AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

• 0904

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia)): Members, we'll bring this meeting to order. Just before I introduce our guests this morning, I want to bring to your attention a letter I got just yesterday from Larry Combest, chairman of the committee on agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives. This letter I got in the wake of our visit to Washington in February. I thought you'd be interested in what Mr. Combest has to say in his letter.

• 0905

He said:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you and the Members of your Committee for the frank and open discussion that we had at the Committee on Agriculture this week. It was a pleasure to meet you and to discuss the agriculture issues that are important to both our countries.

It is important that we continue our discussions as we approach the next round of World Trade Organization (WTO) agricultural negotiations. The United States and Canada, working together, can send a message to our trading partners, especially the European Union, that free and fair trade will be achieved by following the WTO process.

I look forward to bringing Members of the Committee to Canada to visit you and your Committee later this year. Until then, please do not hesitate to call on me for any questions or assistance you need.

Sincerely, Larry Combest, Chairman.

I thought you would be interested in that and I thought I'd read it out for the record.

Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a specific request, if we are still allowed to make suggestions regarding witnesses.

We had a very interesting trip to Japan. An issue that comes up constantly is that of standards for organic farming. We had very few answers to give them in this regard. I don't know whether the subject is of interest to the Agriculture Committee, but I think we should focus on it to find out what type of certification exists in Canada and what its connections are with international certifications, because this is a key factor for doing business in Japan.

I would be very pleased if we could add a meeting on this issue.

[English]

The Chairman: I would ask the clerk to take note of that and we can have it for consideration in the near future.

Good. Thank you.

Members, we'll turn to our witnesses.

As you know, Mr. Vanclief is the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food, but I think very often we forget, or at least maybe I do, that Mr. Vanclief is also the minister responsible for rural development. A lot of us around here are concerned about rural Canada because there's more to rural Canada than just agriculture and agri-food. There are a lot of things that go into the composition of rural Canada. Mr. Vanclief has responsibility in that area, and following up on the members' request many weeks ago, it was decided to invite officials of the department to give us an update on what's happening, what they're doing in that regard. So this morning we have before us Michelle Comeau, who is the associate deputy minister, Kevin Doyle, and Heather Clemenson. Heather is chief, rural analyst, and Kevin Doyle is the manager, federal policy integration.

I assume, Michelle, that you'll be making a short presentation, and then I'm sure we'll have all kinds of questions. So you are invited to begin.

Ms. Michelle Comeau (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this opportunity to meet with your committee. We'll be trying to brief you as well as we can on the rural secretariat and providing you with an overview of what the secretariat is doing on the Canadian rural partnership.

You also have with you I think some slides we've just handed out. I'll be following these slides for the presentation, which may help to provide a preliminary overview.

As you mentioned, the Canadian rural partnership is the federal government's strategy for supporting development in rural Canada. In addition to being the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Minister Vanclief is also minister coordinating rural affairs. This is a separate responsibility assigned to him by the Prime Minister, and the role of the rural secretariat is to support the minister in discharging this cross-government, cross-sectoral responsibility.

First, though, I'll give you a bit of context. You will recall that the Canadian rural partnership was announced as part of last year's federal budget with funding of $20 million over four years. The partnership is about doing things differently. It's about listening to rural citizens and shaping our actions to meet their needs. Its goals are to strengthen the economic and social foundation of rural Canada and to reconnect the federal government with rural Canadians.

• 0910

As slide 3 will show you, we're doing this through a number of different activities. We're conducting pilot projects. We're trying to improve awareness of federal programs and services and how to access them. We're strengthening partnerships. We're implementing the rural lens, and we're engaging rural Canadians through the rural dialogue.

I'll touch briefly on each of these elements.

[Translation]

Our pilot project program is the first part of the Canadian Rural Partnership. Through it, we can take concrete steps and provide funding at the local level to deal with issues identified by Canadians living in rural communities. These are short-term projects that try new, innovative responses to the needs of Canadians living in rural communities. We plan to evaluate the success of these pilot projects and repeat the best ones in other communities. In addition, many of the projects have an impact on various aspects of the rural economy.

Clearly, these projects include agricultural initiatives, but I should emphasize that the Canadian Rural Partnership covers all sectors of the rural economy. I will now give you some examples of these agricultural pilot projects.

In Nova Scotia, small rural communities and livestock producers are working together to solve the problems related to organic waste.

In Saskatchewan, a pilot project was established to try to replace the current grain handling system so as to increase the income of producers and improve the performance of the grain transportation system.

In Alberta the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration is working in partnership with rural communities to develop an inventory of woodlots, while Industry Canada is backing an initiative involving a geographic information system that will give communities, industry and government essential planning data.

In British Columbia, the Department of Human Resources Development is helping local fishing communities find new ways of achieving economic viability. We had earmarked $3.2 million for the pilot projects in the first year, but we received so many good proposals that we ultimately invested $3.8 million in 68 projects. As a result of this funding, we were able to increase the funding ratio by close to $10 million with our other partners.

[English]

The second key element of the CRP is improving awareness of and access to programs and services of the federal government. One initiative we have created to address this concern is the rural exhibits program, which is taking information about federal programs and services to rural Canadians in their own backyards. That's on slide 5 of your handbook.

So far we've visited more than 250 communities in the last two years. We've engaged about 100 4-H youth each year to work at our rural exhibits. In addition, we put together the rural resource book of over 200 federal programs and services, and every member of Parliament received a copy. This year, at the request of members of Parliament, we also produced a revised, more user-friendly version of the pocket directory, which is organized around people's needs rather than around programs or departments. I think you have a copy of this in the information kit that was prepared for each member.

The 1998 pocket directory was distributed through members of Parliament, through the federal network of offices across the country, and through the rural exhibits program. A 1999 edition is also being planned and hopefully should be ready within the next month or so.

[Translation]

Partnership is the third key component of the CRP. We try to establish partnerships with Canadians in rural communities and with other levels of government. We started by working with organizations such as Solidarité rurale in Quebec and the recently established the Ontario Rural Council. But we want to do more.

At the federal level, we are setting up different types of partnerships within government. We established the inter- departmental working group on rural issues to help the federal government adopt a coordinated approach. Initially, in the fall of 1996, the working group was made up of only eight departments, but it has been expanded and now includes 26 departments and agencies.

• 0915

We are doing the same type of thing at the local level by setting up rural teams in each province and territory. A new team is already planned for the territory of Nunavut. These teams establish direct linkages with Canadians in rural communities and with other levels of government.

[English]

The fourth key element of the CRP is the rural lens—and that's slide 7. This came out of a promise in the 1997 Speech from the Throne. The rural lens puts us in the shoes of rural Canadians to see issues from their perspective. The objective is to look at new policies and programs to ensure, before decisions are taken or before they are implemented, that they will assist rural Canada. It's still too early to assess the results of the rural lens, but I would note that when the finance minister ruled on the proposed bank mergers, he definitely took into account the impact this would have on rural communities.

Our fifth activity is the rural dialogue, which is on slide 8 and the next few slides. The rural dialogue engaged rural citizens in a discussion about their future, so that we could better understand the challenges they face and identify ways to better respond to their needs. We wanted to get grassroots input from rural and remote communities. We distributed 27,000 rural dialogue workbooks to individuals and groups, and we held 33 facilitated workshops across Canada—and I think you have a copy of the workbook in your kit.

About 7,000 rural citizens took part in the rural dialogue. This process wound up with a national rural workshop at the beginning of October, near Belleville in Quinte West. More than 200 rural Canadians gathered to review what we had heard during the first phase of the dialogue and to begin shaping the outline for the federal government's rural policy. We are now moving to take action on issues that were raised in the rural dialogue.

[Translation]

What did Canadians living in rural communities tell us during the Rural Dialogue? You see the answer on slide number 9. Their comments are important for all governments, and, obviously, for all parliamentarians and public servants. It is hardly surprising to find that Canadians are tremendously worried about jobs, particularly job opportunities for young people. They are concerned about rural health care, education, skills and infrastructure issues—namely, everything related to roads and telecommunications, particularly in the most remote areas.

