AGRI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, February 22, 2002

0850

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

0855

The Chair

0900

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

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.)

The Chair

0905

Mr. Brewster Kneen (Individual Presentation)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Peter Murray (Individual Presentation)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Peter Phillip (Individual Presentation)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Newton (Individual Presentation)

0930

0935

The Chair

Ms. Cathleen Kneen (Individual Presentation)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Peter Phillip

The Chair

Mr. Peter Phillip

The Chair

Mr. Peter Phillip

0945

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Peter Phillip

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Bruce Newton

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Bruce Newton

0950

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Peter Phillip

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brewster Kneen

0955

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brewster Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. Brewster Kneen

1000

Mr. Desrochers

Ms. Cathleen Kneen

Mr. Desrochers

Mr. Peter Murray

Mr. Peter Phillip

The Chair

1005

Mr. Steckle

Mr. Brewster Kneen

1010

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Peter Murray

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Peter Murray

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Peter Phillip

Mr. Proctor

1015

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Murray Calder

1020

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Peter Phillip

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Peter Phillip

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Peter Phillip

1025

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Bruce Newton

1030

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

Ms. Cathleen Kneen

Mr. Proctor

Mr. Brewster Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Steckle

1035

Mr. Peter Phillip

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Hilstrom

1040

Mr. Brewster Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Calder

1045

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Brewster Kneen

Ms. Cathleen Kneen

The Chair

1050

Mr. Bruce Newton

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 051

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Friday, February 22, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0850)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. We're a little bit late in starting, but in any case we're very glad to be here today in Kamloops. Over the past week we've covered Manitoba with two stops, and two in Saskatchewan, and this is our second stop here in British Columbia.

The committee is a standing committee of the House of Commons. It's represented by all the parties in the House. Our objective is to tour the country to visit farm groups and farmers across Canada and to eventually write a report that will be tabled in the House of Commons.

We have with us, of course, our recording and our translation services. We work in both official languages. You have little headsets here that you can pick up if you want them. If fact, you'll probably need them later this morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our committee is looking at a study on the future role of the government in agriculture. As somebody said the other day, it's almost as if part of the House of Commons has moved out here to Kamloops, because we are representative of the House and we do report back to the House.

I'd like, first of all, this morning to give the floor to Mrs. Hinton, the local member of Parliament. We're glad that you joined our group here. Would you like to say a few words on behalf of your constituency?

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Thank you, Betty.

Howard, also from the Canadian Alliance Party, is the vice-chairman of our committee.

Howard.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Yes. I'd like to welcome everyone here.

My name is Howard Hilstrom. I come from the riding of Selkirk--Interlake. It is more or less between the two big lakes, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. I have been the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance Party since 1998. I have a cattle ranch. It's a cow-calf operation and a backgrounding-off operation in Manitoba.

I look forward to your presentations.

The Chair: From the Bloc Québécois, and la belle province, Odina.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière--L'Érable, BQ): I will do my presentation in English. When I have some questions after your presentation, I will go back to my original language.

My name is Odina Desrochers. I'm a member of Parliament. I represent Lotbinière--L'Érable. It's close to Quebec City. It is the most rural riding in the province of Quebec.

I'm really glad to be here today. Three years ago, I visited Kamloops during the summertime, with beautiful sunshine. The temperature was 35°C. It was different from today.

I'm here to listen to you, understand your concerns, and present my best wishes to you to have a good morning with us today.

The Chair: From the New Democratic Party, we have Dick Proctor, from Saskatchewan.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Charles.

I represent the riding of Palliser in Saskatchewan. It includes Moose Jaw, the southwest corner of Regina, and some of the farms and ranches throughout the area. I was elected in 1997. I have been on the agriculture committee ever since.

Paul Steckle and I are very pleased to see so many presenters with beards this morning. We almost have a tie vote here. We like it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): Good morning, presenters, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure for me to be here. I always enjoy coming to B.C. I've been here many times in the course of my lifetime.

I'm a member representing the riding of Huron--Bruce, which is a southwestern Ontario riding. We've become commonly known as the western coast of Ontario. We are very diverse. We are certainly agriculture in its truest sense, from fruit growing to cash crops to livestock. We're the home of Sifto salt and Champion road graders. It's very diverse.

I'm a farmer and livestock producer in the hog industry.

I'm interested in your presentations this morning and, of course, taking back your advice as we present a report, ultimately hoping to affect the future course of agriculture in this country.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Our other vice-chairman is Murray Calder.

Murray.

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

My name is Murray Calder. My riding is Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey. It's in central Ontario and borders the Greater Toronto Area. I'm the chair of National Rural Caucus and also the vice-chair of this committee.

Within my riding I have basically everything from soup to nuts. I have market gardening, tender fruits, supply-managed commodities, and beef. We also lay claim to the fact that we have the largest sheep operation in Ontario within my riding. We also have industry.

In my other life, I am still an active farmer. We have a poultry operation called Calderwood Farms and market 360,000 chickens a year off our farm.

The Chair: Thanks, Murray.

My name is Charles Hubbard. I'm from Miramichi, New Brunswick, probably best known for its salmon. We also have some agriculture and lumbering, somewhat similar to Kamloops. We have had mines that have closed.

In any case, welcome to our meeting.

Cathleen, will you or Brewster be the first to present?

We try to give each of you at least five minutes. We only have five presenters this morning and could go a little longer. I'll try to indicate to you when you get to about five minutes. I'll give a little time sign.

We operate by, first of all, listening to your briefs. We'll do it with all of you. Then we'll go around the table, with members again being assigned a certain amount of time, about five minutes each, to ask questions. You will have an opportunity to bring back answers to the questions.

Mr. Brewster Kneen, welcome.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Brewster Kneen (Individual Presentation): I'm very pleased to be able to present, and I'm very glad to meet you. I have an old friend by the same name in Amherst. He was a fellow farmer for many years when we were in Nova Scotia. So I now know the difference.

I'm really pleased to be here, as I say, because ever since we started farming in 1971 in Nova Scotia--we've kind of drifted since then--I have felt that agricultural policy really ought to be public policy in Canada. I'm afraid it hasn't quite been that, so I'm glad to see it on the table here and going forward in this way; let me just leave it at that.

I do have something of a farm background in that we farmed for 15 years--and I don't know, Murray, whether we had the biggest sheep farm--with the biggest sheep farm in the east, for a while, with 400 breeding ewes. I must say, I did learn something about livestock breeding, and it wasn't biotechnology. When we ran our breeding program for sheep, for lamb and breeding stock and meat, I was not engaged in genetic engineering or biotechnology. We were engaged in a very different, traditional form of livestock management and development for our particular situation.

Since 1986 we've moved on. I've been writing and researching on agriculture, and have written five books. I'm now just finishing revisions on my book on Cargill, called Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies.

This brings me to the first point I really want to stress, and that is the very major issue of corporate control and concentration in the food business globally. Believe me, I thought I knew this, but when I started pulling together all the bits and pieces I've gathered over the last several years on Cargill to update the book, even I was shocked at the extent to which the control has consolidated in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations. I was shocked also at the extent to which the major corporations, such as Continental, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland...who are major players on the Canadian scene. I mean, IVP and Cargill run the beef business, ADM runs the flour milling, and so on.

It is alarming to see the extent to which those supposed competitors in fact have a number of partnerships, joint ventures, and strategic alliances. I think anybody who talks about competition in the marketplace certainly does not want to apply that to those major transnationals. That is the last thing they want. Risk is the furthest down on their list, and competition. Things are divided very neatly. They diversify over here and differentiate so that they don't compete, and then they cooperate in an amazing number of hidden ways. When my book is out in the fall, it'll all be there, at least on that one company.

I think it's something we need to be very much concerned about. I remember visiting Fort Louisbourg in Nova Scotia many years ago, when we lived in that area, and learning about the simple story of the defeat of the French. The British simply cut off their supply lines. They didn't grow any of their own food, so it was simple. When I was in Switzerland last fall, somebody commented that of course the only reason Switzerland survived World War II was that it could feed itself. And here we are, in Canada, with an agricultural economy almost totally controlled by foreign transnationals whose interest is not in feeding Canadians but in sourcing raw materials for their transnational agribusiness and providing their corporate shareholders with increasing returns, if possible.

I'm not saying anything new here, but I think we tend to gloss over such realities. We're not supposed to talk about the corporate sector. We're supposed to talk about farmers being competitive and efficient and all that stuff. So we don't deal with it, but I think we have to.

It's no more sharply focused than in the area of genetic engineering, which is my other point. When you look at the role of Monsanto--and I think we have to name names--and the control that company exercises over soybean production in the world, and its aim of controlling the seed supply for virtually every farmer in the world, if it could, it is alarming.

