AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

0915

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

0920

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

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Elmer Laird (President, Back to the Farm Research Foundation)

0925

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Elmer Laird

The Chair

Ms. Kathy Holtslander (Representative, Saskatchewan Eco-Network)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Arnold Taylor (President, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate)

The Chair

Mr. Arnold Taylor

0940

0945

The Chair

Mr. Jim Mann (President, Farmers of North America)

Mr. Abbott

0950

The Chair

Mr. Neil Hardy (Vice-President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities)

Mr. Abbott

0955

The Chair

Mr. Glen Annand (Representative, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers)

1000

The Chair

Mr. Bill Woods (Representative, West Central Road and Rail)

1005

1010

The Chair

Ms. Karen Archibald (Representative, Saskatchewan Food Security Network)

Mr. Don Kossick (Representative, Saskatchewan Food Security Network)

Ms. Karen Archibald

1015

Mr. Don Kossick

The Chair

Dr. Alex Livingston (Dean, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan)

1020

The Chair

Dr. Curt Hagele (Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association)

1025

The Chair

Mr. Terry Hildebrandt (President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan)

1030

The Chair

Mr. Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands)

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Bill Woods

1035

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. Arnold Taylor

The Chair

1040

Mr. Elmer Laird

Mr. Spencer

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. Arnold Taylor

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Don Kossick

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Glen Annand

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Glen Annand

Mr. Proctor

Dr. Curt Hagele

1045

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle

Ms. Kathy Holtslander

Mr. Paul Steckle

Ms. Kathy Holtslander

Mr. Steckle

The Chair

1050

Mr. Terry Hildebrandt

The Chair

Mr. Elmer Laird

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Arnold Taylor

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Arnold Taylor

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Arnold Taylor

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Arnold Taylor

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Arnold Taylor

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Abbott

1055

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bill Woods

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bill Woods

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bill Woods

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

The Chair

1100

The Chair

Mr. Ron Bishoff (Individual Presentation)

1105

The Chair

Mr. Ron Bishoff

The Chair

Mr. Ron Bishoff

1110

The Chair

Ms. Carol Husband (Individual Presentation)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Vic Bruce (Individual Presentation)

1120

The Chair

Mr. Warren Potter (Individual Presentation)

1125

The Chair

Mr. Warren Potter

The Chair

Ms. Noreen Johns (Individual Presentation)

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Darwyn MacKenzie (Individual Presentation)

1140

The Chair

Mr. David Orchard (Individual Presentation)

1145

The Chair

Mr. David Orchard

The Chair

Mr. David Orchard

The Chair

1150

Mr. Roy

1155

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Armand Roy

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. David Orchard

1200

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Vic Bruce

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Vic Bruce

The Chair

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Carol Husband

Mrs. Ur

1205

Mrs. Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. David Orchard

The Chair

Mr. David Orchard

The Chair

1215

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Hart Haidn (Individual Presentation)

1220

The Chair

Ms. Marilyn Gillis (Individual Presentation)

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Bob Thomas (Individual Presentation)

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Bob Thomas

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Percy Schmeiser (Individual Presentation)

1235

1240

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Percy Schmeiser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Wayne Zimmer (Individual Presentation)

1245

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Lloyd Pletz (Individual Presentation)

1250

The Chair

Mr. Ian McCreary (Individual Presentation)

1255

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ian McCreary

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ian McCreary

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Ian McCreary

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Ian McCreary

1300

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Ian McCreary

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Percy Schmeiser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bob Thomas

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Borotsik

1305

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Percy Schmeiser

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Percy Schmeiser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Bob Thomas

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Percy Schmeiser

1310

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Spencer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Ian McCreary

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Darhl Vercaigne (Individual Presentation)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

1315

Mr. George Turanich (Individual presentation)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Ian McCreary

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Rob Goeres (Individual Presentation)

1320

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Bruce Osioway (Individual Presentation)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. David Anderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Ms. Marilyn Gillis

Mr. Bob Thomas

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Wayne Zimmer

1325

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Greg Brkich (Individual Presentation)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Greg Brkich

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Proctor

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Hart Haidn

Mr. Bob Thomas

1330

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Lloyd Pletz

Mr. Bob Thomas

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bob Thomas

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Bob Thomas

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 046

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Davidson today on the study of the future role of the government in agriculture.

First I would like to explain where we're coming from. We have an organized agenda. We have divided the morning up until early this afternoon into three parts. During each of those parts we'll have presenters, each of which will be given approximately five minutes to make their presentation to the committee. Following the presentations, members of the committee will probably ask them questions. This will go on for three sessions.

If at the end there are people who have not had an opportunity to make a presentation, we will take their names and we'll offer them two minutes to make a short presentation to the committee.

Our committee is travelling across Canada. This is the second province we've visited. We were in Manitoba yesterday.

After visiting the various provinces, we'll be going back to Ottawa. We'll probably hear from additional presenters, and eventually--hopefully by June--we'll write a report on what we have heard and what our committee believes you have presented as the future needs of your community and your industry. We'll be sending that on behalf of the committee not to the minister but rather to the House of Commons.

This morning I'll ask the members of the standing committee to briefly introduce themselves by indicating where they're from and saying a bit about their background. It will probably take us a minute or two to do that.

We'll start with Howard. Howard is the vice-chair of our committee.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): My name is Howard Hilstrom. I am the member of Parliament for Selkirk--Interlake, which is just north of the city of Winnipeg. I'm a cattle rancher up in that area. I was first elected in 1997. I have been the chief agriculture critic for the official opposition since 1998.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): My name is David Anderson. I'm the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, which is in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan. I am an agricultural producer. I have been a farmer for 25 years, and I happened to get into politics about a year and a half ago. I work with Howard as the deputy agriculture critic, and we've worked together very well over the last year.

The Chair: Odina.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ): Good morning, everybody. My name is Odina Desrochers. I am a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois. I represent Lotbinière--L'Érable, the most rural riding in Quebec. I was born in Joly, close to Quebec City, and I grew up on a farm. Have a good day.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I'm Dick Proctor, the member of Parliament for Palliser, which is here in Saskatchewan, and I'm the New Democratic Party agriculture critic.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR): Good morning, everyone. My name is Rick Borotsik. I am the agriculture critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. I come from beautiful Brandon, Manitoba, the heartland of agriculture in Manitoba.

The Chair: Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.): I'm Rose-Marie Ur, member of Parliament for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex in southwestern Ontario. I've been a member since 1993. I'm vice-chair of the rural caucus. My husband and I own a farm, and we still reside on the family farm.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): I'm Paul Steckle, member of Parliament for Huron--Bruce, the riding bordering Lake Huron in southwestern Ontario. I'm a farmer by profession, as well as number of other things. I've represented that riding since 1993, and I've been on the agriculture committee most of that time.

The Chair: We also have Lynne with us today, who comes from your own province of Saskatchewan. Lynne, welcome to our committee. We're glad to have you join us for our meeting here.

I don't think you need an introduction, but you may like to say a few words.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CA): Yes. I'm Lynne Yelich. Actually, my riding starts at Bladworth, which is ten miles down the road going north. I'd like to welcome everyone today and thank them for coming.

The Chair: Thank you, Lynne.

My name is Charles Hubbard. I'm from New Brunswick. As I said to one of the presenters a short time ago, one member of my family homesteaded here in Davidson way back at the turn of the century. It's my first visit, and I'm glad to be here to hear some of our family stories.

With that, we will start with Mr. Laird from the Farm Research Foundation.

Mr. Elmer Laird (President, Back to the Farm Research Foundation): Good morning. I have two presentations to make. The first one is very short. I want to present the committee with a loaf of stone-ground, whole wheat bread made out of certified organic flour. This was produced on the farm of Neil Strayer, a long-time organic farmer and marketer. It was milled in the stone mill at Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan, and baked in the Rabbit Lake Store and Tea Room and sent down here. I hope you enjoy it. This is a sample of the quality of bread that can be produced here.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And it will last until Friday.

Mr. Elmer Laird: It will last until Friday. I've got a guarantee of that.

Mr. Chairman and members, welcome to Davidson, a rural community of 1,150 people situated in the approximate geographic centre of the farming area of Saskatchewan and also of the three prairie provinces. Davidson is also in the geographic centre of the present war zone. The war I refer to is the war between the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, representing all certified organic farmers in the province, and the transnational corporations Monsanto and Aventis to decide who controls agriculture. The weapons are GMO canola and wheat. Arnold Taylor, president of SOD, will update you on the war--or class action--SOD has launched.

Previously unheard-of terrorist activities are also being carried out by Robinson Investigations of Saskatoon on behalf of Monsanto. They inspect farmers' fields for Roundup-ready canola without the farmers' permission. They drop chemical bombs in farmers' fields without permission to determine the variety of canola.

Percy Schmeiser, a Bruno farmer who won the Mahatma Gandhi award for taking nonviolent action to protect farmers' rights to save their own seed, will fill you in on Monsanto's terrorist activities.

Back here is Don Robertson. He and I are veterans of World War II. This certainly isn't the kind of freedom we fought for. The performance going on here now is a violation of all farmers' and market gardeners' rights.

Our recommendations are the following.

The federal government must rescind plant breeders' rights legislation, ban GMOs, and demand labelling for all GMO foods coming into Canada.

The federal government must take action to return democratic and political control of all federal agricultural programs to the Canadian taxpayer or voter.

The federal government must take steps to provide the farming community with energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, safe transportation services.

The federal government must introduce environmental clean-up programs to clean up our water, food, and air for people, livestock, poultry, and wildlife.

The federal government must introduce policies that will encourage farmers to grow the most nutritious, certified organic food possible.

The federal government should devote agriculture research programs to soil improvement by inter-cropping, using legumes, composting, organic fertilizers, or using the science of allelopathy.

There is lots more in here, but I think I've used up my five minutes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, then, Elmer.

Kathy, the floor is yours. I'll watch the clock. I usually give a signal when you're getting close to the end of your time.

Ms. Kathy Holtslander (Representative, Saskatchewan Eco-Network): Thank you for coming to Davidson today, et bienvenue à Saskatchewan.

I very much appreciate the fact that you have organized this cross-country trip to hear the concerns and ideas of Canadians. I'm sure you'll come away with lots of excellent ideas and a sense of urgency to improve Canada's agriculture policy.

Food and agriculture are fundamental to life; we all need to eat. How the food is produced is a question that concerns all Canadians, not just farmers and the agribusiness sector. Farming is also one of the cultural foundations of this country, and therefore you need to pay attention to how agriculture policy affects our communities.

Agriculture policy must take the big picture into account. It should be evaluated in terms of how well it meets the three criteria of true sustainability: social justice, economic viability, and ecological health.

I believe that a policy that promotes organic agriculture will be able to address all three sustainability criteria simultaneously.

As someone who eats food, I am concerned about quality. I want to be able to eat food that does not contain pesticide residues or growth hormones. I do not want to eat food made from genetically modified ingredients. I want to know that the food I eat was produced in a way that did not contaminate the water or mistreat animals. I want to eat food that was produced by farmers who were fairly rewarded for their work.

I recently worked on a major project that looked at water in Saskatchewan. I have copies of our publication for you. It's called How's the Water: Perspective on Water in Rural Communities in Saskatchewan. One of its key points is that water issues are all interrelated. Water is necessary for life: everything needs water, and changes to water in one situation affect the water in another place.

Current agriculture policies have resulted in some serious threats to water. Extensive pesticide usage has resulted in our surface waters being contaminated. In some cases, the water in irrigation canals has so much herbicide residue in it that irrigating with it would damage the crop. The health effects of pesticide-contaminated water on farm families and rural and urban residents should be accounted for as a cost to agriculture and then remedied by funding transition programs for farmers to reduce or eliminate pesticide use.

Intensive livestock production threatens water in two ways. One is by the amount of water used by hog farms. If Saskatchewan meets its target for producing 10 million hogs by 2008 by using 5,000-sow barns with liquid manure systems, it will require at least 30 billion gallons of relatively good water to be converted to manure effluent every year. The other threat is the threat of contamination of surface and ground water supplies through seepage, accidents, and leaching of liquid manure.

Canada should support livestock production that is based on high-value production via smaller-scale enterprises that are widely dispersed across the landscape, use composting technology, avoid prophylactic antibiotics and hormones in feed, and promote humane treatment of animals in family-farm-sized operations.

Genetically modified crops may well lead to more water pollution by a greater use of the herbicide 2,4-D, as farmers have to deal with volunteer GMO canola in their crop rotation. 2,4-D is a persistent chemical that is associated with increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other cancers. 2,4-D is already ubiquitous, found in all farm dug-outs tested in one study, even when the chemical had not been applied for many years. Similar problems can be found with insecticidal crops. Insect pests develop resistance quickly, and other pesticides have to be applied to control them.

Instead of looking to genetic engineering to deal with weed and pest problems, Canada should be supporting research into non-toxic holistic management of farm systems, based on biodiversity and crop rotation.

Climate change means that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding water supplies. Future summers are likely to be hotter and drier, severe storms more frequent, and snowfall amounts unpredictable. We are likely to see drought conditions more often, as well as flash floods, tornadoes, and increased evaporation off sloughs, lakes, and rivers. Agriculture that is highly dependent on energy-intensive inputs adds to greenhouse gas emissions. Export-based agriculture contributes to the burning of fossil fuels in transportation, both to get Canadian products to market and also in getting products from other countries to Canadian consumers.

We need to support a diversity of local farming systems, storage, and processing so that Canadians can have a varied and nutritious diet without relying on long-distance trucking. Agriculture policy should also recognize that a system made up of relatively few large-scale enterprises is more vulnerable to uncertainty than a system based on a diverse array of smaller-scale enterprises. Support for family farms, rural communities, and a rail transportation system with many points would provide the kind of resilience and adaptivity that we will need to deal with the challenges of climate change.

Finally, I would like to say that agriculture policy needs to support young people who would like to farm in order to ensure the continuity of rural communities and rural culture. Support for organic agriculture, with lower input costs and higher product prices, will have the effect of supporting younger farmers, as they will have confidence that their efforts and risks will get a fair return.

Thank you.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

As a committee, we are mainly here to listen. All of your presentations are being recorded.

I probably erred a little bit, but Mr. Laird is from the Farm Research Foundation and Kathy is from the Saskatchewan Eco-Network. If you just identify yourselves when I call you, that way it's written in the record. There are blues that will eventually be available, and it's much easier for everyone.

Next is Mr. Taylor from the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.

Mr. Arnold Taylor (President, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate): My name is Arnold Taylor. I'm president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, and I farm 20 miles from here.

Throughout my presentation I'm going to be referring to two letters, one to the Honourable Lyle Vanclief from Agriculture Canada's lawyers and one from the Anti-GMO Coalition to Prime Minister Chrétien. They're in your green packets. And I may be six minutes--I timed myself, so I may be seven now.

The Chair: We want to be very clear. We have to get everybody in, and if we get too generous with time, then others don't have an opportunity. So do your best.

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Thank you.

When I refer to SOD, I'm referring to the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.

We are an umbrella group formed to unite producers, certifiers, processors, traders, and consumers. I'd like to make some comments on the future role of government in agriculture, especially as it pertains to organic agriculture and how government policies affect our industry.

As you may know, SOD, through the organic agriculture protection fund, has taken a very strong legal position regarding the release of GMOs into the environment. On January 10, 2002, we launched a statement of claim under the Saskatchewan Class Actions Act against Monsanto Canada Inc. and Aventis Holdings Inc., seeking damages for the alleged loss of the ability to serve the certified organic canola market. We will also be seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the introduction of GM wheat, including any further testing.

Organic farmers use crop rotations to combat weeds and pests and to build fertility. Organic standards prohibit the use of genetically engineered material in our production and processes; that is, a zero tolerance is required. We have had to live with the loss of canola from our rotations; we cannot and we will not sustain the loss of wheat.

Because of a questionable variety registration process, these GE wheat test plots have put the whole western Canadian wheat industry, both conventional and organic, at risk. Let there be no illusion: GMOs cannot be controlled and they cannot be contained. If we put GM wheat out there, we will have GM wheat in the whole system, and the subsequent loss of markets will be devastating, both to the organic and the conventional markets.

Why would you grow something that your most lucrative customers have told you they will not buy? Quite frankly, this issue is not about feeding the world; it's all about selling chemicals and seed-use agreements.

We have over a thousand certified organic farmers in Saskatchewan farming over one million acres. We have built this industry with virtually no support from governments and research institutions.

The organic industry is growing at a rate of 20% a year and it is profitable. The organic farmers of Saskatchewan are not going to stand idly by and watch the organic industry sacrificed on the alter of biotechnology.

As to the future role of government in agriculture, we would request that you ensure that the present laws are properly enforced. I specifically refer you to the letter to the Honourable Lyle Vanclief from our lawyer, and also the reply from the lawyer for Agriculture Food Canada. In this letter, we point out that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates a release of plants with novel traits, such as GM canola and GM wheat, with no regard for the socio-economic impact.

We are requesting a full environmental impact assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, including a socio-economic impact study, before any release of genetically engineered material, including combined test plots.

¿ (0940)

Just as a little background, it's my understanding that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1998 in effect exempted the Seeds Act from its jurisdiction, but the replacement act of 1999 had no such exemptions. Therefore any testing of GMO wheat in 1999, 2000, and 2001 would be inconsistent with the 1999 act and quite possibly illegal.

In their reply, the lawyer for Agri-Food Canada, Dale Kohlenberg, points out, and I quote:

On August 7, 2001, Governor in Council issued SOR-2001-36, which adds the Seeds Act and seeds regulations to schedule 4 of the 1999 act. This in effect exempted the Seeds Act from any jurisdiction under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.

This is an interesting development, since this happened at a time when there was considerable lobbying pressure to prevent the introduction and testing of GM wheat. In fact there has been no response by the Prime Minister and others to the July 31, 2001, letter sent by the Canadian Coalition on Genetically Engineered Wheat, of which SOD is an integral part.

We believe that it's the government's responsibility to protect us. We should not have to take this legal action. Why were there no environmental impact studies done before the release of genetically engineered canola and testing of genetically engineered wheat?

The future role of government in agriculture should be to create and enforce legislation that will ensure that our air, soil, and water are as pure as possible. You cannot produce food in a contaminated environment.

We believe that the federal and provincial governments' blind support of the so-called chemical and biotech approach to agriculture has been and will continue to be detrimental to our soils, air, and water, with the resultant deterioration of our communities, our health, and our way of life.

We believe that the real opportunity in agriculture is in producing food for the non-GMO market. We believe strong consideration should be given to enacting an immediate moratorium, better yet an outright ban on all new GMO material, commencing the clean-up of the few GM crops we have now, and declare Canada to be GMO-free for all agricultural production. It's not too late. Let's do it now.

Thank you.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

From the Farmers of North America, Mr. Jim Mann.

Mr. Jim Mann (President, Farmers of North America): Yes, I'm Jim Mann, Farmers of North America. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to again commend the committee for taking the initiative to meet with us in what I call our heart of the prairies and the parched prairies, especially to discuss your role in agriculture, what is probably the most important part of the Canadian economy.