The federal government is already meeting some of these needs of rural communities. For example, the government developed the Youth Employment Strategy and the millennium scholarships.

Health Canada appointed a director of rural health, and in the last budget, the government set aside $50 million a year for health projects in rural communities.

Finally, Industry Canada's community access program will bring the information highway to over 5,000 rural and remote communities.

[English]

Rural Canadians, of course, used the rural dialogue to tell us about their key issues and concerns. Some of these aren't new, as you can see on slide 10. What is new, however, is the strong message that they're sending about how governments do business, which is not necessarily about more money. Rural Canadians are telling us to do things differently. For example, they're telling us to involve rural communities in designing programs and services; to be more flexible in how we apply our programs; to be present and visible in their communities; to work better with other levels of government; and to follow up and work with them to implement solutions. This may be a challenge, but it is also an opportunity. Their overall message to us was to listen more closely to rural concerns, which is exactly what we're trying to do.

The national rural workshop, on slide 11, reaffirmed the key issues and produced a set of guiding principles that we've reproduced for you. The rural dialogue gave us a broadly based foundation on which we can develop federal actions that respond to the needs of Canadians in rural and remote areas. Our next step is to show that we have an action plan to address the concerns rural Canadians have raised.

As I mentioned, the Canadian rural partnership is an initiative that cuts across all government departments, to bring an integrated and coherent focus to federal programs and services that impact rural communities. For example, we're working closely with Human Resources Development Canada on the rural impact of its community capacity-building programs and the rural aspects of the youth strategy that it is spearheading. We work with Industry Canada to ensure that rural communities are part of the Connecting Canadians initiative. In addition, we are working with Health Canada on its rural health initiatives.

• 0920

These examples give you a sense of the breadth and scope of the partnership and of the coordinating role of the rural secretariat.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is contributing to the partnership from the agricultural perspective, from the CARD program, with initiatives such as CASP, the Canada agricultural safety program, which is aimed at reducing accidents and injury on the farm; our 4-H program, which is focused on rural youth; the rural partnership initiative, with funding for a variety of rural and community-based activities that are aimed at addressing key rural issues; and finally, the work of the provincial and territorial adaptation councils, which are very active in projects that affect their rural communities, such as the Barriers to Rural Business project in Saskatchewan and the Nova Scotia coastal and rural communities development project. Finally, much of the work of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, which is part of the department, is geared towards addressing rural community issues in agricultural areas.

[Translation]

To come back to the issue of the Canadian Rural Partnership, we are now going beyond a dialogue and taking steps based on what we heard. We are going to continue to do what has always worked well—namely, pilot projects, information dissemination activities, the Rural Lens principle and the creation or continuation of partnerships. I dealt with some of the steps we took, but as I said before, much remains to be done.

[English]

This is just a short overview of the Canadian rural partnership. I hope it gives you an appreciation of what the rural secretariat is responsible for. The secretariat itself is a small group of about 25 people, six of whom are located outside the national capital region. We hope to soon increase the number of staff in the regions in order to provide additional support to the partnership. The secretariat has a modest budget, and our approach is to use these resources strategically to maximize our impact through partnerships and leveraging of funds with other colleagues in other departments.

[Translation]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the committee's interest in these matters. Naturally, my colleague and I are prepared to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to thank you for your presentation. I'm sure it will inspire comments and questions from members, and we'll start with those now, beginning with Mr. Hilstrom, for seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to all of you people. As associate deputy minister—I'm not sure of the titles of the other two, but you're certainly employees of the federal government—I guess you're here to a certain extent to explain this to us. I don't want you to take some of my comments as anything to do with yourselves, but as having more on the government operations.

It looks to me like your work is a straight duplication of what other departments are supposed to be providing through their own programs, so all of your work is just an additional $20-million waste of money. What do you have to say to that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Well, Mr. Chairman, the secretariat does not try to duplicate what is taking place in other departments. Our role is to help to coordinate better what is happening at various organizations, so we've tried purposely to avoid replicating or duplicating what, for example, Human Resources Development Canada is doing. In that sense, the secretariat provides a support function to these organizations and has helped to bring the 26 departments and agencies together to have a more integrated approach to serving rural Canadians. In the rural dialogue, that is what Canadians told us they wanted to see more of, so that is what we're trying to do.

The one advantage that the secretariat has, or that this coordination function allows us to do, is to provide some assistance or some support when an issue goes beyond one department's mandate. Sometimes the issues facing rural Canadians have to do with more than just economic development. They need to involve other organizations, and we help to make that happen. So far, we've been told it's an approach that is useful to Canadian citizens or to rural citizens, and we will purposely continue to try to avoid duplication.

• 0925

The $20 million that was provided to the partnership initiative is not a lot of money if you look at the grand scheme of things. It's a good way to help to promote coordination. Because it's not too much money, it avoids duplication—or we hope it will avoid duplication in that sense.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's a fine answer, but I would just cut you off there. We only have seven minutes to do these, so we ask for concise answers.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Okay.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It looks to me as though you're also intruding into provincial jurisdiction here—which is a departmental thing also, in all departments. I see that one of the projects you have under CARD is rural health. Just what are you folks doing in regard to rural health?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: One of the pilot projects that was approved was to help set up a cooperative approach to providing health in the rural communities. It's building on a proposal that we got from Quebec and had worked on in the past.

What we're trying to do is expand this project to more communities across Canada. We are working with the provincial governments on those kinds of projects, and they've been very supportive of those projects.

This project basically sets up a co-op model to bring health care providers to rural and remote communities. It's helping to bring more than one community to the table, so that they can share the costs but also provide enough of a geographic interest to attract health care providers.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I find this really shocking, to tell you the honest truth. In Manitoba, for instance—and every other province—we're spending millions and millions of dollars directly in trying to get doctors out to our rural areas and these sorts of things. It looks to me like we'd be way better off if the federal government would just provide the health care funding money to the provinces and let the provinces provide the services.

I guess you're probably making notes here, so I would hope that you take this back to the ministers you report to and tell them that this is a concern with us.

It's the same with employment. How many layers of employment development do we need? Once a job is created, the federal government takes credit, the provincial government takes credit, and probably every municipal politician takes credit. It's no wonder they take credit. I never understood this until now, but it's obvious that everybody wants to have their little hands in it. It's not efficient and it's expensive, and that's what seems to be coming through on these programs.

You say you don't feel this is duplication. That's fine. Could you describe the team in Manitoba? I'll use Manitoba because I'm more familiar with it. What is the composition of that team? Is there one person, ten people, twenty people?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, in Manitoba we have about twelve or thirteen federal departments that are represented there, as well as a representative from the provincial government. As you know, Manitoba is the only province that has a department dedicated to rural development, so our colleagues there have come on board to participate.

The role of the rural team in Manitoba—and it's the same role elsewhere—is to help bring a more integrated approach to the federal government's actions, but also to help connect and build partnerships with the other colleagues who are involved in rural communities, whether they be regional.... In Manitoba, you have about twelve rural districts that are quite well organized, so we are working with them and with our provincial colleagues to try to respond to their needs and to provide whatever services the federal government has to offer.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I guess this is my last comment, and it probably is more of a comment than anything else.

When the appointment was made to head up this team in Manitoba, this Rural Adaptation Council, it was in the newspapers that this was in fact just another patronage appointment of a university professor or something. Again, I don't expect you to comment on that because it's not in your purview, but this is what seems to be coming through on these programs—the duplication, the invasion of jurisdiction, and if two departments are overlapping, why they can't work together to make something happen. I'll wait to hear the rest of the comments. As I say, I don't want you to take this personally, but this is what seems to be coming through as we've seen these programs develop around the provinces.

• 0930

That's the end of my questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I guess we now go to Madame Alarie, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I'm going to take the seven minutes I have been given.