Yesterday I opened Western Producer and Ontario Farmer, I think it was, and I couldn't believe the amount of Monsanto advertising. The point this makes is that Monsanto has to be making a great deal of money out of Canadian farmers to pay for that kind of advertising. Of course, when that happens, advertising shapes the editorial policy of the farm press, because if you're dependent on that kind of money for your income, you're not going to be very critical of your advertisers.

Now we have that in university research. With the kinds of partnerships that Industry Canada and the government now insist on, every researcher has to have a corporate partner. Who calls the shots?

I think we've put ourselves in a very dangerous position. If the farmers are not making a living, I think there's a very good reason they aren't. If farmers aren't going to produce cheaply enough, Cargill and the other corporations will source from Brazil, from India--or from China, in the very near future. So it's a game of global competition at the bottom, but certainly not at the top.

I want to go on. I'll leapfrog here just a bit.

My concern--and that's why I'm really delighted this committee is holding its hearings--is about biotech policy. I've been involved since about 1986 in the discussions. I was among the first to be involved when biotech was still in a corner of the pesticide directorate in Agriculture Canada, and Jean Hollebone was trying to come up with some regulatory policy. The decision was made that there was nothing new about this, it could be done under the existing legislation, which was mistake number one, because genetic engineering is not just more of the same old stuff. It's like saying the patenting of seeds is the same as patenting a shoelace. It is not. The patenting of life forms and genetic engineering is a different category. We ought to recognize it as such and deal with it honestly in that way.

Because of that initial decision, which was made in the early eighties by Industry Canada, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's Office, and a few senior business people who have been floating around in a small circle ever since.... We have a research paper coming out shortly, called The Real Board of Directors, that gives names and organizations of who's been conducting, who's been on the real board of directors of the biotech industry since about 1980. It's alarming because there have been so few people revolving around, serving their own interests.

I'm afraid we've had a government, over the years and with different parties, that has been so committed to genetic engineering--and why is another question--that we've ridden roughshod over public interest, as in labelling, saying, oh no, you don't have any right to know this. One has to ask why.

I've always thought very simply, if biotechnology is so wonderful, if it's such a boon and it offers so many benefits, then why does the industry and the government want to hide it from us? Why have they not insisted that it be labelled so we can take advantage of its benefits? It raises very fundamental questions. What's being hidden?

I think the other area we have to look at is the contradiction of the regulatory agencies--Ag Canada, and then the CFIA--that have been charged with promoting, number one, and regulating, number two.

When you look at the various things that were published, the amount of money that has gone from the government, mostly through Industry Canada, into the biotech lobby, it is really alarming. When Industry Canada gives BIOTECanada, which is an upfront industry lobby organization, $5 million to promote biotech, nobody can tell me that the government is not pushing an agenda here. These are the same people who say, oh no, we don't need any more regulation.

Two and a half years ago, the agriculture minister, together with a very odd partner in the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers association, said they'd now have a process under the Canadian General Standards Board that would draw up a labelling standard for GE food. The first thing the committee did was change its name to the labelling of non-GE food. Now that tells you something. And it did.

Two and a half years later, they have come up with a so-called standard for labelling, which is absolutely ludicrous. When they took a vote on it to see if they could get it through the committee, it was almost split. It's interesting to see they're all over the place. Why? Because there never was an intent to come up with an adequate standard. I want to be very blunt about that.

I have to come back to the question of what is being hidden.

I will quickly, if I may, go to several points I want to make in terms of what I would like to see.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Mr. Kneen, I'm going to leave that, because you're over your time. I've given you quite a bit, because you do have some interesting points. I'm sure the members will want to bring your points out in their questioning.

Peter, would you be ready next? Mr. Murray.

Mr. Peter Murray (Individual Presentation): Good morning.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for this opportunity.

My name is Peter Murray. I'm a full-time farmer from just outside Chase, B.C. We currently grow and sell vegetables and raise lamb for the meat market. We have been farming for 22 years.

As we move toward a world economy, efforts must be made to make the playing field in agriculture as level as possible. If agricultural products are coming into Canada from heavily subsidized countries, it makes it very difficult for our farmers to compete. From what I hear and read, our trading partners in the U.S. waste no time in supporting groups, agricultural or not, with tariffs and anti-dumping levies against Canadian products.

I would encourage both our federal and provincial levels of government to work together to protect our producers from the dumping that occurs, at least for the crops that our season allows us to grow. If this trend continues indefinitely, we are going to have to rely on imported food, when as a country we are capable of feeding ourselves.

We must encourage the consumption of locally grown produce. In order for that to be done, the prices must be competitive between imported food and locally grown produce.

On a more personal note, I have been fortunate in having developed a direct marketing operation that keeps me on the farm. Unfortunately, input costs continue to rise, while even at the retail level product returns stay largely the same.

This brings me back to the point of products. For example, sweet corn enters our province from the U.S. at prices that are half or less of my retail price in our production season. The idea of expanding into the wholesale market, therefore, is a frightening prospect.

Over the past 20-plus years I've been vigilant about providing a quality product for my customers, and I have developed a loyal customer base, which enables me to stay in production. In my opinion, encouraging small to medium-sized farming operations will keep many more people employed in agriculture and hopefully will reduce the number of farmers taking off-farm jobs, leaving employment opportunities to those who need them for their main source of income.

In closing, it is understandable why farmers today are not encouraging the next generation to continue in agriculture, which begs the question: who will carry on?

That was short, so we've made up for the overrun.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

We have two Peters today. Mr. Philip.

Mr. Peter Phillip (Individual Presentation): Good morning. My name is Peter Phillip. I was raised on a family-run mixed grain and beef farm just south of Kamloops. I rely solely on the income from that farm for the livelihood of my family.

I'm currently serving as the president of the Kamloops Stockmen's Association, which represents some 200 members in the Kamloops region, and my submission will approach your question with regard to the beef industry in this area.

You ask what we see as the future role of government in agriculture, and I thank you for the opportunity to reply.

There is a great deal of adversity inherent in ranching, including extremes in weather, invasions of pests, and sometimes wildly fluctuating markets, acts of God, if you will, much of which we must accept if we take on this occupation. However, the following issues are very much government influenced, and they require its involvement now and in the future.

The aboriginal land claims issue is causing a great deal of uncertainty amongst ranchers as well as other industries that rely on crown land. Most ranchers in this area require grazing leases and permits on government land to make their operations viable. Much of this land is under some form of land claim. The treaty process must start to show some sign of progress soon, as the potential for violence grows with the frustration of inaction.

There has been hostility in this region over the Sun Peaks development of Tod Mountain. Ranchers who must use that affected area worry not only about the validity of their grazing rights now and in the future, but also about the safety of those moving the cattle to and from that range.

We all realize that this is a very tough issue, but all parties involved in these negotiations must realize that many people's plans for the future, both native and non-native, are on hold until these claims are somehow resolved.

I include with my submission a copy of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association booklet, entitled Interests in the Treaty Land Selection Process.

Our Canadian beef industry exports over 50% of its production, and over 70% of that is to the U.S. It is therefore essential that the federal government vigorously defend us under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement when American interests unjustly threaten trade actions, which have proven to be an ongoing problem.

The Canadian beef industry does not have funds available, as our American counterpart does, to fight trade disputes. It is clearly not to our advantage to rely so heavily on one such powerful trading partner. We must also seek to expand our market in other countries.

The consumer must continue to be confident that the food they buy is safe. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the responsibility of ensuring that meat produced in Canada complies with the Health of Animals Act. As beef producers, we are concerned about any potential health risks. I say that we are concerned and the government should be concerned because we have a feeling for the quality of the product we are producing, not because of pressure put on by McDonald's or Burger King in their marketing strategies.

The public must be assured that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is staffed and funded adequately so it can continue thorough inspection and testing procedures to ensure food safety.

The Health of Animals Act should be strictly enforced and the manufacturers and suppliers of livestock feed be held accountable to the feed regulations within that act. Imported agricultural products will continue to be a potential source of health concerns for the public and those of us in agriculture, and will therefore continue to require government vigilance.

It is important now, and will become increasingly more so, that Agriculture Canada maintain a research team independent from politics and corporate influences to meet the onslaught of new technologies in food production. These must continue to be tested and evaluated for safety concerning the consumer, as well as any negative repercussions in the future. This will ensure our industry remains competitive while maintaining consumer confidence.

Urban sprawl is continuing at an increasing rate, paving over some of this country's most productive soil and dumping ever-increasing amounts of effluent into Canada's lakes and streams. We who have had less impact on the environment wonder why we have been singled out to pay the price for those species that have been put at risk by human encroachment. Not many of us, urban or rural, want to see the demise of any native species put at risk by human encroachment, but the fact remains that as one species increases, another must make way.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: I have to move on, but hopefully we'll have a chance to get back to you with some questions.

Mr. Peter Phillip: I hope so.

The Chair: Mr. Newton.

