EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 18, 1996

.0850

[English]

The Chairman: I see a quorum, ladies and gentlemen. We will be using the same format today as we started yesterday, with the teleconferencing. We have three witnesses with us today, either present or on the other end of the telephone and the screen.

For those who weren't able to be with us yesterday when it was explained, I'll do it very quickly. We can see and hear the witnesses when they are speaking, and they can see and hear us when we are speaking. The camera will focus on the member of the committee who is speaking at that time.

We will be doing teleconferencing with the first and third witnesses this morning. The second witness will be present with us here in the room. We will be moving on with witnesses to discuss the draft organic food production regulations.

Our first witness is Mr. David Patriquin, professor of the department of biology at Dalhousie University. Dr. Patriquin, we welcome you to the committee this morning. You may wish to say a little about yourself and then proceed with your presentation. We'll then go to the members for questions and comments.

Professor David Patriquin (Department of Biology, Dalhousie University): I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee. I'm here at the urging of some of those who are concerned about the impending legislation. I was asked to do this on short notice and this is my busiest time of year, so I have not made a written submission.

I'm concerned myself. I've been researching farming systems, including organic, since 1977. Most of my work has been with farmers or groups of farmers - with organic farmers and with conventional farmers who want to try to move in that direction, but not necessarily totally. I've worked mostly in Ontario and in the three maritime provinces, but I also coordinated a case study across Canada for the Science Council of Canada. So I have some familiarity with the broader scene.

I have supported the movement toward certification in the Maritimes since its inception. I served as a third-party certification agent in 1987 gratis to help them get their system developed. I then worked with this system for a couple years in the maritime provinces and in Maine, so I'm quite familiar with some of the details of this.

My reasons for supporting certification of organic produce generally is because of what I perceive to be important benefits. First of all, it was an education process for farmers and consumers. Very little was formally accepted or documented about organic farming systems. It served as a collective educational process and led to greatly improved practices overall. Certainly, the status of organic products was elevated by that whole process.

Second, it had an almost instant effect on the quality in the marketplace, as it eliminated the poor-quality foods. Organic products changed over a very short period of time from being some of the poorest-quality produce on the market to some of the best. I'm sure you remember back in the early 1980s when organic goods were slightly fungus infested. Now one of the main selling points is its very high quality. A lot of that is a result of the process of certification, because poor quality is one reason not to certify.

Third, a very important point was that this system was farmer based. It gave farmers a lot of say and control over what they were doing and the context in which they were operating. In rural areas, this just wasn't happening much otherwise. So I supported it for those reasons.

In 1994 I agreed to serve on COAB, in response to a request from the committee, as a kind of scientific adviser. It was called an academic position, but essentially I was one of the few people who were working at it scientifically. I was generally supportive of the principles that seemed to be involved here. However, I only lasted for one meeting.

My brief experience on COAB convinced me that the detriments of this process far outweighed the benefits. There are benefits, but there are a lot of serious problems with it, and I really couldn't continue on the board the way I felt about it.

.0855

I'll just outline briefly what some of those are. I'm sure many of you have heard them already, but I'll just re-emphasize them from the point of view of somebody who was on the board at COAB and involved in the process. I have been involved in this field since the 1970s, probably know as much as anybody across the country, and have some familiarity with the whole movement.

First of all, in regard to the process, as I think you've been told, there have been and continue to be serious problems with this being representative of the organic producers.

It hasn't been a highly democratic open process. I understand that people are frustrated and want to push ahead with things, but it hasn't been as open a process as we had hoped. In certain areas there's a lack of support for this, as I'm sure you've already heard.

I'm concerned about some of the implications of what's happening and why it's happening. It seems to me the agenda here is primarily to sell more organic foods. This is kind of a complicated issue, but I'm worried that there's a predisposition of the larger producers within that to eliminate the very important requirement of certification that existed in the past, along with the requirement for a complete conversion.

If someone's going to be certified and has mixed organic and conventional fields, for instance, we still require a farm plan for complete conversion and the farmer has to meet a schedule for making that. I agree that in case of livestock crops you don't necessarily have to go to certification of livestock, but the crop part is very important. There's a strong move to eliminate that by some of the more powerful people involved in the COAB process.

My problem with that is it's being pushed mainly to sell more organic food. It's being pushed by processors a lot. I don't really have a problem with that, but the combination of the larger interests and the legislation bothers me because the legislation is going to force a lot of other people, who have different reasons for doing organic production, to go on a system they probably don't agree with. That's where a lot of this tension comes from.

I think that movement will discriminate strongly against small producers who market locally if this goes through with the implications as they are. That's my concern, because in the Maritimes most of the organic producers serve local markets, not export markets. This process seems to be forcing a lot of bureaucracy and quite expensive processes on smaller producers and organizations who are doing quite well locally and don't really need to go through this process. In effect, they're subsidizing them.

I feel this process is being driven by interests that want to export a lot but don't want to pay for all the process. They want everybody to pay for their right to do that. You can question me about that if you want, but it's the combination of these larger business interests and the legislation. I don't have any problem with large business, but it should pay its own way and not force everybody to play exactly the same game. I definitely see that driving some of this.

The third problem I see with it is the expense. COAB got through last year because it got a large grant from the McConnell foundation. There's very little money in there because the bigger producers are not willing to put a lot of money in there. So this idea about it being supported by the industry is a little bit of fiction. Again, I see it as forcing the system on smaller producers to help pay for the big producers.

When I was on the board of COAB I even heard some of the people ask why the big guys should pay. That bothers me, coming from an area of smaller farms where people really can't afford to pay for the privilege of larger farms to export.

Fourth, there's a very practical problem in dealing in this process. If the use of the word "organic" itself is legislated either directly or indirectly, you come into some real, practical problems. The definition of "organic" as implied by certification is not quite the same as, for example, the definition of "ecological farming" or "biodynamic farming". How do you deal with those where there is the potential for overlap?

.0900

I just don't think you can legislate a common word, and I don't think you should try.

What are some of the alternatives? First of all, I don't think there's any need for this legislative process. The position stated by OCIA is that maybe three or four years ago it would have served a purpose, but now it doesn't. We can get IFOAM accreditation or third-party accreditation directly and so on. I don't see a need for this process. I just do not see the need for it. To serve the interests of exporters, we do not need this legislative process.

Second, as far as the protection of the consumer is concerned, the industry should take responsibility and promote their own standard, their own seal, like any other industry where you have seals of approval and so on. They should do that, and they should put the emphasis on "certified", not "organic". In other words, you can't legislate the word "organic".

I honestly do not see the need for this legislation. I see it as highly bureaucratic. It's a waste of a lot of people's time and emotions. It's taken a lot of the taxpayers' money. I'm not sure what's driving the process, but I do not see the need for it.

I say only if legislation is required at all, it's only needed in the context of the word "certified", not in the context of "organic" itself. And it should only be needed in relation to export across international borders, not inside the country.

Basically those are my final points. We really don't need this legislation to serve the interests of exporters. It's created a lot of problems internally, it's wasted a lot of people's time and money, and I think it's a bit of a cop-out on the part of the industry. I don't think we need it for protection of the consumer, and it has a lot of problems.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Patriquin, for your presentation.

Are there some questions or comments from the members?

Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your comments, Dr. Patriquin. I think you and I are probably coming from the same background, agriculture, and maybe trying to adjust to the propagation or the furtherance of technology and marketing.

I have received a lot of letters from organic growers saying they feel they will be forced to pay for services they will never really need and it will become so expensive that they will probably have to get out of the business and go in another direction. I was interested in your comment that quality control was good, that they were providing a good product.

Who are the big players pushing for this type of legislation? Does it go as far as the Canadian Wheat Board?

Prof. Patriquin: I don't have direct evidence of that. I've heard that said, so maybe it is so. I can't judge that one way or the other. Something's driving it that I don't understand. Something's driving this process that doesn't make sense in terms of a lot of the existing producers. Whether it's the Canadian Wheat Board or not, I don't know.

Mr. Hoeppner: This is the feeling I get from the letters written to me by the organic producers. They have started from a grassroots industry. They've developed it and they've done a pretty good job on quality control, but the marketing always seems to experience some type of interference. They've had to abide by the buy-backs to export their products, which I know has caused a lot of grief with the buyers in the United States, and it has always been costly to them instead of helping them to develop this industry. So I have the same concerns as you have.

I think we are moving to an industry that has to be more deregulated, and I think we're going exactly in the opposite direction. Is that correct?

Prof. Patriquin: Exactly. I don't have any problem with people exporting organic food with big industry and all the rest of it. I just think it doesn't have to be tied to legislation. Industries have their own standards and this and that. There's something wrong with it being tied to legislation. Those interests should be served.