While I was listening to you, I calculated that I have been interested in regional development for 38 years. I worked with the Eastern Quebec Development Bureau when I was a university student.

I think the Rural Secretariat's programs, with the exception of the inter-departmental working group, are the result of a depressing, backward policy. I'm sorry to say that so categorically, and there are a number of points I would like to raise to explain my position.

First of all, there is significant interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, in municipal, school and health affairs. Second, there is a clear lack of transparency. Third, I can't find any clear, constructive guidelines or projects, and that may be what disturbs me the most, because I wonder why we have such an ambiguous policy after so many years of trying. I am bitter.

I will even go a little further. I apologize for telling you what I think, but in Quebec, these programs are rife with patronage. There are all sorts of regional and agricultural structures that are prepared to work in partnership, but it does not happen.

When we read the document about the first Canadian Rural Partnership pilot projects—and this is when I fell off my chair—we really have to wonder what is meant by rural issues. That will be my first question. However, I will tell you why I wondered about that. You have projects to help community organizations in Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, Boucherville, Chambly and Châteauguay. These projects are in cities, in the suburbs of Montreal. If those are rural communities, then I just give up.

I think there is a bit of a problem when we have a project to promote socio-economic development and job creation in Drummondville, in that part of Quebec where employment is at its highest.

There is also a cooperative health project. I found that humiliating, because the project is located in Saint-Étienne-des- Grès, in the Prime Minister's riding. The project is designed to give the community access to essential health services. We're not talking about Northern Canada or the Lower North Shore. This is a populated region with CLSCs and all sorts of services. My first question therefore is: How does the Rural Secretariat define a rural community?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We use a qualitative definition, Ms. Alarie. It is not expressed just in terms of figures. When we started considering this question, we found that there were as many definitions as there were levels of government. We therefore tried to specify that we would include rural and remote communities, small cities outside of major urban centres, whether or not they were close to major centres. That means, roughly speaking, that they are municipalities with populations less than 100,000. However, the figure may be much lower than that. It represents about one third of the population of Canada, or 9 million Canadians.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: To continue, I find this is an incredible duplication.

Let's just look at health care. Find me some regions where there are no CLSCs, where there are no health care services available. If you are going to set up projects, work with the CLSCs, with the existing organizations. Programs involving a nurse, a doctor and a dentist in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès show complete ignorance. It looks as though someone is not familiar with the community. All these services exist and people can get to them on foot, by bicycle or by car. It is a town. Even though we are talking about small towns, there is a difference between them and small isolated towns.

• 0935

The cities of Chambly and Saint-Hubert that I mentioned before are part of the suburbs of Montreal, and people can get there by subway or by bus. They are not rural communities.

We cannot afford duplication and overlap. We have become used to talking about saving money and trying to make every dollar go as far as possible. If you had proposed an underground drainage project in Abitibi, I would have told you to invest all of the province's money in that if necessary, because that is a long term, constructive project. However, I am opposed to spending money on trivialities. I will not name all of them, but there is a whole list.

The other thing that really astounded me was the poll that was done. There were only 100 respondents from all of Quebec. That is not a huge sample given the interest in surveys of this type. You mentioned earlier that you had worked with Solidarité rurale. I acknowledge that Solidarité rurale woke up most Quebeckers, but I wont tell you what I think about this group. In any case, it does have a very high profile.

So 120 people took part in a survey which, I am sorry to say, does not qualify as a regular scientific study. There was no methodology. At one point, we are told that people answered by telephone, in writing or in any other way, whereas at another point, we are told that of the 120 responses, there was some overlap with other questionnaires. If this survey constitutes the basis of your work, then I would say you are off to a very poor start.

An Hon. Member: It's rigged.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I assume you are referring to Rural Dialogue—

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Yes.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: —because that was the only consultation we conducted. First, it was not a survey, and that is why we did not use a scientific approach similar to that used by public opinion pollsters. Before proceeding with the questionnaire, we validated the questions we were planning to ask with rural focus groups and with the CFDC of Quebec. We distributed 27,000 questionnaires throughout the country, in addition to putting it on our Internet site. We preferred a more open approach to a strictly scientific approach, and we asked very open-ended questions, because the focus groups told us that is what they wanted.

The fact that we only got about one hundred responses from Quebec may have been perceived in a negative way. However, it could be seen in a positive way, because some of the responses came to us from groups and associations, such as the CFDCs, which kindly filled in the questionnaire and sent it back. In addition, we consulted 33 focus groups throughout the country, including Quebec. We also took into account the results obtained in Quebec by Solidarité rurale, which held meetings in 69 locations, because we wanted to avoid duplication. Our representatives took part in each of these meetings and submitted a report that was forwarded to Economic Development Canada, and then summarized and used in future discussions.

[English]

The Chairman: Sorry, but time is up for this round.

Before we go over to Murray, maybe it would be helpful if you gave us one example of how things were before the establishment of the secretariat, Ms. Comeau. In other words, I guess I would put it this way. You talk about greater coordination and greater coherence in the programming. At least, that's one of the objectives of the secretariat. Can you give me an example of where, prior to the establishment of the secretariat, departments were lacking coherence in their programming; where they were actually doing work that was counterproductive to each other's; and perhaps where the departments were bumping into each other as a result of this lack of coordination? Could you be helpful in that regard?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I'll use the example of when we did our program review, Mr. Chairman. I'll use it because it's an example that a number of community groups raised with us.

• 0940

As you know, in the 1995 budget, departments had to reduce their involvement in their budgets and their programs significantly. We all did this on our own and went through what I would call a vertical process. Ministers approved this. There was an attempt at some coordination at central agencies, but grosso-modo, what departments proposed was in most cases accepted.

When those announcements were made, we realized, when we looked at what each other had decided to do, that the compounded impact was much greater than what might have been anticipated in each organization. We got a lot of criticism in certain areas for the impact we had in terms of transportation reductions through the grain transportation subsidies and the elimination of some of the rail lines, whether it was in Atlantic Canada, the prairies, or in the west.

On the closure or transfer of certain airports to local authorities, and in some cases the closure of smaller airports, and the overall impact of closing certain military bases, I guess Canadians or rural citizens told us they were probably all justified on their own, but if we had had a mechanism to review them more in-depth before the decisions were taken, we might have taken different kinds of decisions.

The secretariat tries to review these before the decisions are taken so that we either minimize the impacts or we take decisions or actions that will have a more positive impact overall.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder, seven minutes.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I found your information very interesting. I've handed out about 800 of those little wee booklets so far, the pocket ones, and I'm looking for more.

As an active farmer, I have always looked upon agriculture as a shared responsibility, both federally and provincially. I don't know where some of my colleagues across the way are coming from when they make a statement other than that. I think a perfect example right off the bat is the AIDA program we just brought in, where the federal government and the provincial governments are working together with this problem.

From the information you have here this morning, I get the distinct feeling you're working to allow rural populations to kind of take charge of their own development or have much more input into it. With that in mind, I am very interested in packages on rural child care and retention of doctors, which are major problems right now in rural Canada. I'd like you to comment on that.

The other thing I'm aware of is that the OECD has basically developed the idea of a series of tax incentives to attract investment to rural areas. I'm wondering whether or not you have looked at this model. If you have, is it any good, or do you have any comments on it?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I'll let Mrs. Clemenson answer the OECD question.

You're absolutely right that our approach is to try to respond to the needs the rural population has identified. In other words, they have told us that instead of taking decisions from a top-down perspective, they want to take charge and be in the lead in terms of their development. So we are trying to not second-guess what their suggestions or recommendations are and to facilitate them wherever possible.

They have told us very clearly that besides employment, health is a key concern for Canadians, especially in rural and remote areas. So we were quite pleased as an organization to see that there was emphasis put on that in the last budget. Some dollars were set aside for rural health projects, which will be driven by the local communities wherever they may be.

I'll just let Heather comment on the work the OECD is doing.

