Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry

Issue 18 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:30 a.m. to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada.

Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: We are pleased this morning to have Jacques Proulx, President of Solidarité rurale, and Marie Anne Rainville, Director of Public Affairs. We look forward to your presentation and then we will have questions from the senators.

Please proceed, Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Proulx, President, Solidarité rurale du Québec: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving us an opportunity to let us share the expertise that we have developed over the past few years on rural matters and to try to answer your questions as well as possible. We know that the committee has many concerns.

Right away, I should like to point out that we have not prepared an orthodox presentation, as you can see, that would have included the submission of a brief. Instead, we opted to improve and to adapt the speech that I have been giving for some time throughout Quebec and various places in Canada. Just last week, I met with organizations in Winnipeg.

I am invited to speak to rural dwellers. In addition, I must point out that our organization is one that is active within the province of Quebec. Occasionally, we have discussions with organizations or people from the other provinces of Canada. However, the organization over which I preside has ongoing relations with the Canadian Rural Secretariat and has also participated very actively in the Canadian Rural Partnership.

Having given these explanations, we could already agree that problems such as the challenges facing rural communities are identical in all the G-8 countries. Neither Canada as a whole nor any of its regions is an exception. The differences between countries exist more in terms of the solutions applied and actions taken. I shall come back to this later in my presentation but, in terms of rural development, industrialized Europe is setting the example.

Before coming to grips with my subject, I should like to take a few moments to introduce the organization of which I am the president, Solidarité rurale du Québec. It was given responsibility for following up on the Estates General on Rural Life held in 1991, in which some 1,200 rural dwellers from all points of the compass took part.

Our organization is a hybrid with a membership of 23 major provincial organizations such as the Episcopal Assembly, major union organizations including the Union des producteurs agricoles, the Mouvement Desjardins, the Fédération de l'âge d'or (Senior Citizens Movement), the centres locaux de développement (local development centres), the Association des régions (Association of regions) or the Fédération des municipalités (Federation of Municipalities). In short, it is a permanent economic round table composed of regional organizations, groups that maintain links with us and even individual members.

Since 1997, our organization has also advised the Government of Quebec on rural development. We are, therefore, simultaneously an advisory group, a lobby, a training centre, an information clearing house, a research centre, a small publishing house producing a publication for city dwellers by the name of Villages, which is published seasonally, namely, four times a year, an Internet radio station, because we prepare a weekly 30-minute program that is broadcast on the Internet and by nine community radio stations that together reach tens of thousands of rural dwellers. We manage all this with a dedicated team of only 10 persons. Our Internet site is well worth a visit because I should inform you that it is updated almost daily.

For some time, I have deliberately given all my speeches the title, "Living Happily in the Country." First, it is a clear way to assert that I am not unhappy to be a rural dweller. Also, it assumes that the happiness of rural dwellers is not unconditional. Finally, in using this title, I am fighting against the gloom which, on some days, is palpable, especially since September 11.

For the time being, however, let us come back to happiness. We so rarely have a chance to talk about it. Moreover, we think that is why things are going so badly in the politics of our democratic states, because people talk about everything and measure everything, except happiness. Over the past few years I often proposed to replace GDP with GDH, Gross Domestic Happiness. In my opinion, this new scale would allow us to make happiness the yardstick for the well-being of people rather than that of major corporations. In essence, the common good, happiness, is what the demonstrators in Quebec City and Seattle and those involved in the world march of women wish to talk about, even though, at times, their actions were somewhat brutal.

At Solidarité rurale du Québec, we go about our work and do not believe whatsoever in the miracles of industrial, manufacturing or agricultural specialization. As a good countryman, I tell myself that there is something perverse about a specialized economy, trade or mind. A city, an economy or a person is much, much more than a single business. And when that is the only thing, then this city, this region or this person is, by definition, a prisoner at least of him or herself. Some of you will recall with nostalgia their course in the classics. People were trained in the humanities. There was no question then of training only specialized workers.

While what I have just said may seem simple or obvious, I would say that it goes to the heart of the problem. In fact, not only in government offices but also in too many local and regional authorities, the rural world is relegated to being a single thing, usually based on a single sector of the economy. In short, we cannot see the forest for the trees. We have to adopt a new perspective, look at things differently, and find new ways of imagining them; that is the step that must be taken by anyone who is interested in developing his or her village or community.

That is also why regional development is not the same thing as rural development. While world development is complex and pluralistic by nature, regional development can be specialized and concentrated around an urban centre.

In actual fact, I am saying that in an era of globalization of trade, the economy, culture and communications, the biggest challenge, especially for the rich countries, is the collective ownership of the land to ensure that it will serve the common good. The land is not merely a production tool, but a collection of land defined by a particular nature and a particular culture.

Once again, at Solidarité rurale du Québec, we believe that it is essential to develop a rural economic model, a new rural economy. We talk about this in the avis, which we submitted to the Quebec minister responsible for the regions in early 1999. There we state:

[...] the rural areas of Quebec are possibly in a better position than many others to cope with the major trends and summersaults of the world economy. Its diversity and fragmentation, two characteristics that are often denounced because they only increase its complexity, are strategic advantages. They make it easier to control and make it less susceptible to sectorial variations in the economy.

In other words:

[...] the rural world has not placed all its eggs in one basket.

It is, therefore, now up to the powers that be and to business to focus on these advantages rather than adopting a simplifying strategy that involves investing primarily in the renewal of the urban economy and making the same things as everybody else. The difference, and the rural world is different, is the very opposite of uniformity.