.0905

Mr. Hoeppner: I also get the feeling from these letters that they have more or less cooperated with European organic guidelines and have qualified to meet them. Is that correct?

Prof. Patriquin: Who do you mean by "they"?

Mr. Hoeppner: I mean the Canadian growers, when they export into the European market.

Prof. Patriquin: Yes, that system is developing. There's a letter from OCIA to Ann Millar that expresses a lot of it. They said the national regulations in 1990 might have had a different perspective from today. The biggest fear of losing export markets to the EU is now coming down, the European Commission having once more opened article 11, regulation 2092/91 permitting EU member states to recognize the equivalencies of CBs or imports. That's developing independently. So why do we need this third level of bureaucracy? It's completely opposite to everything else that seems to be happening today.

Mr. Hoeppner: Yet it's going to be totally user-funded, right?

Prof. Patriquin: Well, that's...

Mr. Hoeppner: Has that not been decided?

Prof. Patriquin: It should be user-funded, but let those users be the ones who are exporting. Don't force it on a lot of small producers in the Maritimes or in B.C. or wherever. Let the exporters pay for it. They're getting the benefits from it. Let the industry and the processors deal with it. The processors and distributors are eager to move more food, but they're not so eager to support the process. Let them pay for it.

Mr. Hoeppner: You're saying they're looking at their own pocketbooks, right?

Prof. Patriquin: I can't see what else is driving it, because there are so many problems created by it from the grassroots level, as you said.

I never quite understood the role of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in this process, and I have to say that after sitting on that board I often wonder about it. As far as I could see on the board, I was quite impressed that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had designated a person to deal with this with COAB. I thought that was a very constructive thing. But when I witnessed the process, that process was being moved by the person from Ag Canada; it wasn't being moved by the industry people. That person is very skilful at moving the agenda in the way she seems to think it should be moving. I have to wonder what is behind that, because it didn't seem to be a matter of just wanting to help the industry. There is something pushing this very hard. I don't think everything is on the table.

Mr. Hoeppner: You're saying, Dr. Patriquin, that Ag Canada probably isn't in touch with the industry itself and is trying more or less to promote its own agenda. Is that what I'm hearing?

Prof. Patriquin: Either that or some people in the industry have caught their ear and they agree with them and are promoting that agenda. I can't say what's driving it. I'm just saying that the process for me was a little bit funny. It definitely wasn't a grassroots process.

Mr. Hoeppner: That's the feeling I get from the letters I receive, that there is something driving this that does not really pertain to the industry - that there's some backroom manoeuvring they will not accept or do not want to accept and they're going to fight it.

Prof. Patriquin: That seems to be the case. This whole thing has developed quite well without having to bring legislation into it. Things are facilitating it more outside of formal legislation. Now, why is it still moving ahead like this?

Mr. Hoeppner: I appreciate those comments, Dr. Patriquin.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Landry.

Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Patriquin, it is a pleasure for me to ask you a few questions. I understand that you have been in the field of biological research since 1977. I would like to know what technical and monetary assistance you have received.

Second, how many producers are there in your province?

Third, is there currently a statute governing organic products in your province?

Fourth, in the past few years, have you not had some ups and downs and sometimes no assistance at all from either the federal or provincial governments?

.0910

[English]

Prof. Patriquin: On the first question on technical assistance, as a researcher I have had very hard times. I can much more readily get money to do this kind of research in Colombia or Brazil or the West Indies and so on. It's been very difficult within Canada. I'm an academic researcher and I deliberately put "organic" on my application forms because I felt I didn't have to apologize for it. I've had a hard time in that regard. The support of explicitly organic production on the research level has been not good at all in Canada.

What was your second question?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: How many organic producers are there currently in your province?

[English]

Prof. Patriquin: In Nova Scotia at the moment there are only about 20 producers, but there's a lot of interest right now from the provincial government. The attitudes are changing.

Right now I'm helping to organize a conference for this fall, the whole theme of it being to look at what opportunities there are for organic production for farmers generally in the Maritimes. We're expecting about 200 participants in that conference. The local officials and so on are being quite supportive. I understand they've done a survey recently and found that there's a huge potential market in the northeastern United States for organic produce from the Maritimes because the Maritimes are perceived as relatively clean and so on and so forth.

So that's opening up and there's a lot more interest. This production thing kind of went up and then levelled off. There are certainly far fewer than there are in Quebec. I think Quebec has the most producers, the most research support from the provincial government, and so on. It's been superb in that sense.

Regarding provincial legislation in Nova Scotia at the moment, because it hasn't been a big deal here in Nova Scotia, the provincial government has not been involved much in legislation. If the profile picks up a little bit, I think they will. There's certainly an opening of attitude here.

In terms of highs and lows, I wasn't quite sure what you meant by that. Do you mean in terms of production or interest or what?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I want to speak with you, who have been in this field, the field of organic farming since 1977. I'm surprised that, nearly 20 years later, organic farming has not developed further.

[English]

Prof. Patriquin: Well, the thing comes up and there's a lot of interest in it, particularly when some environmental controversy hits, such as the Alar scare around 1989 or so. Actually, I had organized a regional conference at just about that time. There was phenomenal interest in organic. Government people were involved, we got money for meetings, we got everything. Everybody was basically climbing on it.

Then within two years you had a really organized effort by the chemical industry to discredit a lot of that, and that had its effect. Also, you have the rising interest in biotechnology, and the classical research institutions like sophisticated modern science, not so much the field stuff. They like the biotechnology, and that's taken away a lot of the potential interest in that area.

However, what I see now - and mark my words on this one - is another round of these concerns about chemicals and the environment. I see a very rapid increase of interest in this whole area. There are all these articles coming out about estrogens and everything else and environmental illness. I see a lot of demand for organic food in this area from people with environmental illness. Whether it's genuine or not, it doesn't matter; it's there. Again, I see this as a much more sophisticated level of scientific understanding of problems with pesticides in the environment. People are going to demand a lot more organic produce. That's wide open. So I see that coming up again.

.0915

I think it's time the government, some of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada people, were a bit more open about supporting organic production. That's kind of a different issue from what we're dealing here with today.

I'm certainly more impressed with the system in Quebec. I'm a little familiar with it and how it's operated. They have a system where they pay 80% of the costs for groups of farmers to hire people, economists and so on, to advise them on organic production, and that slightly large blanket approach is a very appropriate one. It seems to be working very well out there. There are some private organizations, such as CDAQ in Sainte-Elizabeth-de-Warwick and so on, that work very effectively with dairy farmers in this type of field. There are some good models out there for that purpose.

Mr. Landry: Merci beaucoup.

Prof. Patriquin: So what I'm saying is that it has levelled off, but as I say, another big increase in demand will be coming.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Dr. Patriquin, for your open and frank discussion this morning. It certainly has given us a different picture here.

It appears that maybe there's a lack of communication between government bodies and a breakdown in the process, or whatever, with the organic aspect of farming. Maybe the information isn't flowing through from the grass roots. It appears that there's a net being set out and taking in more than what they anticipate, as you say, with the smaller farmers versus the large processors and producers wanting to put everyone under the same umbrella.

I think this is one of your major concerns, is it not?

Prof. Patriquin: Yes. I'm quite sympathetic, for example, with prairie farmers. That's traditionally an export-oriented agriculture that will go on for a long time, and I would like to see their thing facilitated. I'm not anti-export. I just don't want to see it done at the cost of some of the extremities of the country, where there are slightly different systems operating. And even within those provinces, there are the same kinds of controversies.

Mrs. Ur: Presently, with the number of organic farmers we have in Canada, with the acreage amount in organic farming, are there really the numbers there required to address export markets in that...? Is it in that much of a demand for us to really get behind the eight ball on this for export purposes?

Prof. Patriquin: I think it can be done, but I think the industry should do it itself. I don't think you need legislation for it. You may need support of other types such as is given to conventional agriculture, but I don't think we need legislation for it.

Yes, I do think there are significant export markets, some good potential markets coming up for some of the prairie farmers and so on.

Mind you, what happens is that a few of these bigger farms go into it and saturate the market pretty quickly, and the price goes down. This happened about five years ago to a lot of prairie farmers. There were a number of prairie farmers who shifted into organic. There was a big demand and they got good prices at the beginning, but they very quickly saturated the market. It just levelled off.

As I said, this thing goes like that. I see another phase of increase. It is a bit of a supply and demand thing going on there, but I think the industry can handle it itself as far as the market part of it's concerned.

Mrs. Ur: I think really in any farming it's the same; the first one in in a particular commodity is naturally going to be ahead of the game.