Mr. Bruce Newton (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You folks have a copy of my presentation. It takes ten minutes, so we'll see if we can condense it into five.

I guess the core of my presentation has three parts to it. I'm challenging the process and questioning the interests in agriculture, and in parallel, the interests in rural Canada. As a backgrounder, I'll make the general observation that in spite of all the fancy words, reports and claims of support, rural farmers, at least in this area, feel pressured and marginalized. The process may be well intended and even well funded, but it does not seem to be working.

To quote the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who attended one of your meetings on November 27:

We all know that the agriculture and agri-food industry is a prime driver of our economy. It's one that always faces an awful lot of challenges and opportunities because of international markets and international competition in many different ways. We're working with Mother Nature, with a natural resource, and certainly with a number of issues that are very difficult to control. The industry ranks among the top three of our country's core industries. It generates a lot of wealth and prosperity.

Now, the minister obviously has given, at least in a very general sense, a spectrum of the issues facing agriculture. In his message as well, Minister Vanclief, in the 2000-01 report on the Rural Secretariat, said:

My own department, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, is working to the benefit of rural and remote Canadians by broadening the traditional focus of agricultural policy in a more comprehensive and integrated way.

With the minister's statements as a basis, consider all the programs, queries, and apparent support activities focusing on the farm in rural Canada. For example, there's this very meeting and this process. There was the Prime Minister's Task Force on Future Opportunities in Farming, which travelled the country and received 106 submissions. I believe that report hasn't been submitted yet.

Mr. Murray Calder: Actually, it's over 400. I'm on that task force.

Mr. Bruce Newton: All right. I'll have to check with my researcher.

There is the annual report published by the Rural Secretariat and the apparent efforts to support and promote rural Canada. When you look at all these efforts and the related activities and programs and projects that are occurring, then one would conclude that for farmers and more specifically the family farm, things must be moving in a supportive direction.

¿ (0930)

On the other hand, when one hears the debates in the World Trade Organization and the agreements related to agricultural practices that appear to be threatening the rural lifestyle; when one watches the growth of the corporate farms and the vertical integration being carried out by multinationals on both sides of the Canadian border, such as Cargill, Monsanto, and Archer Daniels Midland; when one sees their provincial government making a conscious decision to marginalize rural areas by reducing infrastructure and withdrawing support and excluding rural leaders from meetings; when funding for research is based solely on matching funds and only he who has the bucks gets to play; when there's a complete absence, even a blatant refusal, of developing compensation formulas for displacement of property or restriction of property use in the case of the proposed species at risk legislation and the native land claims, just to name two; when one sees the powerful and influential NGOs, such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, and animal rights activists influencing and shaping policy that ends up being the responsibility not of those NGOs and activists but of the landowner to fulfill; when the standards for food quality and safety, animal protection, and the environment are increased and then placed squarely on the shoulders of the producer and the landowner with little or no allowance to offset the economic impact; when one watches treaty negotiators behave as if there is a vast tract of unused crown land to turn over to natives without thought or concern for the people who have established a legal right to use that land and there is no consideration toward the rights of those people, then one becomes a little bit more cautious and cynical.

Why? Because the atmosphere in which we are living raises serious questions and concerns about the sincerity, the commitment, and the effectiveness of all the reports, the fact-gathering activities, pilot projects and programs supposedly designed to protect the rural lifestyle and, subsequently, the family farm, which is an integral part of the rural community.

The Pinantan Pemberton Livestock Association has over 20 members. In terms of cattle, our members manage nearly 3,000 head. Just to give you a perspective, we report to Peter Murray; I'm the vice-president. Our members are also engaged in woodlots, sheep, horses, and poultry.

We would estimate that our members conservatively contribute approximately 60 man-years of employment per year to the local economy, not to mention the support of such businesses as seed, veterinary, fuel, and equipment suppliers. I stress “conservatively”, because if ever there was a good example of the term 24/7, as some committee members may know, a farmer works 24/7.

If I were to come to you with a business proposal for a government grant for an interest-free loan to cover 60 man-years, and if the proposal was to build a sustaining business over multiple years, you know such a venture would be in the millions of dollars. But no matter how hard I try to build up the corporate profile of the members of the Pinantan-Pemberton Livestock Association individually, they are not in the league of what might be considered a corporate entity.

Collectively, however, across Canada, according to the statistics published by the Rural Secretariat, these operations are part of the 17% of the total national employment. They are, to quote the same report, “the bread and butter of the nation, with over 80 per cent employing less than 10 people”.

But as is the case of the family farms across Canada, our members and their families are more than business enterprises. They represent, in many cases, family farms handed down over generations. We have members who have multiple generations of one family supported by and working on the farm. These people represent an independent, honest, hardworking way of life, a life and standard that has settled, built, and fed this country. These are the types of citizens who give far more to our country than they take. Their heritage and, if allowed, their future contribution to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada shouldn't have to take a back seat to anyone in the organization.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, in closing, returning to your mandate for this meeting, if the Government of Canada truly wants to develop and improve its partnership with the farmers of this country, then they will have to go well beyond the corporate model and look at the cultural significance of rural Canada. They will, in times of restraint, have to determine a more effective process that delivers true protection to this valuable asset and cultural richness.

We would like to challenge you, as our representatives, to demonstrate through your upcoming analysis, report, and recommendations of this venture that all this talk, all the studies, all the reports, and all the programs translate to positive, real action and measurable results.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Bruce.

Cathleen.

Ms. Cathleen Kneen (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

The nice thing about going last is that I have the opportunity to associate myself with the comments of the previous speakers, with the exception of the issue on native land claims. As you all know, living in, in the words of our national anthem, our home on native land is a very contentious one for many of us.

I was under the impression that a representative from the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia was going to be here today. In his absence I would like to make two points on behalf of that organization before I proceed with what I was going to say.

The first point is that organic agriculture, which as you know is the shining light in agriculture across the country, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia, where both the production and the market has been growing at the rate of up to 20% per annum with no end in sight, has two requirements of the federal government.

One is that the term “organic”, which is now regulated, should be enforced. We need this to protect us from imports of so-called organic products coming in from jurisdictions where the standards are not at the level of our own. The regulation is already there, but it needs to be enforced.

The second is an idea that I'd like to put before you. Insofar as we face real problems of environmental degradation in our country and an apparent unwillingness of the market to pay a fair market price for agricultural products--and I think we've all been hearing this this morning--it has been suggested that we see food production as a sideline of environmental protection. It has been suggested that we recognize that farmers who are following environmental standards are in fact protecting the land, air, and water for future generations and that this is a public good and could be paid for as a public good. And the food that's produced would be a side benefit, so that the pricing of the food would then become somewhat less of an issue.

I put it forward to you as an idea that I think is worth looking at. It's way out, but that's where change comes from.

I have spent the last five years working with community organizations across British Columbia on issues related to food and food production, and particularly food security and food policy. I have left with you a copy of our pamphlet from the B.C. Food Systems Network, so I won't bother reading it to you. I'd like to make a couple of points on behalf of this network of people across British Columbia.

The first is that as farmers, as eaters, and as citizens, we insist that food security needs to be the cornerstone of agricultural policy. We tend to think about security in terms of safety from an outside threat, particularly after September 11. Rhetoric about terrorists is thicker than snow on the ground in January in Calgary. We had a phone call after September 11 from a reporter wanting to know if we were concerned about the potential threat that a terrorist might contaminate Canada's food supply. And our answer was it's too late, it's been done.

Our society has in the past four or five decades systematically poisoned our food with agricultural chemicals designed to kill insects or fungi. It has poisoned our water with the inevitable run-off from hog prisons and chicken concentration camps, and it is in the process of contaminating the entire food chain with genetically engineered organisms, whose effects we don't know, and we've no way of finding out because they're not labelled. So in terms of food security we're way behind the ball.

I know there are people here among you who are engaged in large-scale animal production. And when I use those terms I'm not aiming it at you, but I think you know who I am talking about.

If we want to think about food security, we have to ensure that everyone in the country has access to the quantity and quality of food they need to live an active, healthy life. That's the World Health Organization food security. Ours goes further, because we have no food security if farmers and everyone else in the food supply chain cannot earn a decent living. Nor do we have food security if the system is not sustainable, in other words, if the quality of land, air, and water are not protected and are damaged by the process of producing food or getting it to our plates.

I think that all food means is that we see the role of food as central to culture and community.

I was talking in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago and we were trying to lay out what the elements of food security are, and I said perogies; perogies are a very important element of food security because it's illegal to make them alone. Community is a central piece of food security and a very central part of the maintenance and development of our rural communities.

Canada's agrifood policies are moving away from food security at an alarming rate of speed. Billions of dollars of public funds, as Brewster pointed out, are spent on research into biotechnology, and probably nothing at all--but I'll be cautious and say next to nothing--on organic agriculture. Federal policy does not recognize the contribution made by organic farmers and gardeners in sustaining and enhancing the environment or their economic contribution, because very often it's not in the GNP.

