Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and
Forestry
Issue 1 - Evidence - October 23 meeting
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 23, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:30 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. It is my duty as clerk of the committee to preside over the election of the chairman. I am prepared to receive motions to this effect.
Senator Whelan: I move -- That the Honourable Senator Leonard J. Gustafson be Chair of the committee.
Mr. Armitage: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: Senator Gustafson, please take the Chair.
Senator Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Good morning, senators. I hope that we can have a very exciting, full and broad look at agriculture. I am sure we will. I am excited to see the good representation around the table here this morning. We will move right to the business on the agenda.
Are there any motions for deputy chair?
Senator Bryden: I move -- That the Honourable Senator Eugene Whelan be Deputy Chair of this committee.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the third item on the agenda, please.
Senator Rossiter: I move -- That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the Deputy Chair and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation; That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the fourth motion, please.
Senator Callbeck: I move -- That the committee print 470 copies of its Proceedings and that the Chairman be authorized to adjust this number based on demand
Senator Rossiter: Is there a definite distribution list for the whole of the print, more or less?
Mr. Armitage: A good part is standard distribution to members of Parliament and senators and to libraries, et cetera, and the rest is standing list of distribution.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the fifth motion, please.
Senator Bryden: I move -- That, pursuant to Rule 89, the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the sixth motion, please.
Senator Taylor: I move -- That, pursuant to Rule 104, the Chair be authorized to report expenses incurred by the committee in the last session.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the seventh motion, please.
Senator Spivak: I move -- That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign a research officer to the committee; That the Chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and That the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: If you have any discussion on this, feel free to speak up.
The Chairman: Yes. Would someone move the eighth motion, please.
Senator Bryden: I move -- That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Deputy Chair; and That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the clerk of the committee.
Senator Rossiter: With regard to the second part of item 8, do the accounts have to be certified by the three; the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and clerk of the committee?
Mr. Armitage: No. It is singular to those three people; that is, each one by themselves has that authority depending on the circumstances.
Senator Bryden: The Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had the word "individually" under chair and deputy chair.
Mr. Armitage: I can add "individually".
Senator Rossiter: I thought perhaps the signature of two people should be required. Would that be cumbersome?
The Chairman: Does that pose a problem?
Mr. Armitage: It does not. It does tend to delay certain things. My own practice is to certify routine costs of a relatively low value that I have no concern about. If there is a fairly high figure, or one that I feel is a little questionable, I consult the Chair and Deputy Chairman.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the ninth motion, please.
Senator Rossiter: I move -- That the committee empower the Chair to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the ccommittee.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone move the tenth item on the agenda, please.
Senator Robichaud: I move -- That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
Senator Bryden: I have attended three of these organizational meetings in the last two days. The motion in the other two committees read "not to exceed two". I am not suggesting we need to do what the others do, but is there any reason to have consistency? I am happy with one if it is more appropriate.
The Chairman: Groups such as Prairie Pools have a representation from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They might want to bring three representatives, but I can understand the cost factor.
Mr. Armitage: The Committee on Internal Economy set the limit at a maximum of two. In the last Parliament this committee, like other committees, chose to limit that even further because witnesses' expenses were attached directly to the committee's budget. It is certainly the committee's prerogative to increase the suggested number to two. I was merely following last year's practice.
Senator Bryden: This does not limit the witnesses who appear. It simply limits the number of witnesses whose expenses are covered. I am concerned with the limit of one. Perhaps it does not make any difference, but this committee tends to address issues that are relevant to both ends of the country and all the way in between. Major organizations are involved, such as the farmers' union and so on.
Senator Stratton: We had a similar discussion in the Finance Committee. The limit was two but it was recognized that in special circumstances, where warranted, additional folks could be invited and their expenses covered, depending on the decision of the committee. If we have a situation where a lot of witnesses from up North want to come down to Ottawa to testify, the committee can decide to cover their expenses.
Is the history of the committee such that expenses for one has been adequate?