Another question -

Prof. Patriquin: Sorry, just let me interrupt. The other factor is that even if the demand increases very rapidly, the organic production only increases at a certain rate because of the time required for transition, the time required to learn things and so on.

So you can't, as you can on conventional agriculture, all of a sudden tomorrow fill the market and then drop out of it the next day. At least if you do that you're not using a very organic system. It has to progress a bit slower than that.

Mrs. Ur: Last, you say the interest in buying organic product increases when there's a bit of a chemical or pesticide scare with consumers. But do consumers really take into consideration the fact that organic farming perhaps has some drawbacks and is not as environmentally friendly as they perceive it to be, say in terms of tillage and fuel?

.0920

Prof. Patriquin: This is one of my difficulties with this process, because organic and ecological are not necessarily the same thing. This is the feeling generally. For example, in Nova Scotia the people who are promoting organic farming are more interested in promoting local produce than they are in pure organic. I would buy locally before I'd buy organic from California. Do you see what I'm saying?

In a sense, what this legislation, if it goes through, is promoting is buying organic from California as opposed to buying locally, because it discriminates against the smaller producers who function within a local context. And that's why I'm saying they're not necessarily the same thing. That's why I'm really opposed to anything that directly or indirectly regulates the use of the word "organic", because most of the producers in the Maritimes area are interested in ecologically sound organic production, not in export markets and so on. I'm not passing judgment on the system. It's a matter of freedom and letting people choose.

Another reason is that I teach in universities and I see a lot of the young people buy organic because they think it's good for them, for one thing, but also because they want to support ecologically sound organic production. That's another factor, and that's another thing I'm concerned about with tying legislation to big interests in the production of organic food as a commodity. I just don't like it being tied to legislation. Let it find its own place in the marketplace.

The Chairman: Dr. Patriquin, on a point of clarification, you just made the statement that you personally would rather buy local rather than organic.

Prof. Patriquin: Rather than organic from California, I would buy locally. Let's take broccoli, for example. If I can buy local broccoli that has been produced without a lot of chemicals - maybe a few - I would buy that over organic from California. Somebody with environmental illness may feel otherwise. They may feel they have to have the crystal-pure food. That's the prime importance. But what I'm saying is that in the Maritimes, even within the organic movement, there's more sympathy for local farmers than there is for thinking we have to buy organic no matter what.

The Chairman: I'm still not clear about what you're saying. I understand there's sympathy for local farmers, but are you saying sympathy for local farmers for using fewer chemicals or sympathy for buying from local farmers who have organic products? And if they're organic products, how does the consumer know what criteria those products meet? Do they meet a criteria that it's...and I've certainly grown my share of vegetables for both processing and fresh market; I might use fewer chemicals than somebody else. You have me confused here on how the consumer knows. Is it an emotion towards the small producer locally; and if this producer says this is organic as a consumer, to me, what does that mean?

Prof. Patriquin: One of the reasons I think you don't need regulation to regulate local markets is precisely because the consumers are becoming more sophisticated and they ask questions about the producers. They even go visit them. We're talking about local production and they're getting more involved at that level.

What I'm saying is that a lot of consumers have two criteria for buying food. One is organic and two is local. What I'm saying is that many of those people, including myself...if I have to make a choice between, let's say, a broccoli plant produced locally conventionally, not under a really intensive system but with a minimum use of herbicide and so on, and buying one from California, I'll buy one locally because it supports a local system and is more environmentally sound in the sense that you're not paying to transport it all the way from California.

The Chairman: So what you're saying, then, is buyer beware or the buyer needs to do their own investigation from the producer to know whether it's -

Prof. Patriquin: No, no.

.0925

The Chairman: I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. But what if I go down to the local market in Belleville, Ontario on Saturday morning and I see different signs, and this producer says these products are organically grown on his own local farm, and the next stall says the same thing, and the next stall says the same thing? How do I know as a consumer that number one producer used two sprays or fungicides, number two producer used three, and the next stall didn't use any? From what you're saying, I don't know. How would the consumer know?

Prof. Patriquin: What I'm saying is that the onus is on the industry to do their own education and their own advertising, to have their own rigour in their own system. It's like anything else. You have a GE product or this product or that product. For instance, OCIA-certified is recognized by people who know anything about organic food production. They know if it's OCIA-certified in this area they can expect a certain standard. That's a matter of education by the industry for consumers and so on and so forth.

The Chairman: So you're saying there should be a certification system somehow, someplace.

Prof. Patriquin: I think they have to find their place in the marketplace. For instance, there are farmers in Nova Scotia who are organic farmers certified by maybe two or three organizations. Those would be guys who are selling at quite a distance from their own farm. For instance, they'll be selling in supermarkets in Halifax and maybe one down in Yarmouth and so on and so forth.

Those guys will be OCIA-certified, because they're a long way from their customers. I know other organic producers only sell to people they actually know. They don't need to be certified and the consumer is making the choice there. The consumer is becoming more sophisticated in recognizing these differences.

The Chairman: Okay. How does the consumer know what the difference is between stall one, stall two and farmer one and farmer two and farmer three?

Prof. Patriquin: What I'm saying is that it is up to the industry to make their own premier label without legislation. They can do that. They can promote it like anybody else and get it recognized. I agree with where you're heading. In a way it would be nice to have legislation. I agreed with that point of view at one time. I still think there are going to be benefits to it. The problem is there are also a lot of detriments to it. That is how I see it.

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Mr. Chairman, you stole most of my thunder. I was going to try to take a run at this from the consumer's point of view.

I happen to live in an area that's adjacent to a very large metropolitan area. The concern I have is that urban consumers downtown might have the same level of interest in buying what they perceive to be organically grown food. But at this point they really have very little way of knowing, other than depending on the reputation of the grocer or whoever is retailing that product and therein back to the producer or back to the distributor and then to the producer.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is how a consumer who is perhaps not as closely attached to the rural community as you or I might be can have some sort of basic assurance.

Prof. Patriquin: The basic assurance is found in recognized organic certification systems. It's up to the industry to profile those and to make them known. They need to take out advertisements and say if you want your guarantee of highest-quality certified produce, buy OCIA-certified organic produce. List the reasons for it. Educate people. Why do we have to treat people like a bunch of...? Do we have to tell them and put on a little label that has a guarantee for everything? Do you know what I'm saying?

.0930

Mr. Reed: Yes, I do.

Prof. Patriquin: The industry is not doing its job, in my opinion, on that score to make legislation. I see just an awful lot of problems with it. I think in the end, it's actually going to result in a lower standard. They'll have to lower the standards to accommodate more people.

I have a lot of problems with that. I'm for certified food and organizations that work to have the highest standards, but it'll be a competitive marketplace process, so why shouldn't it go through that? There are good, recognized systems now.

Mr. Reed: I'm very sympathetic to what you say. You've cast a light on this issue that perhaps we haven't heard before. I really appreciate where you're coming from.

Mr. Chairman, you have stolen my thunder on this. That's okay; it'll save time. Thank you very much, Doctor.

The Chairman: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Dr. Patriquin, it is refreshing indeed to hear someone from the world of academia turn thumbs down on more government controls and regulations, because usually it's the other way around.

From your experience and knowledge of the organic food industry, where is this industry most prevalent in this country and what percentage of food production in this country would be attributed to the organic food industry?

Prof. Patriquin: There are lot of farmers whom I call functional organics. They don't actually sell their food as organic. We have a lot of dairy farmers, such as in Quebec for sure and the Maritimes, who have integrated systems. Most of the functions on the farm are organic. That's a benefit to them. It saves them money and so on.

So there's that level, which is probably hard to put a figure on. In terms of the actual market share of organic produce in Canada, in terms of our producers, I don't have the most recent numbers. But it's low, only about 2%. It's higher in certain areas, especially certain areas of Quebec.

There are a lot of imports to Canada. A lot of organic food is imported that could very well be produced here, which is where we're losing out. Some of that is quite pricey. That's a good potential market.

In terms of where it's best developed, that's Ontario and Quebec.

Also, there are shades of grey in this. For example, there's the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, which I think is about 800 or 1,000 farmers strong. They're not necessarily all certified as organic. A lot of them are simply farmers who wanted to try to do things with a little less chemicals. They try to do it a bit more organically, but are not necessarily selling to the market. These are some very significant family farms that are concerned about the environment and reducing costs.

So there's the final-market level, but then there's another level above that, which probably comes in at maybe 5% of farms, I guess, all told. They are what I'll call functionally organic. Although there may be a little bit of pesticide use and so on, most of the flows of materials are organic.

A lot of those people learn that from strictly organic farmers. The strictly organic farmers kind of pioneered a lot of the techniques and disseminated them. So a lot of other people benefit from that process.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask something more, this is kind of observation.