I should add that as the World Trade Organization is about to embark on new negotiations relating to agriculture, we feel that the economy of lands, the rural economy, poses equally stimulating challenges and possibly challenges that will pay as well as those of the mass and high-volume markets.

The economies of the developed countries will in the next century transform the ecological concerns of recent decades into consumer goods. Authenticity, quality, exclusivity, durability, certification, traceability, the originality of consumer goods will become marketable and essential values. Incidentally, I should point out that I said this long before the mad cow disease crisis that shook up Europeans so badly last fall. On several occasions I have defended this perspective which, in our opinion, has a great deal of future.

As for Quebec, the lands are all resources, but this also holds true throughout Canada and elsewhere in America. Lands are all both tangible and intangible resources that cannot be eradicated. They include agriculture, mines, forests, water, the landscape, know-how, tourism and so on.

So we really need to tell one another that this is a lot in terms of gross domestic product, much more money than the new technologies, those miraculous panaceas that we have been so pressured to buy over the past few decades. Globalization is the antithesis of the land because it involves perpetual industrial nomadic movement. Moreover, in a series of articles published in La Presse two years ago, Mr. Valaskakis states:

The constant threat that companies will move away results in a levelling downwards.

To use the words of the poet:

Those who do not cultivate the land steal the harvest and wage war.

In short, I agree with John Saul, the philosopher, when he says:

I love the market. However I am not so stupid as to mistake its mechanisms, which may well be necessary and important, but which are also narrow, for a sufficient, solid and conscious force capable of leading society.

In short, as Peter Brown of McGill University has written:

The current system ... aims to stimulate economic growth by freeing trade and reducing the role of government.

Given all this, and, I would say, armed with this understanding, for the rural world, from both a cultural and an economic point of view, this paradigm of the land - in the absence for the time being of a better expression - has unblocked the flow, which was stopped for too many years, by introducing a multiplicity of meanings and of nature, unique to those thinly inhabited spaces where time passes differently and where there is still a peasant culture that is now more mythical than real. Furthermore, and I believe that this is important for Canada, because we are not Europeans but Americans, this model of the land has the advantage of not reducing the rural world to the simple function of being a place of beauty for city dwellers.

Furthermore, land is based on what is real about the country and it does business over the Internet. As Ségéla has said: "I am of the planet and of my village." This slogan is a pathway to the land. I should even go so far as to say that the land is an antidote to the extraction of natural resources pure and simple. The rural world must stop being the Arabia of the multinational processing plants.

In this regard, Mr. Daniel Paillé, a former government minister and the father of the Paillé plans, now Vice-President of the Société générale de financement du Québec, said at our ninth provincial conference that the race would be won not by the biggest but by the fastest. In addition, Mr. Mario Pezzini of the OECD said that the countries of the West are condemned to innovate and to innovation because it is necessary to be fast and to see the world differently.

It is, therefore, necessary to see villages differently and I believe that this new view is more accessible to city dwellers because their vision is not clouded by an old way of seeing things.

This explains the fact that in a village near mine, in the Eastern Townships, a labourer saw a drum in a tree stump. Since that time he has been making drums in his workshop. Not only has he contributed to the development of the village, but he also makes a living from what he does and he also provides a living for a number of craftsmen and has earned a worldwide reputation for himself. I can tell you that he ships a lot of drums and that all of the great artists in the world deal with him. He has developed an industry that is quite remarkable. However, let speak clearly about one thing: I am not saying that the rural world should be based on crafts, but I am saying that crafts should be given the same opportunities as any other sector of the economy.

I cannot conclude without saying how much I believe the government is taking the wrong approach by placing the Rural Secretariat under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture. This situation only goes to show that our government misunderstands rural reality. Parliament is also taking the wrong road by entrusting the budget for rural development to the regional agencies. The obvious result of those two poor decisions is that the Secretary of State for Rural Affairs does not have any real power or portfolio. This exasperates rural dwellers from the east to the west. And Dialogue Canada alone will not change anything! In essence, the Canadian government took a wrong turn when it confused the rural world with the agricultural world.

Like other member countries of the G8, Canada should accept that the rural world in Canada is not very agricultural, that the rural world is changing and that it should be the government's task to support this change. Rural communities must be supported with the same energy as was devoted over the last decade to supporting change in cities like Toronto and Montreal. Something must be done that is very difficult for bureaucracies: acknowledging that the infinitely small exists.

However, governments are not likely to work for villages or micro-businesses, and, no matter how long it has existed, the rural perspective has not changed anything in this regard. However, defining villages adapted to the 21st century seems to me to be a challenge worthy of the best political aspirations.

Thank you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer your questions and have an exchange with you which, I am convinced, will be most rewarding.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proulx. That is a very encouraging presentation, which is something that we do not often hear at the Agriculture Committee.

What percentage of Quebecers live in rural Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms Marie Anne Rainville, Director, Public Affairs, Solidarité rurale du Québec: I can provide you with the statistics for Quebec, but they are the same as the ones for Canada and for all of western Europe. According to current estimates, at least 2 per cent of the populations in G7 countries earn their livelihoods from agriculture on a full-time basis.

As far as the rural population is concerned, it is difficult to define the Canadian statistics because Statistics Canada includes in its definition of "rural world" towns with populations of up to 50,000 inhabitants. Everything is put in the same basket and the statistics used are often related to what we refer to as census agglomerations. There is no clear, accurate and obvious definition of what a village is in Canada. Consequently, it is anything that Toronto is not.

[English]

The Chairman: I realize that your mandate is far greater than just agriculture in rural Quebec. However, you may be able to answer this question. What percentage of your agricultural people are involved in the protection of the marketing boards?