Mr. Armitage: They were adequate in the last Parliament, with which I have some familiarity. However, I do not know what our work load will be in this Parliament.
The Chairman: It is one thing to come from Toronto, Montreal or somewhere close to Ottawa; it is another to come from a great distance.
Senator Spivak: I think Senator Stratton's suggestion is sound. We could spend a little more thought arranging our meetings so that we do not have someone appearing for five minutes. When we travel, we could arrange to meet more groups in a particular region. I like the suggestion that we have flexibility to pay for more than one, but this would be a caution. We could try to arrange our business more efficiently.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): I would just like to point out that if a special situation were to a rise, we could look at the problem before us, namely inviting the number of people required to ensure effective representation, and recommend accordingly. We are not forever bound by this motion to have only one person. Changes can be made at any time.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: Perhaps it might be helpful if the wording were "no more than two witnesses unless otherwise authorized", because we could get into a lot of expenses.
Mr. Armitage: You always have the right to overrule your own organizational decisions. I would have to bring it to the chairman's attention and he would ask if it was your understanding that in this particular instance we should pay more than two.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we proceed with that understanding?
Senator Taylor: If we change it to two, every organization may feel compelled to send two representatives. Since we have complete freedom in moving from one to two, I would rather leave it at one and we can make up our minds on a case-by-case basis.
The Chairman: With a provision for exception.
Senator Taylor: That is right.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Would someone like to move the next item on the agenda?
Senator Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I move -- That the Chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearing; and That the subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item on the agenda relates to our time slot for regular meetings. We suggest Tuesday at 3:15, or when the Senate rises, and Thursday at 9 a.m. There might be some discussion about meeting earlier than 9 a.m.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: In exceptional cases we could seek other times.
The Chairman: We should have some discussion about future business.
We expect the Wheat Board bill, Bill C-4. We expect the cooperation bill, which is Bill C-5, I believe. We have the boreal forest issue.
In the news in the last couple of days has been this meat inspection problem. Tainted meat has crossed the border and the Americans are getting very jumpy about this. I think we have to look at that.
We have consistently gone to Washington and I think that with the trade issues that are mounting it is very important that we have some discussion about that.
Is there anything else?
Senator Stratton: Perhaps we should throw the environment into that mix somehow.
Senator Spivak: We have forestry issues. We will get to that.
We need to look as well at transportation issues in the grains area. That is a very important issue, particularly in Manitoba.
The Chairman: It is an issue in Saskatchewan as well, in fact in the entire west.
Senator Spivak: That is a major issue.
The Chairman: I thought we would look at these issues generally.
Senator Taylor: I spoke to an organization in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago. The topic of their conference was the sequestration of carbon in Western Canada soils.
"Sequestration" is a fancy word for carbon sink, but in view of all the attention being directed toward global warming and carbon emissions, agriculture has an opportunity. It is the area that absorbs most of the carbon in the world. All the attention is on how much emissions there are, but it is important to know how much we can absorb. In Sweden and other areas there is a great deal of help through tax incentives for tree plantations, et cetera. We may want to look at where agriculture fits into global warming.
I also found it rather intriguing that TransAlta, a private organization which produces electrical power in Alberta, is funding research jointly with the Government of India on methane gases from flatulence in cows, if you can believe it, and the type of food that you can feed animals to keep them from passing wind. I say that to illustrate how far out some of this is starting to be. However, maybe we should be looking at the whole field of emissions and where agriculture would fit in the area of global warming.
Senator Whelan: One of the things we know very little about is our soils, but we abandoned our soils lab and research, which was among the most advanced in the world, in the last few years. We only know about two microbes, I think, in soils. Some of our scientists have gone to Europe. I think that is sacrilegious. We should be zeroing in on where we are on research. We are hearing a lot of talk now about going back into research, et cetera. We had some of the best research in the world. Your food system can only be as good as your research system. Senator Sparrow knows that through the work he did on soil conservation.
