the past president of Canadian Organic Growers. I've been involved with the organization for a long time. I've also been involved with the development of the organic food regulations.

Canadian Organic Growers is a federally incorporated registered charity. For over 20 years we have been an organic information and networking resource for Canada, promoting the methods of organic growing along with the environmental, health, and social benefits.

Our members number 1,600 currently across the country. They include farmers, gardeners, researchers, retailers, consumers - anyone with an interest in organic food production. We produce books such as the Organic Resource Guide, and the Organic Field Crop Handbook, fact sheets, videos, and a quarterly magazine Cognition. We also offer an annual $1,000 scholarship to graduate students undertaking research of benefit to organic growers. We sponsor conferences, workshops, and other events, and we work with other organizations to support the development of organic agriculture in Canada. It is for this reason that we have assisted with the development of the organic food production regulations. We are not a certifying agency for organic production.

Before I go into the reasons we're supporting the regulations, I think it might be useful to have some background on what has been happening. As you may know, organic agriculture is a food production system that promotes and enhances by diversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It aims to achieve sustainable productivity by utilizing environmentally sound methods such as complex rotations, recycling of plant and animal wastes, and encouraging balanced host-predator relationships and the minimal use of external inputs. The use of synthetics, fertilizers, or pesticides is not part of the organic production system.

In the 1970s several organizations promoting these methods, including COG, were formed. By the 1980s the numbers of organic farmers had increased, as did the demand for organic food. Many consumers who lacked a direct relationship with the farmers began to ask for proof that food was in fact grown organically, so several certification agencies were formed across the country to meet this demand for consumer assurance. Many of these were farm organizations, which brought in third-party inspectors to inspect the farms on an annual basis to make sure the methods of production complied with the standards set by the organization.

As the numbers of the certification groups increased, so did consumer confusion. In April 1988 COG organized a conference called ``An Organic Food System for Canada''. One of the recommendations of this conference was that a single, unique visual symbol be created so that consumers could readily identify organic products in the marketplace and that this label be developed in cooperation with producer groups, wholesalers, retailers, and governments.

In November 1988 groups across the country got together and developed a definition, which was then incorporated into the Consumer and Corporate Affairs food labelling guidelines. This definition was later used as the basic description of organic farming in the international Codex guidelines.

.0905

In 1988 and 1990 the COG ad hoc committee on organic food held a series of workshops and recommended that a regulatory framework be developed under which the industry certification and accreditation could operate. In 1990 the Canadian Organic Unity Project started work on developing a national organic production standard, an accreditation system for certifying bodies. This process involved extensive consultation and invited input from everyone involved in the industry. In trying to reach a consensus, proposals were continually modified and finally submitted to Agriculture Canada in December 1992.

The Canadian Organic Advisory Board was set up in March 1993 to service the accreditation agency in Canada. Since then, I'm afraid progress has been slow.

Comments have been received from governments and industry and efforts were made to resolve the issues that arose as the regulations were being drafted. Communications with farmers and organizations proved difficult, especially in the growing season. Also, representatives of the various organizations changed frequently, so viewpoints tended to change.

A lot of volunteer time and effort have gone into the development of these regulations to date. As the process has dragged on, it has become more and more difficult to fund. Canada has now fallen behind other countries in the development of regulations.

In the meantime, IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, has developed an accreditation program for certifying bodies, which they hope will be recognized by national governments for import purposes. Some of the largest certifying groups have opted for IFOAM accreditation to maintain access to international markets rather than wait for a national system. Smaller groups find the cost of IFOAM accreditation prohibitive, so they are hoping for the national system rather than having to go that route.

Now we have draft regulations that define the term ``organic'' with respect to provincial and international trade. If implemented, any product labelled ``organic'' moving out of province would be required to meet the regulations and it would have to have come from an operation certified by an accredited certification body. As such, it would be able to carry the legend or trademark ``Canada Organic''. Imported organic product would have to have been produced under an equivalent system in the country it came from.

There has been some opposition to the regulations for a number of different reasons. Frequently, it seems that they've been a result of misunderstanding and opinions have changed rapidly once explanations have been given and understood. Some people in the organic movement are suspicious of any government involvement and do not want to see the word ``organic'' regulated; on the other hand, they also want to control imports into the country that don't meet industry standards.

Small growers serving local markets are concerned about increased costs. The producers in B.C. saw a need for regulations and went ahead with their own legislation. Now they're concerned about costs for another level.

OCIA International, an international certification agency opposing the regulations, hopes to rely on IFOAM accreditation to provide access to international markets. Again, one of their main concerns was extra expense. However, during the Canadian process, representatives of the Canadian OCIA chapters, with the exception of those in Quebec, have worked in support of national regulations.

Even so, we believe that support for the national regulations is widespread and that if the cost factor were eliminated, you'd hear very few opposition voices. In fact, we have in the regulations a system that doesn't require the participation of small scale producers serving local markets, so it's not really an issue. Also, COAB has continually looked for ways to keep costs down, such as recommending that reports from other accrediting agencies that have equivalent criteria be utilized in the decision-making process, so we don't have to keep repeating the same thing.

Canadian Organic Growers have supported the process since the beginning, and in fact I've been involved in a number of the committees on the project and with COAB. The reasons we're supporting the proposed organic regulations are as follows:

We want protection for the word ``organic'' so it doesn't become as misused and meaningless as the word ``natural''.

We want them as a deterrent against fraud, providing assurance for the consumer and protection from any false and unverifiable claims regarding agricultural products.

.0910

We want an easily identifiable trademark such as ``Canada Organic'' to encourage consumer purchases of Canadian organic products and to assist in consumer education about the benefits of supporting an environmentally sound agricultural system.

We want regulations to provide credibility for Canada's certified organic product and to facilitate access of Canadian product into the rapidly expanding world markets for organic food. Many of our members support the concept of regional food systems and some of them are against supporting any aspect of export agriculture. However, most of us believe that an increase in the number of farmers adopting organic methods will benefit the environment and society. If it is necessary that some of those organic farmers sell their products on the world market to remain viable, then we think they should be helped.

Currently some certified Canadian product is not being accepted in certain European countries, and brokers have reported difficulties exporting it to Sweden and Holland. But there's a lot of growth happening in the industry at the moment. This year we had about 450 people from Ontario and the U.S. at the annual organic conference at the University of Guelph. Growth in the organic food sector in the U.S. has passed all other sectors of the U.S. food industry. Organics are no longer considered a market niche but a market sector. Their organic retail sales were worth $2.3 billion in 1994, with farm-gate sales of $1 billion. We don't have the 1995 figures yet.

Canada is also seeing growth. But in part perhaps because we don't have regulations, growth is considerably lower than in the U.S. and much product is imported to meet consumer demand. Farm-gate sales in Canada are estimated to be between $50 million and $80 million.

We believe that the implementation of organic regulations will help the growth and development of organic agriculture in Canada. We would have preferred to see regulations that reference the standards. Organic standards are dynamic and change as new technology and understanding develop, and changing them in the regulations at regular intervals could be problematic.

We have struggled with the legal department with this issue for some time, and although we've had lots of cooperation from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, there has not been as much flexibility as perhaps we would have liked, even though we were breaking new ground with government support for a self-regulating industry and it was an opportunity for doing things in new ways. Now we think the process shouldn't be delayed any longer and the regulations should be implemented. We want to see the ``Canada Organic'' label as soon as possible, preferably before the end of 1996.

Thank you for the opportunity to make our views known to you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Anne.

We will now go to the members. Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Ms Macey, for appearing before our committee. I found your presentation most helpful.

One of the difficulties I'm having and I suspect many members of the committee are having is trying to decide who really speaks for the organic growers, because there are so many organizations with certifying bodies - COAB, your organization and others.

You said your membership is about 1,600 and your association supports the regulations that are in draft form before us. Can you tell me how your organization reviewed these regulations and how it came to a position of supporting them? What mechanism did you use, and how broad was the consultation with your membership? How did you determine whether you favoured them or opposed them?

Ms Macey: We discussed them at the executive level and at workshops. We didn't go through them line by line; it was more the concept that we had supported since the beginning in discussions with members, in our newsletter. There have been letters and things back and forth. As I pointed out, we do have some members who are against supporting anything to do with export agriculture who, if they think of it as being the only reason for regulations, were anti them. But they still support the concept of having them there as protection for consumers, from that aspect.

The other thing you're seeing is the problem of who represents whom. A lot of the members of the different certifying groups are also members of our organization.

.0915

Mr. Hermanson: That's what I thought. For instance, are you on COAB or did you help elect your COAB representative, and are you in OVONA or OCIA?

Ms Macey: At the beginning of this process, I was one of the farmers elected by all organic farms in Ontario to be on the Canadian Organic Unity Project as a representative for Ontario. Everybody got together at that point, regardless of which organization. I wasn't there as a representative of COG, but just as an individual. My work on the various committees continued when I was chosen to be on on a particular committee for that project.

Mr. Hermanson: So you are definitely speaking for the executive of your organization, but you're not sure if you're speaking for a consensus position of your membership -

Ms Macey: I'm not speaking for the whole membership.

Mr. Hermanson: Okay.