I would like to highlight a few of the stats indicating this, given by Minister Lyle Vanclief recently to this committee: agriculture generates more than 8% of GDP, $62 billion annually; it is the largest manufacturing sector in seven out of ten provinces; it counts for one in seven jobs in Canada, 2.3 million people; and it contributes $5 billion to $7 billion in our trade surplus.

So what is the role of government in agriculture, in our economy? Farmers of North America would like to submit that the role has not changed since Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, stating that the main role of government in economic life should be, and I quote, “to ensure effective competition”.

The government to date has not been able or has been unwilling to enforce the laws that are intended to ensure effective competition and fair competition at the national and for that matter the international level.

I would further submit that the government agencies, like the Competition Bureau and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, are making a mockery of these fundamental principles of the wealth of a great nation by bowing to the pressures and influences of big business and their uncompetitive acts.

Farmers of North America was set up to combat the lack of competition in the marketplace. Today we represent approximately 3,000 members and over seven million acres of production. We have been stonewalled at every turn by these agencies. These bureaucratic agencies of government are a significant barrier to ensuring effective competition.

On one issue alone, our glyphosate issue, the PMRA has put up an extremely unreasonable barrier, effectively increasing Canadian farmers' cost of production by $100 million.

I'd like to commend Mr. Hilstrom and Rose-Marie for bringing this to the attention of the House this year.

On February 6, the honourable Minister Lyle Vanclief unveiled to this committee details of what has been phrased a “new architecture for agriculture in Canada”. I would like to submit that his initiative to move from crisis management to risk management, and to branding our Canadian agricultural commodities into more valuable products by advancing food safety and environment, is a good one.

I would further like to suggest that these noble goals, together with incentives for renewal and encouragement for science and innovation, are dependent on the success of commercial farmers being able to make not just a net positive cashflow, but true profits in their business.

These initiatives must be tied to ensuring a fair marketplace to allow farmers to capture the gains in the marketplace. Farmers have diversified, have grown and adapted to technology, and have quadrupled sales from $8 billion to $32 billion, but have not seen one red cent from this growth in net profits--not one red cent.

Our share of gross sales during this period dropped from 24% to 7%, with no change in net income and actually a reduction in true profit.

In summary, it is my belief, and Farmers of North America's submission, that the primary role of government in achieving these objectives and moving from crisis management is to ensure a fair and effective competition, ensuring that others in the agriculture industry do not reap the gains of the hard work, risk, management, sweat, and innovation of our Canadian farmers.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jim.

From the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Mr. Sinclair Harrison.

Mr. Neil Hardy (Vice-President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities): I apologize. I'm Neal Hardy, vice-president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Our president, Sinclair Harrison, cannot be here. His mother passed away. I am filling in for him today.

Good morning, and welcome to Saskatchewan.

I'd like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture for taking the time to travel across Canada to hear firsthand the views of producers and agricultural organizations. I'd also like to recognize you for choosing to hold your meetings in a rural community such as Davidson, rather than Saskatoon or Regina.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities represents all of Saskatchewan's 297 rural municipalities. Since agriculture is the main industry of rural Saskatchewan, and the health of that industry has effects on the rural municipal level, SARM has a great interest in ensuring government policies and actions are in the best interests of producers.

Since the committee is looking for input on how the government can build its relationship with producers in the future, I'd like to give you some ideas on how this could be done.

The key to improving relationships between government and the farmers is that government has to listen to the concerns of the agricultural community and then act on them. Lately I believe this hasn't been the case.

I think a good question to ask all the members who are here is, how do you see agriculture in western Canada? Is it of value to Canada? You have to think about that as you go through your hearings.

I'll give an example. There are strong indications that there will be a drought this year, and anybody who looks out the window, or a door, or from a car, or drives in this province, knows we've been through a whole year of drought, and it looks like another one. All the predictions are that it will come again. Although we can't predict with any certainty that there will be a drought, certainly the indications are there. The best way to deal with the threat of drought is to be proactive and put measures in place in anticipation of a drought.

SARM and the Saskatchewan government made recommendations to the federal Minister of Agriculture in mid-January. Improvements should be made to crop insurance programs for the upcoming year. The options we proposed would have increased the level of coverage available to producers and would have made the program more market- and weather-responsive. Certainly it would have been a cost-shared program: producer, federal government, provincial government. It seemed to be a way to take a big step forward.

Instead of looking at these options, we hear the response from the minister that he gave to the committee: what we have for this year is what we had for last year. It's an answer and attitude like this that make it difficult for producers to have a relationship with the federal government now and in the future.

Another example of this discontent between government and the agricultural community is what has happened with funding for rural water development. Water availability is going to be a critical issue for livestock and rural communities this year in Saskatchewan. Why then is the PFRA shifting the priority of its rural water development program so that more emphasis is placed on research and extension at the expense of infrastructure development? Research and development are important--we recognize that. This is not the year to be changing the rules.

Even if we get rain this spring, it certainly won't help fill our dug-outs or our wells.

Our cattle industry is very important to this province. We're trying to build a livestock industry in this province, but you need water to do that. We need as much financial assistance as possible for developing these water resources.

The federal government also has to realize it has a responsibility to Canadian producers to help them compete with international subsidies, especially in the grains and oilseeds sector. Europeans and Americans are not giving up their generous form of support. In fact, there's a bill before the House in the United States that would increase it dramatically.

We commend Canada for taking the firm position that international subsidies have to be reduced. But until we get these reductions, our government cannot leave its producers to compete on an unequal playing field.

In large part it comes down to how government views its relationship with producers. We believe the government should be working for and with producers, not against them, as appears to be the situation right now. For example, the government should encourage innovation by producers. West Central Road and Rail produces car-loading facilities, a prime example of how resourceful producers can be. I'm sure Bill Woods, who sits next to me here, of West Central Road and Rail, will be able to talk more about that, so I'll let him tell that.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate that if this committee is seriously looking for ways for the Government of Canada to improve its relationship with farmers, then in the future the federal government will have to do a better job of addressing producers' concerns. The inaction we have seen so far this year in preparing for drought is an example of the discontent with what's happening in agriculture, at least in Saskatchewan, and what's being done in Ottawa. We have a serious, serious drought shaping up out there and we need to work together to help our producers get through this type of situation. All of us with an interest in rural community agriculture have to work together.

I want to thank you for allowing us to make this presentation, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

We'd like to also welcome Mr. Spencer. He doesn't need an introduction, I don't think. Larry, welcome to our table and thanks for coming to the meeting today.

From the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, Mr. Glen Annand.

Mr. Glen Annand (Representative, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers): Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

Some of the message I'm going to give you'll be familiar with, because we were in Ottawa in November and our chairman at that time, Lyle Minogue, brought forth some of these issues. But I just want to refresh them in your mind and ask for your support in a few areas.

We've taken the approach today of looking at what we need to do in the long term. I think some of the short-term factors about drought have been discussed and will be more today. I'll deal with the long-term vision we have of becoming the world's preferred supplier of pulse crops.

If you're not familiar with what the word “pulse” means, it's a Latin word for thick soup made from an edible legume.

In 1980 we grew somewhere around 200,000 acres of pulse. In 2002 that had climbed to 6.9 million acres, with a value of somewhere around $1.2 billion. We expect that growth to continue to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion from 20% of the seeded acres in Saskatchewan.

Pulse crops have made such a tremendous growth because of their natural ability to fix nitrogen and their ability to replace summer fallow in rotations. The benefit is a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70 million replacement of generated fertilizers.

We have a comparative advantage in production in Saskatchewan of pulses over our competitors world-wide. Our yields in pulses are somewhat similar to wheat, whereas in a lot of other jurisdictions wheat doubles the pulse yields.

So far we haven't had any trade subsidies. But I think, as you're aware, the new farm bill that's proposed is going to include pulse crops in the U.S. as part of the subsidy plan. We hope you can work very diligently in seeing that that doesn't happen.

Pulse worldwide is used as a protein source in both human diet and livestock nutrition, and it's been a very strong part of our production. Our usage is in the livestock industry, which continues to grow in western Canada and also in eastern Canada.

We recently completed a national pulse research strategy. In developing this we worked closely with all the producer groups from western and eastern Canada as well as federal and provincial departments of agriculture. We have consensus on this. Now we just need your support in putting this plan into action. It includes many new areas that need to be looked at, including beefing up the traditional plant-breeding work on quality and utilization.

The area of pathology is always a weakness in pulse crop production. As well, the slow process that minor-use herbicides go through with the PMRA is certainly a hindrance to our industry. As I said, federal support for pulse research is sorely underfunded, and we expect your committee will be recommending increases for our dynamic growing industry.

In the area of trade policy, we ask for your support in lobbying the U.S. to change their Farm Bill as it is now proposed. In the area of transportation policy, the railways have pushed for efficiency and profitability with not much emphasis on customer service. I think we need to look seriously at competition in that sector, and I think short lines will provide competition that will aid our industry to get our product to market on time.

Thank you again, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you, Glen.

From West Central Road and Rail, Mr. Bill Woods.

Mr. Bill Woods (Representative, West Central Road and Rail): Good morning. I thank the agriculture committee for this opportunity. My name is Bill Woods. I am a farmer from west central Saskatchewan, and I'm here today representing West Central Road and Rail.

West Central Road and Rail is a local farmer-based organization with 1,700 shareholders. It originally was formed to purchase our branch line. Some in the grain industry refer to us as the “producer car people”. I guess that's because West Central Road and Rail organized the first ever unit train of producer cars.

Producer cars have been an effective, competitive alternative to the primary elevator system for the last 100 years. The right to load a producer car and the creation of the Canada Grain Act 100 years ago have often been claimed as the Magna Carta of the western Canadian farmer. The Canada Grain Act and the right to load a producer car are absolutely fundamental principles. Producer cars have always served as a safety valve in the grain industry. However, as the primary elevator system evolves, so must the producer car.

I would like to refer now to the producer car handout I've given you. It shows the changing nature of producer car loading over time. As you can see, farmers have been adapting. I'm sure glad I don't have to load a producer car like the farmers in the top two photos. The centre two photos show how farmers who load producer cars have adapted to train-run minimums--by banding together--and eight-hour loading restrictions--by using bins.

Four years ago, west central area farmers began organizing large blocks of producer cars into efficient producer car unit trains. The centre left photo is one such block, where 21 producer cars are being loaded in our area.

Two years ago, a grain logistics pilot project was initiated by West Central Road and Rail. Participants in the project were the Saskatchewan government; you, the federal government; the Canadian Wheat Board; and also, please note, the Canadian Grain Commission.

The project studied ways for farmers to add value to their grain by enhancing the producer car concept. The final report of this project was released last year. West Central area farmers took the initiative to take the theory gleaned from this pilot project and forge ahead with its practical application by building a modern producer car loading facility, as shown at the bottom of the sheet.

After construction of our facility began, we unexpectedly found ourselves in a full-fledged battle with the Canadian Grain Commission resulting from their change of position regarding regulation of producer car loading facilities.

During our brief history, as most people in Saskatchewan know, West Central has had to do battle with CN and with the grain companies as the producer car numbers in our area grew steadily. Now, we did expect this resistance from CN and the grain companies, but we did not expect to have to do battle with the very organization that was created to protect producers' interests--namely, the Canadian Grain Commission, the keeper of the Canada Grain Act and the one charged with administering the act in the interests of producers.

This battle is not about whether producer car loading facilities should be regulated; this battle is about how they should be regulated. The Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Grain Commission are both pushing hard to have producer car loading facilities licensed and regulated as primary elevators. We don't buy and sell grain like primary elevators; we load producer cars. There's a big difference. It's that simple.

I'm not here today as a farmer asking for a handout, even though farm net incomes are in the toilet. All I'm asking is that you, our elected representatives, use the powers you've been granted to ensure that the Canadian Grain Commission stays on track and adheres to its mandate of producer protection and quality control. The Canadian Grain Commission was not created to protect the grain companies from the farmers. It was, and should still be, the other way around.

West Central Road and Rail is all about progressive, proactive farmers taking initiative, being innovative, and making investments toward their future in agriculture. Inappropriate regulation of producer car loading facilities could very well lead to their failure and bring an end to the producer car as an option.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is counting on it, believe me. They didn't like the producer car a hundred years ago, and they don't want it to evolve and become efficient today. This is becoming a big issue in the eyes of producers, and we are concerned that this issue hasn't even appeared on Ottawa's radar screen.

À (1005)

I am asking you to change that, because these fundamental principles are under attack. Defending farmers on this issue won't even burden the federal treasury, but it will maintain the long-standing grain industry safety valve, the producer car.

Thank you.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Woods.

From the Saskatchewan Food Security Network, Karen Archibald and Don Kossick.

Ms. Karen Archibald (Representative, Saskatchewan Food Security Network): Good morning. I am Karen Archibald, and with my colleague, Don Kossick, we are representing the Saskatchewan Food Security Network. Thank you for letting us appear this morning.

Greetings to colleagues from Saskatchewan.

Don is going to present first.

Mr. Don Kossick (Representative, Saskatchewan Food Security Network): We have copies of our proposal, which we'll just pass down the way here.

I want to commence by speaking about the interlocking themes of food security and food democracy. Our themes will address food and income; the right to food; food and health; food and production; and the need for mutual bridges of support between rural and urban Canada.

First, we want to emphasize a position that we are sure you have heard elsewhere, and that is the right to food. We are disheartened by the continuing growth and institutionalization of food banks. We cannot accept that they should become a permanent fixture of Canadian society. We feel that the right to food should not be denied because of lack of income or some other impediment. The right to food should include accessible, healthy, and wholesome food for all ages.

Canada at the 1996 World Food Summit took the strong position that the right to food was to be supported for everyone in the world. A Canadian action plan was developed to follow up on Canada's commitment made at the World Food Summit. It outlined initiatives to address domestic and world food security, including adequate food supplies, promoting health and education, and achieving sustainable food production.

There was a recognition of the right to food, but as David MacDonald, former chair of the Global Network on Food Security, said, “This is a country”--Canada--“without a food policy, domestic or international. We need one, and we are not good at transforming policy into action. That needs to be changed.”

We agree with this point, and we think that the way to show Canadian commitment to the right to food is to enact it at all levels as an articulated food policy and action program. For example, the City of Toronto in the spring of 2001 stated in an official food charter that they championed the right of residents to adequate, safe, nutritious, and culturally acceptable food without the need to resort to emergency providers.

We have developed a food security and democracy statement in our own work in Saskatchewan that we think lays out how a food security policy could be expressed. We state: “A community enjoys food security when all people, at all times, have access to nutritious, safe, personally acceptable and culturally appropriate foods, produced in ways that are environmentally sound and socially just”.

We feel this right to food and food security extends to those beyond our borders, and we are perturbed by the cutback in Canadian food assistance programs internationally, from one million tonnes in 1992 to 300,000 tonnes in 2000. As a result of this, Canada has failed to meet its minimum commitments to the food aid convention, which acts as a global safety net in food security. What we expect for ourselves in food security we would hope for others as well.

I'll turn it over to Karen.

Ms. Karen Archibald: In recognition of the mutual economic and social relationship, we think it's important to build bridges between rural and urban Canada for accessible, safe, nutritious food grown under safe environmental conditions that can bring wealth and health to both rural and urban communities.

For example, here in Saskatchewan, people living in towns and cities are concerned about the future of food availability in our province. Right now most food is imported. Many fruits and vegetables come from outside the country. This was not always the case here in Saskatchewan or in Canada. People want to buy local food.

This has been demonstrated by the Good Food Box program's successes across this country. You may not know that Saskatoon has the second-largest Good Food Box distribution program in Canada.

Community surveys we have conducted show broad support for local food consumption. People feel that by developing and expanding the capacity to grow and buy locally and regionally, this will strengthen the Saskatchewan economy by creating jobs, generating healthier incomes for producers, and having more control over the quality of food when it's locally grown, processed, and distributed as the first priority for agriculture.

People want more of their food dollars to remain in the local economy. However, to achieve this we need more opportunities for small and medium farmers to become involved in and practise sustainable agriculture. We need support to develop alternative distribution and storage systems linking farmers with both town and city eaters.

À (1015)

We have seen the success of farmers' markets right across the country, and we feel that buying Saskatchewan, buying Canadian, is not just a quaint anachronism.

People are very concerned about the safety of their food. Most recently, here in Saskatchewan we've had several recalls from local food processors of wieners, ground beef, and pork. People, consumers, are concerned about what they are eating. Food labelling is a hot topic, and consumers want to know what is in the product they buy.

Genetically modified organisms are creating anxiety not only among producers but also among eaters--consumers. There is no doubt that for the overall health of this nation and confidence in our food system we have to emphasize food safety, from production, to processing, to consumption. People are concerned about health and food.

Here in our province there are skyrocketing rates of diabetes, particularly among the aboriginal population, and the age of diagnosis is getting ever younger. Obesity, cancer, and heart disease all have a connection to diet, and people are concerned. There is a growing move toward intervening in the food available at school lunch programs, in restaurants, and at hospitals in order to create a healthier population.

Health care costs due to disease with nutrition determinants are enormous and growing. Health reports in Saskatchewan recommend more emphasis on health promotion such as Good Food Box programs, children's nutrition programs, and others.

There is a growing consumer interest in organic food consumption, and this of course is aptly demonstrated by the large retailers stocking organically grown foods, sometimes suspect organically grown foods. We need legislation and direct support for a comprehensive food-for-health program.

Mr. Don Kossick: In conclusion, we wanted to really underline the need to build the bridges, urban and rural. We had a gathering of a hundred people representing urban and rural communities, and again, people were clear that food is a resource and a wealth for everybody, for rural Canada and for urban Canada. We should have a food policy that enhances and incorporates the right to food and food security for all Canadians, and this should be expressed as an articulated policy at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. People do not want to see industrial corporate food and global trade policies exploit communities, either across this country or internationally.

In conclusion, we thank you for the opportunity. We feel that if the interests of rural and urban Canada can be linked we can fly on both wings and we can be a much healthier and more prosperous land.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

From the University of Saskatchewan, I understand there are two presenters. We have a dean, Dr. Alex Livingston, and also Dr. Curt Hagele.

Dr. Alex Livingston (Dean, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan): Hi. I'm Alex Livingston and the handsome young guy next to me is Dr. Hagele.

I'm dean of the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon, and I thank you for the opportunity to visit with you this morning. I'd like to share a few of the issues that are concerning us. When I say us, I speak for all four veterinary schools in Canada, because it's not solely a regional issue.

Canada's four veterinary colleges play an integral role in safeguarding the nation's food supply, animal health, and public health through research and through education of doctors of veterinary medicine and people with advanced degrees who provide specialty services. The colleges are the nation's primary focus for animal health research and for the advancement of diagnostic services. However, because of failing infrastructure these colleges now have a diminished capacity to help, for example, to identify zoonosis, to work on food safety issues, and to develop control measures to protect the health of Canadians and maintain open borders for agricultural trade.

Veterinary colleges are inspected on a regular basis by an independent international body, which determines their acceptability to educate, perform research, and graduate veterinarians for licensed activities. Two of Canada's four veterinary colleges have been judged not to meet minimal international standards and hence have been placed on limited accreditation status, including our college in Saskatoon.

Consequently, Canada has been put on notice that its veterinary college facilities and programs must be upgraded or face loss of international acceptance. Failure to retain full international acceptance poses several serious consequences.