Ms. Heather Clemenson (Chief, Rural Analysis, Rural Secretariat, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): I'm not sure which particular study you're referring to, but we have been involved in the OECD group of the council on rural development for the last few years. They have put forward quite a number of studies that look at the creation of employment in rural communities through both direct and indirect measures.

• 0945

We certainly share this work with our colleagues in the sense of potential applications in the Canadian context, although I'm not sure which particular study, in terms of tax measures, you're referring to.

Mr. Murray Calder: Right off the bat, in my own riding right now I'm working on a rail issue. Quite frankly, if we had a program in place where we could access either a tax incentive and or even reasonable funding for it, we would have a very good chance of bringing this problem to a good conclusion. If it were brought to that, there would even be a spin-off into rural tourism. In our situation here, we could run a steam train.

So I'm interested when you say that, because there are different programs and projects we could incorporate into rural Canada that would retain our youth, if the proper funding were in place.

I'm not asking for grants. I'm just saying if there were proper access to loans, we could work some of these problems out.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We are more than pleased or willing to sit down with you to look at specific requests. When they relate to tax incentives, we sit down with our colleagues at Finance to try to resolve some of them.

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

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Proctor, five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was intrigued to hear you say, Madam Comeau, that of your 25 employees, only six actually work outside this region. I guess I would have thought it might have been in reverse proportion. Can you tell me where the six are employed?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We have one in Atlantic Canada, one in Quebec, one in Ontario, one for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and one for Alberta and B.C. We hope to add to that, to have at least one person in each province. We would like to have a person in the territories as well, because it's a huge geographic area to cover.

Mr. Dick Proctor: When you say you're hoping to add more outside this area, how many more are you talking about?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We hope to add four more, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Would this increase the overall complement of staff, or would this be at the expense of the folks at the centre? Would you still have 25 employees, in other words, or would you have 29?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We'd have 29.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So you have one that covers Saskatchewan and Manitoba and one for Atlantic Canada.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. The person in Atlantic Canada is in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So the two provinces in Canada that are experiencing the greatest rural depopulation, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, don't have specific designated people.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Not yet.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Are there plans to have designated people in those areas?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, there are plans to have someone in Newfoundland especially.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just in Newfoundland?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We hope to have someone, as I said, out west in Saskatchewan.

You have to remember, though, that even if we don't have a designated person in each of those provinces, we have rural teams. There are links to the communities and citizens because we have set up rural teams in each province and territory. There is a rural team in Newfoundland, as there are in Saskatchewan and elsewhere. They have representatives from the federal departments, as well as the provinces and regional or local development agencies or non-government organizations, in most cases.

Mr. Dick Proctor: With our ability to communicate through the Internet, electronic mail, and all of that stuff, it just surprises me that the emphasis wouldn't be on having people in the field rather than in the national capital region. Is there a response to that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: It's a valid comment.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You mentioned, I believe, in your opening remarks the grain collection alternatives pilot project. Can you just tell us briefly what that entails?

• 0950

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I'll ask Kevin to try to find the information on that. It's a grain collection alternatives pilot project to develop and implement an alternative to the current grain handling system. Its first objective is to design a system and a process for buying and handling grain that's an alternative to the current elevator system and would provide greater returns to farmers, while allowing them to retain their local infrastructure.

It would strive to better coordinate the needs of customers with the delivery to port of farmers' grains—we know this has been a huge concern in the west. The proponents hope they can generate greater efficiencies in the system and greater returns to the producers.

It's being tested on a pilot basis in the southwest and west central areas of Saskatchewan, to assess its ability to retain grain on branch lines and provide sufficient returns to farmers. The PFRA is the federal partner.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like my name placed on the next list because I don't think I will get through this in five minutes.

Just as a continuation of what Dick said, with that particular pilot project are you working with the system itself—the systemic issues that are there with the Canadian Wheat Board, the Estey report, and the railroads? You're dealing with a huge issue on that one specific pilot project.

It seems to me the pilot project is really a waste of time and money. Again, I don't mean this to be antagonistic, but there are huge systemic problems and huge governmental influences in that particular issue. You can come up with any suggestions and not implement any of those positive suggestions because of the other variables in that. Maybe in just a very few words you can tell us what you hope to achieve by that particular pilot project.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: This did not originate with us. The community group that proposed this said when the transportation agency offers up branch lines to be taken over by community groups, very often they either don't have enough time or they're not well organized to be able to do this. So the pilot project provides a core group of people to help make this happen and see if it's possible and feasible for it to work.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you. I have a number of questions.

First of all, can you tell me in a very few words what the mandate of the rural secretariat is? I hate to use the term “mission statement”, but what is your policy or mandate under the rural secretariat?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: The rural secretariat is there to help provide support to the other federal government departments to live up to the government's commitments in terms of rules.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you're a facilitator; nothing more than that. Do you ever issue recommendations you might stumble across at some time? You mentioned that you speak to the finance department at times. Does your secretariat actually come up with some detailed recommendations that may help the development of rural communities in Canada?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. That's why the secretariat led the dialogue on behalf of the other federal departments and provided the lead work for the response to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, to Think Rural! and so on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Then let's go a little further than that. This is a very difficult issue, I appreciate that, and certainly there's no magic bullet, I can assure you of that. I come from an area that's 50% urban and 50% rural, and I understand the issue probably as well as the secretariat.

There are a number of things we look at. Mr. Calder suggested that perhaps there should be tax incentives. We know there are northern tax incentives or allowances. Have you ever considered a rural tax allowance of some sort? We talked about infrastructure. Roads, the common infrastructure that's required for transportation in rural areas, have some serious deficiencies. Have you ever talked about taxation issues to assist the development of rural roads? We talk about fibre optics and the necessity for communications infrastructure.

Have you, as a secretariat, identified those as key points and gone to government to suggest how they could be improved?

• 0955

In Manitoba we have a couple of very good programs, one called REDI, the rural economic development initiative, as well as growth bonds. Have you talked about the financial possibilities of putting investment dollars back into rural Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Ontario? These are all issues you could be dealing with as a secretariat with recommendations to Finance. Have you done that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. The whole issue of tax incentives was part of the Think Rural! report from the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, and those were discussed at cabinet.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And nothing else, Mrs. Comeau?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, they're still being studied by our colleagues at the Department of Finance.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But right now nothing's happening.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

You said something—and I subscribe to it, I really do appreciate it—about how it would be best, when governmental changes are being made to rural areas, to discuss that with the communities and to have a facilitator available to help with that. There's one thing going on right now that I want to know if you're aware of. Canada Customs is talking about automating some of their border crossings and perhaps reducing staffing levels, most of those affected being in rural communities. Have you had any discussions with Canada Customs about this type of implementation of services?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes we have, because Revenue Canada per se is a member of our interdepartmental working group.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are there any impacts to rural communities because of this?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Well, we hope the decisions they take may be somewhat different from what they were planning to do initially because of the suggestions that have been made or that have surfaced.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you talked to the communities that would be affected?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Revenue Canada has been talking to the communities.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I mean the rural secretariat. It's your job.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, we don't substitute ourselves when it's a specific mandate for a department. How we will help is if they ask us, we will help to make it happen, but Revenue Canada—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, so there may well be effects on rural communities by Revenue Canada, but because it's their position and mandate, you don't get involved.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We will provide them with as many of our comments as we can, but they do the consultations on their own.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have they asked for your comments?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, they have, and we've given them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What were your comments in that particular area?

Mr. Kevin Doyle (Manager, Federal Policy Integration, Rural Secretariat, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): I think our general approach is to work with departments to try to get them, as they make decisions about new initiatives, as in this case, to consider fully the impacts they're going to have on rural communities.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have they done that?

Mr. Kevin Doyle: It will be up to them to follow through on that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But do you have any follow-up?