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: I do not remember this information anymore. I am sure that many senators here know that Mr. Proulx is the former President of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and that he was Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I worked alongside him as well. When both Mr. Proulx and I were at the UPA, I could recall the exact number of producers who relied on supply management. Today, in Quebec, I would say, that basically, it is still the same four production sectors. In terms of the amount of money, it is about 50 per cent of Quebec agriculture, between 50 and 60 per cent of the level of agricultural business activity and probably about half of Quebec's producers. Currently in Quebec, we have between 20 and 22,000 full-time producers and, of this number, nearly 10,000 are involved in supply management. You would get more reliable statistics if you were to ask the Union des producteurs agricoles this question rather than Solidarité rurale.

Mr. Proulx: In today's rural world, one out of ten individuals - and this figure is generous - in Quebec - and this holds true in the rest of Canada - works in agriculture or lives off of agriculture. This is a very different situation from the one that existed 30 or 40 years ago. Consequently, nine out of ten people living in the rural world do something else. One other statistic: seven out of ten people do not work in the rural area, in the village where they reside. All of these figures paint a very different picture from the one that used to exist.

Ms Rainville: In short, agriculture is no longer and will never be again the supporting economy. The exploitation of natural resources, which includes agriculture, forestry, and, in other regions of Canada, the fisheries could be included, no longer provides a livelihood to rural dwellers as it once did. Basically, rural dwellers rely on the service economy, just like the cities.

Mr. Proulx: Agriculture and the forest are still the engines of economic development in rural areas. In terms of productivity and monetary value, these sectors continue to grow; however, fewer and fewer people are involved in these sectors and processing is being done in the urban areas, explaining why only one out of ten people are involved in agriculture. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the importance of agriculture and the forest in the rural area. This is the engine of future prosperity.

[English]

The Chairman: Our committee was in the U.S. They have and are bringing in programs to try to maintain agricultural farmland. If you go into an area such as Georgia, there are miles and miles of plot farms where urban dwellers come out and live in the country, they have 15 acres or so and a couple of horses, however, the farmland of the U.S. is being eroded by urban sprawl. Is that happening in Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: This is not specific to Quebec, this occurs everywhere in Canada. Today, we no longer have to put all of our land into production in order to obtain the same crop yield. This is a big reason why you can be a landowner without exploiting the land. We don't need what the land could yield.

Secondly - and this is also very important - we are currently witnessing city dwellers yearning for the rural life, and this was prior to the events of September 11. At present this trend has been much better documented in Europe than here, but we have seen this occur over the past 10 or so years, and this is also true in the United States. Urban dwellers are going back to the earth and this is attributed more to the negative aspects of city living than the well-being that comes from living in a rural environment. In fact, our studies show that the infatuation for the rural life in Quebec can be attributed first of all to one thing: those who are most desirous of moving are young families, people in their thirties who have young children and who are looking for communities with a human dimension, where there is a very vibrant community life. People want to get away from the fears that they have in the city, from the noise, the pollution, the violence and, I should add, the multitude of ethnic groups.

Mr. Proulx: To fully answer your question, because you talked about protecting agricultural land, it is true that urban sprawl is occurring right now. At the same time, we need to be cautious. Urban sprawl is not widespread everywhere. Yes, in some areas, there has been a great deal of urban sprawl. In Quebec, we have the Loi sur la protection de territoires agricoles (Act to protect agricultural land). It is, therefore, extremely difficult to do anything but cultivate the land and that is a good thing. At the same time, we have to be able to develop and to produce. We will not create prosperity by protecting land that does not produce.

In our opinion, the phenomenon occurring in Georgia or elsewhere does in fact exist. It is real. But we need to push this logic further and ascertain why there is a preference not to cultivate, why land is not being protected adequately. We are experiencing more or less the same situation in Quebec despite our act to protect agricultural land. Unfortunately, and for a long time now, this urban sprawl has occurred on the best lands, despite this act to protect agricultural land. Montérégie, the St. Lawrence plain, is constantly being rezoned and becoming built up. You merely have to take a look at sprawl in the suburbs. They did not do that in my native region, in the Eastern Townships, around my village.

Housing is being built where the services are the least costly. Yes, I do think that we need to protect agricultural land properly, that is fundamental, but at the same time we have to do something with this land. Agricultural land cannot be protected the way we protect things in a museum. That would be pointless and we would be further ahead to develop other activities.

In this respect, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in our interpretation of how we protect things. Today we must not think that we will really be able to provide protection merely by passing a law.

[English]

Senator Stratton: Thank you for appearing at our committee this morning. Your presentation was most interesting.

Ducks Unlimited of Canada were here a while back. They expressed the concern that the advances in farming over the last 50 years, coupled with declining profit margins for agricultural crops, have resulted in activities that have negatively impacted water, soil, fish and wildlife resources in the agricultural landscape.

Tillage of marginal or highly erodible soils, wetland drainage, overgrazing on native pasture and riparian areas, removal of vegetative buffer zones along waterways and field margins, and over-reliance on fertilizer and pesticide use are the key practices that contribute to the degradation of the ecological integrity of the agricultural landscape.

How should the need for farmers to earn income be weighed against the impact of their activities on the agricultural landscape? We are all becoming more and more concerned about the fact that, out of necessity, we are negatively impacting the future of some of our agricultural land. It is becoming a concern. It is a very serious concern in Europe. When we were there a couple of years ago it was a serious concern, particularly because the use of fertilizers on their fields is horrific.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: Obviously, the situation is quite worrisome for the future in many respects. First of all, there is the environmental aspect in both the broad and narrow sense of the word, and there is also this habit we currently have of wasting the resources available to us.