First, only graduates of accredited colleges are eligible for licensure to practise in Canada. Secondly, the requirement to meet acceptable international standards is necessary for Canada to export animals and foods of animal origin. Not being able to do so could represent a serious economic loss for Canadian producers. These deficiencies also limit the veterinary colleges' ability to play an important part as Canada's team in diagnosing and controlling animal diseases.

We have gone to the federal government to ask for support in our failing infrastructure; however, the initial response is that education is a provincial mandate, and this we accept. However, we do more than educate doctors of veterinary medicine; we provide the essential infrastructure to animal health across Canada. As such, we have asked the minister if he would consider supporting the funding for improved infrastructure in the four schools. However, the minister, while saying he recognizes its importance, places a very low priority on this initiative.

We are merely trying to address the issue here of our concerns. We are concerned about our ability to provide what the food industry of Canada needs to produce healthy, clean, viable products that attract exports.

I'll leave it there, because I see the clock is moving on. It's one of the problems with going last. I don't want to deprive my colleague of the opportunity to speak.

À (1020)

The Chair: He will have another five minutes. Your colleagues have come to Ottawa and certainly have a similar concern. I know there are two. And my good friend here, Ms. Desrochers, is also quite familiar with the problem at the other end of the country. So thank you.

We're moving on now to Dr. Hagele from the Veterinary Medical Association.

Dr. Curt Hagele (Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association): Yes, I'm the individual who won't license his graduates if they lose accreditation. We also look at the well-being of the veterinarians in Saskatchewan. Rather than speaking for veterinarians in Saskatchewan, I'll try to speak for veterinarians across at least western Canada, in that we have what we feel is one of the best herds of livestock, be it swine or cattle, for dairy or beef. Our health status is better than any other country in the world, and the genetic base we have is worth protecting.

You've already heard concerns from an earlier speaker about the environmental risks associated with what's coming down the pipe, which are these intensified livestock operations. There are risks of disease problems here now because man is moving around the world more, animals are moving more frequently. We've dropped trade barriers with different countries. We see increased pressure from the animal rights people to put a lid on animal agriculture. We have animal welfare concerns. You've heard about food safety and the environmental concerns of the Walkerton, Ontario, E. coli tragedy.

Veterinary medicine has a place. While the private practising veterinarians in animal agriculture are our primary sentinels out there for disease issues, we are becoming concerned about their numbers. If you look in any of the veterinary publications across Canada right now at any one time there are 75 to 100 job vacancies--in other words, places looking to hire veterinarians. We, as an association, are trying to address some of these issues by trying to remedy some of the poor economic returns agricultural veterinarians experience, but it's going to take time and require our efforts.

On behalf of the federal government, I'm asking you to have a look at Big Brother sentinel, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Health. It is the federal agency required to be in place and be vigilant to protect this herd of cattle and livestock we have in Saskatchewan. Their numbers have shrunk over the years. The federal government quit hiring for a while. Then it had retirements and ended up with a lack of recruitment over the past years. Now it's in a crisis management mode, rather than being a proactive agency looking to long-term goals.

One of the reasons they have trouble attracting veterinarians is that their current wage right now under their contract pays a veterinarian, who has probably gone through at least seven or eight years of university, a wage of $45,000. I think I could go out and in six months as a plumber's apprentice make that kind of money. A person with a four-year bachelor of science degree in agriculture, which my daughter has, makes that much money. Yet the CFIA veterinarian right now under their contract is making $45,193. I have a copy of it if you want it.

Consequently, I am recommending that the federal government recognize the role of veterinary medicine and veterinarians, both private and federal, in human as well as animal health. I ask you to support in any way you can the education of enough veterinarians such that we're not short, to support teaching of veterinarians, to support research, to support diagnostic activities, and to support the manpower of CFIA being rebuilt to where it needs to be.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity. I showed up here at short notice, and I appreciate being given a chance. Again, thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you, Doctor.

Now we'll hear from Mr. Hildebrandt, from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Terry Hildebrandt (President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan): Thank you very much. It's nice to play cleanup batter.

As a representative of a general farm organization, I want to touch on some general policies. I think that if our government doesn't address these policies, some of these specific sectors of pulses, organics, livestock, and all the good things in western Canada, then Canada will be very hard-pressed.

What is the role of government? We see three: a short-term plan, an intermediate one, and certainly a long-term plan. Short term, in the west here anyway, means specifically addressing the drought situation. It's somewhat confusing to us that a year ago the federal government saw the need to spend $500 million on Canadian agricultural producers. In the west since then we've had nothing but 60% to 70% of drought plus record input costs in producing another crop of food for the people of Canada and the world, and now we don't seem to be addressing that need. I would hope that Canadians, no matter where they farm in this country, would receive that same kind of attention from the federal government. It's a fact that the Ontario producers aren't in a hurting situation this year. Still, the rest of the producers, wherever they farm, should receive that same attention.

Second, I call upon a promise that the minister made when he met with farm leaders out here in the drought as we toured this drought, and that was a call to put together enhanced crop insurance and safety net programs to alleviate such a situation if it happens again. I'm very disappointed now, and I'll report, as many of you know, that there's no new money for 2002. It's all going into the Whitehorse accord, the Whitehorse framework of 2003.

I want to say that the interim, intermediate policy that is the responsibility of the government is the mitigation of the hurt of these subsidies.

Our federal government, the way we see it, has two roles it can play. One, it can put the same importance on its food producers as other countries do and the same priority on supporting its food producers as it puts on supporting its aerospace people. Or two, it can look out and say that half the food producers, especially some of those in western Canada, are inefficient and they have to go--up to 50%. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, that's the route the department and some of the deputies are taking.

We say we don't want one ounce more than equal, but we cannot continue to farm, be it organics, be it pulses. The Senate in the States is now trying to push it through that pulses fall under this, driving our pulse products down to $3 a bushel.

Give us an even field and then we can play with anybody in the world. That's intermediate. That has to go on as long as the subsidies are there. If government can negotiate removal of the subsidies, fine. Nobody wants subsidies. It's unique. It subsidizes the grains and oilseeds and filters that money through those producers to keep them viable, but what that does is keep all the jobs in the value-added. Of all our sectors in agriculture, grain is the only one, says the OECD, that's not level, and that's the one the government is supporting. All our sectors of agriculture will be hard-pressed to compete, because grain is the catalyst that drives livestock and drives ethanol. It drives all the good things we can do in energy. It's a unique program and we have to address that program.

Third is the long term. We buy into the concepts of the Whitehorse agreement. We see a lot of good things. We have to look at environment. We have to look at safe food. As responsible producers, we will do that. The point is, you can't build a new framework on a shaky foundation that has a large crack in it. It's bound to crumble.

We need to level off the field. That's the first priority for this federal government: to level off that hurt. The numbers are 27% to 28% in terms of the hurt because of the subsidies in the grains. We're asking to round it off to 25%, to level off that field. Then, and only then, can we compete. Then, and only then, can we value-add, because our grain prices will be the same prices as those across the line and the investment will come here.

Then, with proper industry input, we sit down and we look at building new frameworks on a long-term vision that includes renewal, safe food, and transition, but then and only then does it have a fair chance of making it. So that's the role of government. That's the immediate role right now. In certain portions, we have to address a disaster situation called drought, but more so, overall we have to level off this playing field for our food producers.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Terry.

Now for some questions from us. Just to explain this to everyone, we've come to listen. Members will have questions, but we will not be involved in trying to give answers that some of you may be wanting to seek, because that's not our role.

In any case, I'll move first to David. David is from Saskatchewan and is a very determined member of our committee.

David, the floor is yours.

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

I have just a comment. Neal talked a little about the fact that we need to get our crop insurance booted up here a bit. Some of us have been working on that for quite a while. We also spent most of last summer trying to get some more money for PFRA. The end result ended up being only $1.5 million, which came after freeze-up, but we're going to continue trying to work on those things.

My question is for you and Mr. Woods. I just was wondering if you would be interested in giving us some of the details of the changes that took place in the Canadian Grain Commission's position regarding your facility. Secondly, could you give us some of your solutions to the question?

Mr. Neal Hardy: The major issue is licensing as a primary elevator system. Right now, and certainly Bill can speak more to this, that's one of the major issues out there for us as producers. If we have to be loading through a licensed primary elevator system, it changes the whole rule of how we do things, and it takes away much of our profit. That's very important.

I will just mention crop insurance, too. You mentioned it, about whether you change the crop insurance. What we proposed to them for this year was to do the things you can do right now--don't wait on it, because even if it could be there for the future years, do them this year, get them started; you can work it into the bigger program after that. Certainly for water, I don't have to tell anybody, water is almost a disaster out here right now.

Mr. Bill Woods: I thank you for that question, David.

As for the change of position of the Canadian Grain Commission, West Central Road and Rail began this process a year and some months ago, when we approached the commission and met with the entire Canadian Grain Commission, the assistant commissioners and the commissioners. Mr. Senft was not able to attend that meeting. He's the chief commissioner.

We talked about these producer car loading facilities that were starting to come onstream and how we needed to create a new classification in the act. It was suggested to us by the commissioners at that meeting that we write a letter to the chief commissioner, which we did in January 2001.

The response we received from him was that he wouldn't create a new category or a new classification in the act; he would do it as an exemption from being licensed as a primary elevator, because, by definition, you do fit it, but others things are exempted as well.

You would be exempted from being a primary elevator based on some criteria. One is principal use. That was clear. We're a producer car loading facility. As for the act of buying or selling grain, we don't do that. Storage guidelines is another. We don't keep the grain for more than a week or two because the bins are filled up and emptied out.

Then there was a very unusual statement: the location of “primary elevators in the area”. That was in his letter. I fail to see what that has to do with whether you would grant a producer car loading facility, especially when the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate is to enforce the Canada Grain Act in the interests of producers, not in the interests of grain companies, as that statement suggests.

What we then did is we met with the manager of licensing within the commission a couple of months later, in March of last winter, and we were told the same thing: the act of buying or selling grain, the length of time in storage, the principal use. But the manager of licensing didn't say anything about the location of primary elevators in the area.

Nevertheless, we forged ahead and did our share offering. We were waiting for an answer as to what regulatory framework we fell within because we went to them. We did our share offering and we heard nothing. We began construction. We had heard nothing. We could only base it on the information we'd had at that time. We had begun construction by about a week and a half and we got hit with a bombshell: we are a primary elevator.

If you read the Canada Grain Act, you'll find that primary elevators and producer cars have been well separated in the act for a hundred years, and that is by design. The reason farmers are loading producer cars is that they're bypassing the primary elevator system. As a consequence, what we're seeing here is a shift within the grain commission in their attitude towards producer car loading facilities.

We've also seen documentation of correspondence written to the commission by grain elevators demanding that West Central Road and Rail be licensed as a primary elevator, and it appears that the commission is bending to that pressure. The commission is not there to protect the grain companies from the farmers. This is a very serious issue that's going on.

I would like to add that the chief commissioner is attending a meeting in Eston, Saskatchewan at the high school at seven o'clock this evening, and he is going to state his position. We are also going to state ours. It's a public forum.

Thank you.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you, David.

Monsieur Desrochers.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I have to say some words in English first.

I would like to inform the panel and the audience that the members of Parliament of the House of Commons voted recently about the bill that demands the labelling of GMO foods coming into Canada. Liberal member Charles Caccia was presenting the bill. How did the Bloc Québécois members and NDP members vote for that? But that is a different situation with the Liberal and Canadian Alliance members, and the bill was defeated.

Now I'm back to my original language, French.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am impressed to see that the people from this first panel have different opinions about the future of agriculture. To begin with, I would like to address the panel members who are defending organic farming.

Do you believe that organic farming has a place in the context of industrial agriculture, which is becoming increasingly ubiquitous? Do you believe that the Government of Canada has done all it can to enable you to develop awareness of your products?

[English]

Mr. Arnold Taylor: The answer is probably no. I think organic is really not on the....

Something is going on here. It's Elmer's hearing aid.

[Editor's NOte: Technical Difficulties]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Arnold Taylor: I think the question was whether the federal government helped organic agriculture as much as possible. It's pretty well peanuts, but it's coming. They've set up a college in Truro, Nova Scotia. The dean of the college, I guess the president, was actually on my farm last summer. So it's quite interesting to see what's going on. But no, it's not nearly enough.

I'm here to say organic agriculture is here to stay. It's growing and it's the wave of the future worldwide. I think it's time Canada took a really hard look at this and decided to get on the bandwagon instead of putting up our hands every time somebody like Monsanto says it can't be done.

The Chair: Elmer, you had a brief comment.

À (1040)

Mr. Elmer Laird: Yes, I want to respond.

We gave you copies of the report on the Standing Committee on Environment. On page 184 it sets out a whole series of recommendations about organic agriculture. I didn't go into them, but I hope you take that, read it, put it under your pillow, read it some more. It's the best report that's come out of Ottawa on organic agriculture to date.

You too, Larry.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): I will.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Could you survive with industrial agriculture?

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Yes, if it's done right. But we can't survive with the proliferation of GMO crops, because the consumers--we don't write our standards, consumers write our standards--basically say they will not buy genetically modified food and call it organic. Those are European standards and American standards and Canadian standards. They all say zero tolerance.

Yes, you can farm beside us, and we'd be farming beside you. And we've been giving 25 feet to the conventional farmer as a buffer strip, but it wasn't designed for pollen drip and for contamination from GMOs. This is a new ball game. Quite frankly, we cannot survive with GMO wheat beside us. It cannot happen.

The Chair: Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mr. Don Kossick: Can we just do a follow-up here?

The Chair: No. Normally we ask the questioner to identify who he wants to ask. If we had six answers to these, it just wouldn't work.

Perhaps you can ask Mr. Kossick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I am going to ask Mr. Kossick briefly to respond to it.

Mr. Don Kossick: Yes. I just want to take the urban side, because in the Food Security Network we bring urban and rural together. I want to really underline that. It's not just rural. It's not just a discussion of rural Canada about organics. Urban people want organic products as well. We've been at supermarkets and we've talked to them. People were very disappointed when that bill didn't go through on labelling.

Secondly, in this province we've talked about the drought. But if the GMO wheat goes ahead, we're going to face a destruction of our rural economy. There's no doubt. From Europe, there was an Italian film crew here before Christmas. They're taking a message back that if there's a zero tolerance that is being destroyed, we're going to lose an economy that keeps us alive. So I think we have to make that urban-rural link when we address the question you're raising.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Don.

I have a question to Glen. You indicated in the latter part of your presentation that you were having some concerns with the rail industry. It looked as if you were looking to short lines. It's my understanding that there are only two locations in Saskatchewan currently for dropping off container cars. Farmers in my area are saying that we need outlets in Moose Jaw and down in Swift Current and other places. What is the situation from the pulse growers' point of view there?

Mr. Glen Annand: Yes, that change came about this year where CN withdrew its container yard in Regina and just loads now out of Saskatoon. CP still loads out of both locations. I don't know the economics of running container yards in other places, but certainly competition in the grain hopper car business is starting to come. There are several short lines that have developed.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But it would be fair to say, though, that this increasing need for container cars has been pointed out to the major railways, and they're not terribly interested in assisting. They'd rather have you drive the extra miles to pick up the container cars. Is that it?

Mr. Glen Annand: Yes, that's true there. Trucking is done from southern Saskatchewan to Saskatoon--an extra distance--rather than taking it to Regina.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have a quick question to Dr. Hagele or Dean Livingston. One of you--I think it was the doctor--mentioned how short CFIA was on vets. How short are they? How many are they down? You say that they're in a crisis management position. What should their ideal level be, and where are they?

Dr. Curt Hagele: I wish I could give you an exact number. I can give you the example in Saskatchewan, where when four individuals retired, they were lucky enough to find four replacements. But again, you're looking at wages that don't attract people to this kind of work. It's nothing against government work, but it's not the kind of thing that most veterinary students would look at as they go through veterinary school. You need to attract them. Otherwise, you end up with just the old bald guys like me, and we're kind of burnt out by then.

À (1045)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Especially at the salaries they're offering.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Paul Steckle: My first question is going to be placed to Kathy. I think in one of your comments earlier you mentioned--and I found it rather confusing--the fact that you took exception to the cost of exporting our products. Perhaps you could clarify that, because I'm not sure you really meant what I thought you said--that exporting products costs the country a lot of money through our infrastructure.

The second question, and I'll put it to the table now, is this. We hear everywhere we go, long before we started this journey across Canada, that we want adequate, safe, domestically grown food at our disposal. The farmers are talking about a level playing field. They're talking about fair gains. They're talking about rules that should be effected equally, whether we're Americans or Canadians. They want to feel the game they're playing is played by the same rules. But there's one thing we're always lacking, it seems, no matter where we go, and that is money.

How would this group feel if there were to be an imposition of a 1% food tax? I am not suggesting we should do that. I want your feelings on it. I am told this would raise somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion. And those are the kinds of dollars we keep hearing about as being the dollars required to fix our problems. Given the fact that when we go to the restaurant we give 10% to 15% in gratuities--which is more than the farmer is getting for the product we're consuming--would we, as consumers in Canada, be offended by a 1% food tax, given that it would go back to our agriculture producing community?

Ms. Kathy Holtslander: I'll deal with the first question first. I think in trying to be brief, I wasn't clear enough. But what I was talking about was the climate change impacts of a food system that is based on each country exporting, rather than producing for their own needs and then exporting on top of that.

So I'm looking at things like the change in our transportation system, which is based more on trucking than rail. The railroads are much more efficient in terms of energy, and they help the quality of roads in rural areas and things like that. There are a lot of ways we can save energy by improving the way our export system works in terms of transportation.

We do need an export aspect to our economy, but I think we also need to look at having support for local production for local consumption. That can reduce our transportation costs. Why should we be buying carrots from California and potatoes from Iowa when we can grow them here in Saskatchewan? All it would take would be to put some priority on developing the storage facilities. And perhaps we need to look at the distribution system with grocery stores and such to remove some of the barriers to having local market gardening become successful. That would have economic benefits for the local area and it would also reduce the greenhouse emissions and the impacts of that, which are very serious for agriculture in the long run.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Because of time, I wonder if we could get to the last part of my second question.

Ms. Kathy Holtslander: The food tax?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, I want a number of people to answer that.

The Chair: Just a second now, Paul. Can you have one or two, because I think Tony wants in.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Okay.

À (1050)

Mr. Terry Hildebrandt: Perhaps I can comment.

I don't believe it's the shortage of money you should be concerned about so much as the priority. I don't want to come out of this room looking like somebody who wants to be subsidized, but when I say equal playing field...and I should add that the subsidies, plus some of the federal policies of past years, have taken away $650 million a year annually in Crow and those types of things.

So I don't believe it's the money so much as the priority. I would make the statement that in Canada we take our food for granted--it's always there and it's always good. I just think there has to be a priority shift. As to the money, I don't buy the argument.

The Chair: Elmer.

Mr. Elmer Laird: Mr. Chairman, I should mention that we are the first certified organic research and demonstration farm in Canada. It's the policy of our research and demonstration farm to develop self-sufficient communities and to be self-sufficient in everything we can produce in that community. What we have in excess would be for export. But this is where we fall down; as Kathy has said, we're shipping vegetables in from California and Florida.