The Chairman: Can I just pick up on that? I was at a meeting in Winnipeg some time ago, back in the middle of the winter, and there was a chap there at the meeting who raised this with the minister. He was concerned about—I don't know if the word would be removal—the removal of the federal veterinarian in the area around Boissevain, Manitoba. Rick would know about that area as well as I do. Is that something that would be brought to the attention of the secretariat? Are you familiar with that at all, Michelle?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Not that specific case, Mr. Chairman. But if it has to do with a federal vet, then our department would be aware because it's part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, so our minister would seek advice from the agency on that. Our role would then be to sit down with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to tell them about the consequences this may have and the impact it has, and to see if there's a way to work around it or if a different decision can be taken that will either minimize whatever negative impacts there might be or provide services in a different way—to perhaps use technology more, or have someone there at least on a part-time basis if that's what is required. We have been successful. We're not successful every time, but I think we are making a difference.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick, you have five minutes.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, witnesses.

I always have a real concern when I hear all our ministries, all our ministers, and all our bureaucrats. I was listening—I came in late because I was at a government rural caucus meeting. It was only once, Michelle, but it seemed to stick out, because I've heard ministers make the same mistake, that you talked about telecommunications in more remote areas. Now I do want to serve and see the government offer services to the remote areas. But it's sitting on this side of the table. It's our government, our ministers, and bureaucrats who for all the right reasons often pay so much lip service to remote areas.

• 1000

Of course, when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, responsible for rural development and whatever all else our excellent minister is, appeared in the natural resources committee in the last ten days, a couple of us jumped all over him, as we did with the CRTC witness. We talk about the remote, and we often go remote—not intentionally to get good credit, good press, and all that—yet most of the people live in rural Canada, often very close to urban centres, and sometimes they do not have near the services, especially in telecommunications, that they have in remote areas.

Industry Canada is very guilty of this, as far as I am concerned. It's the way it is. Whether it's been on the banking task force, or all these different things, for a year I've been talking about a community only a few minutes outside of Kingston, Ontario that has 54 homes without telephone service of any kind. If my colleague, Ben Serré were here, he would say that in that wonderful clay belt, his constituents, as they are in some parts of my riding in eastern Ontario, are running million- or multimillion-dollar businesses, and they're on party lines. So at every opportunity.... I think the rural secretariat and the rural lens is so very important.

I'm not like the opposition, who just walked out saying it's a...but I want to be critical and bring it to your attention in that regard. I just don't want to go down that slope that some people inadvertently might.

The amount of money for the secretariat, of course, is a modest budget. It's sure very modest—it's not very much money and it's not enough.

You were mentioning good programs—my colleague has the list of pilot projects—and you mentioned one that is so good and so successful. I congratulate you on your choices, whoever makes these. But I'm wondering if you can give us an update on where we are with this minute bit of money that we're to invest, share, access, and leverage across the country, and how much money we have there at this time.

As far as what's rural and all that is concerned, we could debate that forever, but I just wanted to make my point with you, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I'll try to avoid the telecommunications issue, because first, I'm not an expert. I also have read the transcripts of my colleagues at CRTC who went before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, and I was there when Minister Vanclief made his interventions.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that we were just thinking of remote areas. It's not so. We are very concerned about all the rural areas, and we are working with our colleagues at Industry Canada. They have made progress. The telecommunications companies had a plan to hook up, as they say, all rural communities in Canada by 2001, and that's moved forward to 2000. It may not seem like a lot, but I would assume it is. It's been moved up by 12 to 15 months.

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's great, I recognize that.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: So companies like the ones you were talking about won't have to make do with party lines within the next year, and that is a significant change.

They've also been successful in introducing SchoolNet to almost all of the schools in Canada that were interested in it—that's close to 15,000 schools. Just the fact that you're bringing the Internet to a community means you are therefore helping to create a demand and eventually stimulate broad-band widths and other kinds of services being provided. So they have been able to do that two years ahead of schedule, which is not necessarily a small feat.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's fantastic, and I applaud the great progress that's been made.

I have one final question. The rural lens is such a great opportunity for us, on the government side as well as the opposition. And opposition plays a very valuable role here, the fact that we use that tool to help keep our own ministers, ministries, and even bureaucrats honest. But when you mention that we are implementing the rural lens, I'm wondering, from your view—I just want to learn from this—how you are implementing that, what opportunities you have, and how you work with the ministries and the departments to make sure things are viewed through the rural lens.

• 1005

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Whenever we are aware that a department is working on a policy document or new program, we work with them to try to ensure the concerns of rural citizens are taken into account and that they go through the checklist. So far we have been quite successful in terms of the number of memoranda to cabinet. Our minister is now getting the reputation that he's tenacious enough that whenever he makes a comment at cabinet, they know he'll talk about the rural aspect as well as the impacts it might have on agriculture and agri-food, because we systematically make comments to him about each and every policy document that goes to cabinet on the impacts it might have on rural communities.

It doesn't mean it's enough to influence or change the decisions in all cases, but I would say our track record is getting better as we get more experienced. Our colleagues in other departments are much more responsive than I initially thought they would be. There's been much more support, and there's growing support for this approach as each month goes by.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I don't think I got the answer, and I want to give the witness the opportunity to talk about the $20 million and where we are on the—

The Chairman: I've already given you an extra two minutes, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I know. You're very kind, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, I am—very kind. You'll have to wait for the answer.

I'm surprised we still have party lines in the country. I grew up with party lines, as many as 14 or 15 families on the same line—a wonderful source of gossip.

Mr. Desrochers, you have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Perhaps I should start by advising my friend Larry McCormick to get in touch with the CRTC to find out what agricultural communication is really like. Who knows, perhaps we could even have a pilot project.

In any case, my question is not about the present, but rather about the future, Ms. Comeau. I took part in two national consultations held in Belleville from October 2 to 4. The people who took part in the exercise could be broken down into two camps: there were those who wanted responsibility for rural issues to be more decentralized, and there were others who said it would be preferable to appoint a minister of rural development. Did you look into this possibility of having a minister in charge of rural development at the federal level, rather than a secretariat, as is the case at the moment?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Our Minister was clear on this subject. He said that he did not want to assume the responsibilities of some of his colleagues and that he felt it was preferable that each minister continue to be responsible for one aspect of rural issues, rather than putting the whole responsibility on the shoulders of a single individual. That would have meant that the other ministers could have washed their hands of this responsibility. There was no consensus on this approach. The Minister is not necessarily interested in assuming responsibility in this area, but you can ask him the question when he appears before the committee.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: The participants in the consultation process seem to think that there was a lack of leadership within the federal government. When you spoke about partners or the inter- departmental working group, we don't really know who is the boss of this whole undertaking. In Quebec, we know it is an operation designed to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction. In other provinces, who are the two rural development partners? Is it the federal government, or do you intend to work with the other provinces?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No. As in the area of agri-food or agriculture, responsibility for rural or regional development is shared between the two levels of government. I think rural development is first and foremost local development. Communities decide what they should do for their social, economic and cultural well-being. The various levels of government have a responsibility to work together to support them in their efforts.

In this regard, I would say it is an integrated approach, rather than the responsibility of a single group, individual or level of government.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did you consult the Quebec government before deciding where these pilot projects would be located and did you make this decision from your office?

• 1010

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We received applications from various committees and associations. In Quebec, we worked with Solidarité rurale, to get proposals. A year ago, last spring, we advertised these projects with the help of all members of Parliament. We sent them material and asked whether they wanted to submit proposals, even as to the way in which the proposal should be presented. We also worked with the CFDCs, because they have contact with a number of local communities.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Could you give me an example of how you see this partnership between Quebec and Ottawa? Could you give us a clear example of what you're doing at the moment?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We invited the Quebec government to take part in the rural team, and we have still not received an official answer. We know that the provincial government is developing its own rural development policy. The two levels of government have asked for help from Solidarité rurale in doing these studies. The provincial government retained the services of this organization for the preparation of its policy, and we asked it to help us in the context of our rural dialogue. That is why, if we don't get a positive response from the Quebec government, we hope to be able to count on perhaps a more active involvement on the part of Solidarité rurale on the rural team in Quebec.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: But will you respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction if there is a partnership with the Quebec government?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, just as we respect the areas of jurisdiction of the other provinces.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Well, that is not what the projects show.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. The next four questioners—yes, I'm sorry?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): I don't think we should doubt the good will of the Rural Secretariat. I think we should set the record straight. Some are trying to give the impression that the federal government is getting involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, even though it's very clear that rural development is an area of shared jurisdiction. If the Quebec government, for certain well-known reasons, does not want to take part in the process, that has nothing to do with this. It is not the federal government's fault.