And most important, Canada's agrifood policy is based on the assumption that our job is to grow edible commodities for export and not to feed the population of Canada.

Now, I've nothing against trade. I think trade is a very important element of our food system. I personally am quite dependant on the three big Cs: coffee, citrus, and chocolate. The goal needs to be, as Brewster said in his first book, From Land to Mouth, to feed the family and trade the leftovers.

I want to end by pointing out that you have the power. I want to challenge you to insist on an agrifood policy that will renew our rural communities, feed the hungry, and protect the environment. This means turning your back on what has passed for progress in agriculture so far, trusting your common sense and the capacity of us rural folks, given the policy supports, to not only feed the nation well, but also to build a sustainable economy in the process.

Canada has a policy of supporting community food security in poor developing nations. Let's do the same thing at home.

Thank you.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Cathleen.

Is there anyone in the hall who would like to make a brief statement or comment before we start our round of questions?

Peter, yes.

Mr. Peter Phillip: I have two minutes left in my submission, if you have that time.

The Chair: I think we do, because we're hearing something different here.

Mr. Peter Phillip: You've come a long way, so it would be a shame to go back without the rest of my submission.

The Chair: It would be, yes, but we always remind everyone that your written submissions do go back and they are put into the study. In any case, we'd better hear it personally and verbally.

Mr. Peter Phillip: Thank you very much.

I'd like to finish with the species at risk and the fact that ranchers or indeed most of agriculture seems to be paying the price for a problem that is caused by the general population of Canada. And we're producing food for those urban centres.

All we're asking for is a common sense approach to that bill. And perhaps if we have species at risk that are on our places we're doing something right. Perhaps we should have funding to protect or to continue to protect those species on our places rather than have the threat of that land being expropriated from us. If agricultural land is taken out of production for the species at risk legislation, then it should be fully compensated for.

Another important issue in southern B.C. is water. Water for irrigation and livestock is essential for agriculture's survival in the southern interior. And a cooperative approach must be taken between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and those using the water for agriculture to ensure the sustainability of both fish and agriculture. Ongoing government funding of watershed stewardship coordinators will lessen conflicts and expedite positive results.

The rise and the fall of the cattle market is a regular occurrence that most ranches can tolerate, but the occasional crash can be devastating. In the past governments, both federal and provincial, have funded income support programs. Under today's trading policy this is no longer acceptable. However, government support of industry development funds is helping and will help our industry to cope with these declines. And a simple, practical solution to these fluctuating profit margins is to have Canada once again reinstate income averaging or allow for more flexible taxation policies.

In brief, we ask that the federal government support the beef sector of agriculture by resolving aboriginal land claims; providing support in fighting unjust trade actions; maintaining an effective and ever-vigilant Food Inspection Agency; enhancing Agriculture Canada's research team; taking commonsense approaches to environmental pressures on, for example, salmon and species at risk; and working with our industry to find innovative GATT-green solutions to market disasters.

Probably the most important thing the federal government can do for our industry is give us the assurance, as our voting power shrinks in this great democracy, that governments will not ignore our concerns as they cater to the urban majority and large corporations.

In closing, those of us who have made our living off the land have taken pride in our independence; however, times have changed and we must work more closely with government and other land users to ensure sustainability in agriculture. Cowmen have been in the business long enough to have experienced tough times. Most have persevered because of their love of this land and their belief that sometime in the future the true value of Canada's food producers will be realized.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

On the economy here, in terms of agriculture, several of you reflected about woodlots or lumber being part of your income as well. Today in a lot of our rural areas, people not only grow corn and wheat and various forms of vegetables, but they're growing wood in woodlots. Sometimes those in Ottawa lose sight of what rural people do. They try to put them into little slots somewhere and say they're here or they're there.

In Atlantic Canada, a lot of our farmers also fish, which is part of the overall economy. So as a committee, we have certainly looked at and dealt with the maple sugar industry in Quebec in the past. But on our coniferous trees, which are part of Weyerhaeuser's big plant here, we may have to think a little bit differently in terms of what agriculture in rural Canada represents.

Howard or Betty.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll be asking questions. Betty will be in the second round.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: First of all, Peter, on the first nation land claims, is your organization or the community around here having regular consultations in any way, or receiving information on the current status of claims on the crown lands around here?

Mr. Peter Phillip: As an association, we're not. I'll hand it over to Bruce, whose local association is very involved with the land claims issues.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have just those couple of questions.

Mr. Bruce Newton: The brief answer is we're not getting any support. We've worked six years to try to get some kind of support. I came across this Rural Secretariat, and I see that Indian Affairs and Northern Development are part of it.

Our organization has established a strong relationship with at least one of the native bands here. We consider ourselves good neighbours; we've invited them to join our association. We're not afraid to sit down at the table with them, and we have. We've even offered a proposal.

We've covered senators, MPs--Betty and the MP before her--bureaucrats, provincial people, and we're getting nowhere. We have no money to do it. We've done it all on our own.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much.

As these land claims are settled, of course, there is the option at the end, albeit with problems sometimes, of leasing that land back from the others.

The key right now, though, is the finances of the individual agricultural operation. Is this uncertainty causing banks to question loans you may want to make? Is the uncertainty of the land base restricting access to credit?

Mr. Bruce Newton: I can't comment on farms being challenged, but people up in the Adams Lake area had their road cut off and now travel by ferry. They were having trouble getting mortgage money, and so forth. I think, if it keeps going, eventually there will be a problem of that nature. The rancher can't plan ahead. There's no planning.

Let me be parochial. There is a group of people back east and in Victoria who think they'll turn the land over to the natives and everything will be fine. It doesn't work that way.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you very much.

For the Species at Risk Act and the cruelty to animal changes in the Criminal Code, are you recommending they not be passed in their present form?

On Monday there's going to be debate in the House, of course, on amendments. I'll be participating.

Do you not want to see them passed in their present form?

Mr. Bruce Newton: No.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No. Okay.

Can you give me an example of the problems DFO are causing? I know the problems they are causing on the Prairies regarding habitat. It's mostly a drainage issue. What are the problems DFO is causing when enforcing section 35 under the Fisheries Act, which gives them the authority to be involved in anything that affects fish habitat? Are there some problems? What is causing the problem? Is it a question of developing a good working relationship?

Mr. Peter Phillip: It's probably the main thing. We all realize, again, that we don't want to see the demise of the fish stocks or salmon stocks.

We do have a coordinator who is hired to work between ranchers and Fisheries in this area. It's working well. If you want to get something done to protect fish habitat, it's a lot faster and smoother to have a go-between rather than someone from Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's a good recommendation.

Brewster, there are no conventional farmers saying organic farmers shouldn't be able to farm the way they want. It seems that the organic farmers, and the ones who are against genetic modification of any kind, are saying the conventional farmers shouldn't have the right to farm either.

Are you saying conventional farming should be stopped when farmers choose GMO seed? They have non-GMO seed and GMO seed available. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to use GMO seed?

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I think we face a serious problem in this area, but, no, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying genetic material doesn't sit still. If people put an organism out there that's going to go its own way, they have to exercise responsibility for it. They shouldn't tell the organic farmer to build a wall to keep it out. This is very strange.

If my dog gets into your sheep flock, it's my responsibility. I don't see any difference there.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's a legal question that, to a certain amount, is going to be decided in the courts. We know there are legal challenges right now.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: No. It goes much deeper. It's a question of science. It's very interesting to see how CFIA, which has been very nonchalant in approving things, has assured us this isn't going to spread and there won't be a problem.

For example, in the growing of registered seed, there is an increasing problem of buffer zones. It isn't only organic farmers; it's anyone growing certified seed. You have to know what's there.

The recommendation for something like rapeseed started at 200 yards, then was 600 yards, and now is about six miles. They've realized the geese are going to travel where they bloody well want to and the wind is going to blow. You have a tornado, as an example, in Manitoba that picks up a swath of transgenic canola and puts it down 20 kilometres away.

I am glad you raised a question on the issue of traceability, where the problem is coming from, to liability. I find it alarming that the promoters of genetic engineering do not want to be liable for what they're doing. They want to insist--and this is labelling all the way through the system--that it's the organic farmers or seed growers who have to take the liability.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What do you recommend the government do in regard to this? Just labelling, that's not the solution. What's your solution?

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I have a number of things in my brief. It was on the last page, which I didn't get to, but--

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm at the end of my time, but if you can tell us one thing specifically that the government should do in regard to GMOs....