Last summer, in southern Saskatchewan, there were two accidents where trucks ran into trains. They were hauling potatoes from Florida to Edmonton. Now, does this make any environmental or economic sense? It doesn't make a damn bit of sense at all.

Thank you.

The Chair: Rick.

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

First of all, just as a point of information to Kathy and Elmer, Manitoba is now the largest producer of potatoes in Canada, and we are shipping the majority of that production to the United States. So there is a reciprocal position here.

As for organic exports, how much of the production is exported to Europe right now?

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Out of Saskatchewan, the grain production, probably.... I don't know for sure to Europe, but I'd say about 45%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you're guessing at that.

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How about to the United States?

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Probably much of it goes to the United States and a small percentage stays in Canada.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perhaps most of it to the United States?

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the GM isn't an issue in the United States.

Mr. Arnold Taylor: No, it's an issue in organic as well in the United States.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They don't have mandatory labelling in the United States for GM--

Mr. Arnold Taylor: They have the National Organic Program and--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We don't have organic standards, I believe, in Canada?

Mr. Arnold Taylor: We have a voluntary standard that has been developed and is in the process of being upgraded to the NOP standards. But, yes, the National Organic Program in the States will prevent any food from coming into the U.S. that's--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But speaking organically, it's a voluntary standard right now in Canada.

Mr. Arnold Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right.

Neal, two questions. First of all, can you tell me what relationship SARM has with PFRA? Is it a good relationship, a working relationship? I don't want to put words in your mouth here.

Mr. Neal Hardy: Actually, with the local people who administer, we have a good working relationship. Their direction comes from the minister.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you. I'm going to jump in here, because he's going to cut me off, and that's what I wanted to hear--we have an excellent local relationship with our PFRA.

We're here talking about farm policy. From a water policy and PFRA point of view, not only the funding but also the direction, would you suggest that this should be a priority for the federal government right now--water retention, water distribution, and water use?

Mr. Neal Hardy: That goes without saying. We're in the middle of--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But I need you to say it, because that's the message I want to take back.

Mr. Neal Hardy: Okay, then, I'll say it very clearly: Yes, we need the direction to come from the minister on how the funds available to PFRA are distributed and allocated to the producers out there, and to the small rural communities, who are going to need it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. We're dealing with long-term federal involvement in agriculture policy, and water is one area we've heard quite frequently about.

If you want to talk about policy--and I'd like to talk to Bill about this--another one is with respect to the producer cars you just mentioned. It's not an issue in...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...area, but quite frankly I think it's an issue of policy that we have to discuss at a federal level.

By making your organization a primary elevator system, what is the impact on you? What does the licensing do to you and your organization? Is it a cost factor? Is it a regulation factor? Is it the location factor you talked about? I'm trying to get a handle on this one.

Mr. Bill Woods: Okay. The cost to license is really not the problem, but the paperwork that's involved would be extra work.

If you want to know the real issue, it's because when the producer car was put into being a hundred years ago, it didn't work, because the farmers were trying to get their rail cars from the railroad. A few years later--we're talking 1902 through 1906--they created a department within the Canadian Grain Commission called the producer car unit. The farmer then went to the Canadian Grain Commission and that was how he got his cars. So you can see, they kept them clearly separated.

If we move into the primary elevator environment, it means we have to go back to fighting for our cars with the rest of the Western Grain Elevators Association. We will lose that fight.

À (1055)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the allocation of transportation cars comes from the Canadian Wheat Board--

Mr. Bill Woods: No, it comes from the Canadian Grain Commission.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: --or the Canadian Grain Commission. They allocate. So if you're a primary producer, you would be thrown into this pool of other grain companies and the allocation of those grain cars would be limited, I suspect.

Mr. Bill Woods: That's where the grain companies will try to take it--and I'm now speculating--but they're pushing hard on this. To have us license a primary elevator isn't really a huge inconvenience. It has to do with car allocation.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's the investigation--

Mr. Bill Woods: That's the underlying reason that nobody talks about.

The Chair: Thank you, Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have they said you will not get car allocation?

The Chair: Thank you, Rick. You've made the point. And I think Mr. Woods has made the point pretty well.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But this is a very important--

The Chair: I know, I know, but we do have other people who will come to present as well.

We'd like to thank the presenters.

I thought if I had some good down-east molasses with this it would be a really good taste for lunch.

Thank you for the presentations. We appreciate it.

Eventually we'll do a report, and the report will be available to the presenters and to the general public. It may take a while, but hopefully by June we'll have that done.

Again, thank you.

Perhaps the new group would come to the table. They are Coutts, Roy, Bruce, Bishoff, Husband, Potter, Johns, MacKenzie, and Orchard.

We're ready to start again, members.

Á (1100)

The Chair: I would like to welcome our new group of witnesses and start by asking Mr. Bishoff if he would make his presentation first. A few people haven't shown up, so maybe we'll have a bit more time for this session. We have about six or seven witnesses.

Ron, I'll start with you. You were in your chair first. Would you simply give us a brief explanation of who you are and who you represent? You have five minutes for your presentation.

Mr. Ron Bishoff (Individual Presentation): My name is Ron Bishoff. I farm in the Keeler-Marquis area, which is located about 30 miles northwest of Moose Jaw. I was previously a grain farmer and am in the process of switching my operation over to livestock, basically cattle. However, I'm not going to deal specifically with the drought at this point, because I'm certain there are other people at the table who will do that, although I'd certainly welcome questions as to my problems that I have facing water shortages, which are very real for me this spring.

The areas that I want to cover come from a booklet or pamphlet put together by the government. I have a draft form of it. I never got a finalized form. It's called “Understanding the agri-food sector...a success story to grow on”. I have put question marks after that, so I guess I'm maybe a little skeptical of how successful it is.

There are two areas I wanted to cover. One of them is about what I consider to be some very serious problems in the assessment of where agriculture is at in Canada today. One of the things that's a major concern to me is on about page 14 of this prepared brief: “Canadian farm production increased more rapidly in the 1990s compared to the U.S. and the EU”. The comparison is 2.8% growth in Canada versus 2.2% in the U.S. and 0.4% in the European Common Market.

The concern I have there is that although certainly there's been an increase in production, in my humble opinion it was brought about by desperation and a need to try to put down a bit of a bottom line, which has been continuously eroding. What has happened is that we've increased our production considerably, but with no increase in the bottom line. So that in itself to me is misleading when you suggest that we have increased our production in Canada. Yes, we have done so, but the reason for it is somewhat dubious.

As for suggestions that farmers should be doing more in the area of diversification, we're in a situation right now where many farmers, especially in western Canada, have diversified into oilseeds and pulse crops and so on. We know where oilseeds have taken us: right now they're basically in the toilet. There's not a great deal of money to be made growing that crop.

We have an extremely large acreage in wheat production in Saskatchewan. When you start talking about diversifying and changing over these acres to some other type of production, what you're asking farmers to do is basically blow the bottom out of the market in specialty crops. You can't start taking that kind of acreage out of wheat and transforming it into specialty crops without having a major effect on the level of production of those crops around the world.

Of course we are now facing a situation where the Americans are introducing a new farm bill. I heard Terry Hildebrandt, I think it was, talking about it in the previous panel, talking about the fact that this is going to be coming about and obviously it's going to have a very detrimental effect on the price of pulse crops being grown in western Canada. Certainly those pulse crops have been one of the few lights that we farmers have had to look at as potential income.

The other aspect that's coming in this farm bill is one that really concerns me, of course, and it is the country of origin labelling that is going to be coming in with red meats. To suggest that this is going to be devastating to Canadian beef and pork production would be an understatement. The costs are going to be absolutely incredible, not to mention the discrimination from American consumers that we're going to be looking at, especially at a time like this, when they're busy waving the flag so very strongly.

Those are two of the areas being labelled as supposed bright spots in agriculture in Canada that in my opinion we're really going to take a licking on in a very short time.

How much time do I have?

Á (1105)

The Chair: Take as much as you want.

Mr. Ron Bishoff: I'm happy to hear that.

The Chair: You started in a bit of turmoil here and people were moving around.

Mr. Ron Bishoff: Okay.

I want to switch into the second area. Basically, the large, business-oriented farm is being touted as the way to go, but I have a major concern with this notion. I certainly recognize there are economies of scale to be gained by a larger operation, but I believe there are also some major disadvantages.

According to your own notes from this draft, even with these large-scale, business-oriented operations, one-third of family income still comes from other off-farm sources. They are still relying on income other than that from the farm, and this for me is a serious flaw in the argument. If these large, business-oriented farms are the way to go, then they should be self-sustaining. They should be able to support a family without the need for an off-farm income.

The way you put the numbers together is another major concern for me. In 1997 you said the total net operating income from the market portion income of the farm was an average of $53,000 on these large, business-oriented farms. Their average net operating income is $53,000. These same farms have a net worth of approximately $1 million.

Now, when you start looking at the $53,000 net operating profit coming from this operation and balancing that against a net worth of $1 million, it doesn't take much of a mathematician to suggest that there isn't a very high return to investment in this thing.

But what is really frightening is the fact that in order to arrive at those numbers, neither depreciation nor interest on investment was included--and economically sustainable, viable farms have to be prepared to pay an interest on investment. Whether you as the farmer owe the money or not, at some point or other in this process there's going to be an intergenerational transfer. Someone is going to have to pay interest on the value of that farm, so it has to be a part of the cost of production. Unfortunately, as I was told when I looked into it, it's not included in this.

Depreciation is the other part of this. I'm still waiting for John Deere to deliver a brand-new tractor to my yard and not expect me to pay for it. Now, maybe it delivers at Vic's place, but not at mine. And I don't know of anyone who has ever had a large hog operation or a large barn delivered. You have to consider depreciation to be a part of your cost of production.

So if you start putting deprecation into those numbers and a return to investment, I'm going to suggest to you that that large, business-oriented farm is not even close to being in the black.

There is another factor to be considered. In many of these situations, the owners of these operations are getting up in years--and I guess you can tell by the hairline that I am too. But the concern is that the bulk of the net worth is here and these farmers are the ones who are on the verge of retirement. All of a sudden we're looking at turning this net worth into a liability, into a loan situation. So there again, it throws the numbers out considerably when you start looking at where we are down the road from this.

There is obviously a large discrepancy in the farm subsidies paid in Canada in comparison with those in the United States or Europe. Unfortunately, I believe the federal government has made the decision that the elimination of a large number of so-called inefficient farmers or farms is a natural process. Why would you spend subsidy dollars to interfere with what you consider to be an inevitable natural process?

We've been told the story that you can't afford to support inefficient farmers, going back to the days of Otto Lang, who said at that time that we had to be rid of one-third of the farmers. Well, one-third of the farmers from that time are long gone, plus a heck of a lot more beyond them.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that I believe the federal government's attitude right now towards agriculture could be compared to that of a very well-known Roman emperor who fiddled while Rome burned. In my opinion, unless something concrete is done--in other words, get into the game as far as agriculture is concerned and place value on agriculture and agricultural producers in Canada--I believe we're facing a tremendous collapse in the agricultural industry, not just in western Canada, but across all of Canada.

Thank you very much for your time.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, Carol Husband.

Ms. Carol Husband (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, Chairman Hubbard, legislators, ladies and gentlemen.

My husband John and I farm 1,760 acres of certified organic land in southeastern Saskatchewan, growing peas, beans, lentils, garbanzo beans, flax, sainfoin, herbs and spices, wheat and barley. As organic producers, we market our crops by selling directly to consumers on our farm, by selling to retail outlets, and by selling to wholesale buyers in bulk shipments, both internationally and within Canada.

An impediment we have to our organic marketing program, as well as to our economic viability, is the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board does not market organic grain. Let me be very clear that the majority of organic farmers do not want the board to market organic wheat and barley. Neither does the board have an organic pool, nor do we want them to establish one. However, there are two factual areas that you, as legislators, should be aware of: the Canadian Wheat Board's licensing practices and licensing costs.

I'll deal first with the licensing practices. The Wheat Board is legislatively the sole issuer of export and interprovincial licences for wheat and barley. The licensing part of the Wheat Board applies equally to all of Canada, but a Saskatchewan organic farmer has a very different export licensing procedure in comparison to an organic farmer in Quebec or Ontario or Newfoundland.

When Pierre in Quebec has a sale of organic wheat to California, he applies to the board for the required export licence. He is granted one with no cost, and Pierre sells directly to his California buyer. For me, as a Saskatchewan producer, to market to that same California buyer, I too apply for the required export licence, but I am flatly denied the export licence by the board. Every MP sitting here today should ask this question: Why is the prairie farmer denied an export licence, and is that legal?

Prairie farmers have come to realize that the Wheat Board applies the act differently to prairie farmers, even though the act itself does not support this action. According to the transcript from June 7, 2001, Wheat Board chairman Ken Ritter admitted three times to your very own Standing Committee on Agriculture that the Wheat Board was legally unsure about the licensing legislation. This is unacceptable. The Canadian Wheat Board has emphatically stated that the legislation does not allow them to grant licences with no buyback. Yet they actually do it all the time, both inside and outside the designated area. I respectfully submit that you should not ignore this.

The next thing I want to talk about is the licensing cost. Pierre in Quebec pays nothing for his licence, but there is a cost. The Wheat Board staff must fill it out, send it to Pierre, microfiche it, and so on. The Canadian Wheat Board Act states that the federal government must pay these licensing costs. Instead, the Wheat Board is quietly extracting the money out of prairie farmers' pooling accounts--illegal dipping.

I ask that each of you, as legislators, work to ensure that the Wheat Board actually follows what Parliament has legislated.

I also want to make a comment on GMOs, because we get a lot of calls about it. We have personally lost a lucrative canola market forever because our buyers refuse to buy from Canadian organic canola producers, since we can no longer guarantee the canola will be GMO-free.

Members of Parliament need to understand that we cannot lose our crucial wheat and barley markets as well, because organic farmers will simply be put out of business. Mr. Goodale, for example, has endorsed committing hundreds of millions of dollars to the biotechnology industry, and he is therefore in an irreconcilable conflict of interest with organic farming. GMO wheat will destroy our markets. We need each MP here today to help maintain what I call a GPF, a genetic pollution-free environment, which is essential in order to allow organic production to continue to thrive.

In summary, we ask these three things. First, we ask that legislators ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board follows its own legislation, and see that no buyback export licences are issued to prairie producers, the same as the Wheat Board does for their favorites or for whoever they've chosen to do it for. Second, we ask that members of Parliament require that the Wheat Board stop skimming funds out of prairie farmers' pooling accounts. Third, we ask that MPs sitting here today be proactive to the negative impact GMO wheat has upon our organic markets.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to express to each of you ways to better serve the needs of prairie organic farmers.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Husband.

Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Vic Bruce (Individual Presentation): Good morning, and thank you.

My name is Vic Bruce, and I'm a seed grower just north of Moose Jaw, where I manage our family farm. I am also a graduate of the first class of the CALL program, the Canadian Agriculture Lifetime Leadership program. I had the pleasure of meeting some of you when I was in Ottawa, and I thank you for that opportunity.

First off, I would like to say thank you to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for this opportunity to dialogue on the future role of government and agriculture. Minister Vanclief has already laid out an architectural framework to transfer agriculture into the 21st century. The five elements of his agenda are risk management, food safety and food quality, environment, renewal, and science and innovation. I'd like to share some of my thoughts on some of these elements, the first one being risk management.

Farmers are always changing, innovating, diversifying, and value-adding. Crop insurance is a risk management tool that could help farmers move into different crops by helping share some of the risks, but in its present form it does not help. I can receive only area-average coverage when I try new crops. If my individual averages for each commodity I insure are higher than the area averages, then I feel I should be able to receive coverage higher than area average on new crops that I elect to grow and do not have a history for. I am a lower risk for this benefit.

Food safety and quality is something we can never take for granted. IP grain with traceability is becoming a part of our industry, the cattle industry also, but it comes with a price. The consumer is demanding food safety and quality products, and rightly, but they must be prepared to pay for this also. This is consumer-driven, and it must be consumer-paid-for.

Farmers and ranchers are also doing their part in paying in the form of check-offs to the pulse sector, grains and oilseeds sector, and the livestock industry so their industries can move forward with safe, quality food. But part of the reason check-offs for research and development and quality assurance are needed is that government has backed away from public funding.

Canada has chosen to cut its level of support for commodities by 14%, while the U.S. level has dropped only 3% and the European Union has dropped theirs 6%.

If you look at wheat and coarse grains, Canadian cuts have been more dramatic--28% and 39% respectively--while the U.S. support has remained constant.

With respect to the environment, we must educate. As people with farming backgrounds distance themselves from the farm over time, it becomes imperative to look at a comprehensive ag-in-the-classroom type of program so that the entire agriculture story can be told, not just that of special interest groups with a narrow agenda. Right now the farmer is expected to cater to society's rules on the environment and food safety. The only problem is that they are responsible to pay the entire brunt of this cost.

The renewal challenge is a very tough and political topic. Farmers in the industry must continue to learn how to farm and not just remember how to farm. There are more opportunities for professional development for farmers today than ever before, and we should all want to try to get a competitive advantage by attending and participating. I know this is very hard when many in our industry are in strictly a survival mode. There must be vehicles to help new entrants into agriculture and at the same time help those who are exiting for whatever reason.

In closing, I have three general thoughts. First, support for agriculture in the future must be sector targeted. It is in other industries; it has to be in agriculture. Number two, what's wrong with a terminator gene for GMO crops? Is it the word that's so offensive rather than the technology? I leave that with you. Number three, we need government support to deal with the impact of production and export subsidies in the United States and Europe until more discipline is brought to bear through the WTO. Without this help, our production base will continue to erode.

Shipping wheelings to Minnesota or bringing U.S. corn into the southern prairie cattle feeders are trends that will continue if the subsidies are not curbed. On an equal footing, our industry is very competitive.

Thank you very much.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thanks, Vic.

Warren, would you be next?

Mr. Warren Potter (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, dignitaries and special guests.

My name is Warren Potter and I farm near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. With my brother, I farm approximately 9,000 acres. I would like to take a few minutes to share some of my views and opinions as to where I see agriculture heading and where it could be in 20 years if something isn't done to address some of the government's shortfalls.

Foreign and corporate ownership of land.... If Saskatchewan continues on its present course, I feel 60% of the arable farmland in Saskatchewan could be in the hands of foreign investors and large corporations. This situation already exists in other parts of the world and will continue to come here if legislation is not put in place to prevent this. Primarily, the only farmers who would push to see something like this happen are the older producers who have no one else to pass the farm on to. They are also the majority of farmers in the province.

Once the balance of farmland is held by large corporations, the cost of food will rise because they will have the power to withhold the grain sales, therefore forcing the consumer to pay more for the food they purchase. The cost of farmland will increase dramatically, keeping the farmers left on the land in a worse situation than they are in now.

Agriculture as an industry has the highest cost of assets compared to the net return per acre over any other industry in the world, with an ever-soaring cost of farm equipment and the exchange rate on the dollar, which allows our American counterparts to cross the border to purchase our used equipment. I also believe some of the large corporations that would take control of the farmland would also have control of the input costs, which will keep individual producers at bay, and then price and supply and demand becomes an even bigger issue than it is now. Once again, the farmer and the consumer lose.