Senator Taylor has spoken about how much of this we absorb in our soils. We know it is important, but where is our research? I think we should have an in depth study in this committee on research, and food inspection too.
Senator Spivak: Could I suggest, as a first step, that we ask our researchers to research the key people who are doing this kind of thing, and also the status of the research. I did not know that our soil research was disbanded. There is no government function?
Senator Whelan: If they are not gone now, they soon will be.
Senator Spivak: I move that we find out who is doing the research in that area -- because it is impossible for our researchers to do this work -- in order that we will know where to begin. We might need some money to hire someone. I think this is a very important point. We want to know where the locus of such knowledge and information is and who the key experts are in Canada or North America.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Senator Taylor: There were 55 to 60 scientists involved in the conference on soil carbon absorption a couple of weeks ago. I have a list of them that I could pass on. They were from Western Canada, the western states and as far away as India. They are all specialists in soil carbon absorption.
Senator Whelan: We must recognize that that is just part of it.
Senator Taylor: I agree.
The Chairman: I have some concern about this meat issue. On my way to Regina to catch the plane to Ottawa I listen to the radio station from Williston, North Dakota. The Minister of Agriculture from the U.S. was in North Dakota on Tuesday meeting with the senator there who is railing against the Canadians, saying that we are misusing them. He is talking level playing field, if you can believe it, and the American people are buying it, basically on the grains issue, but also on speeding cattle trucks and other issues.
I have to wonder whether anyone is telling him that, with regard to a level playing field, the Americans have an unbelievable amount of subsidies. However, they are feeding that political malarkey to the American people, and they are buying it.
A lady from Williston spoke on the radio and said that she encountered 20 Canadian trucks hauling cattle travelling at 85 miles a hour and that they just about threw her off the road. A Canadian trucker phoned in to the radio station and said that their trucks are governed at 65 miles a hour.
The political implications of what is happening on the trade issues will be phenomenal for Canadians if we do not start speaking up. I think this Senate committee must go to Washington and inform those people of our position.
The border situation is another issue. It is so political right along the border.
Senator Whelan: You are concerned about the E. Coli in the meat plant at Brooks.
The Chairman: You know what would happen to our cattle prices if they closed that border on meat tomorrow morning. They would drop 20 cents a pound and it would be very serious. Yet, at the same time, the Americans are shipping tonnes of processed meat to Canada.
Senator Whelan: They are shipping a lot of live cattle across at Sarnia and Windsor too.
The Chairman: Hopefully this issue will die but the Americans are making a big thing of it. They have shipped all this meat somewhere to be tested.
Senator Spivak: To clarify, are we looking for the research sources on soil -- not only carbon in the soil, but the soil issue -- and food inspection? I just want to ensure that the researchers are clear. Is it correct that we are looking for key people and research in that area?
Senator Whelan: That is right.
As a point of interest on the relationship between Canada and the United States, I was not the longest-serving Minister of Agriculture Canada ever had, but I was one of the longest-serving. I worked with three Secretaries of Agriculture of the United States of America. We had an arrangement at that time that no matter where I was in Canada, if the secretary called I would reply in 20 minutes, and when I called them the same held true. No matter where they were in the United States, they would call back in 20 minutes. All this malarkey that is said about poor relationships just did not exist when I was minister. We settled all kinds of issues minister to secretary. It was a good working relationship.We did not have great fanfare but we had good relations. We did not have senators yelling about Canada dumping stuff. They do not seem to realize that we are their biggest trading partner.
Talking about cattle running across the border to the south, you should see the cattle trucks that race across the border into Ontario. We ship lots of live hogs into Detroit and Cleveland too, at the present time. Hundreds of trucks move every day and no one pays much attention to them. They bring a lot of fat cattle, and feeder cattle too for feedlots, into southwestern Ontario.
The Chairman: In fairness, with the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, Alberta Wheat Pool has put a grain terminal into Montana. Cargill has been in Canada forever.
Senator Whelan: For too long.