During this past winter there was an American scientist, I believe, on a speaking tour across the country. He was making the argument that chemical farming or chemicals will actually save the environment. Do you recall anything like this? Do you want to comment on that?

Prof. Patriquin: Well, I've heard these arguments. In fact, that's a very detailed argument. Let's put it this way. "Certified organic" is not going to save the environment; what I call "functionally organic" is going to save the environment. Chemicals will save the environment...

.0935

I see farming as going in two directions. You're going to a very high-tech, biotech type of system, which will mean large farms that won't be damaging to the environment. They'll have sort of safe foods, with far fewer pesticides and so on, but they will also not be very nurturing to the environment. Those will be large, highly capitalized, highly sophisticated farms.

On the other side, I see smaller farms with an organic type of production without a lot of the high-tech materials.

What's going to be squeezed out in the middle is the family farm that practises large-scale technology on a family-farm size. That's what can't survive in the future.

What you're going to have is the mega-farms with all the modern technical tools, which are kind of septic, they're safe. Then you're going to have the other smaller farms, the family-sized farms, which are going to be mostly organic for economic reasons and because there's a market. I think that's healthy. There will be some intermixing between those things. That's how I see the process going.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. McKinnon is next, then we'll ask Dr. Patriquin to close off, because we do have two other witnesses, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Good morning, Dr. Patriquin. I think we've covered the area fairly thoroughly, and I appreciate the uniqueness of your delivery this morning.

We have heard from other witnesses in terms of regulation and requirements thereof. One of the concerns of the industry, or persons associated with it, was the degree of fraudulence in claims by people involved in production - that is to say, if you ran out of a certain number of apples, then you went to your neighbour, who perhaps is also growing apples but isn't claiming to be involved in the organic business. Do you think we should be concerned about this level of fraudulent claims, in any regard, as far as the government is concerned?

Prof. Patriquin: I think it's up to the industry to develop a good, recognized certification system. One of the main problems here is when you get mixed organic-conventional production. I can tell you from doing certification inspections that if I had a dozen farms to inspect and one of them was a mixed farm, 90% of my time would be on that mixed farm. You really have to go into it in detail because there's so much potential to mix things up, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Part of what I'm concerned about is this movement to push organic produce as a commodity. There's an attempt to try to facilitate people moving in and out of being organic. Then, even if you have all that legislation there, there are going to be a lot of problems.

I think the protection against that is really a good, thorough system of certification, such as the better ones that exist. There are systems today that are not that hot. Let people promote these as marketing things. I don't think the legislation is going to help. It's just going to make it an awful lot more bureaucratic.

Mr. McKinnon: You noted in your remarks that you felt small producers are really not involved in the export trade of their goods. Do you not believe that there may be an opportunity here? It could be through an organization whereby small producers could in fact enter into an association with other small producers and get involved in export?

Prof. Patriquin: Sure, that's happened. I can't remember the name of the organization, but it was in the Eastern Townships of Quebec 15 years ago. That's Bart Hall-Beyer's organization. It was done without any legislation. It was done through OCA certification. They were selling out of Montreal. They weren't satisfied with the prices they were getting in Montreal. They formed a group so they could guarantee the supply, and so on, and started shipping down to Boston. That happened without any legislation.

.0940

Mr. McKinnon: That's right. I believe I heard you say, however, that small producers are never involved in international exports.

Prof. Patriquin: No, I wouldn't say never. I'm not saying that. I'm just concerned about, as you said, when they get together in a group and so on. It's like anything else. Some export, to bring the cash in or whatever, is...

I don't have any problem with export. And yes, I can see that being promoted. I can see it happening, for example, in Nova Scotia with this conference we're holding in the fall called Going Organic. This is an aspect of it that we want to try to promote.

At that conference, by the way, we're going to invite certifying organizations to come and make their presentations on their own - sell their own system of certification.

Mr. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, committee members.

Dr. Patriquin, if you have any closing remarks you would like to make, I'll give you that opportunity.

Prof. Patriquin: That's fine. I appreciate your interest.

The Chairman: We thank you very much for taking time this morning. This format has worked well for us. I hope it saved you some time.

Prof. Patriquin: I think it's wonderful. It certainly saved me a lot of trouble.

The Chairman: We're proud of it so far with the committee. It's estimated that in a series of four meetings we plan on doing this way, we'll save the taxpayer between $10,000 and $14,000.

Prof. Patriquin: I think it's wonderful, a good experience.

The Chairman: If we can communicate effectively in doing so, the purpose is served. Again, thank you very much for your contribution, and all the best.

Prof. Patriquin: Thank you.

The Chairman: Committee members, our next witness is with us in the room today in person. I'd ask Mr. Bill Reynolds to come forward. He is the executive director of the Canadian Health Food Association.

Mr. Reynolds, you probably have some opening comments you'd like to make to the committee, and then we will go to questions and comments from the members.

Members, I may not, as chair, always be able to hear from everyone. I don't want to curb discussion, but we do have time lines, and we have to remember that we have Mr. Reynolds and another witness between now and hopefully no later than 11:15 a.m.

Mr. Reynolds, proceed, please. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Reynolds (Executive Director, Canadian Health Food Association): Thank you very much.

My opening remarks will probably be a bit long on theory, but I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of it. I just want to phrase where we come from.

As the executive director of the Canadian Health Food Association and also the Canadian vice-president of the Organic Trade Association, which is a North American group, I want to thank the committee on agriculture and agrifood for the opportunity to present our views. It's really important that you're taking an active role in the development of these standards or in observing the development of these standards.

As some of you may be aware, the Organic Trade Association, which was formerly called OFPANA, or the Organic Food Producers of North America, was instrumental at the outset of the call for the development of these standards.

We worked with agriculture. I shouldn't say "we", because at that time I was not a member of OFPANA, but I can definitely assure you it was a grassroots movement then. The standards do represent a very strong input from growers, in fact primarily from growers, so we can say it was a grassroots movement from the beginning.

The CHFA has observed these. In fact, we had delegations to the first of the COUP process, the Canadian Organic Unity Project, which was a partnership between growers and Agriculture Canada to come together and start to explore where we would go with organic standards.

Why are these standards important? Philosophically they're important because they preserve the integrity of the word "organic". They assure the consumer that the phrase "certified organic" or "Canadian organic" is more than a marketing slogan. It's not just another way of saying "100% natural", which we now see. We've lost the word "natural".

At the last Codex meetings here in Ottawa Agriculture Canada made one final attempt for Codex to adopt a definition for "natural", and the rest of the world said no, we just can't agree on what natural is any more. That's unfortunate, but it's a word that's lost, although it's still being used, as we see, in advertising all the time. I would not like to see the word "organic" go that same route.

.0945

These standards document a commitment by organic growers and/or producers to a method of food production that is harmonious with the rhythms of the earth. Again, that's a very philosophical statement, but it does reflect a very strong belief. These standards provide a blueprint for a method of sustainable agriculture that allows the soil to naturally rebuild itself. And these standards are part of a growing ecological awareness, which the previous gentlemen referred to, that we must truly be caretakers of the earth and not merely exploiters of the bounty this earth can provide for us. This means we have to find ways for sustainable agriculture. As a system that works, I would say that organic agriculture is an objective we should be striving towards.

Practically, why are these standards important? I think they provide Canadian growers with a marketing niche that could greatly facilitate our trading position in North America, in our North American partnership with the United States, not to mention the world. For example, we have small Canadian dairies that are extremely concerned about what free trade is going to do to their marketplace when large dairy complexes in the United States are allowed to sell products into Canada. I don't know why it would not be very feasible to look at small organic dairies producing organic product that could, by the same free trade mechanisms, go right back into a huge marketplace that is demanding and devouring organically produced food at an incredible rate right now - the United States, our largest trading partner.

We had some discussion about the small family farm, which is finding it increasingly difficult to compete with huge agribusiness or huge collective farms in conventional product. Again, when you go to a smaller production, which organic almost by nature has to be, it gives the opportunity for the small family farm to find a niche for itself with a value-added product and survive, I would say, very nicely.

For example, we talk even just about Canadian product in Canada. In the natural foods industry or the health food industry, about 70% of our product is imported from the United States simply because the types of products that health food stores want to sell in the food area are not produced in Canada. With the kind of agriculture we have in Canada, I think it's unfortunate that we're importing this much food.

It seems to me that if we look at our priorities a little differently, there's a business opportunity here for Canadian growers and processors. We are increasingly getting involved in a global market. Free trade is bringing us into that environment. In some respects, whether we like it or not, we're there. We're going into that market kicking and screaming all the way, but we're going into it. In the end I think it's a valuable thing because it really teaches us how to compete on a world scale.