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I think initially we need an immediate moratorium on the release of anything else. Don't compound the problem. We need to identify what is out there, and we require labelling all the way through the system, so we know where the stuff is going. And if Monsanto Corporation's patented seed is on my farm, Monsanto Corporation is liable, not me. The government should stand behind that right now and say that the liability rests on the promoters right from the beginning of application to the CFIA. The CFIA shouldn't have to prove harm; the promoter ought to have to prove safety, and on a very thorough basis in terms of how far it is apt to travel, what they have looked at, what the best....

You know, we're just way, way behind on this. We haven't done the tests. Now it's coming up. The CFIA says they'll have a biotech surveillance project. It's a little late. With no labelling, it's meaningless. It's a joke.

The Chair: Thank you, Howard.

Now, each of us has a little device here that Odina may want to use. I hope he does, because he speaks one language and we can hear the other, so if you put that on.... This is one of his topics.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm delighted to be in Kamloops today. Since the committee began touring, we have heard a great deal said about organic farming and the whole issue of genetically modified organisms. As you know, the House of Commons rejected a private member's bill calling for mandatory labelling of such products.

My party supported this legislative initiative because it felt it was a first step and because of the danger associated with the presence of GMOs in close proximity to organic or other conventional crops. In our view, this matter must be addressed as soon as possible.

Many of the members who opposed mandatory labelling argued that GMOs could not really be identified. As the committee tours and as members get ready to identify clearly federal government priorities, wouldn't you agree that it is important to put in place as quickly as possible a mechanism for identifying GMOs in order to spare our organic crops?

Consumers must not be left out of the GMO equation. In your opinion, shouldn't this be a federal government priority, given the urgency of the situation, as you noted earlier? GMOs could be carried off by a tornado and deposited 50 miles away. Given that consumers are directly involved in this debate, what would you suggest? That a mechanism be introduced?That more money be invested in R&D? That the Canadian Food Inspection Agency show far greater objectivity?

Mr. and Mrs. Keen, I'd like to hear your views on the subject, along with those of the other people who are here today.

[English]

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I'm just coping here with my technology. I'm not anti-technology. I'm quite dependent on it.

We've created a problem, and it's much harder to deal with it after the fact. And that's where we are in terms of labelling, because we have stuff out there and we don't know where it is. But I think you're quite right, and clearly the polls.... It's been very interesting. The industry initially said they just had to educate the public. They've found to their dismay that the more the public knows, the less they want GE food and the more they want labelling. And this is the industry itself.

I think it needs to come from Parliament, where leadership really should come from. They have to tell the CFIA to implement adequate controls on this stuff, beginning with licensing, what's approved and what's not approved. Raise the bar very considerably on what can be approved in terms of saying we know this isn't going to do this and it's not going to do that. Those are assurances that are not there now.

In the meantime, I think you're quite right to point to Bill C-287, which was well crafted. I was very impressed with the research that went behind that. It was very thoughtful, and it very nearly passed. If it were to come up again, I think a great many more people would realize that the public wants to know. Why won't we tell them? It's as simple as that.

I think the instructions should come from Parliament as a whole, and from this committee, to say we want mandatory labelling now, product and process. You can't make that distinction. We have to find out what's going on out there and give some legitimacy to this biotech surveillance project that the CFIA talks about, ten years too late.

I would couple that with the question of liability so that the people who are promoting that realize that they can't just get away with saying, “Sorry, I didn't put it there. It's your problem.”

Is that an adequate answer to your question?

À (1000)

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

Madame Kneen.

Ms. Cathleen Kneen: Actually, I'd like to address the previous question as well, because I do speak for organic farmers here.

It's not a question of being opposed to conventional farmers. Farmers trust the certified seed business. They trust the CFIA that what is on the marketplace is safe and appropriate. As organic farmers, we work very closely with our conventional neighbours. It's not a question of being opposed to them; it's a question of asking the government to ensure that what's out there is indeed safe. We do not have that assurance at this time. So that's where we are.

The other part is that I spend about half my time talking to farmers and listening to farmers and the other half of the time talking and listening to people in the community who are concerned about health. I work a lot with people on marginal incomes, and I've been really taken aback at the extent to which this concern is raised wherever I go. Health professionals are observing increased immune deficiencies, increased asthma, increased allergies, and are unable to tell what the cause of these things is. People, all kinds of people, people on limited incomes, are worried that in the drive to make food cheaper so they can afford it, it's getting contaminated. They're really worried about that. I work a lot with pregnant women and mothers of young children. They're really worried. All the assurances that we have the safest food system in the world don't cut the mustard.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'd like a quick comment from the other people, and that's it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peter Murray: Actually, on the transference of this material that you talked about earlier, it's kind of interesting.

I'm just outside of town about 35 miles, and I've had a problem recently with a non-native weed species. Now, I don't know this canola crop and that sort of thing. It looks an awful lot like it. I'm told it's not wild mustard. Of course, I'm right next to the track, so a tornado might carry it 50 miles, but this thing has been carried hundreds, if not thousands, of miles, and I'm having to deal with it. I'm not an organic farmer, but I do not spray. It's just a personal choice. I'm having to deal with this thing that is causing me some grief.

So as far as stuff moving.... I can't say it's a GM crop or what it is, but it's not native; it's come in from somewhere else.

Mr. Peter Phillip: I think the government has a real role in ensuring food safety, and that's uppermost. For us as producers, if a practice or a future practice is found to be unsafe.... We're in the production of selling good food. If we don't, we're out of business. The role of government is to provide good research into the new technologies that are coming to assure us that they're safe now and what the future consequences of using that technology will be.

The Chair: Thank you, Odina.

Paul, do you have something?

À (1005)

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, in a number of areas.

I want to be very complimentary about the presentations this morning. First of all, I think Brewster raised a very important issue, and that is the collusion that has occurred in the food distribution system, in the science-based industries, and in so many other industries. But it's not unique to here; it's throughout the world. How do we turn back the clock on that? I guess that's the big question we have.

On this whole issue of food safety, I think Canada has been known to be probably the safest source of food anywhere in the world. We want to continue to maintain that image, and I don't think we should ever let down our guard on that. Somehow, though, I feel the problem we've gotten into is this whole issue of interpretation of what is genetically modified and what is transgenic. I think somewhere there has to be an understanding of what we mean when we say the word “genetic”.

Now, I didn't bring this apple here, but it made me think of something as I sat here. That's an apple produced here in British Columbia, a Spartan. For all intents and purposes, it's genetically modified...but you see, people think it is. It's not transgenic. I realize that there are mutations and all of these kinds of things that take place in normal reproductive systems. The question that I think the government would have to address is, who's responsible, and how far do you go in incurring liability? How far do any of us go before we are no longer liable for our actions? When does someone else become responsible for what has happened? That is the big question. Should labelling be voluntary or mandatory? At what level should it be required to be non-GMO, 100%? Even Europe doesn't require 100%, but the bill that came before the House did.

You see, this was a matter of looking not only at.... The bill, had it gone to committee, would have imposed on Canada stringent rules that could have put us right out of the export business. And I don't think that's what we want. We're going to be looking at that. That is something we haven't finished exploring.

The committee here is in a bit of a quagmire in terms of what the public really wants. Safe food? Yes. I think it's fair to say that, in the world as we know it, no one has ever died because of ingesting a genetically modified product. But do we know?

We do know one thing, that the Pfizers, the Monsantos, and these people who produce pharmaceutical products have put on the shelves of our pharmaceutical stores medications--and doctors are prescribing them every day across the country, legally prescribing--that ultimately kill hundreds of thousands of people in North America every year. Yet we all subscribe to the theory that we have to take these products to keep us alive.

Now, we've heard all this before about this one thing, but it has never been proven that it has ever hurt anyone. We don't know, but....

How do we deal with this? This is a monster. I don't expect you to have the answer to this. If you do, then, please, we'll hire you quickly.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: Am I invited to respond?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: We should have had this discussion ten years ago, or starting about 1986, when bovine growth hormone reared its ugly head. One of the things that has intrigued me--and I did a lot on this in Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology, my book on biotechnology--is that there has been a systematic stonewalling of public discussion. It started with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. Actually, the old Ontario Milk Marketing Board would not allow the farmers to raise the issue of bovine growth hormone at their annual policy discussion meetings. I have all the tapes and interviews, all that stuff.

So we've had a stonewalling of this discussion. You're quite right that now we need to throw it open. We need to see if there isn't some possibility of rectifying some of this negligence over the years and the insult that was given to the public by saying, “Oh no, you're not mature enough to know about this stuff. We can't trust you with the information. We'll tell you whether it's good or not.”

The problem is, as you say, people say, “We don't know that it's killed anybody”, but we have no idea what it has done or hasn't done, because there's no way of tracing it. This to me is....

You raised the drug industry. There is now a growing concern about adverse drug reactions. These are not accidental side effects. In the case of insulin, they affect 20% of the users of genetically engineered insulin. That's been dismissed, but now, all of a sudden, again, Health Canada and so on are being forced to acknowledge that indeed there are serious problems, and maybe we'd better rethink our approach to drugs, genetic engineering, and all this stuff. We've been incredibly cavalier about this, and we've protected the industry, the drug pushers--and I include Monsanto among those--from day one.