Since the industrialisation that took place in the early 60s, we have developed only one model, we have privileged but one way of doing things. Now we talk about the urbanization of the planet with the idea that we need to produce with a decreasing demand and a market that must be the best that it can be.

With our narrow ways of doing things, it was not easy to look ahead and find ways of measuring on a daily basis where these ways were taking us. In fact, anyone who is the least concerned about the future is well aware that the situation is far from rosy.

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of work is being done to try to refine an urban development model that is not at all suited to our rural spaces. High-level politicians and bureaucrats have no understanding of the issues and never give themselves a chance to see things in any other way. Until they look at things differently, the problems will remain.

That said, I am certainly not putting down the urban economy, since no one can deny that technology has made our lives easier. There are many more opportunities today than there were 50 years ago, except that we need to stop believing that super-specialization is the only way of doing things. That is where the problem lies.

Legislators should start by recognizing that the rural milieu is completely different from the urban milieu. We feel that that is the first step that must be taken. Once that is understood, changes need to be made to the governance approach and the way things are done.

Rules designed for an urban model cannot be applied to a village of 500 inhabitants, since my village does not meet any of the criteria. Similarly, any place with 500, 100 or even 5,000 inhabitants in the areas you represent no longer meets the standards in education, health or transportation. They are no longer covered by the policies and are therefore excluded.

The rural milieu is different, and the government must recognize this. That is fundamental. If the difference is not recognized, the government can continue to develop a multitude of policies and to invest millions and even billions of dollars in the rural sector. Nothing will change. In the short term, it might create a few jobs, but there will be no lasting effects.

You could come up with as many examples as I can. Some of the regions that are having the most difficulty right now have received billions of dollars in investment. In Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and even in the Maritimes, there are extraordinary examples of investment but no long-term benefits.

It is always a matter of starting from scratch, and taxpayers always end up paying the bill because the fundamental nature of this space that we call rural has not been taken into account, a space which is sparsely populated and resource-rich, and which often ensures the prosperity of our small regional centres.

Ms Rainville: I would also like to respond to this crucial question. You know as well as I do that Canada is the largest country in the world, with the most freshwater and a unique wildlife reserve. We could ask UNESCO to recognize Canada as a space to be protected as a reserve for humanity. Canada has received a lot, and it should also give a lot.

There are all sorts of ideas. To begin with, the greatest source of agricultural pollution comes from the transportation of food. Eating kiwis grown in New Zealand may be a wonderful thing, but growing those kiwis probably required pesticides and fungicides and then they had to be shipped by air. Shipping food internationally is currently one of the largest sources of agricultural pollution, and nobody talks about it.

Moreover, our European friends and competitors are collectively benefiting from a common agricultural policy. That policy accounts for 50 per cent of Europe's budget and enables Europe to provide broad price support. Canada is not following this situation closely enough. For nearly six months now, following the outbreak of mad cow disease and other disasters in Europe, there has been a strong movement to transfer half of the common agricultural policy budget to develop new economies in rural areas. We need new income support measures and development initiatives for rural areas. At present, the Europeans are gambling that if they invest now, rural communities will have developed new and viable economic sectors in 25 years from now. Moreover, regions are calling for decertification support from national governments, and these are green box measures from an international trade standpoint. They are playing both sides of the fence. The Europeans call that agricultural multifunctionality, and it is highly encouraged.

In the spring, we met with the President of the European Rural Commission, who is from Germany, and he told us in private that he was close to a victory. Germany is in the forefront in that area because environmental impacts from agriculture are so significant.

Secondly, since western governments have taken an interest in agriculture, since the mid-19th century, the focus has always been on production. Our approach to agriculture is based entirely on a production paradigm. In our opinion, it would be more reasonable, as we begin the 21st century, to look at agricultural issues from a consumer or food standpoint. The leader and most important player in agriculture is not the farmer but the consumer, for two main reasons: the environmental impacts of agriculture, and in the West, the fact that consumers as taxpayers are responsible for 50 per cent of the cost involved in agricultural production, either through direct agricultural subsidies, environmental production measures or other ways. This is what the Europeans are dealing with right now: consumers are saying that if they are going to pay, they will decide and if they are the ones deciding, they will decide that the products need to be produced without the use of pesticides or fungicides and without environmental impacts. Consumers are not neutral players in the process of getting food from the field to the table.

Finally, there will be no environmental protection in rural communities, either in Canada or in Europe, without villages. The best illustration that I can give you is the wonderful story by Giono entitled The Man who Planted Trees.

[English]

Senator Stratton: We are all aware of the phrase "contract farming." How significant is that in your province? Is contract farming having a negative impact on rural life, the total infrastructure, including villages, towns and the people living there, as it becomes larger?

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: It is very negative, because there is an advantage right now. Little production is being done under contract or in an integrated way. Pork production is growing across Canada, which is a negative thing for villages. This is one of the best examples, for two reasons.

Farmers, people who work on the land, want to be independent. When they become farmers, there is a lot that goes with that. It is a different way of life. We oppose what happens with integration, because we lose our authority over future management decisions.

The other part is just as negative. It becomes an industry in the strictest sense of the word, a "meat shop" where meat is produced which does not create jobs and brings to the community the negative effects of pollution and employees who come from elsewhere to earn the minimum wage. Not only does it not benefit the village, it actually creates additional problems.

[English]

The Chairman: You made a good point. In Saskatchewan, we have 40 per cent of the arable land in Canada, yet we are losing our population. Perhaps Senator Wiebe could help me with the number of people who left Saskatchewan last year. It is a good number because it has become a political issue in Saskatchewan.

Senator Wiebe: I do not have the exact number.