The Chairman: However, the Americans get a terrible jolt when they see a Canadian company coming into Montana. That is just not supposed to be. It is fine for them to have American companies in Canada. We have to communicate to them that trade is a two-way street and with regard to a level playing field that is what we want. They do not seem to understand that, but it is an awful shock to them to see a Canadian company setting up a terminal in Montana or North Dakota. If there is not more of that, we will be taken over instead of having a level playing field, so it is important to look at these areas.
What about the boreal forests?
Senator Spivak: I was going to suggest, since we have lost Senator Anderson, that perhaps Senator Taylor could be persuaded to take on that task.
I move that Senator Taylor take over as Chairman of that subcommittee.
Senator Rossiter: There is no subcommittee right now.
Senator Spivak: I move that there be a subcommittee and that Senator Taylor chair it.
Senator Bryden: For those of us who are new on this committee, what does this subcommittee do?
The Chairman: There was a study done on boreal forests. We traveled to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and quite a lot of work was done.
The clerk has raised the importance of expanding the subcommittee. With a committee of two, it may happen that when witnesses appear there may be only one senator to hear them if the other is unable to attend.
Senator Spivak: We need more senators on the subcommittee.
Senator Taylor: We actually had a committee of three. One reason it was kept small was to keep travel expenses down when we went to northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan.
The main reason for the boreal forest study was that huge tracts of our boreal forests, which are owned by the governments there, were being committed for harvesting, unlike in the Maritimes where most of the trees are owned privately.
Senator Whelan: Alberta is the most socialist province of all, because the state owns most of the forests.
Senator Taylor: That is right. The boreal forests consist of the aspen and poplar forests that have become commercial in the last 10 or 15 years, for both fibre and lumber, with a certain amount of evergreen forest. Huge areas were being committed and there were questions about that.
A great many of our 554 native or aboriginal bands live in the boreal forest areas. We are cutting the trees out of their environment and negatively impacting the hunting and fishing rights they may have.
Second, boreal forests are important for purification of water, for fishing and also for tourism. There was concern because the provinces were harvesting the wood.
The third issue of study was soil erosion or soil use and whether we were gaining much economically in many areas by giving subsidies to large foreign companies from Japan and other countries to convert our wood to pulp when there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that tourism, particularly ecology tourism, is worth more than the trees. There seemed to be no federal presence because of the Quebec issue and the idea of the federal government getting out of that area.
Not only are the Amazon forests disappearing, but our own huge forests are disappearing, which are second only to Russia's. They are one of the large lungs of the earth. They are not being looked after through replanting and other means. That is why our committee was formed.
We are about 60 or 70 per cent through our study. We have not yet met with the Ontario and Quebec people.
The Chairman: My understanding from the clerk is that we need an order of reference to have this subcommittee reconstituted. An order can be prepared. We can move on any of the issues but I think we need a general discussion at this point in time.
Mr. Armitage: I can prepare an agenda similar to today's for the creation of the subcommittee so that you can cover off all your points in one meeting in an organized fashion.
Senator Whelan: I live for part of the summer north of North Bay, Ontario in what is called a boreal forest. Further north in the Temagami area where the native people live there are huge trees.
Senator Spivak: You talked about going to Washington. Are you talking about this fall or next fall? What is the timing on that?
The Chairman: We could have some discussion on that.
Senator Spivak: I think we should go as soon as possible.
Senator Stratton: What about going to North Dakota?
The Chairman: There is a band about 100 miles wide on both sides of the border where the political situation is a problem. They get the news, but no one is meeting. Farmers are not meeting farmers. Once in a while someone from Minot or Williston will be honest and say that when they consider the grain that is coming into the United States from Canada they should also consider the fertilizer they get from us which they need to produce more. Occasionally someone will get honest down there and raise these subjects, but it occurs very seldom. There is no relationship between the farm organizations on both sides of the border.