You talk about the word ``organic''. Is your organization suggesting that there should be no labelling using ``organic'' unless the production falls under the regulations as drafted or are you just talking about the phrase ``Canada Organic'' and saying that only ``Canada Organic'' can be used in regard to these regulations?

Ms Macey: We would like to see any use of the word ``organic'' at a retail level fall under the regulations. It should be a certified product and therefore should fall under the regulations. At the moment we're just saying we'll support the regulations, which are only applicable to a product moving across the province. We haven't come to any agreement in our organization as to whether we are then going to push for each province to have a similar regulation so it applies within the province. Ideally we would like to see all product being sold at the retail level certified.

Mr. Hermanson: You mentioned that if the cost factor were eliminated - I am not sure exactly what you meant by cost factor, but I think I know what you meant - there would be broad support for these regulations. We're looking at a time when Agriculture Canada is going to have cost recovery. In other words, all costs are going to be passed on to the producers, and I suspect that the organic producers would also have to pay for the implementation -

Ms Macey: They do.

Mr. Hermanson: - of these regulations. How do you respond to that?

Ms Macey: That has been one of the concerns, because all along organic producers' certifications have been an extra cost. It costs an extra $300 or more a year in order to go through that process. There was a concern that getting accredited was going to cost them another large sum of money on top of that.

At the moment, there have been various proposals for how much this will all cost. I think the lowest level, if you're under $10,000 worth of sales, is only $35. We've managed to keep it down. That has been one of the concerns. People feel they're paying enough already and it is an extra expense.

Mr. Hermanson: Another criticism is that some of the standards are too low. I have had some organic producers tell me that if these regulations are adopted their markets will evaporate, because the bar has been set too low. They already have standards that far exceed this and they won't be properly recognized. They'll be brought down rather than having their markets strengthened.

Ms Macey: I don't think they've been brought down that much. There are one or two groups that have particularly high standards. The standards we have are referred to as minimum standards, but in fact they're fairly strict standards, although there may be one or two issues where they're lower than other groups. They're certainly not lower than international standards. In fact, that's one of the problems. We're being pressured to some extent to lower the standards and people are concerned that we might get more pressure to lower them to meet some of the international standards. We have been against doing that.

I don't think it's going to be any different than it is now for any group. They can market using their own label and the fact that they meet the Canadian standards plus they have their own label.... If they have consumers who want those standards, they're free to do that.

Mr. Hermanson: And here's my last question, Mr. Chairman.

You talked about how you would have preferred reference standards. Would you explain that in a little more detail? This is the first time I've heard that term in relation to this package. Can you explain exactly what you mean and how that might work?

.0920

Ms Macey: I'm not a lawyer so I can't really explain it correctly, but what some of us had originally thought was that there would be a government regulation that said that the legislation, instead of listing all the ``thou shalts'' and ``thou shalt nots'' throughout the document, would say that operators had to meet the standard document of the industry or whoever wrote that reference.

Mr. Hermanson: Would that give more flexibility?

Ms Macey: It would give more flexibility for changing standards if necessary. If at the moment you have something like a permitted materials list in the standards, I don't know how easy it is to go through the process to change specific things that may be out of date within a short time.

There was some concern about that, but then we were told that because we had created this document as Canadian standards specifically for regulations, they couldn't actually reference it. You could only reference standards that had been in use, even though the document we created as an industry in fact took different standards documents that did exist and just sort of put them together and reworked them a little bit. It wasn't as if it was created totally new. Anyway, from the legal side of it, it wouldn't fly.

Mr. Hermanson: So are you convinced that they can't be referenced?

Ms Macey: I think they probably could be, but the lawyers told me otherwise.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed: Ms Macey, I apologize for being in spirited conversation with a colleague of mine when you began your talk. My ears were focused in another direction, and I'm sorry for that.

First of all, I want to say that I admire the fact that you want to keep the standards higher than those of your potential competitors from other countries. There's a clause in the GATT agreement that supports that very much. In other words, if you're at the high end, everyone else had to adhere to those standards.

I don't know whether you'd like to comment on this, but in looking at the regulations, I am somewhat astounded at the detail required for compliance. When you look at all the requirements for compliance, I wonder whether organic farmers will find themselves behind a computer more than they will be out doing what they want to do. I know you're taking this on quite willingly, but....

Ms Macey: Most of the farmers are already doing it. I mean, the farmers we have at the moment are certified. There are 1,500 farmers in Canada who are certified organic, and they're already meeting these standards and they have their farm plans; they have to in order to be certified. So it's not going to be any extra work, because the Canadian standard that we have in the regulations is in fact very similar to the standards that different groups are using.

There may be one or two groups that do not require the level of record keeping that we've asked for in these standards, but there are only a few of them. That seems to be the key, because how can you prove something is organic unless you have the records?

So people are using the methods. Where they get hung up is in keeping the records, but then they can't prove it if they don't have them. So I don't think there's a choice, really. I don't think it's going to create any extra work for the farmers themselves. Where it's going to create extra work is at the level of the certification organizations, which have to make sure they can meet the accreditation criteria and show that they're operating efficiently in order to just certify the farms.

Mr. Reed: That alone establishes that I will never be an organic farmer, record keeper that I am.

I would ask you about the side-by-side marketing of organic and other products. Obviously that's taking place now in certain areas. How are you finding the response?

.0925

Ms Macey: I think it depends on what the product is and the cost at the moment. Consumers are choosing organic product if it's not a lot more expensive than regular product. If it is, they tend to buy conventional.

Mr. Reed: Do you have enough experience to be able to comment on the kind of premium consumers are prepared to pay?

Ms Macey: Various reports and things have come out in the past where people talk about a figure of 25% higher, but it's a very difficult area. I know lots of farmers have problems with that area too, because in some cases we're not in fact selling our product for a higher price than are conventional growers, but then you see it in the stores and there's quite a hefty mark-up, because at the retail level people think they can get more for it.

Our hope is that it won't be an elitist kind of market - that it will be a price where, if people want to support that method of agriculture, they can afford to buy the food and support it in that way.

Mr. Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I have several questions for you.

First of all, do you receive any funding from the government?

Secondly, why are you having problems? The trend today is toward global markets and competition. Organic products are still said to be more expensive and people are less inclined to buy them.

Thirdly, an agency will be assigned responsibility for regulating the issuance, suspension and cancellation of certificates of accreditation. An accreditation review committee will examine applications for certification, table reports and make recommendations to the agency.

What type of sanction could the agency take against organisations that resort to unacceptable practices? Will the accreditation bodies have any input in the agency's regulations and in the determination of the fee structure?

[English]

Ms Macey: As to the first question on whether we receive funding, is that Canadian Organic Growers or the industry? I'm not quite sure who you're asking.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I'm talking about the industry as a whole.

[English]

Ms Macey: Okay. We have received some government grants. They tended to be matching grants to help with the development of the regulations to help with the process, through CAFDI and different programs. We do not receive funding from government at any level. Well, in general I don't think we do. There may be some support in B.C. and some in Quebec at the government level for the organic industry, but generally the certification process and everything that has happened is paid for by producers.

The Chairman: On a point of clarification, when you refer to British Columbia and Quebec, that would be from a provincial government's support?

Ms Macey: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Ms Macey: I think you were asking about the agency, COAB, and how the different certification agencies were involved in the accreditation process or agency. The directors of the agency include representatives of all sectors of the industry. They also include representatives of the conventional industry and governments.

The way it works is that anybody in the industry can have input and, if they want to, can make recommendations on the development and how they work. There's a membership. All the certification bodies are members of this organization and speak to the organization through the directors, who are the delegates. So they can have input into procedures, how things are changed and the costs involved from that point of view.

Does that answer your question? I'm not sure whether I got all the points.

.0930

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, the witness did not answer my second question concerning global markets and competition. I mentioned that organic vegetables were still considerably more expensive and that the public was not buying them. Why are these products still much more expensive and why is it that only a few people can afford to buy them?

[English]

Ms Macey: I think farmers feel the price they're getting for their product reflects a real price for the food as opposed to a subsidized price in any way.

One of the problems with organic is the scale. We don't have the economies of scale you have in conventional agriculture, as far as distribution and things like that are concerned. When you only have a small amount of product moving anywhere, it costs you more than it costs to move a large amount of product. The prices for organic tend to be real prices of what it costs.

Also, the demand is very high. There's a very big demand from Japan at the moment for organic soybeans. As a result, the price of organic soybeans is sky-high, because that's what people want and the supply as yet is small. As more farmers come on, those premium prices probably will decrease to some extent.

The demand is high and the supply isn't really there yet, so the prices are staying high.

The Chairman: Ms Macey, I'd like to ask a question following along Mr. Landry's line of comments before I go to Mr. Calder and Mr. Pickard.

I know there's no such thing as a rule of thumb as far as cost of production and agriculture is concerned, but as you stated, and rightly so, organic production is a food production system. Because of the size and scale of all the things you've mentioned in the last couple of minutes, on a per-unit production, where is the cost of production with this food production system compared to the other, where there are other products used for herbicides or insecticides? Is it higher or lower?

Ms Macey: It depends on what commodity or what particular products you're looking at. The people in the dairy industry have found that their costs are a lot less, because they don't have the high input costs, they have lower vet bills and things like that.