The Chairman: It is an interesting scenario here and you relate to that. From rural Canada comes the oil, the gas, the lumber, the grain, the water, the food, and the list goes on. However, rural Canada gets a small percentage of the income. It was Tommy Douglas who, 20 years ago, said that Saskatchewan would have a great future because it had 40 per cent of the arable land; it had fertilizer, oil and gas, all of these things. If we could go back to where we were 20 years ago in Saskatchewan, we would be in great shape. The opposite has happened.

I will leave it at that, but there must be a whole new look at what is happening in agriculture in rural Canada, in rural life, and what is happening with our resource bases in Canada. We have a great resource base.

When we were in the United States on a committee, they were talking about softwood lumber and placing embargos on softwood lumber. I made a foolish statement and asked what would happen to them if we cut their gas off. Suddenly, they started to think. That is about where we are in Canada. We have not really valued our resources to the point where we are using them to the advantage of Canadians.

Senator Hubley: I should like to ask you a question on organic farming because you did allude to a growing number of consumers who are willing to pay more closely to the price of the production to get a cleaner, purer and safer product.

Do you see an increase in organic farming in Quebec? Also, do you have farmers who grow a crop to fill a niche market so they are specializing particularly in one crop?

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: I would ask Ms Rainville to answer you, since it is her issue and she treats it like a baby. I can only say that there is a lot of work going on in this area.

Ms Rainville: I hold this issue very dear because of my love for good food rather than my knowledge. I am not an agronomist, I am a communications specialist. In Solidarité rurale, we work a lot with niche products and we have taken a particular interest in specialized local products, which the Europeans call "produits du terroir." The most famous of these are the various European wines. These are products with a history and an attachment to specific regions. In Quebec and Canada, we have such products, for example, sturgeon caviar and whitefish caviar from the Témiscamingue region. There are products being developed right now in Canada that are based on this tradition of local products, for example ice wine in Ontario. I strongly believe that western Canadian beef is also a niche product that has never been marketed as such, but anyone who has eaten beef from western Canada prefers it to any other. I have a little story about that. Along with Mr. Proulx, I went to visit some French farmers, who took us to eat beef with a special local designation - I will not give you the name because you will never remember it - and we had a hard time getting through the meal. It was nothing like the beef that we eat here in Canada. We had a good laugh about it because we left there saying that the best thing on the plate was the mushrooms with the sauce.

So these are important markets which are very much under-exploited in Canada. As you know, agricultural prosperity is a marketing strategy that is poorly used in Canada. Agricultural development strategies that have been successful for both industry and production were based on uniform products. That is what gave us high-volume sales. Everyone knows that standardization of products and the production process have helped Canadian farmers rise above a subsistence living, whereas specialized local products are based on the specific know-how of a family or a few families. So these two approaches are diametrically opposed.

The OECD's work on these issues is more and more interesting. It is very clear that large, rich countries like ours are having to move into niche marketing because our international competitors, such as Argentina, Chile and India can produce agricultural products more cheaply. Where fruit production is concerned, countries in the south have such low production costs because they have large numbers of people that can work for low wages. We are no longer competitive.

There is good potential for our local specialized products. Organic farm products do not travel nearly as well, so these new products can bolster economic development. All of this is extremely interesting for rural development, but it should be said that this is agriculture for people with money. It costs more to produce these products and they depend on markets where consumers are able to pay. There is a fundamental element which people here know very well. There is a whole segment of the Canadian population that will never be able to afford organic farm products, fine cheeses or ice wine. It does not resolve the problem of access to food.

[English]

Senator Hubley: I will now question you on the niche market and the proposition that organic farming is for the rich. There is a change in peoples' perspective. There has been a successful educational program about the money it costs to produce food. The farming community must have gained from their efforts. That awareness is reaching some of the younger people as well. Food safety is a big item and there is an opportunity now that people will have an idea about the cost of production that they will be more willing to pay to get a quality product.

Although you say it is for the rich, there is an awareness that is out there. Even if they choose not to buy organic food, there is awareness that this type of food has been produced in a different way. I think peoples' concerns about their families and the health of their families will promote that.

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: I agree with what you have said. You have used the key word: education. Your comments imply a need for education on two aspects of the issue. First of all, if we do not want agricultural production to create pollution, it will have to cost consumers more. And secondly, when people change their eating habits, it generally does not cost them more on a weekly basis because they substitute something else for the meat, for example. I am not saying that it is impossible to do this - Canada is not a poor country, after all - but there is a segment of the Canadian population that have serious food problems and that visit food banks. There are many people on welfare in Canada. As you all know, poverty is not just a question of not having money in your wallet but also a question of education.

[English]

Senator Oliver: I was particularly interested in all of the things you said about rural life and the quotation from the African proverb that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Ms Rainville referred to the living village. I live on a farm and I love the beauty of rural Canada.

However, I spoke with a farmer over the weekend talking about the environmental concerns of farmers. One of his major concerns is a situation where there is a farm that is breeding, for example, 5,000 sows in a small rural area and all of the other farms in the area are doing virtually nothing. All farms should be in production in the area so that the entire community is farming and there is not only one large group producing a large amount of manure and waste, and causing environmental concerns for the water.

What is your view about whether we should move from the large farms to the smaller farms where everyone is doing their part and where nature seems to be in a greater balance or equilibrium?

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: While I may be better at answering questions on local products and niche marketing, Mr. Proulx can answer questions on agricultural production better than I can.

Mr. Proulx: I agree completely with the arguments made by your colleague. This issue came up earlier. We should give equal value to production from a family farm or from a superspecialized farm that is continually expanding. We need to take into account the cost inherent to super-production. If the day ever comes when we have to pay the real cost of production for one sow or 5,000 sows - not only the feed costs, but also other production-related costs such as pollution costs - things will change.