[English]

The Chairman: All right, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to have the right to reply. We need only look at the list. As far as I know, Mr. Coderre, municipalities and health are areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. We can defend our positions.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think we should get into a debate over this. Thank you.

I wanted to say the next five questioners are in the following order: Steckle, Proctor, Ur, Borotsik, and Murray.

Mr. Paul Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I wonder if I could preface my remarks by making some observations. If we anticipate rural Canada to thrive in the next millennium, there's going to have to be economic stability and viability. I feel we are perhaps right at this moment in a period in our history when perhaps rural Canada is at a low point, and a number of factors have contributed to this, not necessarily government but international.

I believe if rural Canada can thrive financially.... I suppose we can take some comfort from the fact that we have a rural secretariat that is looking at some of these issues.... But rural Canada today is thriving in certain sectors because of the way they have administered their own domain. One of those areas, of course, is the supply management sector. I'm wondering whether the rural secretariat, and you in particular, Madam Comeau, feel complimentary to this particular way of managing rural sectors, particularly the supply management issue.

There's a reason for me asking the question. I'll get to that in a moment.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: The secretariat tries not to duplicate the work being done by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, although we are lodged in the same buildings and in the same organization. In that sense, the members of the rural secretariat try to provide as much support to the department as they would to any other department in terms of helping coordinate their work if they want to consult with rural Canadians on agriculture issues, to help facilitate that if required and if needed. So in that sense, we know the agricultural sector has been one of the mainstays of economic development in rural Canada and we know it will continue to be a strong engine for economic growth, as are very often the other resource sectors.

• 1015

Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't think you've answered my question. Yes or no, do you believe supply management has played a significant part in making rural Canada a viable place for young people to return to after college or university?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Definitely, it has. The numbers would show this in terms of the numbers of farms that are in the supply managed sector, regardless of where they are.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Recently, in doing a round table at the University of Guelph, we were informed that there were very few—in fact the numbers are significantly lower—young people going into the animal science programs and farm business management programs than there were ten years ago. I think that speaks volumes in terms of where we're going in agriculture, in terms of our future young people going back to agriculture. I think it's a sad story we're writing in terms of our future, and unless our young people find it viable to come back, they're not going to come back.

You mentioned duplication, and I would like you to look at a project. I have no idea whether the Community Futures Development Corporation has a presence in British Columbia or not, but I would think that when you look at the Peace Marketing Corporation proposal, there's $50,000 spent there to develop a working model for a marketing corporation that will assist rural entrepreneurs to become self-sufficient. In Ontario we have the Community Futures Development Corporation—

An hon. member: I don't.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Many ridings do, and for those of us who have, I would find that a duplication. I have to wonder, the comfort level dissipates when we look at some of these duplications, as I would see them. I'm wondering whether there's an explanation for that.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: There are some community futures development corporations in British Columbia. I know that because there are some in each province. Whether there is one in that specific location...we could check. I'm not sure. Our approach, though, has been to review proposals that originate from the grassroots. So we receive this proposal from that area, and if there had been overlap or duplication with the Community Futures Development Corporation, that would have come out in the review process, because people from WED, who help coordinate the Community Futures in the west, would have told us. So if it went through those various levels, I would assume that either there are no community futures development corporations in that area or this project will help to build on what's already happening in that group and it's not a duplication.

The Chairman: Maybe we can come back to this point.

Mr. Proctor.

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

This document, Think Rural!, which came out in March 1997, which predates my arrival here—was that the genesis for the establishment of the rural secretariat?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: The secretariat started in 1996, but that report definitely helped to increase the visibility of the secretariat, and it was also the genesis for parts of the Canadian rural partnership.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I notice that in this document there's reference to partnering. It says:

Rural economic development ought to be a collective responsibility involving all three levels of government, rural stakeholders and the business sector.

Do you have business partners?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: If by that you mean private companies, no, but we do have non-government organizations that are business-related, like the community futures development corporations, which usually involve the chambers of commerce or the boards of trade and the banking institutions in the local area. So one of the mechanisms is that we work with the business community.

Mr. Dick Proctor: In this you list federal partners all the way through and its various departments of the federal government obviously, but—

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, but I want to explain that we wanted a federal department to be the lead partner at the federal level for each of the projects. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the proponent of the project. The project may have come from a community organization or from a group of citizens, but in each case we wanted a home organization at the federal level to take care of and nurture that project along, if I can use that expression. So that's why you have the federal partner identified. If you want to contact someone at the federal level to see if this project is going well, it's Fisheries and Oceans or ACOA, and so on. But it doesn't mean it's this department that proposed the project.

• 1020

Mr. Dick Proctor: In terms of the business of trying to establish business partners, do you run into resistance? Is it hard? What's your sense?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I think initially when we started the pilot projects, because we had never done this before, we had no idea, one, what the demand would be, and secondly, what the support would be at the local level. We think it's been a huge success, because for the $3.8 million that we've invested federally from the partnership, and I guess this will respond to Mr. McCormick's question, we were able to leverage almost $10 million—I think it's $9.7 million—from other partners, whether they be federal, provincial, or private sector. In some cases, community groups came up and provided part financing or in-kind contributions and so on.

So our dollars were able to leverage about $3 from other groups. We think that's a big success for something that had never been attempted and is really grassroots driven.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chairman: Rose-Marie Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Agriculture is only one element of rural development. What rural programs, specifically, target agriculture with your group?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: The secretariat doesn't try to target one specific sector per se, so the funding we receive through the Speech from the Throne, the $20 million, is there to help all of the different sectors. That's why you see that the pilot projects cover a number of different areas.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I see that.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: In fact, in this list of 68, there are two that are really agriculture-specific. I have the breakdown here. Fourteen of them are more generally in terms of economic development and eleven are in terms of skills development. You have six in the fisheries or aquaculture area, seven in the forestry area, seven that are more tourism-related, and so on.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

Can you explain to me under your slide 12, rural health, the CASP program? What does that stand for?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: It's the agriculture safety, and it is a program that is managed by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food under the CARD fund, which is a separate fund that has helped to promote safety on farms at the farm level.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's appropriate this week, I think, it being national safety week.

One of your projects here is entitled “Internship for Young Leaders”, and it happens to be one of the Ontario projects. I can tell you we have an excellent program in Ontario called OATI, and their funds run out at the end of March. I think they get funding under the CARD program. Here we're paying out $74,000 to look at it and yet we have something. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Why don't we just give $75,000 to something that's working so that it can continue? Why study it? I have a problem with that.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: All right. I'll try to get you more information on the project itself.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Maybe while you're looking for information I can throw another question out, and perhaps one of your other colleagues can answer.

On a point of clarification, on the last page you have “La Voix des Villages”, and then you have “Assessing the Impact of Government Funding on Voluntary Associations in Rural Canada”, and “Pilot Project to Develop Quality of Life Indicators for Small and Rural Communities”, regarding health infrastructure. As you may be aware, I'm sure, health issues is a very strong concern. I know it is provincial, but it involves the federal government as well.

Can you tell me who makes allocations for these dollars? Health, which is such a great issue throughout Canada, on this particular subject gets $30,000 whereas radio stations get $100,000. I realize they are two different departments, but I wonder how the dollars get allocated. Who makes the decision that one gets $30,000 and something else gets $100,000?

• 1025

Ms. Michelle Comeau: The project proposals were done up by community groups or by associations, and they indicated in their proposals how much money they would need for the project to happen. From the rural partnership perspective, we were able to provide up to 50% of the funding, with a maximum of $100,000. That was the maximum funding we would provide. It could be that some projects were worth $400,000, but we would provide only $100,000.