In vegetable production the costs are probably more, because they use more labour than mechanical means or herbicides. It depends on what you're looking at as to where the cost falls.

In some cases, depending on the area, people have experienced drops in yields and therefore there is less there, but that tends to be just a temporary situation until the systems have developed.

Some studies were done somewhere in the northern states, Dakota maybe. I'm not exactly sure where it was, and I don't have it with me, but they looked at organic systems and conventional systems. They in fact found that when they looked at the economics and the agronomics, the organic system came out ahead. But I don't think we have enough data to say one way or the other, really.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

I have Mr. Calder, Mr. Pickard, Mrs. Ur and Mr. Bernier. In order to be fair to other witnesses, we have a maximum of eight to ten minutes to get through four people. Maybe some of your questions might be kept until later. I don't want to curb it, but we want to be fair to all our witnesses.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Calder: I'll be as concise as usual, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Calder. We'll move on to the next one.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Calder: But I do have a few things to say.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

.0935

Mr. Calder: Welcome, Anne. I see that maybe the Canadian Organic Growers here might be ahead of everybody. You are a federally incorporated registered charity, I see here. When I was raising pigs back in the early 1980s, I felt like I should have been a registered charity too.

The chairman touched on the cost of production. Obviously your product is a little more expensive because you're not getting the same yield per acre as commercial farmers are getting.

Ms Macey: I didn't say that.

Mr. Calder: You didn't say that. Are you getting as good a yield as commercial farmers?

Ms Macey: In some cases, yes. It depends who the farmer is, which farmers you're comparing to which farmers and how long they've been in the business. It depends on management skills, basically.

Mr. Calder: I see. So in other words, one farmer can be different from another one. That's fine.

It's going to be a big issue - the cost of production. I`ll go back to Vision 2020, which was in Washington last year, on food production. We're making more people each year and we have less land to feed those people on. Therefore, whatever type of agriculture production we're looking at in the future has to be very efficient and has also to be very competitive on the world market or it is definitely not going to survive.

So what do you see for the future of organic farming? Can it be as competitive as commercial farming? There's also given the fact that in the early years we did use a lot of chemicals. I can cite my own industry, chicken production. We used a lot of drugs within the industry, but that has changed now. We are also working at artificially exciting the titre within the bird so we can use antibodies to fight off disease before the chickens get it. That's just by vaccinations. Commercial farming is changing too. That brings me to another issue here.

Mr. Pickard: I thought you were going to be short.

Mr. Calder: I just have two questions but with a long preamble. What can I say here? Concise.

Mr. Hermanson: Never believe the Liberals.

Mr. Calder: Now, now. Be nice, Elwin.

BST is an issue we have dealt with at this committee. It is an artificial protein we're dealing with, but it is in fact a protein and it has been said it's a protein that can't be tested. How can you go out on the market and say you've got organic milk when those cows could be injected with BST and it can't be tested?

Ms Macey: If it's organic milk, they can't be injected with BST. It's as simple as that, because the organic standards don't allow the use of any bioengineered products and BST in particular.

Mr. Calder: How do we know that?

Ms Macey: What do you mean? How do you know the standards say that or how do you know they weren't injected?

Mr. Calder: How do we know they weren't injected?

Ms Macey: Just the same as any regulation or any rule, you have to assume that when people are inspecting and certifying.... At least with an organic system you have inspectors going in there regularly, looking at the operation and checking to see whether there's any evidence right there on the farm, rather than just inspecting the meat or whatever it is at the slaughterhouse. You have more control in an organic system than you have in a conventional system about whether the rules are being abused or not.

As for feeding the world, that question comes up all the time. How one deals with that one depends on one's political leanings. Personally, I don't think the answer to feeding everybody is a question of just becoming more competitive on the world markets and producing more and more food. It basically boils down to problems of distribution, political situations in different countries, wars and everything else. It's not just a matter of you produce more food here and we`re going to be able to feed everybody elsewhere.

In lots of countries the problem has arisen because they have adopted the western models of conventional agriculture and then have no longer been able to feed the people in their own country even at a subsistence level. A lot of their land is being used for export crops to feed people in North America, who have more than enough to eat anyway.

.0940

So I don't think those questions are really the questions we need to ask. I would be happy to see everybody focus on food security within their own regions. I think they're much more likely to do that using organic systems than they are conventional ones that at the moment are based on trucking stuff all over the world, with the high costs involved in transportation and everything else. But that's a personal view. We can argue forever on that one.

Mr. Calder: You're saying to me, then, that we'll just take care of ourselves.

Ms Macey: No, I'm not saying that. Perhaps I'm saying that I think it's presumptuous to sit here in North America and think that what we do on our farms is going to make a difference in whether the people in the countries that need the food get it. But that's a....

We've had food surpluses in North America. They've had them in Europe. The situation is changing dramatically, perhaps, and we don't necessarily have them any more. At the same time, even with those food surpluses the people who needed the food weren't being fed. It's a political problem. It's not a cost-efficiency problem or anything else, this food business.

Mr. Calder: I would beg to differ with you on that point, but being concise, I'll let it go at that.

The Chairman: Yes, I noted the time you took in being concise, Mr. Calder. When we give you full allotment sometime, we may have to reign you in.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall be concise.

The Chairman: Oh? The clock's running on you, too.

Mr. Pickard: I find it very interesting that you look at ``Canada Organic''...and then feel certification of standards are pretty important there.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on the work you've done in that area. I think you've done a great job.

Second, I was concerned about the reason why you might have taken the position provincially. I think when somebody comes out with ``Ontario Organic'' or ``British Columbia Organic'' or ``Quebec Organic'' or any of the other terminology, it may mean a totally different idea to people. I realize provinces have the right to claim jurisdiction over what is happening internally. That's fine. But would it not be better for the industry to try to bring everything into at least the same rules and guidelines, where possible - to work toward that goal, in other words? I thought in your comments you suggested you might not be really aggressive at working toward that goal. I was just wondering what was your reasoning behind that.

Ms Macey: It's just that I would rather let people within their own area decide what is appropriate for their own area. I think if we have a national system, we have a national trademark, most of the larger producers that are selling at a retail level are part of the larger certification groups. They will be able to use ``Canada Organic''. I think that is preferable to a lot of different labels, such as B.C. or Ontario or something like that.

I know a lot of product is being sold as organic at farmers' markets and at that level. There I don't have as much concern, because there you have a direct relationship with the consumer and the farmer who's selling it. When you have a direct relationship people can decide whether or not they want to buy that product. It's when you get to a store level that I think there are concerns.

So I'm not pushing that everyone who labels anything organic absolutely must be part of this system. If you're just selling it at your farm gate to somebody who knows you, it doesn't matter what you call it. They're buying it because they know you, and they know what system you're using. But if you're selling it to somebody you don't know, then you have to be able to prove what it is. Why not use a national system so that we're all talking the same language rather than have a different one in each province?

.0945

Mr. Pickard: I think there's some concern in my mind. You don't want the word ``organic'' to go the route ``natural'' has gone in the past. If we don't maintain a minimum standard, a Canadian standard, then do we not risk that opportunity for organic to go in different areas? In other words, a consumer would have a different viewpoint of ``Ontario Organic'' than ``Canada Organic'', as you have right now. Are we not really trying to preserve the word ``organic'' in this whole exercise?

Ms Macey: We are. That's what I'm saying. I'm obviously not explaining myself very well.

I don't want to see ``Ontario Organic'' or ``B.C. Organic'', particularly. I'd rather see ``Canada Organic''. What I'm saying is that I don't mind whether people call it organic if it's really at a very local level and people are just selling directly to the consumer. Once anything gets to the retail level, in a store, then I think it needs a label. Preferably, in my mind, it needs a ``Canada Organic'' label rather than a B.C. or Ontario label.

Mr. Pickard: Thanks, Anne.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur, quickly, please, and then Mr. Bernier.

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I have a few quick questions. Being a past vegetable producer, I have found your delivery this morning rather interesting. We did deliver traditional farm marketing but we also were involved with people who had markets with organic delivery of product. They did not survive. You're saying that organics are no longer considered a market niche but a market sector.

Ms Macey: This is in the U.S. It's not like that in Canada.

Mrs. Ur: Okay, because I was going to say I don't see that in Canada.

Being in the business, cost is certainly a factor with consumers, as is appearance. It's all well and good to say this is organic, but when you send that consumer to that organic food stand, what looks nice will come before cost and organic. I've witnessed that.

Farmers in the past, and now, are asked to be more cost-efficient, showing more productivity, etc. I see this as being against what we're telling our traditional farming techniques to follow. This seems to be an area where we're saying it's okay to be less productive.

It really has been proven that unless you have examples to give us here this morning, where there is more productivity in organic farming.... I haven't seen too much of that in my past experience. Is it B.C. and Quebec that have the major organic farmers percentage-wise, and what would you attribute to the fact that those two provinces have the most organic farming?

Ms Macey: As far as numbers of certified organic farmers are concerned, I think there are more listed in Quebec, but a lot of those are maple syrup producers. Otherwise, Saskatchewan, B.C., Ontario and Quebec are very similar in actual numbers of farmers practising. As a percentage of the number of farmers in the province, then, that percentage varies. There are fewer farmers in B.C., I think, then there are in Ontario, so they have a higher percentage.