A week and a half ago I met with a representative of one of the largest multinational food producers in North America, which recently purchased a very small company that manufactures certified organic baby food. It's not a big business, not a big market today, but this company saw the future. It wanted to be part of it, and it said that it would own and would manufacture and sell, in Canada and the United States, certified organic baby food. What was the biggest problem they had when they came to me? How can we source this product in Canada? We can't find enough organic carrots, potatoes, never mind grains. We want to source the product here in Canada because we're processing the product here in Canada and we're going to package the product here in Canada for sale in Canada, the United States and the world.

When you have that kind of shift taking place, as government representatives of agriculture in Canada, I think we have to look at this as a marketing opportunity.

.0950

Another member of our association who works on an international scale selling only organic products to the health food market was forced to go to Italy in order to buy organic grains to produce organic pasta, because he could not find a separated organic grain in Canada that could be turned into an organic pasta. The market is so strong that he can go to Italy, buy the grain, have it made into pasta, have it shipped back to Canada, and sell it at a profit to be sold in health food stores and grocery stores at a profit.

I just don't believe that we can't compete very favourably in Canada with all the grain that's produced here, if we were to take some farms that are starting to look at the organic factor now and really help the development of that kind of a marketplace.

As another example, our association is just completing the first phase of a very modest cooperative project, between agriculture getting ready to go global and the health protection branch, to develop botanical monographs for medicinal herbs that can be grown in Canada. We just submitted the first ten monographs. The object was to develop monographs that would ensure that these herbs can be marketed readily here in Canada, but of course Agriculture Canada's point of view was that we have a lot of growers who now want to start producing these products and making very good money on very small acreage producing these medicinal herbs for export.

Canada is perceived around the world as a country that has clean air and clean water, and we know that by comparison we do, although we have our problems. I live very close to the Don River and I don't swim in it very much, frankly. I don't think I want to have a lot to do with the water that comes out of the Don River today.

In Canada we do have a lot of clean air and a lot of clean water. If I were a businessman selling an organic product from Canada, I'll tell you I would love it. Just saying this product comes from Canada, with a picture of the clean air and the clean water, is a natural marketing advantage for us.

Our focus on this monograph project was not necessarily organic, but I know absolutely that if I can convince a grower to make an organic herb, the value increases by at least 20% to 25% just by putting the word "organic" on it. That's because the consumer wants that kind of cachet; they want to know that it's organic. Not all consumers want that, but there's a significant percentage who do, and that's growing all the time.

As I said, Canada is known throughout the world for having an environment that is relatively pristine, and I think we, as people trying to encourage our growers and our business, should encourage that. I think it's an opportunity for us to help the small family farm. I think it's the type of value-added product that we should see. Anything that Agriculture Canada can do to facilitate the approval and implementation of these types of standards would be welcome. As associations we really encourage this process.

I would make a couple of other comments. I'm no big fan of regulations myself, frankly. We work with the health protection branch all the time. I grew up in Montana, and they've just repealed the speed limit; they don't like laws there at all. We just don't like them, but I think you have to look at these organic standards in the same way that you look at good manufacturing practices for any consumer product that's being sold.

Most of my lobby work has been with the health protection branch, and the area that we are constantly working on with our industry is to bring them up to a standard of quality and excellence that the consumer really expects. When we look at organic standards, I think what we're really looking at are good manufacturing practices that are not so different from the type of standards that other branches of government bring in for other types of production. In that regard, I think we have to look at it.

I understand the problems with small producers not wanting to be forced into that situation. They don't have to. They can sell all their product at their gate or at the local restaurant. That person may well know that the product is organic, but as has been pointed out here, how do I as a consumer know? I don't know whether it's organic or 100% natural; I have no way of knowing that. In our society today and in our times we don't have the luxury of searching and sourcing all the carrots we eat. We just don't have that luxury. So I think we have to look at organic standards.

.0955

I would say one other thing about the way Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has pursued this. I have to admit, and certainly Ann and Debra Bryanton and a number of other people can attest to it, I have been extremely frustrated with the idea of the third-party verification process. That was very frustrating because I wanted to see these standards in place. I don't see why we have to bring everybody else along and have them verified from a third party.

I am now learning more and more about cost recovery and what government is doing. In this regard it has been explained to me by both Ann and Debra, the two people at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada I've spoken with for the most part, that one of the reasons we are looking at an arm's length body is that the cost of inspections would be substantially less if done by industry, to industry, with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada really as the last resort for people who don't want to bring their product into line.

I think it's a positive step. It's not an easy step. It's a different way of governing; we are looking at a different way of governing. That's happening throughout government and it's a challenge that I know you all face. As a not-for-profit association, we'll do everything we can to help find new ways to govern with you.

Those are my comments. I really appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.

I'll go first to Mr. Reed. I won't speak for you this time, Mr. Reed. It's your thunder.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, you can speak anytime you wish on whatever subject, and you usually do.

Obviously the thing we are wrestling with here is not that there shouldn't be a set of standards. What we are wrestling with is who should establish the standards and who should enforce them and promote them as well.

You laid it out very well. You said that historically government has governed in a particular way when it comes to the application of standards, and maybe now it's appropriate to look at this again from a different perspective. I happen to be one of those who believe that if you have an industry or an endeavour that can be regulated and promoted internally, it's probably best for that endeavour, for that industry, as well as for the taxpayer. If government takes over the whole issue here, there's no question that we are into an expanded bureaucracy. That's not the direction government is going at the present time or wants to go.

I'd like to ask if you could comment on that debate between the two, between government imposition of standards and the industry establishing its own.

Mr. Reynolds: What I imagine happening in Canada is that these standards would become minimum standards. They would be the standards below which you could not refer to a product as organic.

Now the imposition or the... That is the challenge - how you actually administer those. As I said, the development of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board has been slow and difficult, but I think it's probably the right way to go. In fact it is encouraging. It's much more of a self-regulatory type of environment with an agency of last resort there. You're not going to create a Canadian organic advisory board with enforcement officers who are going to be able to go out in the field, so they have to be able to come to somebody and say look, we cannot get farmer A to come into compliance and yet he insists on using the word "organic". We need some help here. That's the trick, isn't it? It's a tough one.

.1000

I think Agriculture Canada has to be prepared; in the same way that Health Canada is talking about good manufacturing practices, they have to be prepared to say you have to meet these standards. These people may provide the paper trail, and if they're comfortable with what you're doing, we're comfortable with it, barring a complaint.

Mr. Reed: You alluded to baby food being certified organic. This product exists now and it originated in the United States?

Mr. Reynolds: Yes.

Mr. Reed: Who certified the baby food?

Mr. Reynolds: In this case, I think the primary certifier has been the OCIA. They've also used another organization called FVO, which is Farm Verified Organic. There's another association in the States called Oregon Tilth. There's a number of different bodies that don't necessarily even have exactly the same standards.

Mr. Reed: We're faced with that here.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, we are faced with that. What has happened is that the standards that are being proposed by Agriculture Canada today and the drafts that are out there do represent a fairly high standard, frankly. My understanding is that it's very close to an OCIA standard, which is a reasonable standard.

In other words, it's a three-year period. There's not a transition phase before that time. You can call it ecological, you can call it grown without pesticides, but you can't call it organic until, after three years, an inspector says, yes, the inputs you have used do meet the standards. Whether the inspector is an FVO inspector or an OCIA inspector doesn't matter, because those people all know what they're working with. What they would have to be conversant with is the Canadian standard.

Mr. Reed: Is the U.S. government involved in those standards? Are they backstopping those organizations?

Mr. Reynolds: It appears that the direction they're taking is that they're not only going to backstop, but they are going to be the standard; they'll be the ceiling, not the floor, if you see what I'm saying. At least, you're not going to be able to say our product is not only Canadian organic and meets Canadian standards, but it also is this because of this and therefore may be better. In the United States that will not be allowed. I think in Canada that is still up for debate, but a person could meet Canadian standards and they could meet some other standard that might have something specialized.

The Canadian standard would be (a) for consumer confidence and (b) for trade. I don't know if that's the right priority, but those are two of the key reasons that you would have the Canadian organic stamp on your product. That ensures the customer that this is a visible standard that anybody can get a hold of and see at any given time. They don't have to find an OCIA certifier somewhere; they can literally get a hold of the government if they have to.

Mr. Reed: When you buy motor oil there's a little stamp on it that says "meets or exceeds".