It would not do any good to make rules against large farms because this is a democratic country where everyone can decide. It is not the way I choose to live. My choice is to have an undertaking that I can manage, control and work on. Other people may want something different. I am not challenging their choice. All I am challenging is that they are not being made to pay the inherent costs of their decisions. More than that, there is an increasing tendency across Canada to belittle the choice made by me, perhaps by you or your neighbour to continue to run a farm that is moving ahead, that is using high-technology and modernizing, but that we want to keep under our own control. Everywhere in the world, but we are talking here about Canada, we need to be very assertive about this because ours is a high-risk industry. It is already an extraordinary thing to be farming in Canada. We live in the north. The northern part of the north. We have managed to develop a competitive and diversified farm industry. That is our success. We did it with men and women who had full control over their farms. Today we are letting our farms be taken over by transnationals, which are not interested in crops, but in selling other products, substitutes and so on. It is unacceptable. Moreover, it does nothing to create dynamic communities.

It has to be understood that you cannot farm in a desert. There will be no agriculture where there are no people, however modern your operation is. We need to keep that in mind, particularly in Canada.

I said earlier that we were Americans, not residents of the United States. We are Canadians. We are not Europeans, but we are North Americans. We have developed a culture where we severely neglect the cultural side of things, in the broad sense of the term. We have developed knowledge, and we need to promote local development. Integration and perpetual growth leave local development behind at a certain point. For rural areas to thrive, development needs to be strongly anchored in local realities. We need to make maximum use of the resources that we have. Quebec is fighting very hard and is starting to see success on some fronts. Communities need to get a return on their resources, which must not be simply extracted and taken elsewhere. Even in today's farming industry, milk is transported hundreds of kilometres for processing. We need to readjust the balance with respect to productivity, efficiency and the ability to compete. We are living with globalization, but we need to take into account all the costs; that is not being done at present. So I would say that your colleague is a wise man.

Ms Rainville: He is much wiser than the government agricultural policies. It is very clear that right now, the government, in particular our political party, is pushing the development of this type of industrialized agriculture.

I am less familiar with the details of Canadian policies, but the Quebec government's agriculture budget is nearly 50 per cent of the transfer money. That is the case in all provinces, not just Quebec. We need to keep in mind that these are old departments. Agriculture is a shared responsibility and is one of the oldest departments at both levels of government. In the early days, most people were involved in farming. Current agricultural policies, both provincial and federal, are calculated to promote the development of large farming operations. This is done through farm credit programs, through advice from agronomists, et cetera. The whole model is based on the concept of economies of scale. But collateral environmental impacts and other repercussions are never included. They are never calculated into the model.

[English]

Senator Oliver: Ms Rainville, you said one thing that I did not agree with, however, it may be because I did not understand. When you were talking about the agricultural chain, you indicated that the key person in this chain is no longer the farmer or the producer, rather it is the consumer. I do not agree because part of our crisis in agriculture today is that the consumers do not realize what farmers contribute to what the consumer is consuming. As long as that continues we will have a deteriorating agriculture sector. I do not agree that the consumer is more important. We must get the emphasis back to the producer and get more money at the farm gate.

Perhaps you could explain further.

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: I was not clear in what I said. I agree with everything that you have just said. I meant to say that producers are no longer the only king pins where governments are concerned. Consumers are increasingly concerned about what they are eating and they want to have a say.

What I was saying was more that the government will soon no longer be able manage the agricultural sector by discussing issues only with producers and processors. The government will have to take into account a new player, that is, the taxpayer.

[English]

Senator Tunney: I will follow on from where Senator Oliver left off. This is in the nature of what we call mega-farms, which are primarily large hog operations, however, can also be very large poultry operations. Those two operations do not grow and produce their own feed. They buy their grain ration. They would rather not have a large acreage. They are depending on neighbouring farms and neighbouring areas to take their manure. They hope the manure can be sold, however, with the current economy for grains and the surplus of grain, it is not always possible.

My family has always farmed and when I was very young we would haul the manure out everyday, with a team of horses in a sleigh, and pile it up for spreading it in the spring of the year. The pile of manure remained there for several years and nothing would grow on the ground where it was. Eventually weeds and legumes would grow, but not grass.

We know of the manure pollution that has occurred in Holland, where they have limited acreage and a large number of livestock. The same is true in some parts of England. I think, Mr. Proulx, you said that you could not prevent this kind of thing in a democracy. The environment can only tolerate so much. A petroleum company that pollutes, even in an accidental spill, can be brought to court, convicted and fined.

I should like your opinion on whether you see the same thing happening in agriculture given the trend to large and concentrated enterprises of livestock and poultry?

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: I feel that it is urgent that we do the same thing. Whether we are talking about becoming an industrial operation in the area of agriculture or oil, the treatment should be the same. We need to be fair.

When I said earlier that we could not prevent people from having large farms, I did not say that we should avoid taking into account the real costs of that. I would not be upset if limits were put on how big farms could be, but I know that that will not happen.

It is therefore more realistic for me to follow the principle that you accept the consequences and costs of your decisions. I think that this cost, at the subsidy level, can be reduced. If this aid were granted according to some kind of structure, no one could complain about injustice.

Farms that expand always do so because they believe in economies of scale, that they can save more by producing more. So why give them the same subsidies as I receive, if they argue that I am not supposed to get them? This does not stand to reason.

If there are economies of scale, I don't have to ask taxpayers and consumers to pay in order to increase my profit. This is the point where intervention will be very strong and efficient as soon as the interventions are geared to a threshold of social choice.