I would put it this way, because I think it shifts the burden: why has the Canadian government been so committed to protecting the drug industry and the agri-toxin industry as opposed to the people of Canada, its citizens? I would really like to see Parliament enter fully into this discussion and not try to control it, marginalize it, keep it out of the debate, and let the little cabal of Industry Canada and the Prime Minister's Office and so on conduct the show with the ADMs while the ministers are basically sidelined, which is the situation I see.

I was alarmed, when I read the draft of the research paper we commissioned, as to how extensive this is. I had not realized what kind of a game was going on--even myself, after 15 years of this. We have a huge problem, but I do think there is a substantial core of science that will say genetic engineering and traditional crop development are two very different things, and that's not really an issue of debate.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Paul. I'll come back to you, but I have to go to Dick. Your five minutes are up.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much, Charles, and thank you to all the presenters.

I'd like to start with Peter Murray. Mr. Murray, in your brief but informative presentation you talked a little bit about the U.S. dumping vegetables and produce in our country. We've now been across the west and we haven't heard a great deal about that as a committee this week, so I wonder if you could just expand on it a little bit and tell us further about it.

Mr. Peter Murray: To be quite honest, I don't know a whole lot about it. My perspective is from when I produce my produce in the summer; I see what happens in the supermarkets, I see where it comes from. As I say, I've developed my own little niche market and so far I am surviving, but a lot of time that corn is coming from the U.S. and at the same time we're producing these products. I'm just using corn as an example; there are a lot of others. And perhaps something could be done to get the local, and I mean Canadian, be it coming from other provinces, no problem--

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

Mr. Peter Murray: --just allow us a level playing field.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Do you sell any of your local products out of these local supermarkets?

Mr. Peter Murray: On a very small scale. Most of it I retail myself frm the roadside stand. As I say, it's something that doesn't affect me directly, but I can see it affecting more people, for instance, going into what I do. Yes, that's about it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Peter Phillip, in your presentation you didn't talk about the recent action by the United States Department of Agriculture seeking to label beef by country of origin, but you did indicate that a lot of your product is going south. Could you tell the committee if you have thought about--I'm sure, as a group, you've thought about this--what will be the impact if that is allowed to prevail?

Mr. Peter Phillip: That could be devastating. I believe only 2% of the beef market in the United States is supplied by Canada. If the country of origin labelling is pursued in the United States, I understand that the cost to the beef industry, or the beef handlers in the United States, will be prohibitive and it could result in their not importing our beef. That would be nothing to them, but to us, when we rely so heavily on them to take our beef, it could be devastating.

Mr. Dick Proctor: As a brief aside, some members of this committee about three years ago were in Washington, and this was on the table at that time. They were talking about it then. That threat passed for the moment, but now it seems to be back. I think there is certainly a lot of concern in the industry that it not be.

Mr. Chair, I just wondered if at the end, or at some appropriate point, because we don't have many people, perhaps Brewster could put his recommendations on the record, since he didn't get to them, as we allowed Mr. Phillip to do with his. I'll stop at this point.

Thank you.

À (1015)

The Chair: Murray, do you have a question?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, please.

Brewster, I'm one of the ones...when I was first elected, I believed that when I went to the House of Commons, I would never abstain from a vote. I'm there to vote, one way or another. So I voted against Bill C-285, mandatory labelling.

The reason I voted against it is that in the eighties I sat on the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board as a committee man, and there is no tracking and tracing system that is credible enough to facilitate mandatory labelling. Therefore, the labelling itself would be a fallacy.

The poultry industry, the pork industry, and the cattle industry are all working on a HACCP-style tracking system. In my industry, we've been at it for three years. It's probably going to take us another two years before we have the majority of farmers compliant.

I'm totally in favour of a voluntary labelling system, and I know as soon as it hits the stores you'll probably see it expand through the industry. It will eventually become mandatory because it will be consumer driven.

Now, what do you see...and I have some concerns within the industry, too, on a tracing and tracking system. This could become a cost for smaller farmers, because if you go to a HACCP-style program, you're talking about a definite clean-up of farming operations. I have no problems with that. I have one of these large corporate farms that everybody talks about--a factory operation--so I did that years ago.

But what do you see for that middle piece of the pie? For instance, once we start going toward this, what's going to happen to them?

Mr. Brewster Kneen: Well, if you just think back to when we were farming, we tagged every lamb at birth. And because we set up a farmer-owned and -operated co-op for marketing, we could with no problem identify a carcass as to the farm it came from at birth to the retail counter it appeared on--not a problem.

Now, it is a problem when you get into the transnational corporation shipping things from one side of the world to the other because it's looking for the cheapest source. And maybe that's the problem. It's not the question of identification; it's the system we've created that says you can't do that. Maybe we should have a system that would allow that, because I don't think when we were farming that Canada Packers could have identified what it was delivering, and it couldn't deliver the quality that we could, so we had a good situation.

Mr. Murray Calder: That's one of the reasons the cattle industry, for instance, went to a computerized ear tag, so they could track it.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: Sure. But I take a cue, interestingly enough, from Cargill. Cargill has a very elaborate system they call InnovaSure for marketing corn, only non-GE corn, and they will guarantee--this is Cargill playing the global market--to deliver exactly what the customer wants, to their precise specifications.

Now, if Cargill can do it and operate globally, why in the hell can't we do it in Canada? They obviously have it figured out. They know--and the Europeans do too now--that they can test to 0.1% for anything.

So I would turn the question around, Murray, and say, look, what is Canada going to do? Are we going to join the U.S. and say it's an unfair trade barrier if the people don't want genetically engineered food, and tell them they have to eat it, that we won't identify it? Europe is saying traceability is essential--0.1% allowance, if that, and labelling--and we're going to be faced with that. What's Canada going to do? Say it's not possible? I don't think that argument's going to sell very well. I think people will say if Cargill can do it, you can do it.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, but the argument we've had within the poultry industry is that it's not necessarily that it's not possible, it's whether it's credible, because the CFIA, for instance, within the poultry industry, has said, all right, if you're going to proceed with this.... They have no problem with it. They think it's a good thing.

But inevitably at the end of the day, if there are any problems, it's the CFIA that's on the legal hook, not the poultry industry. From that aspect of it, they want to have their control into how the program is done. I have no problem with this, because at that point in time I can go back to the consumer and say I have a neutral, unbiased body that is tracking and putting forward the tracking system and verifying it, and it's not industry driven. I think that's the more credible way of doing it.

À (1020)

Mr. Brewster Kneen: To my understanding, that's not the direction. The direction that agriculture is being pushed in is self-policing, along with everything else. That's just inviting abuse, I think.

Mr. Murray Calder: No, no.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I agree with you that the CFIA has a much larger responsibility than it's presently shouldering in all this. I think that the government has a responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole, not a certain sector.

Mr. Murray Calder: I would agree with that. But it's not necessarily that we're being pushed into it. It's the fact that we're being responsive to what the consumer wants, because the consumer is always right. We've made a whole bunch of different changes over the last.... I've been in the industry now since 1985. It's amazing the amount of changes we've made in our own industry.

The Chair: Very quickly. Thanks, Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'll come back.

The Chair: We have more time, but I want to go to Betty now, and then others may have some.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you.

One of the drawbacks to going for the second round of questions is that most of the questions you wanted to ask have already been asked. But I can resolve that quite easily.

I would like to begin by saying that I voted in favour of labelling of GMO foods. I always want to err on the side of the right. I'm not alone in my caucus, but there are other members of my caucus who voted the other way for varying reasons.

What I'd like to discuss, and it's come up already this afternoon, is the effects of Bill C-5 on some of the people present here. The fact that no compensation is guaranteed has to have an impact. I would like to hear your comments on that.

I'd also like to know whether there's any support for the theory of one of my colleagues in caucus that he calls “shoot, shovel, and shut up”. He claims that if we go the way we're going now, we're going to do more damage to endangered species than is currently happening.

Another part of that which has been overlooked, which I raised in the House during debate yesterday, was the plant life side of it, and that again we have something that appears to be race-based law, where it applies to non-aboriginal people, but not to aboriginal people.

So I throw all that out there for you to answer and let you go as you will.

Mr. Peter Phillip: The Americans have gone with the punishment aspect of species at risk. That's what we hear from cattlemen down in the States. If they have a species at risk on their place, they get rid of it. That's why I said if you have species at risk on your place, maybe it should be dealt with the other way. Maybe you should be given funding.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Compensation.

Mr. Peter Phillip: There are consequences. As we increase, we need more land to produce food. Something has to give way. We need a reasonable approach to these problems with environment.

You've thrown a whole bunch out there.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Yes, I did throw a whole bunch out there.