Mrs. Ur: Do you ever see a day coming where organic farming will complement traditional farming? Will they ever be compatible?

Ms Macey: I think they're getting closer all the time. Conventional agriculture is now adopting organic techniques. Things such as rotations have come back into conventional agriculture, which organic farmers have been using all along. They're trying to reduce pesticides and things. Lots of techniques are used in both. So they're getting closer.

I haven't addressed your first question. I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat it.

Mrs. Ur: I think you've answered my question.

Ms Macey: I thought there was something else.

Mrs. Ur: I do have one last question. The COG is a federally incorporated registered charity. I'm sure other commodity groups would be interested -

Ms Macey: We're not a commodity group.

Mrs. Ur: I'm not saying you're a commodity group, but still....

Ms Macey: I debated whether to put that in, because everybody always brings it up. But I thought I should be honest rather than not.

Mrs. Ur: I guess I'm part of general society, then. How did you qualify for that?

.0950

Ms Macey: As a public education organization, we're involved in education, not particularly in promotion in that way. That was how we qualified as an education organization. The kinds of materials we produce are not just for organic farmers; they're for any member of the general public. We spend a lot of time just answering general inquiries from the general public who phone up and ask how they can have a lawn without using chemicals and that kind of thing. That's why we qualify.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): I have a few brief questions for you, Ms Macey.

Your national organization has 1,600 members. How many members do you have in Quebec and what kind of activities do you carry out in the province? In your brief, you give reasons why certain groups are opposed to the regulations and you mention that OCIA representatives, particularly those from the Quebec chapter, do not support the idea of national regulations.

Why are these Quebec representatives opposed to national regulations? In your opinion, is it possible to have both provincial and federal regulations in place?

[English]

Ms Macey: I'm not sure about your numbers for our organization in Quebec, but we do have some members. They tend to be English speaking, because our publications are in English and not in French, unfortunately. We did have a chapter for a short time in the Outaouais. That's since disbanded. When we set up, there were organizations in Quebec that seemed to be serving some of the functions and doing it a lot better than we could in French, so we left it to them. We didn't get involved.

As far as the question of the OCIA is concerned, there are some people here from Quebec today who probably should be answering that question, not me. At least in the last little while we had a sense that Quebec didn't really want to get involved. They were waiting to see what happened in the referendum and different things like that. They didn't seem to want to be concerned with the national level, but I was told by representatives of the OCIA groups in particular that it was the extra costs they were concerned about.

If the province wants to go ahead and have its own system, that's fine. It's up to them. I would like to see it come within the federal system somehow or other. I don't think we should all be doing different things. The way I see it, surely we can build on what other people are doing and somehow make it all fit in together. One would hope that if there were a system at a provincial level, the standards would be the same as or not very different from those at the national level.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Macey. I think we have had a good discussion. Thank you for your input and for your long-time dedication to your concerns in this sector of our agricultural industry. You may or may not wish to sit and hear the rest of the comments from other people. Again, thank you very much for coming and being with us today.

Ms Macey: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Robert Beauchemin from the Table filière biologique. I don't believe you have a written presentation, but we look forward to hearing your comments.

.0955

Mr. Robert Beauchemin (Vice-president, Table filière biologique): Bonjour. Good morning. I thought I was late when I got here at 9:05 this morning. I spent about 10 minutes circling the building trying to find an open door. I'm sorry for coming in late.

The Chairman: You probably couldn't find a parking spot.

Mr. Beauchemin: I walked for quite a while.

I want to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of Parliament here for having this session to hear from different constituencies on this regulation.

To present myself, I guess I have to define myself. I'm a farmer and I've been farming with my family for 22 years in Quebec's eastern townships. I've been farming organically for 20 years.

In 1984, through market expansion of our operations, we, with fellow farmers in Quebec, Ontario and Pennsylvania, saw the need to structure a certification program. We were in the founding movement of OCIA, the Organic Crop Improvement Association, which became OCIA International.

This organization, which has its roots in Quebec and Ontario, took on a tremendous expansion in the 1990s to become the world's largest certification organization, with somewhere around 20,000 farmers in the program being certified in over 32 countries. That's probably a product of Canadian expansionism.

Here in Canada, OCIA is the largest body and is represented by 21 of the 42 certification organizations that are listed. We have 21 chapters of OCIA throughout the country.

In 1993 I was elected to serve a two-year term as president of OCIA International, and because of this position I have been invited to serve on several boards and to serve and to testify in my capacity.

In 1994 I was appointed by the USDA to serve as a certifier representative to the national organic standards board, the advisory group developing the standards for the USDA.

I was also appointed in the same year, 1994, to serve on the accreditation committee of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, IFOAM. IFOAM is a grassroots organization. It is formed of over 500 membership associations operating in 91 countries. It is an international organization that has established itself in standards development.

However, I'm here this morning to represent the interests of the table filière du Quebec, the advisory group in Quebec. I will give you brief notes on the industry in Quebec.

[Translation]

The organic food industry has been expanding fairly rapidly in Quebec since 1988. A few years ago, there were no more than 150 growers. By 1995, however, the number of agency accredited growers has increased to 523 in total.

When the Department of Agriculture last surveyed Quebec farmers, it asked them the following question: Are you a producer who uses organic farming methods? Are you eligible for certification or have you already been certified?

The survey showed that in 1995, a total of 2,214 producers were eligible for certification, meaning that they met the industry standards, but that they had not bothered to apply for certification given the limited market. The number of growers in transition, that is growers who had begun using organic production methods, had risen to over 1,300. Taking into account certified producers, those eligible for certification as well as those in transition, there were approximately 4,000 organic growers in 1995. This figure accounts for over 10% of all producers in Quebec.

In the processing sector, over 39 processors have registered product sales of approximately $20 million.

.1000

[English]

The retail sector has grown from from $9.2 million in 1988 to over $35 million in 1993 and we have a total of 470 facilities and retailing organic outlets in Quebec.

I think it's important to mention that organic products sold in Quebec that are of Quebec origin comprise only 16%. Products originating from Canada comprise 23%; from the U.S., 40%; and from other areas not from North America, 21%. However, the bulk of Quebec production, close to 85%, is currently exported either to the U.S. or to the EU. We live in a situation of dependency, of imports and exports within the industry.

Organic production-related employment: Well, even as a niche or as a very small sector group it's been identified by the ministère de l'Agriculture du Québec that this organic industry currently provides over 2,300 employment opportunities within Quebec.

To structure itself, the organic community - and in the fallout of the 1992 sommet de l'agriculture in Trois-Rivières.... The summit in 1992 invited the the different industry sectors to form themselves into advisory boards through a common declaration of agriculture calling for the development of market-oriented partnerships.

In 1992 ten advisory groups or tables filières were formed. A table filière is defined as a permanent consultative body composed of all stakeholders in production, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and government within a specific sector. In 1996 we have 22 tables filières in Quebec. In 1993 the table filière du Quebec, of which I am vice-president, was formed.

As I mentioned, the advisory groups in Quebec must comprise all the stakeholders within an industry. Not just producers, not just processors, but everyone must be around the table to initiate discussions. The Table filière has 40 members. There is a board of directors formed of 18 members represented by certification organizations such as OCIA and the biodynamic association, Québec Vrai.

The producers are represented by the UPA, the processors by AMPAQ, the Association des manufacturiers de produits alimentaires du Québec, and there are the distribution sector, the retail consumers, and the ministère de l'Agriculture. Research and development are represented by the Université de Laval and McGill University. We have quite a working group to enhance the development of the organic community.

There is an executive committee of three individuals. We have working committees on identification and certification, market development, economic assessment and information.

The actions of the Table filière in its formative years focused on the very important aspect of coming together as an industry and developing some forms of consensus. As we've seen in this federal regulatory process, that might have been one of the steps that were not fully understood at the national level, so we spent two and a half years fighting between each other because we're organic. It's natural to fight. We have ideological or philosophical discussions.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Beauchemin: In 1994 we developed a strategic plan that everybody signed: if we want to develop this sector, this is what we're going to do. It was the first action call for provincial legislation and we spent the past year discussing it with the ministère de l'Agriculture, because provincial authorities, just like federal authorities, are very reluctant to develop further legislation or regulation. We had to do a lot of massaging to be understood and to have the government understand the importance of a mandatory legislation.

.1005

The legislation was announced this year on January 19 by the Minister of Agriculture, and it is now in legal development. It is expected that the legislation will be introduced at the Assemblée nationale in either September or October for adoption in the fall, with an early 1997 implementation. The other actions following the implementation of legislation for the tables filières will be to focus on market development, research and development and promotion.

Our relationship with the federal regulation has been a somewhat difficult exercise, because we have spent a lot of time trying to address our own issues and also trying to develop our own internal consensus. We have been commenting to COAB and to COUP. We have submitted comments to Agriculture Canada.

It was at the invitation of Agriculture Canada, through a letter from Madame Anne MacKenzie, I think, which the committee heard on March 14, that we were instructed to further our comments through to the Canadian Organic Advisory Board. It was in this capacity that I was appointed director of COAB from Quebec.