The best solution the government has had to date is to diversify into value-added crops and livestock. I happen to agree with the principle, but when we take the initiative to diversify into different avenues of agriculture, the two entities are pooled together, leaving us losing money on one of the enterprises and subsidizing the other, in effect cancelling any chance to receive any aid from the programs and safety nets that are offered. This leads a lot of people to simply lay back, try not to diversify, and wait for safety nets to kick in.

There's no incentive for farmers to continue to diversify into different entities if they know there is not a lot of chance of getting ahead. This type of socialist thinking must be stopped, and programs must be put in place to allow entrepreneurs to move ahead. By using this type of system, you will see major changes in farming sectors.

Change is also needed in the Canadian Wheat Board. We only have to look around Saskatchewan and it is clear that the only value-added processing that occurs is on crops the board does not handle. This tells me they have too much control of the commodities grown in Saskatchewan.

Whenever there is a chance of having a methanol plant or a wheat processing plant of one kind or another, there is so much red tape that the people involved are exhausted trying to get over all the hurdles. Rural development is destined to fail, as long as government agencies are listening to corporations that make more money by handling raw products and sending them out of the country or province to be processed and then brought back into the province for our own consumers to purchase. This has been the norm for years now, and there are many examples of this.

We don't have to look only at agriculture for these examples. Uranium is another prime example of this. There is no reason why we should not be the richest province in Canada. We have the richest natural resources in Canada and possibly the world, but who is benefiting from them? We stand back and watch the resources being hauled out of our province, along with our children, to other provinces and countries. They are the ones benefiting, and once again we lose.

We should be encouraged and rewarded to support our local processors, instead of having to sell to the marketing boards and usually pay the freight, even though the grain never goes to the port. If the grain went only to local processing centres, this would keep more money and jobs in Saskatchewan.

If the Canadian Wheat Board is working for us, then it is time for change. If we are to have a working relationship with them, they should be accountable to the people who serve them. They should have to open their books to us after each crop year, so we can see what they have done for us.

Government should also be working on a program that would put money into the hands of young farmers to purchase farmland from their parents. It would start with a very low interest rate or no interest for a period of time, to allow them to get started. This program would be retroactive back six to ten years, and the difference in interest already paid could be applied to the principal of this loan. These types of loans would not cost the government a lot of money, and would also help alleviate some of the pressures placed on young farmers today.

The loan should also carry a government guarantee that would give more access to more people. This type of loan should also be offered and applied to local ventures trying to get start-up loans to get business ventures started in rural Saskatchewan.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Warren, could you summarize that? I'll give you another 30 seconds, maybe. You're over your time.

Mr. Warren Potter: It is a fact of life that the average age of farmers is continuing to climb. That tells me that the young people are leaving the farms and have watched their parents struggle to make a living. They are not willing to live with the continuing mounting debt their parents are carrying, which has increased by 55% in just five years. It is evident that farm succession will be one of the largest and greatest financial challenges we will face in the coming years.

It is inconceivable that farming will continue to survive as we know it, if we are not willing to change and have government support, in the light of what has taken place over the last ten years. We farmers have lost the Crow rate, and the railways have reduced service by cutting down on rail lines that make--

The Chair: Thank you, Warren. Maybe you'll have further opportunity in the questions.

Ms. Johns.

Ms. Noreen Johns (Individual Presentation): Thank you for your visit to rural Saskatchewan, and for this opportunity to discuss this timely question.

I speak today as a grain producer from east-central Saskatchewan, at Zelma, just through the South Allan hills here, a rural municipality that declared itself a drought disaster area this past summer.

Yes, there is very much a role for the Canadian government in agriculture. There is need for an informed, responsive, supportive and effective ministry of agriculture that relates to all of Canada.

The Canadian government cannot play a meaningful role in Saskatchewan agriculture until they clearly understand the needs of Saskatchewan grain producers. In the words of Dwight Eisenhower, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from a cornfield”.

The AIDAC-designed process was a clear example of that, and the results. It's no wonder that our farmers are alarmed at the federal government's new “monoscopic” vision for agriculture, released with no details, no consultation, with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I simply cannot believe that the interest and impacts on primary producers were considered.

Government continues to plan to do things for us and to us, but never with us. There must be ongoing and effective ways to engage more farmers in meaningful dialogue. Too many agricultural conferences, consultations, and lobby opportunities exclude Saskatchewan farmers because of geography and price. Rather, the seats are full of bureaucrats and agribusiness.

Our national agriculture minister refuses to come and sit down and discuss issues in our province. We need a minister who is truly committed and loyal to farmers, a champion for our industry, with an attitude that builds us, not kills us. He or she needs some western Canadian immersion to truly understand the situations. Maybe a dual ministry, east and west, is the solution. But that would still require political will from cabinet.

We need an aggressive federal government to stand up for our farmers, to check the subsidies of our international trading partners and the harassing trade disputes from our southern neighbour. Instead, Ottawa has abandoned our Saskatchewan grain producers well beyond the agreements at the WTO and seemingly stands idly by as American senators repeatedly drag the Canadian Wheat Board through expensive court battles.

In bowing to the railroads, policies of deregulation have destroyed our marketing infrastructure. Our transportation costs have skyrocketed, and our ability to service the more specific identity-preserved demands of today's marketplaces is virtually gone.

There's a lot of talk about subsidies that neatly ignores the fact that the free labour of Saskatchewan farm families, including women and children, has become the subsidies here in Canada.

Safety net programs designed around margins built on basement prices have failed us. I disagree with the recent government committee that reported that “attempting to match the U.S.-EU subsidies is not an appropriate response”. The international chaos through the last decade demands direct cash support from our federal government, too. The casualties have been too enormous.

Withdrawal of support and non-agricultural policies threaten the very existence of family farms. One could easily argue that the absence of policy is in itself a policy. If family farms cease to exist, what system of food production will replace them? We have reached the point where the Canadian public must become more vocal in what they are committed to support.

The latest Grainews carries an interview with Liberal Minister Goodale, who talks about many of the points I raise here today, and he's right on. But where's the action to follow up that lip service? In the words of Quincy Adams, “Don't let your mouth write cheques that your body can't cash”.

I will end with a quick list for federal government involvement: to maintain their role in regulation, inspection, enforcement, education and public awareness. It is time to tackle upfront that GMO issue: to redesign federal safety nets, using realistic figures, not historical margins. As part of a safety net committee, we made extensive recommendations, some of them calling for immediate action for this year

The government must support strong public research and ownership to apply an effective rural lens on the impact of other government policies on agriculture.

I ask for an immediate review of farm-gate prices, input costs, and food distribution systems to ensure the primary producer a fair share of their gross income and a fair share of processed product prices. Remember that we are not just the suppliers of low-cost inputs.

Never forget that Saskatchewan will always be a major importer of bulk commodities, and infrastructure must be rebuilt to handle that. I call for Ottawa to take back its historic share of support for agriculture--it's not 60-40--to help address the crisis of inter-generational transfers, because I have a son who wants to farm. Revisit the declaration on the advancement of farm women, because we've become disenchanted with those hollow words.

Á (1130)

Finally, and most importantly, we need an emphasis on the health and well-being of farm families to ensure future generations will continue to be the basis for secure and safe food supplies, environmental sustainability, and a healthy democratic society.

Thank you.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Johns.

Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. Darwyn MacKenzie (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Chairman Hubbard, members of Parliament, staff, and fellow presenters.

This afternoon I want to focus my comments on my personal experience, having farmed for the last 29 or 30 years in the Parklands area of Saskatchewan in a small community called Langenburg. We're next to Churchbridge. A lot of people recognize the name Churchbridge now because of some of the difficulties their municipal government has had in dealing with excess water.

I reluctantly talk about excess water in this province because of course there are very few of us in that situation. Actually, this morning when we left the farm I looked at the fields. They're getting pretty brown too. I'm thinking we might be in that situation soon. We have a shortage of water as well.

Nevertheless, I need to tell you what has been happening to us in that area. It doesn't affect only our area; it affects the whole province. Actually, it affects all of Canada. We discovered it when we experienced a severe flood in 1995. Because of the flood, we determined that we needed to improve our waterways. There were bushes that had grown up, and so on, with the high precipitation we had. When the sluices were all full from the fall of 1994, and when the rains came in the spring of 1995, we experienced a severe flood. It cost our municipalities over $300,000 to put roads back in. We determined we were going to do something about it.

We cleared channels in Smith Creek and improved it. While we were doing it, though, we had two conservation officers come and read the rights to the two reeves of the municipalities where the creek went through. It was the first bell-ringer for us. What's going on here? We met with them in a situation where it was without prejudice so we could find out exactly what was happening. From that event, more has occurred, obviously, in the last seven years.

I've included the major points I want to talk about today in a packet for each member of Parliament. Mr. Hubbard, if you wouldn't mind taking a copy back to Larry McCormick, I promised him we would give him more information on this very subject. It relates to a lot of the same things we've heard here this afternoon. It is the American influence in our Canadian economy, and the fact that those boys play hardball.

For those who have the packet, if you turn to the last page, I don't mean to embarrass the honourable Mr. Borotsik, but I quoted him. I had to. It was so appropriate for what I was going to say. In this newspaper clipping, he says “I saw it in their eyes. They were saying 'We'll make the rules, and you'll damn well play by them'.” I don't know, Mr. Borotsik, if you remember saying it. It seems so appropriate when I review what has happening even over the last few days.

We came through the potato problem with the Maritimes. Everyone recognized it was not really a disease issue. It was a trade issue. We came through the softwood lumber dispute. It, again, is a trade issue.

We've been exonerated for the ninth consecutive time in eleven years for the attack on the Wheat Board. You can say what you like about the Wheat Board, but when I see how many times the Americans are attacking them, I think they might be doing something. I agree that we need to revamp them a little bit. We need to tune them up. It's acceptable. The way the Americans are attacking them I think is proof positive that they're doing something for us.

It's away from the question I'd like to speak to, though, on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. I've met a lot of people who don't know the North American Waterfowl Management Plan was signed in 1996. What is this plan all about? The stated goal is to take 5.2 million acres of Canadian farmland out of production while at the same time influencing agriculture policy that will prevent any further agricultural development in this country.

Their key tool is to spread inaccurate environmental information that cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence. There are a lot of platitudes that sound really good, but when it comes down to looking at the scientific evidence, it isn't there.

I spent three and a half years on the Assiniboine River basin study. It was a three-level government study, financed by the federal government and the two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The results coming out of that don't get talked about a lot because they didn't come out the way the scientists expected them to, which is often what happens.

We discovered that there are no detrimental impacts. As a matter of fact, well-controlled drainage is the best thing you can do for flood prevention. Those are the kind of facts that came out of this study. You don't hear about it.

What did come out of it, though, was that they want to improve the satellite capability so they can detect drainage from the satellites. Basically, we have photo radar happening to us on our farms.

You need to know that, because what they are saying has a particle bit of truth. Wetlands are important. We know that wetlands have a purification process. But guess what? We don't need all of the wetlands we have in western Canada, especially in the Parklands area. It will not hurt our environment for us to protect ourselves from the wet conditions that we've experienced over the last ten years. Many articles have come out that have actually substantiated those facts.

I thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Ducks Unlimited are doing an awful lot. They have presented to you people. I find their information very interesting. They have a tremendous budget that comes straight from the United States.

Members of Parliament, we need your support in this whole effort of environment, because what's happening is that our land is being taken out of production for the sole benefit of the United States government. They are paying $171 billion over the next ten years to keep their farmers in business. Stop and think about it. It's far cheaper to buy land in our municipality at $220 acre--a one-time purchase and it's gone.

Ducks Unlimited were in my office yesterday morning. They've made a proposal to the seven municipalities along the Assiniboine River, where they will actually pay a cash payment to cash-strapped farmers today to put an easement on that will be on in perpetuity. It will be there forever, and the farmer gets the joy of paying the taxes the rest of his life. Those are the kinds of things that are happening.

Thank you very much for your time.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. Orchard.

[Translation]

Mr. David Orchard (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day and welcome to Saskatchewan. My presentation will be in English but if you have any questions in French, I will be happy to answer in that language.

[English]

I'm a fourth-generation Saskatchewan farmer. I farm at Borden, Saskatchewan. I'd like to make the point that during the past decade the net realized income for Saskatchewan farmers has dropped 90%. The net realized income of Saskatchewan farmers last year was 10% of what it was 10 years ago. We're seeing rural areas depopulated, devastated, rail lines ripped up, elevators torn down. Unhappily, Mr. Chairman, your government has simply unilaterally disarmed the western Canadian farmer in the world market.

Our freight rates have tripled since the Crow rate has disappeared. It's an average out-of-pocket cost for a prairie farmer of about $15,000 a year in increased costs since the Crow was removed--the Crow, of course, which was guaranteed in perpetuity.

The federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Vanclief, has made the point that anyone with an income of under $75,000 should make a decision. What he's essentially doing is telling half of the remaining farmers in Canada to get out of business. This is the existing policy of the government.

We've cut world-class research facilities across this country in terms of agriculture that had scientists such as Dr. Morris Schnitzer of Ottawa. We are losing men of that calibre because we've simply cut the ground from underneath them in terms of these massive cuts to the research facilities across Canada. We're turning all of it over, of course, to large American corporations such as Monsanto that are putting their energy into genetically modified organisms, which are damaging western Canadian farmers.

As mentioned earlier, we've seen the loss of the entire canola market for conventional growers, not just the organic growers, because we cannot guarantee any non-GMO canola going out of Canada. We have lost the market in Europe, the Japanese are saying no, and just last week the Chinese indicated that they won't take it either.

Now, of course, Monsanto wants to release a GMO wheat, which will further devastate western Canadian agriculture. Almost every organization across the west is against it, including the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, with a unanimous resolution against the release of GMO wheat.

So what are some of the solutions? The federal government should get back into agriculture, that's for sure. We should reinstate the infrastructure programs we've cut. We unilaterally disarmed. The Europeans didn't disarm. For the Americans, of course, with this new farm bill, it's crystal clear what they're continuing to do. So we have no negotiating power at the World Trade Organization. The only way we're going to get some clout back is to reinstate our programs and tell our competitors that we will dismantle those--we will reduce those as you reduce yours. That's the only way we're going to have any clout and give our farmers back some bargaining power.

The organic sector has been mentioned. This is the fastest-growing sector of agriculture in the western world. It's growing at a rate of about 30% a year. I was pleased to attend the UPA convention in Quebec City recently. Mr. Arseneau, the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec, made the point that organics is the way of the future. So the Quebec government is far ahead of the rest of the governments in Canada on this issue.

I've been an organic producer for 27 years, one of the pioneers, I might say, in the industry, and over those 27 years returns to organic farmers have been between 300% and 400% higher than for conventional growers. So what we need is transition programs to move farmers into organic agriculture. That will solve a whole bunch of problems: it will solve the problem of farm income and of consumer concerns about safety in our food--the pesticides, herbicides, and all the rest that are going into the food; it will deal with a good deal of the environmental devastation that is being visited on our environment through the use of these chemicals; and it will stop the rural exodus.

I don't share the views expressed by Ms. Husband in terms of her attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. If we didn't have the Canadian Wheat Board, our entire grain industry would be in American hands. I think the majority of farmers in western Canada have expressed themselves clearly on support for the board.

Instead of the federal government putting all of its energy into the biotech industry, which is what it's doing now, we should have a program of transition to help farmers move away from industrial agriculture and into organic agriculture. Prince Charles spoke in our legislature just last summer. He is the largest organic farmer in Britain. He's making the point that we have to make the move toward sustainable agriculture.

The Canadian government is so far behind the Europeans on this, it makes one weep. Denmark has a goal of 25% organic by the year 2005, and Germany and Sweden have similar goals. We have nothing like that in Canada, and it's a crying shame, because we have a reputation around the world as being a clean country. We can't keep up with the demand for organic agriculture. We get calls from all over the world for it. At the same time, farmers are being driven off the land.

On the issue of labelling, I want to commend the Bloc and the NDP for voting for the labelling bill. I want to point out that the Progressive Conservative Party is also for labelling, and our party also voted for that bill.

Ignoring the customer and moving to biotechnology is going to be dangerous, because the customers are saying that they want quality food.

In conclusion, I'd like to recommend that the Liberals read their red book promises in terms of agriculture and Canadian independence. We have a situation where the Liberals promised to reassert our independence on the world stage. We're now being told that it's time to adopt the U.S. dollar as the common currency for North America. That will be absolutely devastating to Canadian agriculture. I'm going to point out to the Bloc member that Mr. Duceppe was in Mexico recently calling for us to adopt a common currency.

Á (1145)

The Chair: David--

Mr. David Orchard: I'm winding up in 30 seconds.

The Chair: Not 30 seconds. You're already over your time.

Mr. David Orchard: This would be devastating for Canadian agriculture and for our independence as a nation.

The Chair: I've given you six minutes, and I've called you out of order. We have always had good cooperation from our witnesses, and I think you should give the same to other members who also want to present.

Mr. Roy.

Á (1150)

Mr. Armand Roy (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament of the committee, fellow witnesses, members of the media, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to be here and to join in this process.

I want to preface my comments by first of all commending the committee for taking the opportunity to come out and interact with western Canadians, in particular in the province of Saskatchewan.

I have a farm background. I'm currently a mixed farmer from Hoey, Saskatchewan. I also am a former politician, so I've seen the other side of that life. I'm also currently operations manager of a short-line railroad. I want to talk about transportation and some of the impediments we have in the system currently and in grain handling.

My neighbour and good friend, Warren, talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and the regulatory environment as outdated socialist thinking, to which I disagree. I can tell you that the latest Enron debacle in the United States has clearly shown that unfettered and deregulated capitalism also has its pitfalls.

My presentation is going to be a bit disjointed, but I'll try to pull it all together. I want to first of all talk about safety nets.

Certainly there has been in agriculture a paradigm shift. We've seen that unfolding here in recent years. Along with the amount of change that's happened in the industry, there have been such natural disasters as droughts, which have severely affected primary producers.

On the issue of long-term safety nets, I think the quicker we move in this country to one whole-farm income support program the better we'll all be. We need to focus and target our resources carefully. I think we should look at the CFIP framework we currently have. I honestly believe there is a good framework, a good start, to a long-term farm income support program.

As a producer, I started filling out the AIDA applications from the first year they came out. I went through that exercise each and every year. I spent weeks on these applications, trying to understand what the framework meant, what the designers were thinking, and as well what was going on in my own farming operations. I can tell you, it was a revelation for me, both with the program and with what was going on with my farming operation.

There were a lot of flaws with AIDA. We know that. The designers worked on it to try to improve it. Some improvements have been made, but more needs to be done, and more has to be done if it's going to be a good long-term income support program.

Let me just quickly give you some of the problems with CFIP, as I see it now.

First, it covers only 70% of your five-year, or three-year, average. That is just far too low. Basically what you're saying is that the government is accepting 70% of the responsibility and putting the other 30% on the farmer's shoulders. That split is not fair. We have to move to something like 90% coverage, with 10% as the farmer's responsibility.