So the projects were reviewed and the selection was made by a group of outside members that the minister appointed last spring, and I have the list here with me if you want it. They went through all of the close to 400 proposals we got, and they ranked and selected the 68 proposals that were approved by the minister.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What is the biggest accomplishment you've achieved?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: In the pilot?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I think it was being able to get more than 400 proposals with not a lot of publicity in the papers, to be able to fund 68 of them and leverage $3 for each $1 we put in.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are you accountable to the various departments or are you accountable to Mr. Vanclief?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We are accountable to Mr. Vanclief.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The Southern Ontario Aboriginal Business Service Centre, for example—only because it's at the top of the page—received $94,000. What role does Industry Canada play with that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Because it's a business service centre, Industry Canada tries to use more of an electronic approach. So they are the federal partner, the partner department that will more actively assist the community organization that put this proposal forward.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The dollars don't come from industry, though. They come from you.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: They come from Canadian Rural Partnership. It could be that there were some additional funds that were provided either by Industry Canada or by Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or by the aboriginal business community that put the proposal forward. But our contribution from the partnership is $94,000.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik is next, followed by Mr. Murray and Ms. Alarie.

Rick.

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

Let me try to get a little better handle on the secretariat. Currently you have 25 people in your secretariat, 19 people in Ottawa and 6 people in the field. Is that correct?

On the pilot project budget, you spent $3.8 million this past year. Do you have a projection as to how much you'll spend on project funding for the next fiscal year?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: On an average, over the four years for the funding that we receive on what I call an annualized basis, we hope to invest about $3.2 million each year.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you tell me what your operating budget is?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. There are two different budgets. The secretariat itself has a budget of about $1.5 million for its operations.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. That doesn't come out of project funding.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, it comes out—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is the $5 million per year for four years part of the operating...?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, that's separate. The $5 million is broken down, as I said: $3.2 million for pilots—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, fair ball.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Do you want me to give...?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: In the past year we have spent about $1 million on the dialogue, because that was a huge effort. We spent about $0.5 million on outreach activities, fairs and exhibitions as well as the handbooks, and so on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Promotion.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We got, in addition to that, $1 million from Public Works, because otherwise we would never have been able to do all of that. On the support costs—that is, for the communications activities—we spent $260,000.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the $5 million over four years is basically project funding.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: When these projects are completed, does your department, the secretariat, have a follow-up process to see, first of all, if it has achieved what the project set out to achieve, and secondly, if there's any influence as to what your final recommendations and decisions may well be in the secretariat? Is there any follow-up?

I guess I have a question here. Manitoba has two projects, by the way. We have one of the largest rural populations, and I can tell you that we have some very good people who deal with the Rural Development Institute in Brandon University. But both of these don't really seem to me to be terribly functional within rural development, the French tourist partnerships, and, in this case, the first nations aboriginal procurement pilot project. Are you going to follow up on these two projects? Are you going to see how it's an advantage to you in perhaps other decisions you may have to make in the next three years?

• 1030

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Each of the projects will be assessed. We've worked with the federal partners. That was one of the reasons we wanted a lead department to help us, because they will also help with the assessment. For those projects that are most successful, we hope to be able to transfer that knowledge and information to other regions so that they can be replicated elsewhere.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What proportion of time spent by the 19 people in Ottawa is spent administering these pilot projects?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: That's a good question. There's one full-time person in Ottawa who's dedicated to the pilot project and two support staff.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's specifically to the pilot projects. The other 14 staff have other job functions, obviously, in facilitating department to department.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, they help to do the analysis in terms of the memoranda to cabinet. They help (a) to prepare the dialogue and (b) to follow up on what we heard.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do we anticipate having another dialogue next year?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, we plan to have—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Will we spend another $1 million for a dialogue?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No. In the coming year we'll spend about $500,000, because the community groups and rural teams have been asked to have local dialogues or more regional dialogues.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The community futures program has run a lot of local dialogues. Have you been working with the community futures program? Again, it's duplication.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, they're part of most of our teams across Canada.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So they'll be part of the dialogue as well.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes.

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

The Chairman: Thank you, Rick.

Ms. Comeau, you said earlier in the meeting that your work through the rural lens program might have had an impact on the decision by the finance minister against the proposed bank mergers. Could you just explain to me the dynamics of how your work plays out? For example, using the bank mergers issue, when something like that comes along, is it the Department of Finance coming to the rural secretariat and saying, we have this before us and we would like to know from you what impact that might have on rural Canada, or does it work the other way, that you're sitting there in your office—and I don't put this in a demeaning sense—and you hear about Paul Martin having to deal with the proposed bank mergers and you're saying, gee, that might have a big impact on rural Canada, so we had better find out from rural Canada how they feel about it and how they feel the impact might come down on them? Can you just explain to me the dynamics of how these things occur?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: When the two major banks announced their proposed merger, which I think took a lot of people by surprise, the secretariat contacted our colleagues at Finance right away to say this might have an impact.

The Chairman: So you did it on your own volition.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. Because our colleagues at Finance are involved in the interdepartmental working group, they were already aware that it might have some potential impact, so they assured us they would take that into account.

The Chairman: This is an interdepartmental working group that has really nothing to do with the secretariat. Is this just a part of government that's always there?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: No, it was set up by the secretariat. There were six departments initially in 1996, and we now have 26 federal departments and organizations that are a part of it. So it has grown substantially. It's because departments or colleagues in other organizations see value in coming together and trying to better coordinate their actions.

Also, at that time we told the Department of Finance officials that if they wanted some help, if they wanted to have focus groups, or if they wanted to contact rural Canadians or rural citizens, we would be willing to help make that happen. They didn't use that because they had their own mechanisms, which is fine. They obviously had other means of getting feedback from rural citizens about how they viewed the bank mergers, and they were quite vocal in making those known.

The Chairman: Through your so-called interdepartmental working group, are you in on these ideas and proposals, whether they come from HRD, Health, or Finance? Are you there at the embryonic beginning of these things so that the process includes rural Canada right from the beginning?

• 1035

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Sometimes, Mr. Chairman. Not everyone knows about all of the ideas that come forward, but we are getting more adept—

The Chairman: But you would know before the public knows, I would hope.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Comeau, I was struck by the lack of references to farming, as I guess some of my colleagues were as well. You've explained that you don't want to duplicate work that's already done in the department. But I think it's fair to say that many, if not most, of the small communities in Canada exist because of agriculture. I think it's also probably fair to say that as goes agriculture, so goes rural Canada.

I'm interested in whether you do have a focus on a relationship between farming and economic development. I'll give you an example. In my riding, which is just west of here, there's a Hershey plant in Smiths Falls that makes milk chocolate and draws on 200 surrounding dairy farms for their milk supply. They're obviously a very significant employer in the town of Smiths Falls. We also have a very significant number of farmers who depend on that plant. There are little things that can skew the whole equation there, such as how the Europeans treat the chocolate crumb that's used for making chocolate over in Europe as compared with milk chocolate in Canada.

So my question is, do you keep a focus on farming when you're looking at these communities? Do you have the capacity to do this kind of macro-economic overview? Perhaps you don't, just because of the sheer numbers you're dealing with in your group. But I'm concerned. When I looked at slide number 9, “Main Community Challenges”, I saw that not one of them mentions farming or agriculture. I think we have to keep that front and centre in almost everything we do when we're looking at rural Canada. The question therefore is, do you have that capacity, or that inclination even, to look at both sides of the equation?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We have the advantage of being able to count on all of the staff in the policy branch of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. So in that sense we don't have to create something or try to stimulate interest. The fact that the rural secretariat tries to coordinate on a horizontal basis across 25 or 26 organizations means that the secretariat itself doesn't necessarily spend a lot of time on agriculture, but that's because there are 5,000 people in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food whose job it is to do that. This being said, the minister has the agriculture and rural development fund, which has been in operation for the last four years, and this program has been approved on an ongoing basis. So there is substantial investment being made in what I would call agricultural economic development across Canada. It has also been quite successful.