The regulation as it is developed right now leaves us quite concerned for many different reasons. The basic reason is not that people, farmers or the industry in Quebec are against regulations or legislation, because in fact we were mandating our own provincial government to move ahead with legislation. Our concern is that the goals are not clear. We identified back in 1989 a move for our colleagues and also within Quebec to develop some kind of national standard to facilitate trade and to facilitate export.

The world has tremendously changed since the signing of GATT. The European Community, which developed legislation, has changed a lot in its understanding of how the organic community functions and how to assure compliance for consumers. Back in 1989, when the organic community here in Canada was pressing for regulation, it was for fear of losing export markets to the EU, as the EU legislation specifically mentioned that to export to the EU you had to be recognized on a third country approved list.

Since 1991, since the implementation of the European Community's legislation on organic, several amendments have opened up new ways of assuring compliance other than being placed on the third country list. The last one to be introduced will be implemented on July 1, 1996. It will permit the recognition of certification bodies operating in third countries as equivalent if they can prove or can have an expert witness testify as to their equivalency without necessarily going through regulatory programs within other governments.

We also have to express concerns with the understanding that with GATT and NAFTA, conditions to control imports within Canada are to be interpreted under the most favourable conditions article. This means products being imported into Canada can only be submitted to the law of the land in the most favourable conditions.

As an example, it is our understanding that if a province such as Nova Scotia or Ontario does not have an internal legislation or regulation to control its own internal market space, the most favourable conditions applicable to that economic space is no legislation, even though there might be a regulation within Canada. So we would invite, rather than a regulatory process that would be binding for the whole of Canada, a national standard that would facilitate harmonization and let the provinces develop regulation within their own jurisdiction.

.1010

We are not against legislation or regulation. In Quebec once the legislation is implemented, we will need to assure compliance of products coming from other provinces and we will also need to measure up against the internal trade agreements. We will need to facilitate harmonization between provinces. If there is no regulation or national standard, it will become quite a burden for the Quebec institutions to control the meaning of and the compliance with standards of an organic product coming from Saskatchewan, B.C. or the Maritimes.

So we invite a national standard. We respectfully hope that provincial governments will assume the responsibilities in their areas of jurisdiction to control their internal markets and have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada develop a national standard, hopefully with reference to international guidelines. We are looking forward to the final adoption, possibly in May, of the Codex Alimentarius guidelines; we might make it to step seven and might in the coming months make it to step eight. If the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for organic products are voted in, we strongly suggest reference to them rather than developing a national standard that is not always supported by different groups.

Canada has been one of the leading countries to develop international harmonization mechanisms through Codex. It is at Canada's and Australia's invitation that the Codex committee on labelling developed a framework for guideline development. We invite the Canadian government to respect that process and to go along with what has been invested in that process.

I don't know where I am with the time, but I hope these few notes will further your reflection on this whole regulatory process. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Beauchemin. Your comments are interesting.

I'll go to Mr. Bernier, but I have a question first. I'm a little confused on some of your last comments, and I admit it's lack of knowledge on my part. Are you saying you're in favour of national regulations in Canada, and that you hope they are similar to or have reference to Codex Alimentarius so that they're similar to those in the rest of the world? Is that what you're saying?

The other question is this: if there are those regulations, are you saying the provinces will also have to have those regulations, or would the federal ones supersede provincial ones?

Mr. Beauchemin: I would invite a national standard that would facilitate harmonization between provincial authorities.

The legislation that is being designed in Quebec is somewhat parallel to the system being designed for the rest of Canada. It is a partnership between the government and the private sector, giving full authority - in fact, the lawyers are having quite a party trying to figure out how to manage the system - to the private sector to control the word ``organic''.

It is very important that the industry not lose control of this process. I just want to slip in here to mention that when the industry does not keep control, we see some slippage. Right now I'm seeing how the European Community and the U.S. government are trying to introduce the notion of acceptability of genetically modified organisms into their understanding of organic. Those are slippages we must avoid, and this can be performed only if the industry keeps full control over standard development.

.1015

The Chairman: As a point of clarification, a set of federal regulations that is out there for pre-circulation at the present time - is that not doing what you're saying you want done?

Mr. Beauchemin: They are trying to establish a national compliance measure through a national accreditation body. We think that compliance should be ensured at the provincial level so that provincial market spaces are protected from fraudulent imports.

One of the major flaws we have been identifying in this whole structure of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board is that there is flaw in design. These are all good people. A tremendous amount of energy went into this process. However, since there is no sponsorship, no trade association that facilitated this process, we ended up with a tremendous amount of confusion over consultation, over how the standards were developed, over communications.

As an example, as a director of COAB I received on March 25 the last draft of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board it*Règlement de régie interne, the by-laws, informing me that I needed to comment because the incorporation was going to happen before March 31. I was given five days, receiving an English copy only, and as a director my duty was to respond to my constituency's concern. Now, how am I to do this?

I'm not saying this was done mischievously. I'm just saying there is a lack of structure because there is no support group, no national infrastructure that can facilitate consensus-building as we have done in Quebec and as happened also in British Columbia. We think it would be easier to go through provincial structures to regroup farmers, traders, processors and academia to develop consensus and agree on compliance measures at that level, rather than trying to improvise at the national level where there is no infrastructure.

COAB has still not presented to me, as a director, a sound business plan. I do not know where this is going, so how can the farmers know where this is going? How can the trade feel comfortable about where this is going? We are living in a total vacuum of information caused by a lack of mechanisms to facilitate this process.

The Chairman: Okay, I'm still not clear on all of it, but it may come out.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, several of the question I had have already been asked.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. Sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: First off, I would like to point out to the committee members that Mr. Beauchemin lives in the most beautiful riding in Canada, which also happens to be my riding.

I was very impressed with the information he supplied to us. It will undoubtedly help the committee with its study of the regulations.

I would like to come back to the matter of harmonizing federal-provincial regulations. I asked the previous witness to tell me why Quebec was opposed to harmonization. I also heard Ms Macey say that Quebec had been cool to the idea of federal regulations primarily because it was awaiting the outcome of the referendum.

As I listened to you, I realized that there were other reasons as well and that you would like the industry to maintain some control over the regulations or over the evolution of the process. You would like growers to be grouped together by province so that ultimately we would end up, as is the case in Quebec, with provincial regulations controlled by national regulations. I understood you to say that you would even like international standards to be implemented.

.1020

Could you elaborate a little further on your position?

Mr. Beauchemin: As far as COAB is concerned, we aren't simply dealing with one problem or one solution. A number of factors have combined to create problems with the establishment of this agency.

Ms Macey knows that I am among the few people to comment regularly on this matter, often without the benefit of any feedback, and that this has resulted in a great deal of frustration. I have nevertheless taken it upon myself to disseminate the information I receive and to explain to people the importance of this initiative.

I believe it is important for us to have national standards and laws because, in the case of a budding industry, standards are something like a birth certificate.

A national standard would provide access to government programs and promote awareness on the part of institutions, be they farm credit corporations or marketing boards, or even lead to the harmonization of all processing sectors governed by federal or provincial regulations. A national standard would confirm the existence of these regulations and would make it impossible to ignore them. After all, we are talking about an expanding industry.

Mr. Bernier: You mentioned sales of $20 million. Could you clarify that statement for us? Are you talking about sales in Quebec or in Canada?

Mr. Beauchemin: These figures were supplied to us by the Quebec Department of Agriculture. They reflect both the volume of products sold and produced on the Quebec market.

We are in an unusual position in that most of the products consumed in Quebec are imported and most of what is produced is exported. I was somewhat taken aback earlier when the witness said that there were many producers in Quebec, but that they were mostly maple syrup producers.

I'm sorry, but maple syrup producers are agricultural producers. We export vast quantities of maple syrup. It is important to recognize this industry's efforts to develop a production system that is respectful of the environment and uses friendlier and sustainable technology.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pickard, then Mr. Hermanson, and Mr. Calder.

Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think a great deal of concern you've raised is on standardization within the country and making certain that there is a minimum standard in every province that is equal to a Canada organic standard.

Further to that, you would like to see us move more to the international agreements and try to get Canada's full production within a realm with minimum standards that would allow Canadian producers to ship internationally without any obstacle. In other words, we'd be meeting the international standards and supporting them fully.

How do you see the movement of Canadian products? You were very clear that of the products in Quebec alone, 16% are produced by those from Quebec, whereas a major portion is coming from the United States.

When we talk about the organic industry within Canada, there is an enormous potential for growth. I think that's one of the reasons we're dealing with standards right now. How do you see our potential for growth and the relationship of standards working together to see your industry go ahead?

Mr. Beauchemin: I attended a conference last November in Costa Rica, the BioFair. A report was submitted from many different countries on the expansion of trade of organic within different areas.

.1025

Just as an example, we are seeing tremendous growth in specific areas that have an agriculture pattern similar to Canada's - for example, Scandinavian countries. Denmark is aiming for 40% of its internal product production to be of an organic nature by the year 2000. Sweden has a goal. They have grown from 550 farmers to 2,500 farmers in organic agriculture in the past two years. Finland has identified the goal of having 10% of its dairy production become organic by the year 2000. We can all think that Iceland has no agriculture production, but they have a tremendous amount of natural springs, with a lot of hothouses and greenhouses. Iceland has defined that by the year 2001, 100% of the agriculture production within the country will be organic, for environmental concerns.