The other problem with CFIP is that if you go to the expenditure side, what are allowable expenditures under the program guidelines? This is a big problem. If you look at the four major expenditures on the farm--land payments, land rental payments, farm machinery payments, and farm rental payments--interests costs, taxes, are not allowed as eligible expenditures.

Well, I want to ask you, members of the committee--I'm sure you all have a background in agriculture--what are bigger expenditures on a farm than land and machinery, and the interest? So that's immediately a major design flaw and it must be corrected in a new whole-farm income support program. I encourage you to take that back.

The other problem with the program is that if you're looking at a rolling average, you can have disasters for three years in a row, such as drought. These are beyond the farmer's control. But if you use, say, a seven-year average, and the farmer can use the three best years from any of those seven years on the income side, you build yourself up a good reference margin. I think we need to move to that as quickly as possible.

On the transportation side, right now we need to move to create more competition in the industry. We need to make sure that we stand up and keep the Canadian Wheat Board in place. I have worked for four years delving into transportation and handling. Let me tell you, if it wasn't for the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers would be completely naked to the whims and the wishes of the large corporations in this country, especially in transportation and grain handling.

Thank you.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thanks, Armand.

We're going to have some questions from members. Howard, we're going to have to be even shorter than usual, but we'll go around the table with perhaps one question. I think I know what yours is going to be.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I heard a few statements around here, and I agree that Ducks Unlimited is going to cause us lots of problems with that crazy set-aside they're talking about.

On the question of whether Japan takes canola or not, that's not true. They do take our canola. They're not preventing our GM canola from going there. We've heard that at the table, so we'll be reporting that in our committee.

I guess we'd better get down to the old Wheat Board and get this thing straightened out a little bit. The Canadian Wheat Board was ruled unfair by the U.S. trade. I don't want to disagree with the presenters, but we'll be factual here. Ontario has a voluntary Ontario wheat board, and the Saskatchewan and Manitoba hog monopolies are no longer in place because they don't suit modern marketing. The Ontario apple monopoly has been discontinued.

The fact of the matter is that in a modern economy, monopolies are just not the best way of maximizing earnings for farmers. A marketing agency like the Wheat Board, without the monopoly aspect, could still market for everyone who wants to use that agency. I'd ask Armand Roy about this. Do you not feel that by fighting so hard to retain this monopoly, you're going against the wisdom of every other commodity group and in fact the farmers of Ontario, who have decided that the monopoly is not the way to market wheat?

Mr. Armand Roy: The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Wheat Board certainly has adapted in the last number of years to some of the changing environments, globally and domestically. In fact, that's going on to this present day. The Canadian Wheat Board is going to continue to adjust and modify to the demands out there.

On this issue of accountability, the Canadian Wheat Board is accountable. It has a board of directors. Most of them are duly elected by producers. If anybody claims that somehow the Canadian Wheat Board is hiding something, I'm not sure they're dealing with reality.

Now, I'm not coming on this point--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roy. I'm going to have to move on.

Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Mr. Orchard and other panel members.

Since the beginning of the tour there has been much discussion of the whole issue of GMOs, genetically modified organisms.

First, are you under pressure from some GMO growers?

Second, is it profitable to use GMOs instead of conventional grains, those that have not been modified?

Mr. David Orchard: You ask if it is profitable. I don't think so. GMOs currently present many problems. I am thinking of the canola market. We spoke about Japan. There is currently a problem there. The Europeans said no.

We have completely lost our European market. Contrary to the comments made by Mr. Hilstrom, there is a problem in Japan. In China we are starting to have a problem. The price of canola has dropped. We have had GMO canola in the West for five years and the price of canola has since dropped. No, it is not profitable.

Â (1200)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Dick, I'll go to you next.

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

First of all, I thought there were some excellent presentations here, and I'd like to have time for questions for all.

Vic Bruce, you mentioned in your presentation that we needed to look at sector-targeted support. I think it was in your summary. The question I have rattling around in my mind is whether the “one-safety-net-fits-all-package” that seems to be out there, although we don't seem to have all the details, would fit with what you're saying is required.

Mr. Vic Bruce: Thank you.

As you're aware and I'm aware, any time you're going to target anything, you're in trouble. When you look at the livestock industry and the grains sectors, they usually both don't get into trouble at the same time.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

Mr. Vic Bruce: If you look at other industries for which this has been done, Bombardier for example, when there are unfair subsidies down in Argentina we're going to put some money into it. Support is targeted in that area.

Even if you look at NISA, the very popular program we have now, I'm sorry, but it is targeted. Not everyone can afford the program. If you don't have the money to put into it, you can't get the benefit out of the program. Maybe the ones who are in the worst situation are the ones who can't get into the program in the first place. I think we just have to look at sector targeting more specifically than we have in the past.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Rose-Marie, do you have a....

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have a quick question for Ms. Husband.

Regarding your presentation, you had indicated that as an organic farmer you have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board to get your licence. There's a fee from which farmers in Quebec are exempt. This is news to me. As a point of clarification, do you know why this is? What's the reasoning behind it?

Ms. Carol Husband: The way the Canadian Wheat Board Act is written, there are regulatory and marketing parts of the act.

The regulatory part applies to every Canadian. It doesn't matter whether you live in the Maritimes, Quebec, or Saskatchewan. It's an act of Parliament that applies to all of Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board's duty is to provide export and interprovincial licences to any Canadian who wants to move wheat or barley interprovincially or export-wise.

Now in the case of a Quebec producer--and I use Pierre as an example--he applies for this export licence and is immediately given one. Under the same law, when I apply for the export licence, I'm immediately denied it. So here you have Pierre in Quebec, who, as a producer, can sell to California, etc. He gets a licence. It's just a regulation, a requirement, and he can sell to Utah or California or wherever he wants. He can market his organic product to his end user.

As a Saskatchewan person, I have only one choice, because I'm denied the licence. After that, I can eat it all or at that point in time I'm forced to offer it to the board. Then they market the grain.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But Quebec is not compelled to pay for a licence, like Ontario?

Â (1205)

Ms. Carol Husband: Not at all. Their grain does not pass through the Canadian Wheat Board; neither does Ontario's, neither does Newfoundland's.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Ur.

I'm going to have to go now to Rick for a brief one.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have three quick questions. These are single-word answers.

The Chair: Time counts.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Bishoff, you had suggested that large-scale business operations aren't the way to go financially. Are you suggesting legislation to limit farm size?

Mr. Ron Bishoff: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The next question is to Warren. You suggested foreign and corporate ownership are increasing. Are you suggesting legislation to limit corporate and foreign ownership?

Mr. Warren Potter: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

To David Orchard, you just said that organic farming is huge--100% to 400% greater returns than in industrial agriculture. You're suggesting it has a huge growth market right now. Why should there be any federal intervention at all with respect to policy, because you already have the market and you already have the growth?

Mr. David Orchard: We have not even had a degree-granting institution in organic agriculture in Canada. The one in Truro that the government has tossed a little bit of money to is the very first one. Contrast that to how many there are in Germany and in Sweden.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You can't even keep up with demand now.

Mr. David Orchard: That's right, but many farmers want to know how to make the transition. I'm not asking for handouts to farmers; I'm asking that there be a transition program. Take information, for example. Most farmers are not even aware how to do it. I get calls all the time from farmers saying “How do I make the switch?” It's not my job to be telling farmers how to do that.

Now you want me cut off, Rick.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

Mr. David Orchard: I was just going to attack the Alliance and the chair cut me off. So he's protecting the Alliance--

A voice: No, no, no.

The Chair: We'd like to thank all of you.

Actually, the Speaker in the House of Commons has a really good system there. When he stands up all the microphones shut off, so it works quite well. We don't have that here in Davidson. But we do want to thank you for coming as presenters.

I know time is always of the essence; we have a number of people who want to present in our third round. In any case, you know who we are. If you want to communicate further, our offices are always available to you, and for information directly to the committee, our clerk, Suzanne Verville, would certainly look for those types of submissions.

Thank you.

The next round can come forward. I guess we have eight or nine people again.

The meeting will be suspended.

Â (1205)

Â (1211)

Â (1215)

The Chair: We'll resume the meeting and ask the presenters if they would come to the table. Our time is limited. We want to make sure we hear from everyone.

Would Hart Haidn, Marilyn Gillis, Bob Thomas, Percy Schmeiser, Wayne Zimmer, Glen Gunningham, Lloyd Pletz, and Ian McCreary please come to the table?

The Vice-President (Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance)): Ladies and gentlemen, are all the presenters here? We'd like to get going, because we'd like to hear from as many presenters as possible. Of course our time is limited because we're leaving Davidson and going down to Swift Current for meetings that will go on until the early evening. We want to get on with the presentations, so we'll start early, even before some of the MPs are back, because, as Mr. Hubbard stated, all of this information is going into the report that will ultimately go to Parliament.

Our first presenter is Mr. Hart Haidn. Could you stick to the five minutes, please?

Mr. Hart Haidn (Individual Presentation): Thank you. You'll cut me off when my five minutes are over, I'm sure.

This year is the tenth anniversary of the Rio Summit. It's also the tenth anniversary of my first appearance before the committee--not this committee, but another committee of the House of Commons--to talk about the same issue I want to talk to you about today; that is, sustainable agriculture.

When we look at all the major trends in agriculture and health and the environment, there's one thing we can observe: that is, that agriculture, as we know it, is not sustainable. When we look at Canada's competitors internationally and we look at all the OECD countries, we will recognize that those countries have developed policies for sustainable agriculture. The country that has not done it is Canada. When we, for example, look at the United States, where we have over a hundred institutions dedicating their work toward sustainable agriculture, and those are free-standing institutions--NGOs, university departments--and then when we look at Europe, it's the same situation there. These countries have developed that infrastructure because of government support.

Now let's turn quickly to the situation in Canada. Canada has international commitments. When I mentioned the Rio Summit, five papers came out of that summit. One was Agenda 21. Specifically, chapter 14 of Agenda 21 talks about sustainable agriculture and the need for all nations in the world to develop policies for sustainable agriculture, because the course we are on is just not sustainable. Of course we know about the Kyoto Protocol and things like this.

Of course we must recognize that Canada has done some work around the climate change issues, but I do not think we have done enough. What concerns me greatly is that we have two national documents. One is from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, out of their policy branch, specifically the environmental bureau, which has developed a strategy for sustainable agriculture for the next eight years. It is called “Agriculture in Harmony with Nature II”. This document is not the best document in the world, as far as sustainable agriculture is concerned, but at least it has some very solid and good recommendations. The red thread through the entire document is we have to do more education and raise awareness about the issues of agriculture as far as its sustainability is concerned.

Is there anything reflected in policy yet? Virtually nothing. What we have in Canada is indeed a hodgepodge, piecemeal approach and most certainly not any framework that would deal with sustainable agriculture issues.

The second document I refer to in my paper, which I left here at the desk, is the paper put together by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the so-called pesticides report. It's a lengthy report that deals with, as the title says, pesticide issues, and it also makes a number of recommendations. And again, I cannot see anywhere in Canada, in any department, be it agriculture or environment, that the recommendations out of this report have even been worked on. Some of the recommendations say, for example, that we should spend more money in research and development for sustainable agriculture, that we should develop transition programs to help farmers to make the transition, and that we, for example, should spend more money on integrated pest management and things like that.

As the bottom line, my recommendation for your committee is let's look at the recommendations in those two reports, and let's deal with those issues and follow those recommendations and look at the international commitments that we have. Let's work together on the development of sustainable agricultural policies.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Haidn.

Now, if we can have Marilyn Gillis, please.

Ms. Marilyn Gillis (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome all the MPs here.

It has been an interesting experience to write this presentation. It has given me a chance to search within my experiences of a lifetime of farming and to examine my beliefs and notions of change. I have had to acknowledge as well my negative and angry emotions related to past and present government decisions in agriculture.

Government policies, in my opinion, have sold out our Canadian farmers. They have been based on truisms of the marketplace without factoring in overall truths, truths that include environmental, social, economic, ethical, and human dimensions of continued life on Planet Earth.

Today's government is faced with a critical choice. It can continue to favour policies that favour the corporate analysis of the world, it can intentionally betray and confuse its citizens, or it can choose to evolve to be a form of government that will be receptive to changes necessary for this new era.

I am resistant to accepting this so-called free trade and economic globalization that we have been told is a change we have to adapt to. Get big or get out. This is not change; it is an intensification of the same rationalization we have heard for the past 60 years.

I see citizens, including farmers, who are developing visions of change that include an internationally global context of fair trade based on human integrity and respect as well as on sound stewardship of natural resources. These visions are both being ignored and being allowed to be attacked by those who see themselves benefiting from the industrialization of agriculture. They present this industrialization process as predetermined and inevitable. It is not so.

As I have been connected with the organic approach to farming for the past 33 years, I use it as an example of people working together to evolve a choice of approaches to agriculture. Organic farming has gained public favour. Is government going to do more than mouth support, or will government deny farmers and consumers that choice? Is government going to take the mega-corporate attitude that if people have no other choice, they'll eat genetically modified food and like it? Is the government going to continue to be willing to risk our Canadian soil's ability to recover from violent abuses of it?

If we have a common denominator as a referral point from which to evolve, could it be that we, inhabitants of Earth, need quality water and soil to support life from now to infinity? Contact with a living earth is vital, and it is our ethical responsibility to ensure that it is here for future generations.

I call on the future role of government in agriculture to be an active, committed one. I propose the following.

-- One, decide that it has the will to develop policies with its citizens.

-- Two, support choices. The “small is beautiful” concept does not deserve to be labelled quaint or a romantic going back to something.

-- Three, protect viable alternative choices from the powerful corporate propaganda and practices--i.e., intensive livestock operation. Legislate a moratorium on mega-hog barns until appropriate size is determined and environmental regulations are at least up to par with Europe and the United States. A moratorium on genetic and modified wheat production should also be legislated.

-- Four, acknowledge that the farmer produces food and deserves an honoured place in society. I am using “farmer” to refer to the traditional family farm notion.

-- Five, encourage notions of collectives, land trusts, conservancies, and lands considered as commons.

-- Six, promote holistic and sustainable research and practices--for example, woodlot management, protection of natural habitat, communities of people accenting diversity, and cooperative principles. See the attached prairie village model.

I respectfully submit this in the spirit of a new age deliberation process of citizens and government. No other sector of our economy is tied so closely as are agriculture and the public good. It is vital that government is approachable, receptive, and responsible to the collective interests of its citizens.

Thank you.

Â (1225)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, Marilyn. That is right on the five minutes, so that's excellent.

I would remind the presenters just to indicate whether they're appearing as an individual farmer or a representative of an organization.

Bob Thomas.

Mr. Bob Thomas (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Bob Thomas, a farmer from Milestone, Saskatchewan. I am here representing in part with the Ottawa Trek Committee. I wish to thank you for allowing me to speak here today.

As you'll notice, the presentation is in two parts. The first part is in essence the background leading up to the ten points I have submitted as my recommendations.

The first area I'm going to deal with, ladies and gentlemen, is the effect the United States has on Canada and agriculture in Canada. I'm an American by background, so if you're going to throw something, I guess you can throw it at me.

In essence, I'm here to warn you that the United States is going to hurt you in agriculture. When a previous administration signed on to the GATT agreement in 1991, they did not fully understand exactly what they were signing. They did not understand that the United States added over 41 additional pages that pertained only to the United States in agriculture at that time. Part of GATT also clearly stated that the systematic reduction of acres and farmers from agriculture was part of the GATT agreement that Canada agreed to.

In the United States we saw such programs as Permanent Cover, and the multitudes who indeed did do that type of thing, but in Canada we're seeing no positive aspects in relation to this. I get the feeling that in essence it's easier to starve the farmers out of agriculture than it is to systematically allow them to depart in some way, shape, or form with some dignity and some money in their pockets.

The United States is a very dangerous person. If we look at the subsidies in Europe, we can see that the reason for them goes back to the starvation caused by two world wars. That's a justifiable reason for subsidies in Europe. But when we look at the United States, the word “subsidy” does two things. First, yes, it does support the farmers of the United States up to eight times, or now possibly thirteen times, more than what they do in Canada. But what the subsidies also do with an economy, a manufacturing economy, that wants to go from 18% of the world trade in manufactured food to 43% of the world trade in manufactured food.... With a population of over 300 million people in the United States, ten times that of Canada, the United States cannot even perceive of or even tackle moving from 18% to 43% with the production they have in the United States.

At present the United States has hopefully six months' worth of food in the pipeline, but if you check with their sources they have less than three to four weeks in the pipeline right now. That's what they guarantee is in the system to guarantee that every man, woman, and child in the United States will be fed.

How do we expect that they're going to do this? It's very simple, ladies and gentlemen: subsidies.

They can drive the prices down not only in Canada but also in South America. They can drive those prices down to the point where they can produce the product and transport it to the United States more cheaply than the United States can grow it themselves. It's very simple. It's easy. Just buy the product cheaper someplace else, bring it in, manufacture it, ship it out throughout the world, and make a buck. I don't mind doing that, ladies and gentlemen, but don't ask me to starve while they make a dollar doing it.

The other thing is that the United States looks very strong. I have a speech here--and I wish to thank one of my colleagues for giving this to me--given by the President of the United States in Texas, where he made reference to how he has protected the $1.3 trillion agricultural industry in the United States. We have just recently seen that they are going to put $47 billion more into subsidies in the United States. In Canada we sit back--we are the boy scouts--and say nothing.

I'm going to rush through my next point very quickly, because five minutes does race by fairly quickly. This is with regard to the severity of what's happening in agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan right now. It's my home province and where I've raised my children. At the present time the province of Saskatchewan is insolvent.

Now, that statement is a little harsh, but with a debt of $12 billion to $18 billion--no one can hit that magic target figure--and liquid assets of $4 billion, if we sold every car, legislative building, or piece of land, the only assets this province has left are the taxpayers of the province of Saskatchewan.

I wish to warn you that this province has now lost an industry of well over $4 billion to $5 billion in this province. We had a 60% to 70% loss because of the drought this year. Indeed, that's why the premier of this province was in New York with the New York banks, and now is going to have to raise taxes throughout this province to try to cover off.... The rainy day fund he claimed he had is no longer there. In fact, it's in the red.

I'm going to move very quickly into my ten recommendations from my work with colleagues across Canada in our organization.

Number one is a cash injection. We're sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but all your programs in the past, as stated by the other people who have presented to you, have failed.

With regard to value-added industries, whether it's in the organic area, pasta plants, or whatever, somehow they're running into roadblocks, roadblocks put in there by government agencies. If you want us to diversify, open the doors and let us do our jobs.

Â (1230)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Sorry, but perhaps you could give us the statement without the explanation.

Mr. Bob Thomas: Okay.

What I'm basically saying here is that we need a re-evaluation of programs along the 60-40 split. No longer can Saskatchewan sustain and work in that atmosphere.

Saskatchewan has 43% of the cultivated base, but we're going to have to look like the United States, where they've gone into the permanent cover program, with the support of cattle behind them. A lot of people state that we will damage the cattle industry, but if you look at cattle in Florida alone, if we were to triple the cattle in Saskatchewan, we wouldn't even hit 1% or 2% of the cattle in Florida.