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, and in essence that's what it would say. I guess it would be "meets or exceeds". You could have your Canadian organic standard on it and my understanding is that you could have your OCIA standard on there as well. That would be a business decision that the company might make that would increase its value, whatever that standard might be. You could have two or three different stickers, as long as the product meets each one of the criteria of those various certifying bodies. If it's just Canadian, then it meets or exceeds Canadian organic standards. That's the way I understand it, and in fact I think that's the way we should go in Canada.

Mr. Reed: In the world market, we have to be conscious of the other standards that are met or exceeded if we're going to export, of course, because we can't ignore them.

.1005

Mr. Reynolds: Exactly.

Mr. Reed: Under the new free trade rules under the GATT, there are requirements that certain quality standards be met if you're going to import or export to another country. If I hear you correctly, what you're saying is you would like the industry to set the standards but you still want government backstop.

Mr. Reynolds: I would like government backstop, and in this transitional stage I would even like to see the government have a bit of a hand in facilitating this new way of thinking - this new way of governing, so to speak - even to the extent of helping the Canadian Organic Advisory Board get on the ground and running and establish that kind of confidence in the mart.

It's going to take a period of time. Most of the people on that body are growers. They have relatively very little funding. We're doing what we can as an association to help them. We provide rooms for them at our trade shows so they can have meetings. We help them where we can and when we can, but of course we have other priorities as well, so we can't take all of our energy and devote it to organic food production.

Agriculture Canada has been very responsive to a lot of issues as they've developed these draft standards. They've been very cautious not to come out and say "Okay, there they are, kids. Read 'em and weep, and we're going to hire a bunch of inspectors to go out and inspect them." I have to say maybe two years ago I probably would have been much more desirous of that, again, not because I wanted more regulation but because I wanted the standards in place.

I want to see those standards in place because I think it's the way we should be going, philosophically and practically.

Mr. Reed: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Landry.

Mr. Landry: Mr. Reynolds, you are the Director of the Canadian Health Food Association. Since you have been there, how many complaints have you received from the public or other groups?

Second, how do you define health in your field?

Third, I would like you to come back to inspection costs. You were speaking about independent, not government inspection. I would like you to elaborate a little on the subject.

[English]

Mr. Reynolds: Thank you.

With regard to complaints, we don't take a lot of them, because we are a trade association, so we're not available to the public per se, although we do increasingly have suppliers saying "Well, what is organic? When these people claim they're selling organic, what is it they're selling?" Today, not a lot, frankly, and increasingly so.

My second hat is with the Organic Trade Association, whose offices are in Springfield, Massachusetts, and they get that question constantly: What is organic? What is certified organic? The organic movement in the United States, I would say, is several steps ahead of where it is here, not only in terms of consumer awareness but certainly in terms of production. So today we don't get a lot of complaints or questions, but it's an issue that comes up.

.1010

An example is the recent meetings of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board in Vancouver at our trade show. The Canadian Organic Advisory Board group had determined at a meeting early in the morning of one day that they were not going to attempt to regulate the word "organic" any longer - they were abandoning that effort. In the meantime we were sponsoring an all-day workshop for store-owners selling organic products, and the question kept coming back from these store-owners to the person facilitating this workshop: What's organic? How do we know what's organic?

It became such an issue in the workshop that at the end of the workshop, the presenter, who also is a member of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board, went back up to the meetings of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board and said "We have to revisit this question, because the people downstairs are saying this is the issue - what's organic? - not what's Canadian organic, not what's certified organic, but what does the word `organic' mean?"

If that's any measure of the interest out there... It certainly wasn't a scientific study, but it was a very direct reflection of what was requested.

You want a definition of ``health"? I'd rather work with the term "health food". In general in our association we have used as a working definition "whole food": foods that are not produced with a wide variety of chemicals, pesticides and preservatives; food that is generally less processed, in other words prepared in the home, although we see more and more of these types of product being prepared just like the kind of product you see in conventional, so you're now seeing your organic chicken pot pies being produced and sold in health food stores and natural food markets. In the general sense that would be it.

Health foods also may include supplements. Our industry has been very strong in the area of supplements, and in fact for a number of years I would say was probably dominated by the interest in supplements. That trend is starting to change again. We're seeing more and more interest in foods and in whole foods and organic foods. That interest is coming from the consumer back through the store to our association.

Could you repeat the third part of your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Earlier you said you wanted there to be an inspection office independent of any government subsidies. I would like you to be more explicit on this subject.

[English]

Mr. Reynolds: My understanding is the mechanism by which the Canadian Organic Advisory Board does an inspection is to charge the grower, rather as the OCIA or FVO does today.

In other words, if you would like to have your product certified as an OCIA product, you call the OCIA office and they will send out the nearest person, who will establish a fee, usually based on the gross sales of your operation. In the case of very small farms sometimes those fees are very small and probably can barely be sustained by the growers. I agree with the previous presenter.

In the case of very large growers, there's a company in the United States, which markets both in Canada and in the United States, that has always only sold certified organic food. I know that in the associations they're members of, including OCIA, we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars annually in fees just to use the OCIA logo, which means they're certified by OCIA. For them those tens of thousands of dollars are definitely worth the effort.

As to what we're looking at in Canada, what I have seen of the COAB proposed fee structure, which is certainly not anywhere near being completed, was very modest at the outset. But of course it's also based on the volume, so when you start to talk about a big producer, that big producer's going to pay more on a percentage basis.

.1015

I don't know the actual numbers because at this stage it's still premature. I don't think the Canadian Organic Advisory Board is in fact out certifying anybody today. I don't think there are fees being... Maybe somebody from Agriculture Canada would have better actual numbers that have been presented. I can't speak to the numbers right now.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to hear your presentation, Mr. Reynolds.

In the early 1950s and 1960s I was a farmer producing sweet corn, peas and beans for a processing plant. I was always amazed at the quality control that this plant exercised on the production of those products. They would have field men out there continually watching you grow these products.

As for this issue of processing organic foods for babies, don't you think that the processor would not feel comfortable just buying something certified by OCIA or a similar organization on the open market? Don't you think they would contract this food themselves and make very sure by their monitoring that it was a safe food or an organic food?

Mr. Reynolds: I think most responsible companies would be absolutely comfortable with that. And in the best of all possible worlds, of course we wouldn't need any regulations at all. If everybody were that responsible, we wouldn't need regulations.

Mr. Hoeppner: That's the comment I wanted you to make, because on the farm we used to have the popular saying that when government gets involved once or helps once, you suffer a bit with pain; the second time round you start bleeding; and the third time they come in it's fatal. So could that also happen to this organic industry if you start over-regulating, putting too much pressure on the producer and not enough to make at least -

The Chairman: Just a moment. The next witness is on the teleconferencing line, but we're not finished with the present witness. Where did our control people go? Do you have any idea? I'm not very technologically educated. I don't even know where the controls are so we can push the kill button.

If the witness will be patient, we will be with you in the not too distant future.

A voice: Can you hear me?

The Chairman: Yes, we can hear you, but quite frankly we don't want to hear you for a moment because we're not finished with the present witness.

Can you mute from your end in Owen Sound? We'll call you when we're ready.

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead. Mr. Reynolds, were you speaking? Go ahead.

Mr. Reynolds: I share what you're saying: is the kiss of government ultimately the kiss of death? I guess when I was talking about what I think is trying to take place here... We're actually talking about a different form of governance. It is a challenge. There's no question about it. It's a governance that puts a whole lot more onus back onto the industry.

As I said at the end of your last question, in the best of all possible worlds, in a very responsible society, of course we would need very few regulations. Regrettably, we don't necessarily live in the best of all possible worlds and there are occasionally unscrupulous business people who will take advantage of a business opportunity. That's the question, isn't it?

With the type of quality control for beef products, we still from time to time get something that slips through the cracks. Does it slip through the cracks because an inspector was out that day? Does it slip through the cracks because a company found a way to get it through the cracks?

.1020

These are the questions that the consumer probably really doesn't want to have to ask. They assume that they're being protected from beginning to end. They assume that what they're purchasing, especially in a case like this where they're spending additional money for that type of product, is going to meet those types of standards.

You're right. It's a very difficult thing. What you're looking at... Is it a different way of governance? In my experience with Agriculture Canada so far they've been very attuned to this issue. That's why the process has not been as fast as it could have been.

They certainly could have come in sometime earlier and said, okay, we feel we have the standards. We think we have it and this is it, we're going ahead. They haven't done that. I think they haven't done it for the very reason you're describing. They don't want to come in and kill a situation with a bunch of laws.

Mr. Hoeppner: Do you think government can really stop that? I'm just thinking back to the tuna scandal and a few other instances where we've had all the regulations needed. The criminal element will access the industry one way or another without the regulations.