Many other countries are looking at the potential, but they're also looking at the community of their farmers and what the specialization of agriculture has done within the different production systems. Here in Canada, if we are looking at my colleagues from the prairies, one of the biggest benefits of the organic industry has been to introduce more diversification in the production systems.

We still have some farmers who are farming 3,000 acres; however, they've moved from wheat fallow to a seven-year crop rotation, introducing millet, alfalfa and a tremendous amount of species, new pulses. Now they are developing markets for these new products while maintaining the quality of the soil.

So I can see there is a potential for the market, but more specifically there is a potential for preserving the agriculture scenery here in Canada.

Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much.

Just to extend that whole debate one step further, there are responsibilities federally. A Canadian standard, I would agree with you, is very good. Bringing the provinces together so that we are all harmonized is, I would think, a really good measure. However, each area of Canada does have concerns about their jurisdiction and infringement of their jurisdiction from one level of government to another.

There has been in the past resistance by certain provincial organizations when federal standards are applied - and vice-versa, which could as well happen. How do you see the way to harmonize the provincial and federal standards so that it can be done in the country in a reasonable way?

Mr. Beauchemin: If the standards are industry-led, I think the industry from different quarters can agree. I am looking at how standards have been harmonized and developed at the international level through FAO, in the private sector, or how things are mashing out within the Codex scenario.

So I'm assuming that given the proper tools, people can come together and agree. If we in Quebec can agree on something, I guess the rest of Canada can also agree within their own provinces - because in the organic community, we fight like dogs. It's amazing. However, when we keep an eye on what the goal is....

Maybe this is what we need to do: really clearly define what the goal is. If the goal is to develop sandbagging standards, well, we're going to develop sandbagging standards. If the goal is to facilitate trade and to develop the industry, we'll develop the standards in such a manner by strictly also following the principles of organic agriculture as they have been developed and recognized by the international community.

Mr. Pickard: If I interpret what you're saying, very clearly it's COAB's responsibility, or the responsibility of the industry, to make certain that they work toward harmonization throughout the country.

Mr. Beauchemin: I was participating at the COAB annual meeting in Vancouver, where there was a representative from Agriculture Canada, Mr. Don Raymond. He circulated two very important pieces of literature, of which I think you are all aware: Practical Guide to Public Consultation.... If he was passing this out, I guess he was responding on behalf of Agriculture Canada to a lot of the very negative feedback that was coming from the industry. People from your different constituencies were probably asking where they were going with this regulation. There has been very little consultation.

.1030

Of the 200 or so letters that were sent to Agriculture Canada and Agriculture Canada passed back to COAB, a lot of the concerns had to do with lack of understanding because of lack of consultation. It has not been done because of political mischievousness, power grabbing, or whatever. It is just lack of resources and difficulty for a developing and starting-up industry to structure itself nationally when it still has problems at the provincial level.

I would recommend that the industry do its homework internally. It is happening in British Columbia. It is happening in Quebec. I hear there are discussions in Nova Scotia. The Saskatchewan Organic Development Council is working, trying to bring a lot of different players together, around the same table. Let's provide these different provincial mechanisms with enough tools and time to adopt a consensus and then bring them up to the national level. But don't develop a national system that causes a lot of people to resist.

The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Beauchemin, for appearing before the committee.

This is all rather confusing and intriguing. You have an impressive CV. There are several organizations you have indicated you belong to, but you are here representing Table filière biologique. I suspect you are speaking on its behalf when you appear before the committee.

Mr. Beauchemin: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: Very briefly, here are the regulations. Does your organization support the draft regulations that are to be gazetted?

Mr. Beauchemin: As they are drawn?

Mr. Hermanson: Yes, as they are drawn.

Mr. Beauchemin: No.

Mr. Hermanson: You don't support them.

Mr. Beauchemin: No.

Mr. Hermanson: Okay. I wanted to know that.

The Department of Agriculture has indicated that it wants to work with COAB as the body that represents the industry in determining these regulations. You say that you were appointed to COAB. Do you have confidence that COAB is the organization the industry wants to put its trust in to make sure that these regulations will serve the industry well?

Mr. Beauchemin: That's a loaded question.

Mr. Hermanson: It's an important question.

Mr. Beauchemin: It's a very important question.

Mr. Hermanson: Very important.

Mr. Beauchemin: I think COAB could have this ability, but the homework has not been done. It's an ad hoc group formed with no support from a sector group or a trade association that could sponsor the process. It has been defined as an ad hoc group.

Mr. Hermanson: You are on the board of COAB. You were appointed.

Mr. Beauchemin: I was appointed by the Table filière because we were instructed to further our comments and to involve ourselves if we wanted to be heard in the national process, to go through COAB.

COAB has been in a very confusing situation. When I attended the meeting in March, I was surprised to see that COAB was already doing some accreditation, that it was handing out some documentation, that it was gathering some money, that it was recognizing the competency of verification officers, without first having been incorporated, which put the individual's liability at stake.

I suggested that I was not going to participate in an accreditation decision unless the corporation was structured and formed, unless procedures were designed, and unless everything was in writing, because I think accreditation is a very important action. I have been involved in accreditation through IFOAM, and I know how legalities can include themselves. As a member of the board of OCIA International last year, OCIA was sued under a class action for $60 million. We had to live through that process. We came out ahead, but it cost us close to $150,000 in lawyers' fees to wiggle out of it and for it to be recognized that it was frivolous. However, that does not mean you cannot be sued.

.1035

An advisory board already doing some functions, making some decisions and recognizing some compliance without having been first formed is on pretty shaky ground.

Mr. Hermanson: You're speaking for the Table filière biologique. How did your association determine that it didn't support these regulations? Was it an executive decision or your decision? Or was there a poll of the members?

Mr. Beauchemin: The document dated September 29 was circulated and we received it in Quebec on October 16. In this letter dated September 29, we were informed there was a three- or four-week period to comment. By the time we got it there were only ten days left. So we got back to Agriculture Canada stating that we needed more time, because it's a complex regulation and we wanted to be fully knowledgeable of our constituency's concerns.

Agriculture Canada informed us they would be receiving comments until November and said not to worry about the deadline. We took this time and circulated it throughout the Tables filière, the eighteen board members, the representatives of distributors and the certification organization. We disseminated the document and gathered the comments back.

There was a meeting on the tables filières. There was a consensus that we did not feel comfortable with how this was being developed, and more specifically with the fact that powers were being passed on to a private sector group that did not have all the instruments or the ability to deal with situations in Quebec.

All the meetings are in English. All the documents coming from COAB and translations usually come many months later, when they come. I don't want to put it down. It takes a lot of resources to accomplish something on a national level. However, we should not, as Quebec farmers, have to live by interpreting development by-laws, business plans or whatever document.

A corporation is being designed to administer this regulation. We should have a full right to be understood and to participate in the exercise.

Mr. Hermanson: Officials from Agriculture Canada assured our committee that these regulations would not be gazetted until there was a clear consensus in the industry and a clear spokesperson or group representing the industry. Are you confident that this in fact will be the case? Is that your sense from working with Agriculture Canada and COAB?

Mr. Beauchemin: I've heard different positions expressed by Agriculture Canada.

For the first four years the industry was told standards could not be referenced but had to be included in the regulation. Just two months ago we were told standards could be referenced. I understand it's a changing world in the regulatory development, but if Agriculture Canada now states that they will wait until a consensus is developed, I feel comfortable with it. How consensus is interpreted will be very interesting, however, if Quebec and B.C. decide not to support it or to enhance it in a different way.

We don't want to put this system down. As a compliance body within Quebec, if we were asked to monitor products coming from Saskatchewan or from P.E.I. into the Quebec marketplace, we would prefer that product to have been assured compliance through either a provincial or a private system of accreditation. It would facilitate our work. Otherwise, we will have to do performance assessment ourselves, and we do not have the resources we want to focus on production within Quebec. We want to work on harmonization and on mutual recognitions as defined in the internal trade agreements.

Mr. Hermanson: You said this whole regulatory process and legislative process needs to be industry-led. How can it be industry-led when there are so many agencies, organizations and groups trying to lead the industry? How is that going to happen?

Mr. Beauchemin: One of the biggest weaknesses of the industry in Canada is the lack of leadership. You've probably seen in much of the documentation that it's going in every direction. There's not a clear feeling of where we're going with this.

.1040

Some people want to develop tremendously protectionist standards because ``we've done it so everybody should stay out'' and some people who are market-oriented want to bring down standards or want to make the entry level easier.

Organic farmers are a very weird breed because they live with the contradiction of hoping that everyone becomes organic; however, ``not in my marketplace''. Those are some of the contradictions we will have to bridge.

The Chairman: Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. McKinnon: I think it's already been touched on but I'll raise it very quickly. In reference to your views on GATT changes that have taken place in the intervening time since GATT was signed, could you enlarge on that comment to some degree, sir?

Mr. Beauchemin: Do you mean the most favourable conditions?

Mr. McKinnon: Yes.