Crop insurance will have to be reflected in the cost of production. Many of the presenters here will give you that. Without it, Saskatchewan crop insurance in this province is a total waste of the paper it's on. A program will have to be attached to it that will give cash up front and in essence basically through the Canadian Wheat Board, a cash advance. But you're going to have to have an enhanced crop insurance.

Disaster programs are going to have to come in. It will be part of a major program. The United States has a very good one--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Just make one final statement, if you would.

Mr. Bob Thomas: I'm going to the tail end, to number ten.

What I'm strongly suggesting here, ladies and gentlemen--you have my brief--and what I'm asking you to do today is to remove a lot of these programs from the joint federal-provincial and put them all into one federal office, one program. You have a Minister of Agriculture saying he wants one program. What I'm suggesting to you is that you might have to have nine or ten programs to cure everything, but put them into one office. You have the Farm Credit Corporation, and you can expand that aspect across Canada.

Thanks very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thanks, Mr. Thomas.

Percy, go ahead.

Mr. Percy Schmeiser (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I come from a town about 90 miles north of here. I'm a third-generation farmer. I've been farming for 53 years and I'm primarily a seed saver and a seed developer in the field of canola.

I guess you can describe me best as having a fight with Monsanto, a lawsuit and so on, which is far from being over. I will go into what the judge's decision was. Really what it means is patent law versus farmers' rights, farmers' privileges, and so on. Basically what patent law does in Canada is it takes all farmers' rights away. Farmers do not have any privileges or rights left under patent law.

This is what the judge ruled. Number one, it did not matter how Monsanto's genetically altered seed got into my field. He went on to specify that if it blew in by the wind, if it cross-pollinated, if it came in by birds, bees, floods, or you name it, it becomes Monsanto's property.

The second issue he ruled on is that if a farmer has any plant and it is cross-pollinated against your wishes by Monsanto's genetically altered gene, your plant becomes Monsanto's property. This has sent out alarm bells all over the world in terms of the rights of farmers to always use their own seed.

I will skip the vicious contracts they have and so on, but I would like to go into the role of the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Canadian Department of Agriculture took grants and development money from the multinationals in the development of GMOs, especially from Monsanto. Then these same people recommended to their superiors that regulatory approval should be given to Monsanto for the introduction of GMO genes.

What I'm really alarmed about is the regulatory approval, because it states “for the unconfined release into the environment”. So the federal Department of Agriculture knew it would spread; they knew it would contaminate and destroy organic and conventional farmers in the crops they could grow. They knew it would destroy honey producers and the honey markets because a bee doesn't know which plant is genetically altered or not. So that is another market that is lost.

The other issue I would like to talk about is that I've just come back from Europe and the United States and I spoke to seven parliaments, including the European Commission. You are going to see more subsidies than ever before, not only in Europe but in the United States, because they now consider that the safety of food and food security have become a national security, the same as national armed forces. Farmers cannot coexist against other countries of the world that support their farmers.

Â (1235)

If we want food safety, food security, and food quality, the federal Department of Agriculture and the Government of Canada had better start supporting farmers in the same way as the national security forces. Why do they consider it national security in Europe and the United States now? It said, after September 11, “biological warfare which then leads to food security, food safety, and food quality”.

Â (1240)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Could you do your wind-up? There is one minute left.

Mr. Percy Schmeiser: Yes. As I said, it has become a major issue around the world. In the final statement I would like to make, there's a lot I could talk about. To me, all seeds of life, whether they are grains, fruits, insects, birds, fish, animals, or humans, belong to the heritage of the human race. They cannot become someone's personal property or a multinational corporation's property through patent law.

We have indeed entered into a crucial and critical period of time for the well-being of humankind. We need leadership from our federal government to protect farmers' rights from patent law so farmers always have, and are allowed to use, their own seed. Otherwise, they will become serfs of the land.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, Percy.

I'll quickly mention that the full report Percy prepared for us will be considered, even though he didn't have time to give us every word.

Mr. Zimmer, could you present, please? Are you representing yourself as a farmer, or an organization?

Mr. Wayne Zimmer (Individual Presentation): I guess I'm representing myself. I'm a consultant.

I want to welcome the committee here to Saskatchewan and this beautiful banana republic weather we've been having.

I'm happy to be able to make some comments on my own experience. I am 60 years old. I have lived in Saskatchewan most of my life. I've also had the opportunity to travel most of the world. I've been married to an American for the last 35 years. I have sons who are dual citizens. I've spent a lot of time in the United States and over the years have picked up some things, as well.

My father ran an agricultural implement business in rural Saskatchewan for 40 years that my brother and I had an opportunity to participate in over the years.

I'm a consultant and a past Liberal candidate. It tells you my bias. I've helped to develop 400 recreation boards in this province. As well, I've helped to develop the SARCAN recycling program in this province.

My comments this afternoon concern what I call the “challenge of change”. It's a bit esoteric. I know a lot of the other presenters here today are coming in with some very hard solid facts, so I make this reservation before I begin. I do have a positive attitude in terms of trying to work with both the federal and the provincial governments in terms of alternative economic practice for personal, social, and provincial gain.

I believe first of all, Mr. Chairman, that what we need to do in this province to begin with is not continue to throw money after a bad problem. I do, however, believe we need some type of funding that will allow us some bridge support over the years it is going to take to change the attitudes we have in this province--in particular, this province. I basically believe we have a defeatist attitude, a negative attitude, in so many areas that it has really come to hurt us in terms of our overall approach in looking at markets in the external world.

I believe my sons today are looking at the possibility of not staying in Saskatchewan because of some of that attitude. I am positive about the possibility that we can change it around.

How can we change it around? First of all, I believe we have to develop an element of trust between the federal government and the provincial governments to show things can and do work.

How do we do it? One of the proposals I would make for your consideration is we would establish either a secretary of state for agriculture or a deputy minister position that would be located in the prairies. We need someone from this part of the country who understands, has a history of agriculture and farming, and has the background that would suit the position.

Number two, I believe we need to have some demonstration projects around this province. I would respectfully suggest there should be at least four of these to show all the new technologies, new contributions, and changes in agriculture.

I am not concerned with change--I welcome it.

If you look historically throughout history, every time you have seen a country, a community, or an area grow, you have seen tremendous impacts on agriculture. If we go back to medieval times, if we go back to the late 19th century, you'll see the major changes that were brought in by steam, electricity, etc.

I think what we're doing is living through a situation today that talks about change, but we're not prepared to accept change. We have been taught in this province--and to a certain extent it's a result of the depression mentality--to protect. It is a natural instinct to want to protect. What I am saying is we have to leave a little bit of that protectionism behind, and we have to start being prepared and willing to take risks. We also need knowledge in terms of preparing to take educated risks. I would suggest for your consideration that we need to look at a solid land use and human resources development policy for this province to really understand what our parameters, our depth, and the data that would come from that would give us, so that we can approach this problem intelligently.

I would like to close by saying I think we need some short-term financing to help us, but I think fundamentally we have had a depression mentality, a defeatist mentality, an insecurity mentality in this province. We live in this province with an almost $2 billion transfer payment situation, which fundamentally underlies what I've tried to suggest to you. I respectfully suggest that your committee has to look at this long term. I'm not suggesting five or ten years. We have to look at it in terms of what it's going to mean in order to evolve this change for at least a generation.

I'm also suggesting we need to look at some short-term financing, but not disjointed financing. When I walked into the room, I heard somebody talking about coordination. Absolutely. Bring all those programs to focus in one point, instead of spreading them all over.

Thank you.

Â (1245)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.

We can continue now with Lloyd Pletz.

Mr. Lloyd Pletz (Individual Presentation): Hi. Thanks for having me.

I'm going to rattle on here pretty quickly. I have a number of items. I did my submission. I don't know if the gentleman at the door handed it around.

The first thing I'd like to see the feds do, or this committee recommend to the feds, is to go back and fix the last cash injection. We got shorted big time in Saskatchewan. We got the least amount of money out of that. We have farmers in Ontario who got anywhere from $15 to $20 an acre, and in Saskatchewan here, some of my neighbours got as little as 70¢ an acre, which is ludicrous.

Point two, I'd like to see the income tax system changed to include 100% of our farm losses. That's where our biggest problem is. Farmers are paying income tax today while they're losing money. It's an income tax flaw. There are things like lost lines of credit, accounts payable arrears, and lost equity in assets, whether it's equipment, land, cash in the bank, RSPs, RIFs, whatever. Most of that does not show up in the income tax numbers, the cash filing. So it's time to change the income tax system. Get our losses into Stats Canada, so you as a government, the opposition, the provincial governments, and we as farmers can identify the amount of hurt that's out there.

Less than 20% of our losses are in the 1999 numbers. You have only one-fifth of the farm crisis in Stats Canada. So I really can't blame anybody, the feds or the province, for not dealing with the farm crisis, because you have only one-fifth of the farm crisis in income tax in Stats Canada.

I believe by changing the income tax system it could be our new super program. Why? Because it would be based on 100% of farm losses. We don't need any other program. NISA, CFIP, cash injection can all be eliminated. We can eliminate the cost of three or four administrations by doing just one. The beauty part about the income tax system is it's already in place. All we have to do is fix it.

I was talking to Michael Fine out of Paul Martin's office the last time I was in Ottawa. He suggested we could just do an add-on sheet to the cash filing. It wouldn't even require legislation to get our losses in there.

So do it. It's simple. It's already in place. Let's utilize it. Let's utilize 100% of the farm losses. That's why none of the farm programs work today, because none of them are tied to losses. CFIP is a little. NISA isn't tied to losses, it's tied to crop production. Crop insurance is based on crop loss, but not actually a dollar loss.

The main factor here is losses. We're losing money, and while we're losing money, a lot of us are paying income tax. And that's what's bankrupting thousands of farmers, just the income tax system itself--never mind the farm crisis.

Â (1250)

For an example, I'm with the Ottawa Trek committee here. We ran a survey in Regina at the exhibition and the Brandon fair. In that survey, 91% of the farmers in both provinces want the income tax system changed to include 100% of farm loss. I don't care what you call it, I don't care how you do it, just do it. Vanclief or Hedley or Dunnigan or Watson can't deal with it when they don't have the right numbers to work with.

Number three, change the safety net formula from cash receipts, not to GDP sales like the Prime Minister's task force was talking about last time they blew through Regina in November. I want it changed to a percentage of acres, percentage of taxpayers, which fixes the 60-40 problem, and a percentage of losses, which requires an income tax change again. We have to get to the losses, guys.

A lot of us farmers want to see the federal government as our neutral vendor at the farm gate. I'm talking production contracts on crops here. Get us out from underneath the grain companies. Give us some freedom. Give us some cash in the spring. If we have cash, we can go shopping. We can in essence drive down our input costs and prices by farmers' shopping. Imagine all the farmers in Canada going out shopping and trying to get the best price on a tonne of fertilizer and a pail of chemicals. We can drive down the prices by doing that. We can save millions on inputs. We could probably save millions on interest and on carrying charges for the year. We can probably make millions more, because if we had the feds as a neutral vendor we could do a full crop year instead of just the two-month deal that we have with the present-day system with the grain companies and production contracts due October 31.

I gave you an example there--fixed crop insurance. It was ruined in 1990 when it was changed from area coverage to individual. Going to individual drove thousands of us farmers out, ruined thousands of our farmers' coverages. In a lot of cases it cut them in half or even less. Thirty some percent aren't in because of this factor. Let us back in. Bring back area coverage or individual on a per-crop basis for all the farmers.

We have another drought coming at us. El Niño is set up. It was already on last week's news media. It's already affecting drought in Australia, they're saying. It's coming to Canada. It's supposed to be drier in Canada this year than it was last. So we're in big trouble here unless we fix crop insurance. While you're in crop insurance, throw in a cost production formula.

NISA doesn't work. It's a joke for thousands of farmers, especially the farmers who have had a drought--no crop sales, no contributions, they don't get any money out. The triggers are a joke too, because the triggers are based on the flawed cash filing numbers that don't have our losses in them. And as for CFIP, please allow all expenses and deduct principal and the cost of living off the allowable income.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Lloyd. That was right on time.

Ian, you could start, and if you're appearing on behalf of the board officially, you can explain that.

Mr. Ian McCreary (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairmain.

My name is Ian McCreary. I am the Canadian Wheat Board director for District 6, which is the district that runs up through central Saskatchewan. I am here as a farmer from this area and I want to welcome the committee to Davidson, which is the area that I farm--Davidson in particular, western Canada in general.

As western farmers, we have often felt abandoned by the powers of Ottawa. Your decision to come west, although with limited time, is a small chance for a number of us to explain why we as westerners feel abandoned. In light of the limited time, I'll not cover the whole gamut. I will simply give three discrete examples of policy that has completely failed to give western Canadian farmers' interests fair consideration.

First, in the area of support for our industry, I'd like to formally put before the committee the new OECD numbers, which have been released in support for producers in different areas of the world. Measured in Canadian dollars per bushel, the U.S. government now provides $3.95, the European Union $3.07, and Canada 70¢. This means that western farmers must compete in an environment where their competitors get as much from the government as they do from the marketplace.

While Canada uses the international trade rules as an excuse to dismantle any support systems that were in place for farmers, the U.S. and Europe have restructured their support, renewed their commitment to farmers, and the U.S. is now providing substantially more support to the grain sector than they were at the conclusion of the last round of trade negotiations.

Quickly changing gears, I want to return to a subject this committee has heard me speak on before.

Western farmers were stripped of protection on the rail rate side, which previously existed through price and service regulations. The quid pro quo was supposed to be competition in the rail service. To get real competition it's essential that more than one carrier be able to run over the tracks.

Western Canadian farmers have worked with the western shippers summit and the Canadian shippers summit to put forward a modest proposal on competitive access. Two carriers have applied for access provisions to provide service on a number of lines in western Canada that are being poorly served. Ottawa continues to drag its feet, and western economic interests remain hostage.

We understand that eastern Canada has alternatives. The water system and shorter distances allow trucking to be a real alternative. However, in western Canada we are dependent on the railways, and we must have competitive service provisions in order to have those rates disciplined. The economic viability of western Canada depends on it. We can't afford for Ottawa to continue to procrastinate on their half of the quid pro quo, which was to be the policy development.

The third area of foot-dragging or pandering to other interests that I want to put on the table is the area of GMOs. The steamship of genetic technology is outpacing our society's willingness to use it. Right now GM wheat is being tested, and approximately two-thirds of our customers are expressing concern about the technology at various levels. International tolerances have not even been defined.

As a western industry, we have asked Ottawa to include market impact in the regulations that are used to determine the appropriateness of a new variety--a simple consideration of suggesting that the customer is always right. Again, Ottawa refuses to allow the farmers' business case to come ahead of other apparent agendas.

Western dissatisfaction with Ottawa is not new; however, it is growing. I would suggest it is growing for legitimate reasons. The policy examples I have put before you today are not asking for special privileges. They're simply asking for a reasonable policy environment to allow us to compete and make a reasonable living. Given that fair policy environment, westerners will survive and profit.

Thank you.

Â (1255)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, Ian.

Those were all very good presentations. Now we'll have a couple of quick questions from each of the MPs sitting here, to clarify.

David.

Mr. David Anderson: Ian, because you brought the GMOs into it and the board's position on that, I'd like to ask you a couple of board questions.

We had the issue of no-cost export licences raised here this morning. I just want to ask if you give no-cost export licences in Quebec and Ontario. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian McCreary: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

I've heard that claim raised. I've checked on the export licences in Quebec, and we haven't had any applications. It is the policy that the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board has jurisdiction in Ontario, therefore we have a policy of not standing in the way.

The Canadian Wheat Board's policy is that export licences are available to all producers at a value that reflects the premium the Canadian Wheat Board is capable of getting for western Canadian wheat in the market where the person wants to go.

The principle is that anyone who can earn a premium over and above that is clearly earning it with their own entrepreneurship and should be eligible for that. Any prices that are transacted below that are not even earning the Canadian Wheat Board premium we are capable of getting in that market.

The principle of the Canadian Wheat Board is to create an environment where western Canadian farmers don't have to compete with each other in driving prices down below the levels they're currently at. We certainly don't need to see prices pushed below the current levels.

Mr. David Anderson: So the answer is you do give no-cost export licences to Ontario producers.

Mr. Ian McCreary: The answer is there are no costs for export licences for the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board and others going from Ontario.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. I understand that the Wheat Board then absorbs the administrative costs of those licences. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian McCreary: Because they're freely available, the administrative process is nominal, at best.

Mr. David Anderson: So it's nominal, but the legislation clearly says the federal government is to pay that bill. It's okay if you're spending a little bit of producers' money opposite to what they access. Are you comfortable with doing that?

Mr. Ian McCreary: I would have to have some estimate on what the amount would be. I can't imagine that it would be significant. There's no restriction on it. It's a piece of paper that's freely available, so I can't imagine that's a policy issue that's of much interest in the context of our agenda today.

I don't know the magnitude of that, Mr. Anderson, or whether it's even an issue.

· (1300)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, David.

I think we'll move along to Dick Proctor now, please.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'll stick with Ian here, at least for the moment.

You mention the GM wheat, and perhaps as the director of the Wheat Board you could enlighten us on one aspect of it. The testing that Monsanto is doing on GM wheat seems to be for the hard red spring wheat that we grow here on the Canadian prairies, as opposed to the type of grain that's grown south of the 49th parallel. You indicate that at least two-thirds of our current producers have raised concerns about any GM wheat. And I think we're generally aware that whichever country is the first one to pop its head out of the hole, as it were, by producing this or offering it is going to take a big hit. So I'm just wondering whether you could confirm that and elaborate on what you understand about what Monsanto, and perhaps the other companies, are doing in this area.

Mr. Ian McCreary: Yes, I can. What you've outlined is in fact correct. We are in a situation where there's currently no regulatory process in Canada to recognize customer demand, and so the normal process of varietal development is taking place with Roundup Ready wheat.

There was testing done in western Canada. We understand there were some fairly significant steps taken to try to isolate those. We were, up until the flouring stage, unsuccessful in getting the locations of those sites. We have been assured that we will be able to get the locations so that we can also monitor, on behalf of our customers, in the coming year.

The key issue is that Canadians need to get in step with the rest of the world on this one and find a way to make sure we have the necessary public policy tools to slow this steamship down so that the public debate can happen among the customers and others in order to decide where we as a global community want to go on GM. Right now none of those tools are in place. As a board, we're strongly recommending that we in Canada find the public policy instrument to slow that steamship down and take this GM wheat off the table until such time as the debate is completed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Percy Schmeiser would like to make a quick comment in regard to the same question.

Mr. Percy Schmeiser: I have here in my hand a 100-page report from different countries of the world about GMO wheat. Some of the countries say if they have the perception that we're going to grow it, our markets will be cut off. There's a report in here from Antwerp, from Algeria, but especially from the Japanese flour millers and miller associates, which represent 36 large flour millers, 90% of the total import of wheat. And they are saying there is no tolerance. They don't want it. It's all in this report.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, and we'll accept that information for our report.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Bob, we didn't have your ten points, but we're going to get your ten points. One of them was the 60-40 federal-provincial split. You said you were not supportive of the existing 60-40 split. What is it you're looking for from the federal-provincial contribution?