In Washington we get a better reception from the senators and congressmen from Texas than from those from North Dakota because the situation becomes a political issue rather considering the reality of what is happening. That is something of which we must be cognizant.
Senator Spivak: If we are going to go this fall, we need to know about it now for our schedules.
To those senators who have not been on the agriculture committee before I should like to say that in Washington we get a very valuable briefing session. We depend so much on the Americans.
The Chairman: We had excellent meetings the two times I was there. Senator Hays chaired the meetings and we were able to talk to researchers, farm groups, congressmen and senators on various issues that relate to agriculture. It is very beneficial.
The area that Senator Stratton raised should also be discussed in Washington to see what can be done to bring farmers together to discuss the trade issues and to achieve a level playing field. If we do not get a level playing field in agriculture, we are in for big trouble. The same is true in forestry and so on.
Senator Whelan: There are over 400 Canadians in Fargo, North Dakota, some from as far away as Newfoundland, helping to rebuild that city. I saw that on American and Canadian TV. The man in charge of part of the reconstruction of the city was very complimentary, saying how hard these people work, how conscientious they are and how welcome they are. There are tinsmiths, metal workers, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians and so on. I was not aware of that until I saw it on TV.
Senator Bryden: It is very important to get to where the problem is. This is not the fisheries committee, but we saw what happened with the B.C. salmon.
There is no problem in Washington with the U.S. government wanting to live up to its treaty. The problem is the senators from Alaska and Washington state and the industry there saying, "No, we will not do it." They have control over it, and that is the end of it.
The Free Trade Agreement was supposed to level the playing field. The Americans are very good at picking up all kinds of reasons why they should not buy our products, whether it is a virus in potatoes or a problem with softwood lumber. We need an agenda, in my opinion, before we go to Washington. We must get to the source of all the bad PR.
The Chairman: That was very evident in the last meeting. One of the senators had the cameras set up. He did not give us a chance to say anything. He got a picture of us shaking hands and then we went into his office and talked about everything else, but he got his message back to Montana. The headline in the papers in Montana probably read, "I told those Canadians to keep their stuff at home".
You make a very good point.
Senator Whelan: In the U.S. there is 100 per cent federal control over forestry and agriculture and the states are extension services. It is not like the Canadian situation. Fisheries may be a little different, but if they want to use their federal authority, they can.
Senator Rossiter: They can use their authority if they decide it is politically wise to do so.
Senator Whelan: That is what I meant earlier about communication between the top people. When I was minister we had good communication and we solved all kinds of problems. I am amazed at what is going on now. Despite all this talk about free trade and harmonious relationships we have more controversy now than ever.
Senator Taylor: I thought our trip to the U.S. was so good that I recommend we do it every year. Through talking to the policy formulators and the researchers, as well as to the senators and members of the House of Representatives, this committee can have major input. We talked to the leaders of the biggest farm organization in the U.S. as well. Many of the words and ideas will ultimately go to the decision makers.
The three days we spent there were outstanding. I had never been involved in that type of thing before. I thought it was the best work done by our committee. I strongly recommend it for every year.
The Chairman: Anyone who was there would agree with that. We have new members on the committee and, as Senator Bryden suggested, we must know the issues and do our homework before we travel. That will take some time. We cannot run down there without having done our research and knowing exactly what we are talking about. In that way, we can gain some ground on the issues.
Senator Stratton: We have a communications problem with the folks in the Dakotas and Montana. They think that we have huge advantages, and we know that they have huge advantages. How can we set forth a plan to communicate with the folks in those states and the folks in the provinces in Western Canada? Should we not be pushing for regional meetings with various groups? I do not think it should necessarily be politically driven. We could be a part it. We should at least get the farm groups from either side of the border together so that those issues can be discussed and information can be disseminated. We can tell them our views, what our positions and perceptions are, and they can tell us their positions. At least then we are trying to build a bridge.
I do not think we can accomplish that simply by talking to senators in Washington. You know what it is like. A senator from North Dakota or Montana will shoot at us any opportunity he gets because that is how he gets re-elected. It is like us in the west shooting at Ottawa. It is delightful. I think we have to find some method of bridging the gap.