Mr. Beauchemin: This information was circulated at the COAB meeting in Vancouver by Agriculture Canada. Their interpretation of the most favourable conditions were that in a province that had not regulated its internal space the most favourable conditions applicable for importers would be no regulation. That is what I was led to understand.

Apparently Canada had challenged the U.S. over some breweries. It's a jurisprudence that had been established by GATT. I might be confusing GATT and NAFTA, but this is the documentation that was circulated by Agriculture Canada.

Mr. McKinnon: You also quickly touched on a point about other governments putting in genetically altered technology. I am somewhat limited in my knowledge on genetic materials, etc. Are you suggesting that anything that smacked of this kind of development could never be incorporated into the organic realm of understanding or science?

Mr. Beauchemin: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements has made a statement of principle saying that genetically modified organisms should not be included for the simple reason that we do not know all the implications in the food system right now. There is also the parallel with the green revolution, where we had the magic bullets of fertilizers and pesticides that blew up in our faces 40 years later. We still do not know the major implications or the commercial implications of forcing farmers to buy patented seeds down the road.

Mr. McKinnon: If that is known some day that could be part of the organic position.

Mr. Beauchemin: It'll be a very delicate discussion, because as organic producers we're looking at natural systems, how nature has its own mechanisms of adaptability, rather than playing around with genetic material. It plays its own games.

Mr. McKinnon: I'll look at that. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Beauchemin. I have a couple of comments in closing.

I want to assure the next witnesses that there is a bit of slippage in the use of the rooms. We do not have to leave right at 11:15 a.m., but I do know that some members have other meetings so they may have to leave.

Mr. Beauchemin, I'm still a bit confused. Are you saying you want federal guidelines that provincial regulations would have to meet? But you want the federal guidelines to follow the Codex Alimentarius and to be accepted by the rest of the world - by the EU, for example.

If that's the way it goes - and I don't know the answer - how can there be federal guidelines without some teeth in the guidelines in order to make sure that all the provinces follow? When an organic product comes to the border, under whose regulation is it accepted, or is it turned back on that basis? I find this very confusing.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but when we talk about COAB, I don't know how the.... I think there's a problem...and heaven forbid this group around this table to use this word, but I think there's a suspicion there's a lot of ``politics'' involved in what's going on within the organic industry.

Mr. Beauchemin: Really?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.1045

The Chairman: Yes. We have COAB, which to my understanding has representatives from each province. I don't know how they were selected, but my understanding, which may be wrong, is that each province had the opportunity from the organic organizations within that province to put somebody forward to be on COAB so that a consensus could be reached. But now there's a little bit of bickering about who the provincial representative is and whether they're speaking for the people who selected them and how they were chosen. There seems to a lot of this type of thing in the background here.

Mr. Beauchemin: The structure of an accreditation process is a technical issue. By structuring COAB we have politicized a technical issue by developing a mechanism of provincial representation and then in that framework of provincial representation singling out who can be a member of COAB. You have to be a farmer, you have to be from an organization that has developed full consensus within the community. We're singling out individuals, and through this process we're trying to make sure that everybody is so pure.

We bring a lot of people who have a lot of goodwill but who are totally ignorant of the reality of regulation, the reality of industry. We are bringing people around the tables. By the time they have terminated their mandate after two years they're slowly getting up to speed. They're starting to know how to manage the system, but their time is up.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Beauchemin, for your contribution today. I think you can tell that you have certainly stirred the discussion and, I might say, added to the discussion and the debate very well.

I call the next witness: Mr. Raymond Lamoureux, from Entreprise R.F. Inc.

As he's coming to the table, I want to remind the committee and others that we will continue hearing witnesses on this subject on Thursday at 8:45 a.m. You will have already received a notice.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux (Owner, Entreprise R.F. Inc.): Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Beauchemin's presentation was very enjoyable. I am here at your request and I thank you for the invitation.

Entreprise R.F. is a family-run farming operation. For over 25 years, our primary focus has been field crops. Our operation also a member of the organic certification agency known as OVONA.

I am also the co-owner of a seed company called Hortisem Inc. based in Quebec City. This company distributes seeds to sod growers and landscaping professionals.

For the past several years, we have been working closely with the Department of Agriculture, that is with Agriculture Canada's regional offices, to evaluate seed varieties that could be used to produce organic commodities such as soya, wheat and spelt wheat.

.1050

At present, our industry is operating smoothly. Our products are recognized by buyers and the market is expanding. This hasn't happened by chance; our success comes as a result of many years of hard work and research. The market is controlled by the private sector.

Buyers accept the products we supply, appreciate the quality and agree to pay the price. Our certification bodies meet their standards. Furthermore, our agencies are generally recognized by foreign governments.

The regional offices of provincial governments have had a hand in the industry's success. The volunteer efforts of many stakeholders has proved very useful and has been greatly appreciated. Existing certification bodies are efficient and able to satisfy market needs.

Why do we need new regulations? I have been involved in developing regulations under the Seeds Act for the past 20 years. The industry has very few inspectors and jobs and budget cuts are a reality. I don't see how we can accommodate at this time another system which would oversee organic production and certification.

With respect to COAB, I don't think people, in particular the growers, have been adequately or properly consulted. Had these regulations been adopted as tabled last fall, start-up companies would no longer be in business today.

I mentioned earlier that governments restricted their focus and presence to large urban centres and that budget and staff cutbacks were a fact of life. Regional offices of provincial departments are present everywhere: they are active in the field, they help producers and they are involved in the development of new species and varieties. In my opinion, if the Canadian government wants to get involved in organic growing, it must get involved in the development of new products and help the industry which currently controls this sector.

If we take a look at today's organic product market, we will note that 99% of the products are exported. Local sales are very low. The industry's expansion is directly linked to the efforts of the private sector.

.1055

Canadian organic products have a very sound reputation on foreign markets. Certification boards and organizations have formally recognized our agencies. The industry's out-and-out success can be traced directly to those involved in this field, in particular the regional advisors and provincial governments, as well as to the volunteer efforts of leaders, employees and organic certification bodies and private sector enterprises.

I have here a copy of the Seeds Act. Owing to a shortage of staff at the Vegetable Division of Agriculture Canada, private entreprise must now assume the responsibility for inspecting seed crops. It addition, it must pick up the tab. I am self-employed and I have to wonder why we even need new regulations to govern the production, export or importation of organic products.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I have just one question before I go to Mr. Bernier.

When you said, Mr. Lamoureux, that the standards of the product you sell are accepted by foreign countries - I believe that's the way you said it - my question is, under what and whose standards do you sell those products?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: According to the standards of organic product certification organizations in Quebec.

[English]

The Chairman: That was a plural. You said the organic product ``organizations''.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.

The Chairman: So there are several organizations. Are their standards standard among the organizations?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: Perhaps they are not identical, but they are similar. Among others, we have OCIA, OGBA and OVONA.

[English]

The Chairman: Are those standards, to your knowledge, similar to some standards that might be used in Ontario or Quebec or the United States?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: They are already used in Ontario, in Quebec, in Western Canada and in the United States.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Lamoureux, I want to thank you for accepting our invitation.

I have a question which is directly related to the regulations but, since you also represent the industry, I have another question that I wanted to put earlier to Mr. Beauchemin.

Mention was made of my colleague from Arthabaska when the first witness spoke of the cost of organic products. I don't want to belabour this point, but I would like you to give me some additional clarification.

It is said that organic products are more expensive than other types of products and this is a fact. Could you briefly explain to us why this is so? Is it because it costs more to produce organic products or is it a question of marketing, as Ms Macey underscored, given that the demand for organic products is high and the supply inadequate?

Furthermore, I note that you are opposed to federal regulations. Did you listen to Mr. Beauchemin's presentation and do you agree with his point of view?

.1100

Mr. Lamoureux: As far as price is concerned, are you talking about the producer's price or the price paid by the consumer?

Mr. Bernier: The price paid by the consumer.

Mr. Lamoureux: Organic growers necessarily produce less. They don't use fertilizers or chemicals to control pests. They must use accepted, more conventional methods to control weeds and to fertilize their fields. Therefore, it's clear that the consumer will pay more for organic products. That may not be true in all cases, because farmers are sometimes able to obtain similar yields using conventional farming methods.

If your question concerns the use of products sold on the local market, then I am somewhat at a loss to answer you, since we're talking here about organically grown fruits and vegetables. This is not my area.

As for your second question, I did listen to Mr. Beauchemin's presentation. You asked if I support the regulations. While I do feel that regulations have their place, I think that they should be developed by the private sector in concert with provincial governments. There should be nothing to prevent a committee representing all of these associations from sitting at the national level.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Collins, Mr. Hermanson and Mr. Calder.

Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the first presentation, but I listened to the second presenter, Mr. Beauchemin. From one who just sits here and gathers information, I must say that if I had to select somebody I would want to work with, it would be that gentleman. He seemed to come with a degree of openness for us to find some kind of a pathway so that provincially, right across Canada, we can have a system where we work through these provinces and we some coordination.

And I agree, maybe you've been in the business for 20 years, but I taught for 30 years. It doesn't mean to say I don't want to take a look at some new ideas and some new ways of doing things. If they're better, why not proceed? I'm just saying to you, if you have people who are prepared to do that.... I don't want to see government just layering on for you so that you have another book as thick as the one you have, just to produce pages.