As for the fairness part of it, I have a serious problem with race-based legislation that says here are the rules if you're not aboriginal and here are the rules if you are aboriginal. If it's an endangered plant, it's endangered regardless of growing on aboriginal land or non-aboriginal land.

This is again about compensation. I just want to know what your views are on that, because there could be this invisible line between aboriginal property and non-aboriginal property. The rules are this way for you, they're this way for someone else. I just want some feedback.

Mr. Peter Phillip: That's with everything. That's with the environment, with Fisheries and Oceans, with noxious weeds. If you have a place next to an Indian reserve, you're required to look after the weeds on your place. But you could have a problem next door and the noxious weed act does not apply to Indian land.

With salmon, you could be right next door to an Indian reserve; they're in the river--something that we're not allowed to be--with equipment, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stops their surveillance or their compliance enforcement at the edge of the Indian reserve.

It's the same with environmental protections as far as agricultural waste being disposed of in bodies of water is concerned. The rancher or other industry that's right next door to an Indian reserve has to comply with the environmental regulations, and yet right there the governments turn a blind eye to what's happening.

There are many other things happening, too. I think, as ranchers, we're on the same thing. We're all in this boat together, or else you ease up on some of the regulations, then, if you're not going to make everybody comply.

À (1025)

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I listen very carefully to my constituents, so I want some other confirmation here, too, on what I have been hearing.

I've negotiated many contracts over my career, and there's a huge difference between the word “may” and the word “will”. The current legislation says, in regard to compensation, they “may” compensate. We're trying to get that changed to they “will” compensate.

So I'd like a bit of feedback on that from both Bruce and you, Peter.

Mr. Bruce Newton: I think there are two elements.

Mr. Hilstrom, you asked about banks supporting farmers. There are two areas in which we are pressured. The new one is the species at risk; the other one is the land claims.

On the land claims, you have to understand, in this area there isn't a treaty process going on. It's the Douglas claim. So we're quite different from what you generally hear in the media about the treaty process, and that's a whole topic of its own.

But you know, when you look, it defies common sense that our government hasn't set up some kind of compensation formula or support for the rural people. There are rural people who think, oh well, I don't have a species at risk; I don't have anything to worry about.

Last summer I saw a truck driving back and forth. We were at a dead-end road. I come from Toronto originally, and now I see one truck, so I told my daughter, gee, a truck went by; that's traffic to me. The person had headphones on, so, nosy me, I finally stopped the truck. The person was monitoring a badger. We haven't had a badger up there for a long time, so they've transplanted a badger.

The badger doesn't know it's my property. I'm assuming they put the badger originally on crown land, which is right next to me. They're doing this study now of mice, and they have little flags up to see where the badger is eating. I know where the hole is, and I'm not going to tell them.

I didn't put the badger there, but if the badger decides he likes my place.... We have fewer weeds and we have nice stuff; the horses eat grain off the ground. I don't know what the badger eats, but maybe he's going to come over to my place. Now I am at risk. No one gave me the choice.

It's the same with the native thing. We have some excellent native neighbours. They mean no harm to us as individuals, but they honestly, genuinely believe that is their land. Well, if it is their land, surely there's a way that you can help us be good neighbours to them and not make us feel threatened. This government is turning the rural people not just against their neighbours, but against the government as well.

I'm sorry, I got off the point a bit. It just defies common sense that our government wouldn't consider a compensation formula, and one that was at market value, not 50¢ on the dollar.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Fair market value.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Betty.

Dick, do you have any more questions?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have a couple of questions.

Cathleen, you indicated that in your opinion food security has to be the cornerstone of agriculture. Something like 71% of the current budget of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada goes to food security. That's where the bulk of the agriculture department's dollars are being spent. As we see the need for even more security, the question I have in my mind is who should pay for that? Should this be assigned to the Agriculture budget, or because it's beneficial to consumers, should it perhaps become part of another departmental envelope?

Ms. Cathleen Kneen: That's a very interesting question. Certainly, in the BC Food Systems Network our position has been that this is an interdepartmental responsibility. I don't see how you can talk about food security and leave it with agriculture and not involve health. I don't see how you cannot involve industry and education. All of these are aspects.

Again, it seems to me that it's more a matter of shifting our focus than it is necessarily a matter of a budget. I'm not sure it would cost us a whole lot more. Some of the things that have been done through the Rural Secretariat have involved moving in that direction to find ways of supporting local food production, even in the far north, and to increase local food self-sufficiency because of the economic spinoffs, if not the ecological and social spinoffs.

I do think it's a interdepartmental responsibility, but I also think that Agriculture holds the central part of the portfolio.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I don't think there's any disagreement there.

I have one other question for Brewster. You gave us a very good perspective on the vertical integration and the collusion, if you will, between the giant companies.

Our government is still involved in food inspection, as we know, but there is a trend toward more self-regulation and self-assessment. I just wondered what your perspective would be on that and whether that's the right way to go.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I know there is the argument that no responsible company is going to put a bad product out there, because it's bad for business, and I'm sure that's true. Somebody sent me an article by e-mail yesterday saying that Cargill just got fined several million dollars for the severe pollution of one of the rivers in Missouri from one of its hog operations. So you get both sides of it. I'm glad somebody caught them. Maybe upper management didn't know what was going on, but somebody had better be responsible if they're not maintaining things.

I think that's where we do need a strong regulatory agency with the ability to intervene. It strikes me, frankly, that the U.S. is somewhat ahead of us on this in terms of having people in the field to follow up on complaints. It really does concern me that Canada seems to be more ideologically committed, rather than practically committed, to self-regulation and is saying these are good citizens and they wouldn't do anything wrong. I'm afraid I would like some checks and balances on that.

I think there are a great many questions technically, which if we had time we could get into, about the whole HACCP project and whether that is good science or a convenient way of off-loading public responsibility onto the corporate sector, which they can manipulate at will. I am very skeptical about this. I read in the various trade journals about some of the problems that are with us.

I think we're headed in the wrong direction on that one. We need a system of inspection that relies not on company police inside the plant, but on some of the more traditional inspecting functions people perform as a neutral third party.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick and Brewster.

Paul, do you have a question?

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes. I have a question I want to direct to Peter Philip. We have two Peters here.

In my life in Ottawa, I am vice-chair of the fisheries and oceans committee. Many of us serve on a number of committees. You had mentioned Fisheries and Oceans' involvement in terms of farm drainage. I quite understand that aspect of it.

Do you feel there is an over-imposition by DFO on the ability of farmers to do reasonable work on their drainage systems? Are there undue delays in terms of getting the work done because of what might be deemed habitat, when in fact you and most people would know there was a species found within the stream? Do you find there is undue delay? Are we doing the job or are we being overly vigilant? In Ontario, I know there is the feeling that somehow we're imposing ourselves unduly on the system.

À (1035)

Mr. Peter Phillip: I'll give you one example. Last year there was a sensitive stream project, for lack of a better word. They looked at streams throughout B.C. that were traditional salmon-bearing streams. Perhaps, they were over-zealous on this.

They picked the Bonaparte River, which comes down through Cache Creek. Traditionally there were falls close to where it entered the Thompson River. There was never any fish stock or salmon in the river. When they chose it, someone introduced salmon into the river and then claimed it was a traditional salmon-bearing river.

The sensitive stream project or legislation closed any additional water licences allowing for irrigation. If there were low water values in a year, then it imposed even more regulations on the irrigation water. It was on a stream they justified classifying as if it had traditional salmon stocks. It did not.

It's one way to really give Fisheries and Oceans a black eye in this area. There have been other instances where our industry has had quite a tough time in dealing with Fisheries and Oceans people. I don't know why that is. I think we finally have good relationships with provincial agencies, for example, in the environment, dealing with our agricultural waste regulations. For some reason, Fisheries and Oceans are a tough bunch to work with.

I'm not saying we're not causing problems for the fish environment. There were a lot of things done incorrectly in the past. It takes time to heal. It's why I point to the one success with Fisheries and Oceans of the employment of the stewardship coordinator in the area. I think it's a good step. I think it's something that should be funded in the future.

The Chair: Thanks, Paul.

Are there other questions?

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a quick one.

Brewster, you were mentioning the canola industry. Of course, I'm fairly familiar with it. We've had quite a few presentations regarding canola.

I don't want to misquote somebody, but I think it was old Will Rogers who said don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. That whole issue of canola in China is not what was reported in the papers. I'd refer you to the industry spokespeople who were in China and know the whole story on that. Don't use that as an example of a country that is against GMO products.

China has gigantic investment in GMO technology. Europe has massive investment in it. Right now, Canada and the United States are leading in that technology and the other countries are trying to catch up. Of course there's more to that issue.