Let me conclude by saying that in Quebec, some stabilization policies grant from five to seven million dollars a year to some producers. More than 80 per cent of pork production is done and controlled by three families. Why should they give 80 per cent of the subsidies to three families? This is where the State must step in.

[English]

The Chairman: I have heard that in Arkansas, there is one chicken producer who produces more chicken than is produced in all of Canada. Will this impact Canada? I believe it will. I believe it could bring the end of the marketing board concept in Canada. I should like to hear your thoughts on that because I know that you have had a great deal of experience in this area.

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: In terms of volume, there is no way we could compete with those farms. It is the same with egg production. In the United States, one farm near the border breaks as many eggs as are produced in Quebec. These are the eggs broken during packaging. We cannot compete against that.

The only way we can compete is with quality niche products. What we have in Canada and what they do not have in the United States, is salmonella-free chicken. The cost of production is different for this kind of chicken.

Mr. Proulx: When we talk to you about niche products, regional products and organic products, we are not speaking out against certain forms of mass production where expertise has been developed. You just mentioned Saskatchewan. Other avenues will have to be developed and I think that increasing Canada's agricultural potential will not come from a mass production market, but rather a niche market, a more specific market.

Let the United States spoil their land and so on, that is their choice, but let us stop trying to compete with them. Let us stop trying to compete with Europeans. Europeans and Americans are constantly confronting one another to see who will be more powerful and who will feed the planet. Let us quietly manoeuvre our way through this with more specific, more profitable products that will be exported more and more.

We will not export low-grade products, we will export quality products. Let us stop trying to imitate others, we cannot compete with them. It is impossible.

Ms Rainville: I would like to add something that shocks Canadians when talking about agricultural diversification. Let me repeat that Canada has the largest reserve of freshwater in the world, and yet we obstinately persist in producing grains and animal products whereas lettuce can be grown hydroponically.

It can be produced in greenhouses at a very low cost, especially in Quebec because we have plenty of hydroelectric power. We should probably orient our agricultural production to market garden products that will be in great demand in the near future.

Everyone knows that there is already a water shortage in the United States and that the situation in California is untenable. To produce that type of product, the official government view of agriculture will have to be changed entirely. This is extremely complicated because we have to adopt another world view, as Mr. Proulx was just saying.

[English]

Senator Chalifoux: I come from rural Canada, in north central Alberta. There has been niche marketing in that area for several years. One of the largest market gardens in Western Canada is in St. Albert. That is our largest community. There are many bedroom communities around. The market garden has become so popular that we have it indoors in the wintertime. I have seen that the organic gardening continues to become more popular. I will not buy eggs from the store any more; I wait until Saturday for the market garden because the difference is unbelievable.

U-pick gardens, where one can go out and pick berries and vegetables, are also operating in the area. They are becoming popular because families are going out for the day. It is a learning experience and the gardens are making a large amount of money on that. We also have plots of land that are being rented out to families so they can grow their own gardens.

Are they doing anything similar in rural Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: This kind of activity is going on in several regions of Quebec and currently there is a resurgence of public markets. There is a pick-your-own system for small fruits and apples. For at least 25 years, this kind of system has also been used for certain vegetables. Picking fruits and vegetables has almost become a family tradition.

Very gradually, we are convincing the Ministry of Agriculture to implement active and proactive policies to encourage the production of niche products, regional products and biological products.

Recently, Solidarité rurale attended a meeting with decision-makers in the agri-food industry and we can see we made giant strides. Currently, the Financière agricole is an organization that lends money to those who want to produce or process this kind of product. Twenty-four million dollars a year are handed out as agricultural loans.

A team is currently drafting the first labelling system in Quebec with well-defined terms. For instance, words like "farm products" or "organic products," as well as "regional products." Thus we are setting up a labelling system based on the current one in the European community.

[English]

Senator Chalifoux: I have a question regarding herbs, flowers and soaps and all the essences that come out of that. That is very much a niche market in rural Canada. What is happening in your area? Are you getting any funding to assist the growers and the producers of these items in Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms Rainville: I do not know what kind of help is available, because we are no longer dealing with agriculture, but I can tell you that the field of horticulture as a whole grew 700-fold during the past 15 years.

Mr. Proulx: I entirely agree with you, but with some reservations. Rural economy should not be entirely dependent on that. This potential should be developed as a supplement because rural economy should not be an economy for the poor. Things should not come to that point. We cannot win by accepting an economy of poverty. I can see the economy on a global scale.

I understand very well that that is not what you meant, but we should stop compartmentalizing the economy. In Quebec, social economy was compartmentalized a great deal, but social economy exists within economy in general. These economies should not be split apart, we would be moving backwards if we adopted legislation to compartmentalize the economy.

The big problem with rural space in agricultural production is that it has been reduced to primary production, generally speaking, and this is a processing issue, whether we refer to a first or second level of processing. Based on this, we can generate niche products and specialty products as you mentioned.

[English]

Senator Wiebe: You mentioned in your remarks that legislators should get more involved with the rural situation. One of the biggest impacts on rural life in Canada was the invention of the tractor, because the dependency on the land was then shifted to the dependency on being able to get parts and the fuel for the machine. That has had a tremendous impact. Farmers can now farm more land and farms have grown bigger and bigger.