What I would like to ask, in summary, is how do we get a system that incorporates the wisdom you have collected over 20 years through the work of Mr. Beauchemin and others so that we can have a document we might be able to put forward and say, look, this is something we have right across Canada?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: Let me repeat what I said. If the organic product industry is healthy, it is thanks to the private sector which has worked closely with provincial government representatives to develop organic farming methods and to make them acceptable to buyers. The industry is currently in the process of expanding. Recognized certification bodies can now be found in some EEC countries.

.1105

[English]

Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. From a federal perspective, do you see problems in our trying to get a unified package of regulations so that if I'm in Manitoba, in Quebec or in Alberta I know it's consistent, so that when we're in interprovincial or international trade we know that the same things that exist in Quebec would be in Alberta, whether it's in the seeds or whatever?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: This system has been adopted by a number of certification bodies. OVONA is active across Canada, the Western provinces included. OCIA is also active. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose a unified system. There is already one in place and it works well.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: First of all, you're in the organic industry. Are you in the industry as a producer or a processor or both?

Mr. Lamoureux: Producer and processor - not really a processor, because we don't have the cleaning facility, but we do it from a certified body.

Mr. Hermanson: But you are a producer?

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: As an organic producer, which organizations do you feel you're a part of or a member of?

Mr. Lamoureux: I'm a member of OVONA.

Mr. Hermanson: Is that the only one?

Mr. Lamoureux: I'm also working very closely with OCIA, our local chapter.

Mr. Hermanson: You said that if this package was approved - and again I'm not sure, so I want you to clarify - you wouldn't be in business. Does that mean you wouldn't have been able to start your business or that you couldn't continue your business under this regulatory package?

Mr. Lamoureux: To me, the way it was presented at the first, I think we would have to shut down the business.

Mr. Hermanson: Why?

Mr. Lamoureux: It's too heavy, too complicated, and they even control the word ``organic'' in it. I didn't read that document very carefully, but to me it seemed....

Mr. Hermanson: So you're not alluding to specific parts of the document? Generally the process is what you don't like, not the specifics of the document?

Mr. Lamoureux: My point is, why do we need a new document when we have something working and accepted by the buyers? That's one of my points.

Mr. Hermanson: Can you tell me how you, as a producer, were consulted with regard to developing this package?

Mr. Lamoureux: By somebody of local, regional government, provincial government.

Mr. Hermanson: That was the only consultation with somebody from the provincial government?

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.

Mr. Hermanson: You weren't consulted by someone from COAB or someone from OVONA?

Mr. Lamoureux: We were consulted by OVONA also, but not COAB.

Mr. Hermanson: Did you feel you had a voice in approaching COAB? Do you have some way of being involved in selecting who sits on COAB? Do you feel confident that COAB can represent your industry when it comes to dealing with these regulations or this package?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: I really can't comment on the package since, in my view, it doesn't add anything new.

[English]

Mr. Hermanson: That's not really the question I asked. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government have indicated that they want to work with one body representing the industry to develop a package like this and to make changes if changes are needed. The body they have identified that they want to work with is COAB. Do you, as a producer, feel confident in working with COAB to represent your interests in developing and changing regulations? Are you happy with that? Are you happy to have a body like COAB working on your behalf as a producer? Do you have confidence in COAB?

.1110

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: I see no point in COAB working to develop a national or international organic certification model.

There are already organizations in place that cost nothing, or almost nothing, and I don't see why there should be another one. Its role would be even more ambiguous. Who would be willing to step aside? OVONA, OCIA, OGBA or COAB?

[English]

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Beauchemin has said that COAB has already been involved in doing some certification work. Do you think there are too many certifying bodies, that we'd be better to have one national certifying body, like a COAB? Or would you rather see separate certification agencies such as OVONA and others across the country with maybe similar but slightly differing standards?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: I think this is still a free country and there is room for more than one organization.

[English]

Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I just want to clarify something. COAB is not an organization that would be involved in certification. COAB is an advisory group of people brought together by Agriculture Canada to discuss what regulations might be put in place for the certification or whatever - let's leave out the word ``regulations'' - for the production of organic products, so that when someone sees the word ``organic'', for example, on a Canadian product, they know it meets a certain standard. They're an advisory board.

They would not be a certification body, Mr. Hermanson.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Beauchemin indicated that they were beginning to be involved in that field. That's why I brought this issue up. He said they had done some and felt they might even be legally liable for some of the actions they have undertaken.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Hermanson: But you're rejecting his....

The Chairman: Mr. Beauchemin, would you like to clarify that, please? I think it's important that you do.

Mr. Beauchemin: COAB is more than an advisory board. It is in regulation. It has a mandate to ensure compliance of certifiers. So it becomes an accrediting body. It makes compliance assessment.

The Chairman: Is that in the regulations sent out?

Mr. Beauchemin: My statement was that COAB had already taken some accreditation decisions, so they had made some client compliance assessment of the performance of certifiers who had applied to the system prior to being incorporated.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I also have some research from the Library of Parliament that says:

A national accreditation body named the Canadian Organic Advisory Board (COAB) was established in 1993 to administer and update the standards and accredit agencies to certify organic products

That's the mandate they've been given there, but apparently they've gone beyond that.

The Chairman: Okay. I stand clarified myself.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Lamoureux, and thank you for coming here. Obviously we don't have a national definition of what are organic standards here in this country; it's provincial, and we're working toward that.

I'm wondering, do we have an internationally recognized definition of what is organic?

Mr. Lamoureux: Do you mean international?

Mr. Calder: Yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: I don't think so.

Mr. Calder: Do you think there is any chance that the international industry is going to be able to develop that? I know from one of the reports here - I think it was from Ms Macey - we're restricted right now, or have a problem getting into Holland and Sweden with some of our products.

What's the problem there? Are their standards that much higher than ours? Or is it politics?

Mr. Lamoureux: I can't answer that. I have no idea.

Mr. Calder: Then I'll let it go at that.

You're in registered seed, then, is that right? That's what you market?

Mr. Lamoureux: No. Some farm products, but I'm in the seed business also. I have two different businesses.

.1115

Mr. Calder: So you're marketing something that would be a sort of registered -

Mr. Lamoureux: Soybean or wheat or maple syrup.

Mr. Calder: Where do you get your seeds from? Do you develop that yourself?

Mr. Lamoureux: There's a new variety of spelt that we can seed in the spring. Usually spelt is seeded in the fall and there's no spring spelt. We have a spring spelt going on and being planted in rotation with soybeans.

Mr. Calder: Did you develop that seed?

Mr. Lamoureux: It has been developed with a California doctor and a western company.

Mr. Calder: So in other words, this seed has never been exposed to commercial sprays or anything else like that?

Mr. Lamoureux: Not yet, but it's not on the market yet. It's in reproduction for seeds right now.

Mr. Calder: Okay.

I found something very interesting in your statement, because it contradicted what Ms Macey said. You said production in organic is in fact lower than what commercial production is in commercial farming.

Mr. Lamoureux: Usually, yes.

Mr. Calder: Can you see any environmental problems if an organic farmer tries to be as competitive in production levels as a commercial farmer and, for example, he's putting more manure on his ground to compensate for the fact that he can't use commercial fertilizer, or if he's having a weed problem on his farm, he's going over his soil more often with a cultivator or a soil compactor? Is that a problem?

Mr. Lamoureux: No.

Mr. Calder: It isn't? For instance, how would you solve the problem of weed infestations?

Mr. Lamoureux: Usually

[Translation]

using the tilling process.

[English]

Mr. Calder: So what would you do?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: We sow in rows and till mechanically.

[English]

Mr. Calder: So you're going to deal with the soil compaction problem, then, which is what I already thought.

Mr. Lamoureux: Do you mean by...?

Mr. Calder: Going over the ground repeatedly. So it could be an environmental issue here, too.

Mr. Lamoureux: You don't need to go over it too often. The regular producers or the commercial producers do about the same thing we're doing in organic production.

Mr. Calder: Well, I would disagree with you on that point, because we are using no-till practices right now in conjunction with herbicides in commercial farming. In fact, in commercial farming at the present time we are going over the ground less than we have in the past, because we recognize soil compaction as a problem.

Mr. Lamoureux: The organic growers or producers need to go over it more often, as you said. I agree with you.

Mr. Calder: Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I have just one final question, Mr. Lamoureux.

To sum up, do you feel there is a necessity to have a national standard or a national set of regulations that other standards or accrediting bodies must meet or beat, or do you feel the industry can have a number of accrediting bodies with maybe varying standards that would not necessarily be the same?

[Translation]

Mr. Lamoureux: At the present time, these bodies, whether we're talking about OCIA, OVONA or OGBA, are recognized by the United States as well as by Canada and even by certain European countries.

.1120

I see no point in creating what I would call a superstructure to oversee other bodies since this would only increase costs and add to the paperwork. I think we have enough of that already.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lamoureux, the other witnesses and the committee members.

We will continue this topic on Thursday morning at 8:45 in room 701 at the Sparks Street location, but we do have another meeting tomorrow afternoon at 3:30, with Soil Conservation Canada and, I believe, the Canadian Forage Council making presentations to us. Check your notices for the location. I can't remember where it is, offhand.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page