The Chairman: On that point, I think we have to talk to our farm groups. For instance, I know that the wheat growers have talks with the Americans in Denver, Colorado. It is the only organization I know of that has interaction across the border. We have to research our own farm groups to find out their views on this subject and get some guidance.
Senator Whelan: Everyone thinks Secretary Dan Glickman is from Missouri, but he was educated in Michigan. He used to live with his parents in North Essex on Lake St. Clair. He knows a little bit about Canada.
You were talking about senators from North Dakota and Montana. I spoke in those areas when I was a minister and always received a good reception. When I spoke in Fargo, North Dakota, about six people told me after the meeting that their great-grandfathers has left Ontario in covered wagons. When they got tired of traveling, they stopped in North Dakota.
There is a relationship there that can be worked on and developed, but we must also inform the other senators in Washington. Maybe the senators in Montana and North Dakota are not giving us the facts.
Senator Spivak: There are two different problems here. I think Senator Stratton's suggestion is excellent, but that is a long-term suggestion. We will not change relationships in one or two meetings. It also requires a little strategy in terms of the farm groups.
The purpose of going to Washington is not just to meet with senators. In Washington you get the diverse views of the American political establishment. We get to speak with their research groups. The range of opinion is astonishing.
We had an excellent meeting with a parliamentary research group there. It is hard to duplicate that through reports, et cetera. It is an excellent orientation.
The Chairman: On that point, you get a different perspective from senators or congressmen representing millers who want our product. They are fighting with their counterparts on this issue.
On one issue they were going after the wheat board. Someone raised the subject of the wheat board selling 75 per cent of its grain to Cargill and other American companies. They are benefiting. The answer was that they did not care who received the benefit. They were speaking as a government.
Senator Taylor: Also, I found their opinions quite interesting on what was going on in the European market. As you know, we are great food exporters. Therefore, their opinions on what was going on in world protection and what the trends are quite interesting.
Senator Bryden: It may be that if the groundwork were laid in Washington and proper planning were done, a committee like this, working with a counterpart in the U.S., could act as a catalyst to provide a forum for groups on both sides of the border to discuss certain areas of interest; beef, grain or whatever. That will take some time and maybe it is not possible.
Senator Stratton: I am not suggesting this as a short-term thing to do immediately. However, if they are becoming more and more isolationist, we cannot sit back and just let it happen. Part of our responsibility is to try to set up something like that, even if it takes a while to do it. It may be surprisingly easy. It may not be all that difficult. However, if we do it, we have to do it in two or three locations on either side of the border because it is something that needs to get down to the people who have these misconceptions.
The Chairman: This overlaps into the department of trade. I do not know if there is any organization within the department of trade that deals with that kind of relationship. Maybe someone here knows.
Senator Rossiter: It could make an interesting witness.
Senator Whelan: The Minister for International Trade has set up a parliamentary subcommittee to study certain things and the Member of Parliament chairing that is Bob Speller who is represents a very rich and diversified agricultural production area in Norfolk-Halderman. I just learned that last night. I do not know for sure what they will study. Perhaps it could be a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Senator Rossiter mentioned something very important. We may want to call a witness from the trade department who would fill us in on exactly where we are. We could put to them some of our issues, of which I am sure they are aware, but to what point we do not know.
Is there anything further before we adjourn?
Senator Whelan: Talking about biotechnology, et cetera, I just read in The Ontario Farmer that the H.J. Heinz company from England came to Ontario and Michigan, where they produce white beans. They are big suppliers in Great Britain. They told the growers to not dare cross a gene with the plants they have now because they will not take a bean into England or Europe. Their consumers do not want that.
Mr. Chairman, two Throne Speeches have talked about biotechnology but we do not know what they are really proposing.
Senator Spivak: And RBST. Add biotechnology and RBST to the list.
The committee adjourned.