What I really fear is that we've seen an industry develop very fast. It is very organized and probably self-regulated. It's come to a point where we're actually respected around the world for the type of organic food that we're producing. I would hate to see that process being slowed down or deteriorating.

When we look at chemical harmonization and all of these kinds of things with other government...when government takes over, it's very slow. Once you have a government regulation, it usually takes a court action to change it.

I'm thinking very specifically of the Canadian Wheat Board when we were not allowed to transport feed from province to province. It took a farmer in Saskatchewan to ship feed into an Alberta feed lot and go to court. That destroys the whole system and it slows it down. That is my fear. We have an industry that developed fast. It has a good product and there's a tremendous opportunity for better markets or more markets. Let's not slow it down.

Mr. Reynolds: Yes. I appreciate what you're saying. I know that there are...again this is not a scientific or well-documented answer or study. We have brokers operating in this market who attempt to send products into certain countries. Those countries will not accept it as an organic product coming from Canada unless it is certified as Canadian organic. They want that sort of a cachet. In world trade, I think that it...

Mr. Hoeppner: Isn't it their right now, though?

Mr. Reynolds: They don't have to take it. They don't know. They don't have to take it and so they don't take it. Honestly, I believe that if this is handled correctly, as a business opportunity it could be a very positive thing for small Canadian...

Mr. Hoeppner: Should it more or less be handled by the processors? We have a lot of the processing plants and the vegetables... The canning industry does the regulating of the product and the monitoring that the product is...

Mr. Reynolds: But isn't that what COAB is attempting to accomplish?

Mr. Hoeppner: Probably, but it's doing so at the farm gate level rather than at the processing end.

Mr. Reynolds: In fact, partly because of Canadian health food associations and our input, they have had to put in - and we've insisted on it - that processors, not growers, sit on that board and have a say in it.

Even from the first COUP meeting that I ever attended, I said, look, it's all well and good for growers to develop standards, but if you're not going to include the business people who are going to try to sell these products in the process of developing and administering the standards, you're not going to have a standard that's going to work anywhere beyond your gate.

We would like to see even more participation by processors and producers on the Canadian Organic Advisory Board. I think over time we will, because as more start to emerge here in Canada, they will be participating. Later today you're going to hear from a person from OVONA, another certifying body. I'll be interested in what they have to say about it, but I know that...

Mr. Hoeppner: Wouldn't that be a better route? Get the processors and the producers to more or less set the standards rather than having a third party - the government - involved.

.1025

Mr. Reynolds: It would be. What I think I would like to see from Agriculture Canada is that they shepherd and facilitate this process through until we have a functioning body that is administering these standards. I think it should be done by a third party. I think it's the right way to go, but since it is a new form of governance, I would like to see Agriculture Canada shepherd and foster the development of this process through to an end like that. I think it needs the support of that kind of an administration, and I think Agriculture Canada has been very progressive in this project.

Mr. Hoeppner: A marriage with three partners usually doesn't survive very well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner, for that word of wisdom.

I can assure everybody that it is not the desire of Agriculture Canada to dictate. Agriculture Canada is responding to a divergence of opinion and desires in this whole sector of agricultural production and processing and marketing... I think one of the things we have learned as a committee is that there definitely is a divergence of opinion. The challenge to the industry is to come together with what's best for the most, and Agriculture Canada is certainly attempting to facilitate that process.

Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Mr. Chairman, we're at 10:30 a.m. right now. You said that -

The Chairman: We can be here until 11:15 a.m.

Mr. Calder: I have a number of questions here, but I think I'm going to go for just one.

Mr. Reynolds, I'm going to ask you to be a visionary, which probably won't be very hard. I'm going to ask the question and put a preamble behind it. In the future, do you see organic and commercial being back together again? I ask that question because in the year 2025 we're going to have 8 billion people on the face of the earth. We'll be at the point where it'll no longer be tonnes per acre but percentage of protein per acre that we'll have to deal with.

A number of the witnesses right now have basically said that organic is nice, but I think organic came about as an education point. When the consumer found out in the early 1960s how much spray we were using on the grounds and everything else in commercial farming, he said, that farmer in the bibbed coveralls who had the chicken scratching around his yard, he isn't there any more, and that's the way I want my food.

Commercial has changed. I think we picked up some ideas from you guys, and that's why I asked about the marriage of the two. We're going to have a lot of people to feed very shortly, and as visionaries I think we have to start making moves towards that eventuality.

Mr. Reynolds: If you are talking about husbanding the earth, then yes, what we're looking at is a change in the way we grow and produce our food. I am fortunate enough to have grown up in an era when I can remember the chicken farmer who used to bring the eggs to my father's drug store complaining bitterly about the jet airplanes that were flying overhead because the chickens weren't laying the way they used to.

Mr. Calder: And I am a chicken farmer.

Mr. Reynolds: This was back in the 1950s.

I met with a gentleman this morning who said that in the Jewish tradition you leave your fields fallow every seventh year. In another form of agriculture you would always leave part of your field fallow, which is a part of organic agriculture. You let that soil rest. Yoy let it rebuild itself or put in a green manure crop so that it can rebuild itself. In that way we're not feeding it from the top and really depleting the soil.

In that regard, as people who have to husband the earth, yes, I think that's what we have to look at in the future. In 2025 it should be one form of agriculture again, but right now we don't have it.

In a sense, this is a transitional stage. I like to buy my produce locally too. I don't know whether they spray it or not, but I tend to buy it locally because it's there, it's fresh, and I know it's fresh. If I can drive out and buy broccoli from the guy at the stand, I know that he grew that broccoli. I don't know whether he sprayed it or not, but it's fresh, so I'm interested in that product.

Mr. Calder: So it is going to be an educational process.

Mr. Reynolds: I think it's an educational process and what we're really doing is facilitating that process.

.1030

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds, you saw part of the first presenter. In the divergence that I spoke about a minute ago, one of the messages I got from the first witness this morning was that the small producers you just referred to may or may not need standards, whereas his feeling was that it was the larger producers, processors and marketers who were driving this whole process. Can you comment on the role of this whole process in terms of the small versus the larger?

Mr. Reynolds: I think it's part of a transitional situation. We have a lot of people who suddenly want to grow a little bit of organic and they find a way to sell what they grow and produce today. What can happen, and what is increasingly happening, is that suddenly can start getting into a larger marketplace. Particularly in Canada, I think it's a business opportunity.

My standard complaint with Agriculture Canada over the years has had nothing to do with organic, and that has been that we focus on helping people get product for export, but we import so much food ourselves. But if I go to Agriculture Canada to talk about domestic production for domestic consumption, there's no bureau I can go to talk about that. Sometimes we don't think about that. That has to be the first step. The second step is that we can also export that product.

The small producers probably don't need those standards today. If they want to start exporting or if a group of those small producers want to take all of their organic carrots and sell them to the organic baby food company, they may well need to be certified, and if they all work together they could probably afford to be certified. Eventually they may have enough land that each one of those people wants to became certified and grow their own product. So it's a transitional stage at that level.

So the small people don't necessarily need it today, but some of them want it. Consumers, however, want to know whether it's a small producer or not.

The Chairman: Unless you have further comments, thank you for your contribution. The committee members and I are finding this very interesting and I hope worth while, and the others who are following it will, too. Thank you for your contribution.

Mr. Reynolds: I had very short notice, so I apologize for not having something to hand out in either official language. I will flesh out my remarks and send them to the committee so that they can be circulated. I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation. I think it's an important process. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: You did very well for having short notice, but be aware that your comments are recorded. But if you wish to flesh them out or add to them, you can send that to the clerk. Thank you.

We'll take a one- or two-minute recess. Our next witness, Mr. Hack, is patiently waiting.

Mr. Hack, we'll be one or two minutes. Thank you for your patience.

.1034

.1037

The Chairman: I'll call the members back to the table. Our next witness is Mr. Hack, who is president of the Society for Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening in Ontario.

Mr. Hack, we thank you for joining with us today in this new format of the committee. Hopefully it will be easier for you and convenient for you. I am sure you have been told this, but just to give you an idea, we see and hear you. As someone is speaking to you from this end, the camera will be focused on that individual here.

We have about 35 minutes. Hopefully we can address our concerns to you in that time. I hand things over to you. I'm sure you have some comments at the beginning. Proceed.

Mr. Ulrich Hack (President, Society for Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening in Ontario): Thank you, I have general comments at first.

[Technical Difficulty - Editor]

But on how it is developed, I have five points of concern. I have written a letter toLarry Lenhardt and I would like to read out those five points.

The Chairman: Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Hack, the sound is difficult for the translators to use. While that's being adjusted a little bit, I will just clarify for Mr. Landry. I understand you're going to go through the letter that Mr. Lenhardt has on the five points.