Japan is the other one that's thrown up as being against GMO canola. The fact of the matter is they import hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GMO canola all the time. People in Japan are very careful about their food. I think we have to be careful in this debate that we use factual information as opposed to trying to promote a point of view based on non-facts or non-science.

Should the government not be concerned about the trade implications of mandatory labelling, where a country that doesn't have it would look on it as a non-tariff trade barrier? Specifically, do you think that on this labelling issue we should stay in lock-step with our biggest trading partner, the United States? If they go to mandatory labelling, should we do it at the same time? If they stay with voluntary labelling, should we stay with voluntary? Do you say don't worry about earning foreign currency; let's do our own thing? Could you just comment on that?

That's my last question.

À (1040)

Mr. Brewster Kneen: I don't know what you heard me say about China, because I didn't mention China or Japan. When I talked about canola spreading, I was talking about a tornado in Manitoba. I didn't mention China. I'm very careful. I would have been sued for libel years ago if I hadn't been pretty careful with my facts. I stuck my neck out many times.

On the point you raised, I don't see public health and environmental protection as trade issues. If Canada thinks everything's up for grabs, then we're really in trouble. If any corporation that wants to do anything can plead trade issue and we'll just quickly head for the woods--which seems to be the attitude so far--what sovereignty do we have? None. Why don't we just become another state, for that matter?

In fact, from the figure I saw yesterday, something like 28 countries have mandatory labelling regimes fairly well in place, and about 38 are further along. So when we talk about Canada losing ground, I think we're going backwards in not moving toward labelling and tightening up on this stuff, when we don't know what we're doing. If the U.S. has a problem, that's their problem.

I remember back when bovine growth hormones first came out. I told the Ontario Milk Marketing Board that if I were a dairy farmer I would insist that we ban it right now because it would be a market advantage to say we weren't going to touch bovine growth hormones. It didn't really surface until it was discovered that Guelph was dumping milk from the test herd, without anybody's knowledge, into the milk stream, and people began to get alarmed.

On GE wheat at this point, if Canada doesn't say we are not going to touch it, we'll be absolute fools from the marketing standpoint. We'll be jeopardizing a major export commodity in this country if we allow Monsanto to proceed. I think it would be absolutely foolish.

I'm also worried about the future of canola. I think the canola industry has been led down the garden path about how everybody's going to love GE canola. I'm afraid the canola producers are going to find themselves with no market very soon.

The Chair: Thanks, Howard.

Murray, we'll come back to you, then.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, thanks very much.

Actually, Brewster, the issue you were talking about was not necessarily growth hormones but rbST. I led the charge on that one. To make sure a moratorium was put on it, I used the position paper of Dr. Elliott Block, who was commissioned by Monsanto, on prenatal primate testing, because they hadn't done any testing on that. That's what killed it, and there's still a moratorium.

Bruce was talking about the task force. One of the things we have been and will be looking at within the interim report we send to the Prime Minister is basically the control of large corporations in food retailing. When I drove up here today, we drove past Wal-Mart, soon to be the biggest company in the world. It seems that consumers are now going to the big-box stores.

My question is actually to both of you. When these large corporations put in some sort of a stipulation, a deal, or whatever, how do we as a government set up some sort of a system where they would give the consumers the option of buying locally grown produce that would be on their shelves? We've heard right across the country that as the big-box stores keep consolidating, they're moving away from locally grown products and sourcing it elsewhere. How would we do that?

À (1045)

Mr. Brewster Kneen: Thanks for your historical comment, Murray.

First of all, we have to want to do it before we'll really seriously address the question. I think you're asking a really crucial question. How does one deal with these things?

We certainly notice it in B.C., with the split between the supermarkets and the rapid growth of farmers' markets and weekly food box programs, all kinds of things. It's simply amazing. The number of people in Vancouver who are on a food box program is astounding. They have good supermarkets, but people are opting out of that, by and large, because they want local food in season. It's a whole big thing about healthy food, it's about local food, it's about the community. It's not just a simple little safe food. Safety is really--

Mr. Murray Calder: Is this an education process, then? One of the things I've found is that 96% of the population here in Canada does not know what's in season.

Mr. Brewster Kneen: This comes back to the question of trade. We've encouraged people to think that we have everything, every day, at any time. We've been developing that for 50 years or whatever you want to say. So, yes, we have an education program to say, wait a minute, what's reasonable about that?

Somebody made a comment about organic apples and how bad they look, and I said, “Tell me about this one. It came from a grower in the Similkameen. It's organic and it's an absolutely flawless apple, the pride of the market. They get top price.” So that's part of the educational process to overcome that.

Let me ask Cathleen, because she's really been on the grassroots on precisely this question.

Ms. Cathleen Kneen: It seems to me that this is a point where we can look at collaboration among different levels of government. For example, there are municipalities in other jurisdictions that have put in bylaws prohibiting any retail outlet over a certain amount of square footage. There's no reason a municipality can't do that. I prefer to look at the positive rather than the negative.

You're absolutely right about the lack of understanding of what's in season and what's local. That's where I come back to the question Dick was asking earlier about how to move forward and whose responsibility it is. It seems to me that we need to be doing everything we can from a regulatory position. For example, develop regulations that would enhance the capacity of local, small-scale abattoirs to serve the local market. That's just one example, but there's a whole lot of regulation that could be put in place at the federal level that would enhance the capacity of provinces and municipalities to support local agriculture for the local market.

We do our part at the community level and from the perspective of health by supporting locally grown food. One of the tag lines I use is “Veggies shouldn't earn Air Miles”. That's a very strong movement in this country, and it's grassroots driven. It has to do with quality and health.

Again, I think we need a collaborative approach. There certainly is space for a regulation that will enable the capacity, particularly in terms of processing, to allow processing facilities for the local market. I don't think we can stop Wal-Mart with a wall.

The Chair: Thank you.

À (1050)

Mr. Bruce Newton: Could I just say one thing to answer your challenge? If a McDonald's, say, imposes a standard--and it's not just food; it's handling of food--so that they can turn around, as a marketing device, and say to their customers, “Look at what we're doing”, they're not paying anything for that. The producer pays for that. It comes back to this: to what degree is the government going to support those producers and their associations?

I know we've gone through some tough economic times. I know we can't be doling out money. The lady at the end talked about more legislation. One of the claims to fame of the provincial government, in its recent strategy for the agriculture industry, is that it's going to reduce the pieces of legislation from 4,025 to 3,000. I might be a few hundred out. I challenge anyone to live by the law. If there are 3,000 pieces of legislation out there, we don't need more legislation. We need more support and we need to face one fact: we are in competition with the U.S.-owned companies. We either go out of competition and it truly is a free market, or we get some support.

The Chair: Thanks, Bruce. Probably Paul and Murray are reminded of a question I asked of some Justice people at a meeting not too long ago: why do we have legislation?

Are there any press here today? It's a problem we've had. We have a major industry in this country and we've heard some really good presentations today. It's disappointing that none of the local press, for some reason, have seen agriculture as being worthy of a little line somewhere, even on page 14.

Mr. Peter Murray: We don't advertise.

The Chair: This is the point I'm trying to make. We heard some.... Maybe it's not all correct, Brewster, but I think a lot of it, from your point of view, is correct. It's rather a shame that in this country our people who are controlling the information the public gets didn't see this as an opportunity to come and listen and to get some of your perspectives. I hope you go back to your editors in this little community of Kamloops and say to them, “What is your attitude towards agriculture?”.

They'll probably write what a terrible guy Hubbard is, giving somebody the dickens for not participating, but it is disappointing. I have a call here from Calgary, from their radio station.

In B.C., John Duncan, your colleague.... We were dealing with the Americans last summer. Of course, here in British Columbia you have a lot of tomato growers, big time, trying to export their tomatoes into the United States. We have a lot of issues that have to be dealt with.

In any case, I don't want to criticize. It's like church. The preacher can't ask why the pews are empty and give the dickens to the people who are coming to church.

In any case, thank you for coming. Next time, whatever committee comes through here dealing with agriculture, when you have your meetings, hopefully the papers, the radio stations, TV, etc., will see it as an important part of this community, an important part of the economy of British Columbia, and an important part of the economy of Canada.

As a committee, we want to assure you that we'll take your presentations back to Ottawa. We'll do our best to analyze them and to put together a report, which we will eventually get for you. Hopefully you'll be proud of the fact that you participated in this venture.

Thank you for coming and giving us your time. With that, we'll adjourn our meeting.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I just have a comment. I'd like to thank you for coming. I want to also make you aware that we did notify the press that this was happening. So all those people who are here as panellists today may want to call the local press and tell them how unhappy they are about the lack of attendance. It would be up to them to do that.

I would also like to point out to those people who have come today that this committee has come to only two cities in British Columbia. One of them was Kamloops and the second was Kelowna. I'd like to thank you very much for including us and hearing what we had to say. I promised you'd get a different perspective, and I think you did.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.