In the challenges that were identified through the dialogue, although it's not stated as such, you will see that sustainable economic development is number two on the list, and one of the sub-elements of that was the fact that agriculture, along with the other resource industries, such as forestry and fishing for the coastal communities, was seen as a key ingredient not only for the survival but also for the growth of those communities. It's a catch-all phrase perhaps. It does include agriculture, but it's not just agriculture.

Mr. Ian Murray: I know as associate DM you must do more than worry about the rural secretariat. Could we look upon the rural secretariat as an advocate? For example, if a member of Parliament has an issue and is trying to be heard and have that recognized as an important issue to rural Canada, is it worth our while to go to the secretariat and try to bring you and your colleagues on side in terms of lobbying other departments?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, definitely. That's one of our roles.

Mr. Ian Murray: Good.

• 1040

I have one final question. You have funding for four years, I believe, at $5 million a year, and I would expect there's a good chance that it could be extended. How will you know if you've been successful at the end of that period? What kind of assessment do you think will be done so that you can come back to cabinet and say this has been working and that you'd therefore like to continue it? Do we have some outside analysis of that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes. Part of our ongoing dialogue with the communities will be to ask them to rate us and to give us a report card on how they think not just the secretariat but the federal government has done vis-à-vis rural communities. We will then include that in whatever long-term proposals are prepared for future funding.

As I mentioned earlier, we'll also be assessing the pilot projects. We assume they won't all be successful, but for the ones that are successful, we would hope to be able to seek additional funding if need be, for replication or for expansion in other regions if they work well.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Alarie.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: As the meeting progresses, the more I wonder whether the role of the Rural Secretariat should not be to support the Minister as regards rural policy. Perhaps it would be much more effective if it did not have a budget for small projects, which ultimately trivialize its role.

Throughout the meeting, I have been looking at these projects and I see there is duplication and that these are not long-term, constructive projects. I see nothing of the type in the Montmagny Taxi project. Moreover, it is not clear that these projects have been suggested by the community. I'm not familiar with these structures in other provinces, but all the regions of Quebec have what we call CRDCs. There is sometimes close to 100 representatives on these bodies, and they suggest all types of projects which are classified according to priority. It often happens that the money runs out when they get to the bottom of the list of projects. We know that such community-based initiatives do exist, and we should perhaps be doing more to encourage them, rather than thinking about projects that were selected according to heaven knows what criteria.

We've discussed some very interesting topics today, including railways, highways and the tax system. There will no doubt be some changes in rural communities as a result of the upcoming WTO negotiations. I think the Secretariat would be much more effective or active if its role were to maintain a dialogue with its partners and to advise the Minister and others on major projects of this type.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Was that a question?

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I would like to hear what you think about that.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: One of the Secretariat's roles is to advise the Minister and our colleagues in other departments about rural development approaches and policies. We don't think it is necessary to make a choice; we maintain that we can continue to do both things. Various community associations told us that in some cases they would like to have a little money to proceed with some projects they consider important, and the Minister has decided to help them out in this way.

We hope that as a result of the dialogue, Mr. Vanclief will be able, in the next few weeks or months, to announce a Canadian rural policy, because he will have received the support of his colleagues sometime before. We have been very busy working on this and have presented our recommendations to the Minister, who has presented them to his Cabinet colleagues. I'm sure he would be very interested in appearing before your committee, to explain his policy in greater detail and tell you how it was developed.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Steckle.

• 1045

Mr. Paul Steckle: Madam Comeau, one of the noticeable absences from the program projects this morning is the recognition of rural women. I'm surprised that out of 68 projects that were approved, not one of them identified any kind of recognition of rural women. Rural wives, the wives of farmers, play a very important role in agriculture today. Perhaps they applied; perhaps they did not. I trust it is not a case that they're not in there because of their insignificance or their non-importance to the whole equation of the secretariat, but I would think that somewhere, someone would have applied for some assistance for at least doing some study on how we address the issue of rural day care for farm women. Would you comment on that?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: You're quite right, Mr. Steckle. Of the 68 projects, there is only one project that we have identified as being geared to rural women. Those are not necessarily farm women, but they probably are. We were much less successful in attracting a number of projects, and there was also only one that was approved. We are therefore going back to a number of the farm women's groups to see if it's because they weren't sufficiently aware of the pilot projects themselves or if it's because the timing wasn't right.

Since we will have projects in the coming years as well, we're hoping we will be able to attract more projects from farm women. In the meantime, though, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working with the associations of farm women to help them develop what I would call their strategic plan or their long-term vision. Day care is historically at the top of their list. They have told us that they may come back later with some other requests or some other proposals, so we're still waiting for those.

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

Mrs. Ur was making mention of National Safety Week. I don't have the figures in front of me, Ms. Comeau, but I have felt for a long time that the rate of accidents and fatalities on the farm is appallingly high. We often hear about people dying in the line of duty. Well, a lot of farmers die every year in the line of duty. They die as a result of accidents with their tractors or their combines or other farm implements.

I don't know what your secretariat can do in terms of, say, consulting with some farm machinery companies to perhaps better design implements one way or the other, or to simply perhaps just bring greater public attention to this issue in some way. But I know it's something that has gnawed away at me for a long time. I find it hard to believe that we have to lose so many rural people, farmers, to accidents every year. As a nation, surely we should be able to do a better job in that regard.

Ms. Michelle Comeau: I know it's not the secretariat per se that has been involved in this file, but the department has been. We think we've worked successfully with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to try to sensitize farmers and farm families to the importance of safety measures. I know the federation has also worked with machinery companies and so on. I don't have the data, but we could provide it to the committee, because it seems the rate of farm accidents has indeed gone down in the four years since this program started. It has had some measure of success.

The Chairman: Well, if that's the case, that's good—

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, we'll make that available.

The Chairman: —but I'm sure we have some distance to go.

I'm out of questions and questioners, so I thank you very much. I find this discussion interesting, because there is obviously some anxiety as a result of the kind of work you're doing. People are obviously concerned about the duplication and other things, but that's a given.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: When you're finished, I just have a point of order before we go.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Maybe you can just sit tight for a second, since Mr. Proctor has a point of order.

• 1050

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry I had to leave the committee early last Thursday, but I just wondered if the agriculture committee has made any decision about any follow-up on the Canadian Grain Commission in terms of hearing from other witnesses following Mr. Senft's presentation last Thursday?

The Chairman: Yes, we did. It was agreed that we wouldn't have any further meetings on the subject for the time being, because the grain commission officials explained that they're still in the consultation process. They're consulting with stakeholders, Dick, because in a way they're going through a two-stage process. They had their first program review, and the recommendations or the results of that were announced in January. As a result of that work, they're going through a consultation process with all the stakeholders. They will then go to the minister with I guess what you'd call the final set of observations and recommendations. That will be probably early next month.

I'll just speak for myself, but we thought it would be somewhat redundant for us as a committee to replicate the work of the commission. After the minister has received the recommendations and the minister has made his own reply, if there is a place for us to jump in and do some work, I think it's only at that juncture.

So it was brought up after you left, and it was agreed just to leave things as they are for the time being.

Odina.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you intend to act on Ms. Comeau's suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and invite Minister Lyle Vanclief to explain his vision of rural development within his department?

Second, Ms. Comeau, are you expecting to hold another national workshop this year, similar to the one you held last year in Belleville from October 2 to 4? Will the workshops continue, or was that a one-time consultation?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We plan to hold some regional consultations in the coming fiscal year. The next national meeting will be held in April 2000.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You will keep us informed about it?

Ms. Michelle Comeau: Yes, or course.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Where?

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Comeau: We have not yet decided

[English]

where the next national meeting will be held. We have made some suggestions to the minister and they're under review.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Desrochers, the minister will be coming in early May.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. This meeting is ended.