So if that's okay with Mr. Landry, Mr. Hack will proceed with these five points of concern he has in the letter. You have that en français, Mr. Landry?

Mr. Landry: Yes.

.1040

The Chairman: Is that okay? Can we proceed?

Mr. Landry: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hack.

Mr. Hack: The first point is that the COAB accreditation system cannot be mandatory. There must be freedom of choice to utilize other existing or emerging accreditation organizations, for example IFOAM, to perform this function.

The second point is that the word "organic" is so commonly used in farming, farm names and company names that the attempt to restrict it by law is not appropriate. It would unfairly restrict farmers and gardeners who legitimately farm organic, selling to a local market, but who never had any interest in getting certified. Certification only serves to create trust for faraway consumers for export. Since the organic ideal is to sell in a local market, every effort has to be made to avoid any restrictions and obligations to those farmers and gardeners doing it. Restrictions of the word "organic" as proposed in New Brunswick are morally unacceptable and are only designed to put legitimate organic farmers out of business for the profit of a few. We have to work together, not against each other.

Point number three is that we need a two-tier certification system, after the working model of the COABC in British Columbia. The two-tier certification system requires only those farms that export to meet the strict and bureaucratic requirements for COAB accreditation. A farmer who does not export should not be forced to meet all that paperwork, and COAB should be financed by those needing the accreditation for export.

Point four is that as a small certification body, we may not be able to have sufficient inspectors available with a reasonable knowledge of biodynamic farming and the required inspector training course, in order to be able to change the inspector every three years as proposed. We need regulations that allow exceptions in cases like ours.

Point number five is that organic inspectors need to be allowed to accept food and lodging from the inspected farm. The main reason is that our inspectors should be part of our organic industry, and therefore should be allowed to accept an organic meal from the farm they inspect rather than being forced to eat out, non-organic. Tom Harding said that he already received many meals in the capacity of inspector. Tom Harding is, I think, president of IFOAM. This should be reflected in the regulations.

These are all my points. Are there any questions?

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hack.

I have a question. You used the term "biodynamic farming". Could you expand, for my benefit at least, on biodynamic farming versus an organic food production system? Is there a difference?

Mr. Hack: Actually there is a difference. Biodynamics has organic farming as the basic principle, and then you use some herbal preparations and closed farm organisms to enhance the vitality of the food. With organic farming you can take so much manure that you can still have the same nitrate problem in the soil. Biodynamic farming is a lot more strictly handled. Biodynamic farming puts a lot of emphasis on bioecology and quality.

The Chairman: The translators are having difficulty. Is there a direct feed to the translators? That's something we have to keep in mind. It must be the setting on the other end. This is no fault of Mr. Hack, but I will admit that the sound is coming through as if the speaker is in a rain barrel. It's the sound of him speaking in a hollow room, and that makes it very difficult for the interpreters.

.1045

Mr. Landry, do you have any questions for Mr. Hack?

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, you put a very good question to the representative of the Society for Biodynamic Farming and Gardening in Ontario. I did not understand the answer he gave you because I could not understand the difference between the question you asked and the answer he gave. I would like you to elaborate on that.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hack, would you give that answer again so that the translators can get a better response for Mr. Landry?

Mr. Hack: Biodynamic farming has as a base a good organic farming system. Biodynamic farming requires a closed farm where you're not taking in manure from outside, so you have a sound, healthy system in itself. On top of that, we use herbal preparations to enhance the vitality of the plants. Biodynamic farming was started in 1924 because people felt there was a lack of vitality and health in the land. So it was a very early start.

The main goal of biodynamic farming is vitality and quality of the product.

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Reed: I have a point of order. Perhaps once Mr. Hack's statement is printed in the evidence, a translation could be made available to Mr. Landry.

The Chairman: It's not the same as if it's done here.

Mr. Reed: No, I know.

The Chairman: Mr. Landry, do you mind if we proceed with Mr. Hack this morning?

Mr. Landry: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, do you have a comment?

Mr. Hoeppner: Yes.

I'm looking at point three, Mr. Hack. You say we need a two-tier certification system after the working model of a co-op in British Columbia. Is this a system that organic growers generally prefer, or is there also a dispute over that type of system?

Mr. Hack: In our case there is no dispute.

[Inaudible - Editor]...because we have some farmers certified to sell on local markets and another one who wants to be accredited for international markets. We have some people getting certified because of idealism. They want the biodynamic certification, but they are only selling on the local market, so they shouldn't be subjected to international market regulations.

Mr. Hoeppner: Has there been a discussion on this system? Is it generally preferred, or is it just preferred by people like you?

Mr. Hack: There has been other general discussion by some members, yes.

Mr. Hoeppner: Can you tell me, Mr. Hack, what percentage of your type of industry is involved in the organic system? How much of it is biodynamic farming compared to the actual organic system?

Mr. Hack: At this point we are a very small organization. Last year we had only six certified farmers. We are a growing organization, and there is a large number of organic farmers in our area who are interested in biodynamic but are only certified organic.

Does that answer your question?

The Chairman: Yes, I think it does. We'll just hesitate a minute and let the translators give your answer to Mr. Landry.

.1050

Go ahead, Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Hoeppner: I have another short question, Mr. Hack. In point five you say organic inspectors need to be allowed to accept food and lodging from inspected farms. What is the logic here? What are you trying to say with that?

Mr. Hack: In COAB in British Columbia they don't allow it. I think it's a very bad system not to allow it. When you make an inspector have absolutely no contact with a farm except for inspection, I think that's bad.

You have written on the paper that the inspector is impartial and he has decided; I think that should be sufficient. It should not be such that he is not allowed. I'm not implying that he has to accept it, but he should be allowed to accept. It shouldn't be against the regulations if he does.

Mr. Hoeppner: Are you telling me, Mr. Hack, that the inspector is not allowed to communicate with the farmer when he does this inspection?

Mr. Hack: Yes, in British Columbia it is handled pretty strictly.

Mr. Hoeppner: That's interesting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mrs. Ur, did you have a comment?

Mrs. Ur: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Hack. In fact you're pretty close to my neck of the woods, which is down in Holstein, Ontario just outside of Mount Forest. I was just up in Owen Sound last weekend.

I'd like to go to point number three too. Isn't this going to be just a little bit confusing for the customer who's buying organic? How are we going to do this on a proposed two-tier system? Are we going to have organic number one and organic number two? How are we going to deal with that?

Mr. Hack: No. That's pretty simple. We have "Canada organic" as proposed by COAB, and ``Canada organic" is to enable us to trade between provinces and trade internationally. All those farmers who don't trade beyond the provincial borders don't need the COAB participation system. All the farmers shouldn't be subject to it. They should still be allowed to use the name "organic", but only within their province.

Mr. Calder: It still sounds pretty confusing for the consumer.

Mr. Hack: I don't think so, because you were planning to have the trademark "Canada organic". You can't subject the small farmer who just has a few acres to a $300 inspection fee when it hardly calls for it. Do you want to discourage him from producing at all or do you want to encourage him to keep producing as he does?

Mr. Calder: I don't want that. I just want it plain and simple for the consumer. I think that's what the consumer wants.

Mr. Hack: Yes, but I think "Canada organic" is very simple. It is certified and it can be exported everywhere, whereas the other one is only for the local market or the people in that specific portion. They could just use the regular name "organic". I think legally it's hard to restrict the name "organic " anyway.

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

The Chairman: If there are no further questions, Mr. Hack, we thank you very much for your contribution. We have your concerns, as you say, recorded very well in your letter to Mr. Lenhardt. In that way, you have made your views and those of others of the organization that you belong to well known.

We thank you for the contribution today and wish you well in the growing season ahead. I don't know whether it's already started in Owen Sound. It's pretty cold in most places. But I wish you well in the growing season ahead.

Mr. Hack: Thank you.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Landry.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: I couldn't follow this witness's comment, Mr. Chairman, and I would like that not to occur again in future. It is very difficult to follow using the interpretation only. I can't ask him questions and speak about what he says.

[English]

The Chairman: We understand that, Mr. Landry. We thank you for your cooperation in bearing with us today. Please bear with us for maybe another meeting or two until we try to get the kinks out of the system.

I think what happened today - and I'm not blaming the system - is that at the other end of the room it was too hollow. It makes it very difficult for the translators to hear the sound that way and be able to translate at the same time. We will endeavour to get that fixed, and if we find out that this system is not going to work, we simply will not continue on the system. Thank you very much for cooperating today.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe our next committee meeting is on Tuesday at 9 a.m., and cost recovery is the subject. Thank you very much. Have a good weekend.

Return to Committee Home Page