Mr. Bob Thomas: I'm not in favour of it, because in the province of Saskatchewan, per capita, given the small amount of population and taxpayers, we cannot afford a major program in this province like Ontario can.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a perfect segue into Lloyd's comment, because he said that it shouldn't be based on a GDP factoring...cash receipts. Would you give me your suggestion in respect of the federal-provincial contribution?

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: It's a problem in the grains and oilseeds sector. Everything that's grown in Canada is basically grown on acres. I don't care if it's an acre of vegetables, an acre of fruit, or an acre of grains and oilseeds. You can pro-rate things up and down. Anyway, you bring in the acres, you bring in the taxpayer per province. The only province that should be paying the full 60-40 contribution is Ontario. Why? Because they have the most taxpayers. The rest of us should all be pro-rated down from there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What would that pro-rated factor be?

· (1305)

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: When Ontario's 60-40, just using the taxpayers and not the acres, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should be both at a 74-26 split.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't understand. You say you wouldn't use the taxpayers in that particular formula?

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: No, I'm saying using not the acres. I'm not bringing in the acre factor, I'm bringing in the taxpayer factor only. The only one who should be paying the full 60-40 is Ontario, because they have the most taxpayers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And Saskatchewan and Manitoba would be 74-26.

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: Yes, according to our taxpayer base.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Rick. Those are good recommendations.

Paul Steckle, do you have some questions?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, I would like to direct my question to Percy, and it has to do with the patent rights property.

Currently, the terminator gene is owned, I believed, by Monsanto, and if I'm wrong you may correct me. Who should own that gene as being a specific gene, because it has a particular function to fulfill?

Mr. Percy Schmeiser: Definitely, if the terminator gene is introduced....They've gone further than that now: they also have the cheater gene that will replace the terminator gene. The problem with the terminator gene is that through cross-pollination it can get into other crops where it's not wanted and terminate those crops also.

The cheater gene you have to spray a herbicide on to make it produce a seed. Who should own it? I think it should really be under the control of the federal Department of Agriculture, and in that control the farmer's right to use his own seed is maintained.

As a farmer for 53 years, I say you have to remember there is no such thing as containment and there's no such thing as co-existence. The GMO gene is the dominant gene and it takes over whatever plant it gets into. So there is no such thing as co-existence with conventional farmers or organic farmers. You're one or the other.

Mr. Paul Steckle: In your knowledge of this issue, are you aware of situations where government moneys have been cause for enhancement of a particular development, where it then becomes the property of a large multinational?

Mr. Percy Schmeiser: At the research station at Scott, Saskatchewan, they received money for research on the development of genetic-altered canola. In turn, they then recommended back to the Department of Agriculture to give regulatory approval. I think this is basically wrong, wrong, wrong, when you have the only department taking grants and then giving regulatory approval. Something is wrong with our system in Canada. That should not happen.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Paul. Did you want to have a quick comment from Bob?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, please.

Mr. Bob Thomas: I'd like to comment on that. I think comment was made as to why they were basically doing the GMO more in Canada than in the United States. If you go to the United States, the regulatory acts in the United States prohibit anyone taking unfair advantage of a certain situation. I found that particularly in the cattle industry and stuff like that, so I think you'll find in the United States the atmosphere is not that great. They have acts that protect the farmers from anyone taking unfair advantage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you for that for our report.

Larry Spencer would like to ask a question, also from Saskatchewan and a member of Parliament from down by Regina, and Davidson.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Perhaps, Percy, you could answer this, or any one of you, because we've heard quite a bit of opposition to GMO seed products and so forth. How would you stop the progression of GMO research and development? How would you propose that this be stopped? It seems like it's a machine that's impossible to stop. How would you propose that it be stopped?

Mr. Percy Schmeiser: I've been asked that question throughout the world from those against GMOs, and I answer it this way. If you bring any life-giving form into the environment and you cannot control it and in not being able to control it you destroy the property of others, like my development of 53 years was destroyed, then I'm against it.

Scientists in Harare and Zimbabwe told me there was no reason on earth that Monsanto could not have come out with a GMO canola that would not have contaminated other people's crops. They said they chose not to do it because their ultimate reason was to sell more chemicals.

I'm not against improvement. All my life I thought I was a progressive farmer. But when it destroys the property of others, then we have to take another look at it.

· (1310)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): We'll get the last answer from our presenters here.

Will Darhl, George, and Bruce come up to the microphone and just be available, so we can save a little bit of time?

Lloyd wants to make a quick comment, and also Ian, on that same question.

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: You stop GMO by federal legislation. That's what the federal government's for. Get with the program. Put your foot down. Say no. Keep it out of Canada. That's already happening in Japan, and China's shutting it down. We lost the canola market, so why do the wheat? We already got a good lesson from the canola market.

Mr. Larry Spencer: You mean just like we've cut down cocaine?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Okay. Is that the end of the question, Larry?

Ian McCreary is going to make a comment.

Mr. Ian McCreary: I think the question being asked is a very good one, and I would like to respond. We need to debate it by asking what is the right instrument to buy some time, so the industry can have a reasonable debate?

There are three possible instruments available to us. The first is to introduce market impact as one of the considerations of whether or not a variety is registered in Canada. There are a large number of criteria now, and we should add market impact as a consideration. In other words, does the customer want it?

The second is that in the introduction of plants with novel traits regulations in Canada currently, there is to be an environmental review. If one were to include the impact on a broad cross-section of clearly defined components, and clearly define the nature of that debate, that would be a potential public policy instrument.

The third one is to simply establish a certain block of time, and say for that block of time we will not allow registration of--and I would be very specific--recombinant DNA plant material in Canada. The definition is very important because it's a very fuzzy area, and attaining clarity is extremely important.

Those are three potential tools, although they aren't the only ones available.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, Mr. McCreary.

That ends our round for this questioning.

The drought has been brought up quite extensively here, but we haven't heard comments yet on the likely stocking rates of livestock on the community pastures and the pastures. So if anyone has a comment in that regard, we welcome you to come up to the microphone.

Okay, we'll get that in just a minute then.

You may go first.

Mr. Darhl Vercaigne (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to address your committee. My name is Darhl Vercaigne, from Keystone Marketing Services in White City, Saskatchewan. I hail from Mr. Borotsik's home town of Brandon, Manitoba. Hello, Rick.

I started my business in 1984 to address the issues--if we boil everything I have heard here today down to a very short couple of issues--of money problems and how to handle change. Mr. Zimmer here kind of stole my thunder, so I don't have to spend a whole lot of time on that.

I'd like to share with you that I think this issue of change is important. We would like to encourage your committee and all the stakeholders here today to try to work together, in partnership, to embrace change, rather than just stake out your particular area of turf and defend it. I hope that through the process today you'll address some issues we have been working on for a long time that might help to move this process forward.

Specifically on the risks in the global marketplace, fear of change is very often closely allied with lack of knowledge. So maybe if we can address that and are willing to learn, we'll be able to make some steps forward here and get competitive again.

I'm going to just break away. I'd like to share with you again that I believe we should work in partnership with the government. I'd like to just introduce my colleague here, Rob Goeres, from Rain and Hail Insurance He has a few thoughts to share with you on the area of risk management.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you for those comments.

We'll go to this gentleman first, and then back over to you on risk management.

Sir, would you like to comment?

· (1315)

Mr. George Turanich (Individual presentation): I'm George A. Turanich of Davidson, Saskatchewan. I'm a farmer, an accountant, and a real estate broker.

I would like to make a very important comment here about the strongest man in Canada in finances, the president of the Bank of Canada. Maybe you have seen that. I did; it was in the paper. He said that he has a small farm in Ontario and he's been farming it, and he said there's no way a farmer can make a living from the farm now because it is negative. This was on the television as well as in the newspaper. He said that by all means, agriculture is something that has to be helped out by subsidies, the same as in other countries. I heartily commend this gentleman that he is on our side.

I'm going to talk about our grain. One bushel of wheat produces 44 loaves of bread. At $1.50 each, that's about $70 a bushel. We have 15 slices in one loaf; therefore, it's $4.75 a slice. Barley is about $2.50 a bushel. It produces 400 glasses of beer. At $2.50, that's $1,000 a bushel.

I would say that we do have to be subsidized, because otherwise they cannot operate the way that I have. I am an accountant, and I am also a real estate broker, and that helps to pay for our two sections of land.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much for those comments.

Ian, could you quickly give me that stocking comment that you might have in regard to the livestock?

Mr. Ian McCreary: Yes. In terms of the question, both pastures here are very nervous on stocking rates. In cases where they're vulnerable, we're going to start with last year's stocking rates. But we're certainly not in a position to say that we're going to take 100 days, because going into the end of February with no snow is.... Our biggest problem is that we're also looking at no water. Trying to get water moved to that pasture is just a nightmare.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much.

I think, Bob, we're going to have to go on because Mr. Osioway wants to make comments here first.

Go ahead on the risk management, then. You wanted to make a risk comment. Make your comments.

Mr. Rob Goeres (Individual Presentation): My name is Rob Goeres. I am vice-president of Rain and Hill Insurance Service and manager of the Canadian division. We're the largest provider of crop insurance products in the world.

Recently, as an invitee of Agriculture Canada, I attended a December meeting in Ottawa regarding the redesign of safety nets done in partnership with the private insurance industry. This is a positive step forward, and I encourage you to investigate and evaluate the value-added benefits of private risk management design that it brings to agriculture. Proper integration of all farm risk management tools administered in partnership with government will better serve farmers, both levels of government, and the taxpayers.

Private industry brings a number of benefits to the table: years of expertise in program design, venture capital design, new products, a competitive marketplace with choice and competition, local delivery by motivated sales representatives, quick responses to farmers' needs because we want the programs to be successful, and variable expenses based on productivity versus the normal government straight-line budgeting.

As evidenced in Ottawa, private insurers, reinsurers, banks, credit unions, caisses populaires, and independent and captive insurance agents all came forward to contribute to the process. We are an advocate that the role of government, as a minimum, is financial support to the producer in order to enhance the affordability of the program, along with oversight control and regulatory approval of new program designs.

I encourage this committee to investigate further this initiative with representatives of your own agriculture department, the private insurance industry, and Canadian farmers. The success of this initiative will go a long way to stabilize farm incomes in rural communities.

Thank you for this opportunity.

· (1320)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Yes. Thank you very much for those comments.

Bruce.

Mr. Bruce Osioway (Individual Presentation): Thanks, Howard.

I'd like to welcome the committee to Saskatchewan. I wish you had chosen to stay a little longer. Eight hours seems somewhat insignificant when you consider that we have 44% of the acreage in this country. I would think that maybe we should get 44% of the time that's being spent.

Anyway, I hope this is a signal that maybe the federal government is going to change its policy and really get involved in doing something to support agriculture, because in the last ten years, all that's happened is we've hemorrhaged producers. It's nice that you came to Davidson to listen to some of these comments, but I think it might be appropriate if you took a little trip down the highway to Girvin and Craik, because Davidson is one of the more successful towns left in this part of Saskatchewan.

It's pretty basic and it's pretty simple, as I and many people see it, and I think you've heard it before. The solution for agriculture--in western Canada, for sure--is some sort of cost-of-production program, some sort of program that's going to cover all the costs. That kind of program is currently in existence in Quebec. It's worked there, and we know it's worked there because the average age of the average producer in Quebec is somewhere around 35 years old. The average age of the average producer in this province is 59.

We have to get our costs covered. Nobody is looking for a guaranteed profit, but we are looking for a program that will cover 100% of the costs on a year-to-year basis.

Diversification is a great thing. The problem is, we're now diversifying into cattle, and when we need water to give those cattle something to drink, the federal government poneys up with $1.5 million. Frankly, I think it's a disgrace.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much for those comments.

We have a couple of minutes left, so if anyone from the crowd would like to make a comment, you're welcome to come up to the mike. We'll recognize you and come up and get your name.

There were a couple of other questions, I think, that our panelists were going to be asked. I believe David had a question.

Mr. David Anderson: This is a general question, if someone has an interest in answering it.

Clearly, the government has an interest in having a land set-aside program. It appeared that the Ducks Unlimited program was going to be part of that. I don't know if it will be now or not. We've had a lot of people express some serious concerns about taking land out of production in perpetuity. I'm just wondering if anyone has a comment on that program.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Mr. Haidn, Mr. Thomas, or Marilyn Gillis, you've been in farming a long time, do you have any comments on that? A quick comment.

Mr. Hart Haidn: We most certainly are in favour of anything that has to do with improvement of the environment and biodiversity, and setting aside pieces of land most certainly would be one way of doing it. That shouldn't necessarily be blocks of land in marginal areas, but it very well can be and must be protection of riparian areas, more forest belts, and things like that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you.

Marilyn.

Ms. Marilyn Gillis: I belong to a land trust. I have quite a bit of interest in that. I guess the difference between my concept and the Ducks Unlimited one is that you'd be in consultation with the people who actually want to be doing it, setting that up to protect all our lands going into the corporate model to keep them for use by people who want to use them for food production, etc.

Mr. Bob Thomas: I'd like to comment on that.

Right now I'm working with two reserves--the re-grass program within the reserves--which is basically taking a lot of marginal land and putting it back into grass. We're very much in favour of it in southern Saskatchewan, because all this land was taken out of grass production in 1961 when the Saskatchewan crop insurance came in. What we're finding now is that the productivity has gone negative on us, because of salt and a lot of other problems that have come into it.

So we feel that, yes, Ducks Unlimited is a great and wonderful thing, but I think you also have to allow the same amount of money to go to the private individuals who want to re-grass and expand their cattle operations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you.

Maybe, Mr. Zimmer, you could make a comment in regard to this. Would you address the issue of whether or not a corporation should have their name on the caveat or the land title if land is set aside, or should it be the federal or provincial government that would have their name on it?

Mr. Wayne Zimmer: I think the set-aside program is something that should be considered in a number of areas. We had a land bank program here in the province, which worked to a greater or lesser degree, but I believe there should be some protection for that land over a period of time if in fact other family members wish to come back into it.

Whether it's done under the auspices of the government or under the auspices of the family, or corporately, I don't have a great problem, just as long as there is opportunity for that land to come back into the family sometime later down the road. It may even be as long as 25 years, because children who are growing up right now may decide they do not want to go into farming, but once they get into the city and have their own families, they may decide they want to come back into farm life. And I think that should be protected.

· (1325)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much.

Of course, we don't know what the future will hold, and that land may be needed at some time to actually feed people.

Mr. Greg Brkich.

Mr. Greg Brkich (Individual Presentation): I'm Greg Brkich, MLA for the Arm River constituency here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Great.

Mr. Greg Brkich: First of all, I want to thank the committee for choosing to come here and for showing some interest in agriculture, which is very important to the province of Saskatchewan.

I'll make just a few quick comments. I believe our agriculture critic, Mr. Bill Boyd, will be making a presentation to you in Swift Current later this evening. I just hope you will take home with you how important agriculture is to western Canada. When you spend money out here, the spinoff effect on the economy grows every dollar that's spent out here by, I think, ten times.

Another thing I want to talk about is that I hope you can look at immediate assistance for the drought out here. You may notice how dry it is. There is absolutely no water, no moisture, out here at all. The producers right now are facing severe conditions. Dugouts are dry and pastures are basically.... I've talked to guys who have dug holes 10 feet deep and found no moisture down there. And I can't see a lot of moisture coming right now.

I would like to see more money put into the PFRA program right now so that cattle producers can have water this spring. Otherwise, we're going to see a lot of cattle on the market. Already the PFRA, I believe...and I've talked to some pasture managers. As far as I know, they've already cut back 25% of cattle going to pastures right now.

I talked to one manager down south, in Bladworth. He says they're considering a 50% cutback right now. That means you could see a lot of cattle on the markets right now.

I hope this committee will address, in the immediate future, the drought, and then we can start working on future programs. We need a long, sustainable program, for this province and for the western provinces, in agriculture.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you very much, MLA Greg.

Lloyd, did you have a quick comment on land set-asides?

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: Yes.

My understanding is that the feds are giving money to Ducks Unlimited to purchase land to set aside. Is that correct?

So the U.S. is basically taking our land out of production. Does anybody...?

A voice: No, the U.S....[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: That's my understanding, that's it's U.S. dollars coming in here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): I think the proposal advanced down to the agriculture committee earlier on was that it was one consideration being put forward by Ducks Unlimited. They currently have a program that could fit in with the land set-aside program. There was no suggestion that there was money from here or there.

I don't think we want to get into a full discussion on it, because the agriculture ministers will be discussing whether or not to make that part of this five-year plan.

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: I'm just concerned about the amount of acreage set aside and the economic effect on our provincial economy. That's what I'm concerned about.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Okay. Thank you.

Dick Proctor had a quick question.

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

I guess to both Bob Thomas and Hart, both of you indicated that we were going to have to put in additional moneys, transition money, in order to address the problem we've created. At the end of the day, this committee is going to have to write some recommendations for consideration, so I'm asking each one of you if you have a dollar amount or a guideline that could assist us in that work.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Hart.

Mr. Hart Haidn: No, I don't think any one of us could come up with a dollar amount. I would suggest, however, that you look at the recommendations, as I've said, in Agriculture in Harmony with Nature, the Agriculture Canada paper, and the pesticide report, which talk about the same thing and make very specific recommendations on how transition programs can be implemented. If we follow those recommendations, I think we could come up with something that's needed here.

Mr. Bob Thomas: In Ontario, I was involved very heavily with the corn producers and the Wheat Board down there. Basically, they developed a figure of $65 an acre that they felt they lost last year.

When Lloyd and I worked the same figure across Saskatchewan, it worked out about the same. It is the figure we've come up with. It's agriculture and food. Basically, it's the figure of $65 a cultivated acre that we would have to use.

· (1330)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thanks.

First of all, with Ducks Unlimited, as I understand it, most of it is riparian areas adjacent to waterways. Not a lot would be taken out of production. They are talking about environmental easements that would be in perpetuity. It would be another issue.

However, I have a question. We heard from two individuals with respect to a private sector risk management plan. Aside from that, do you agree or do you believe there could be some influence there or some opportunity for some private sector risk management?

Secondly, if there's a program developed, do you see producers as a part of the program itself with producer premiums? I'd like to ask Lloyd and Bob, particularly.

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: I'd like to see most of the farm programs basically under one roof of the federal government.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Should there be a producer component?

Mr. Lloyd Pletz: No. I believe it has to be according to the GATT rules.

Mr. Bob Thomas: I have no problem if the private sector wants to come in and bring a far better program than we have right now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How about producer contributions?

Mr. Bob Thomas: I guess we've become used to that aspect since 1961 with Saskatchewan crop insurance. At that time, we found the major contributor to the Saskatchewan crop insurance was the federal government of Canada, not the provincial government, and not very heavily by the provincial people.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Answer, please. Do you see producers as being a component here? Should there be a premium paid by the producers?

Mr. Bob Thomas: They should be a small part of it, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): I'd like to thank all the panelists for their good presentations and for answering questions. I'd like to thank all of the people from Davidson and district for coming out, providing us with your advice, and paying attention to what's being said here. We're always open to comments from Saskatchewan to Ottawa. We look forward to maybe seeing you again in the future. Good afternoon.

We're adjourned.