I had a meeting this summer in Prince Edward Island with some organic farmers. They were excited about the fact that the consumer, especially in Europe, was taking a serious look at the quality of the food that they were eating. They were quite excited as this may help the small organic grower in that particular province. That day, we had an opportunity to visit a chip manufacturing plant that was owned by producers and we also visited one that was owned by a large company. The concern that was raised, as far as organic farming is concerned, is that it only takes three years for a farmer to go from normal farming to organic farming. If the trend in Europe continues worldwide, then organic products will be very popular and there will be a great demand for them. In three years a large private company could immediately change into organic farming.

The squeeze on the little guy would be happening even in a new venture like organic farming. The Province of Prince Edward Island implemented legislation limiting the size of farms to 300 acres per person or per corporation. Unfortunately, an individual farmer has set-up a corporation that acquired 300 acres and then, the same farmer, set-up another corporation and bought another 300 acres. One individual farmer now handles about five corporations. It is extremely difficult for legislators to find legislation that will secure the rural way of life that we have come to enjoy.

Do you have any suggestions on how to preserve that rural way of life?

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: As you know, laws are made to be broken, so there is no silver bullet. When laws are adopted, I, like the rest of us, will do my best to see how I can get around them. I am sure that the senators are also like that. I think that it is useless to enact law after law to reduce the size of operations. We should do this through subsidies and through direct and indirect assistance.

For instance, once a pig farm is stabilized, I think that it could be stabilized as a model farm, but beyond that, you can buy back 300 acres as many times as you want, there will be decreasing returns. Each successive 300 acres will receive less.

When a unit is evaluated at X, compensations are applied to X, but as soon as it goes beyond X, interventions decrease to 50 per cent, 25 per cent, and 0 per cent. And since these people's main argument is that there are economies of scale, they have to compete with Americans, Europeans and others.

For example, if you have economies of scale, I do not see why, as a society, I should give you anything more for that. You achieve economies of scale, so you make more money with your products. Congratulations! And we will treat you fairly, like everybody else.

That is the only way, because for any other piece of legislation that might be adopted, people will try and get around it. That happens in Quebec, it happens elsewhere. They buy something under the name of A, B or C, but in the end it is the same thing. When I said earlier that over 80 per cent of pork production in Quebec is controlled by three families, there is nothing we can do about that, because we do not live in a dictatorship. And even if we did, we could not prevent that.

Senator Day: I would like to thank Ms Rainville and Mr. Proulx. I am from New Brunswick, and I fully understand where you are coming from.

I would also like to hear your ideas on social services, like transportation, education and health. Do you think that people who decide to adopt the rural lifestyle and live in the country feel that they are entitled to the same level of social services? Should society in general be required to maintain the same level of service in urban and rural areas even if it costs more?

Mr. Proulx: I will answer your question on the obligation to provide services. The obligation is not with respect to service delivery, which may be different, but accessibility. It must be stated very clearly that all citizens, regardless of where they are, are entitled to fair treatment. I want to repeat that, perhaps a bit differently, with models that are slightly different. We must never forget the importance of occupying territory. A self-respecting country equips itself with the means and tools it needs to ensure its territory is occupied. Everything cannot be concentrated in one area. We cannot just occupy areas like Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg and so on. We are 30 million people living in a vast area, and there are concentrated areas, so we must think that there are open spaces. When we do not occupy our territory, history has taught us that we lose it. There are examples of this throughout the world. Moreover, at present, we are witnessing wars that have gone on for years, a multitude of conflicts caused by issues revolving around territory. It is not because we have not yet experienced that that it will not occur. We must invest in occupying the territory and that does not just mean having a presence there. The occupation must be dynamic. It is a question of government, citizenship and democracy. It is fundamental. It must be applied differently. There must be a twofold approach to occupying a territory in a dynamic way: one urban and the other rural.

Ms Rainville: When Mr. Proulx says it is a matter of citizenship and democracy, that point of view is strongly held by Solidarité rurale. We say that services must be accessible, but that they may be different. If we look for example at areas under provincial legislation, like education or health, we are fully aware that no rural community in Quebec is asking for a trauma centre in Val d'Espoir, at the end of the Gaspé Peninsula. People want sufficient health care services to feel secure, and they want accessibility, especially in the event of an emergency, so that they can be taken to the resources. The same is true in education.

Mr. Proulx often makes a comment that I find very revealing. He says that back when we were much poorer in Canada, all villages had schools and nurses, and women gave birth with the assistance of nurses and/or midwives. Today, in Canada, many women have to go to the hospital prior to their delivery, because they do not have access to minimum service levels. Obviously, all women give birth in the hospital if they want to. But are we really any farther ahead?

[English]

The Chairman: Senator Day, I should like to add something in response to your question.

I do not agree that urban living is better than rural living. If my grandchildren want to play hockey, they can play hockey. That may not be the case in Montreal or Toronto. It may be too expensive. Perhaps some poor kid cannot play hockey in the bigger centres. They can in rural Canada. I do not have to stand in line to get my groceries. I go up to the shop, buy my groceries and go home. I do not have to pay a parking meter. I have not paid one yet in rural Canada. This is the reason urban dwellers are moving to rural Canada.

The big problem for rural Canada is the fact that for the input costs of producing food, we are not getting the fair share for the primary producer. I just read a statistic - and statistics, as Senator Wiebe pointed out the other day, can say almost anything - that the processors are getting as much as 14 per cent return on their investment, whereas farmers are getting very little. It is down to 1 per cent or 2 per cent. The amount that goes to the farmer to maintain a cheap food policy in Canada is very low. Something should be done about that, as our witness has pointed out.

[Translation]

Senator Biron: I found your presentation very interesting. You are from Baieville, are you not?

Mr. Proulx: There are a lot of Proulx in Baieville, but I am from Saint-Camille, in the Eastern Townships.

Senator Biron: There is a telephone company in Baieville with 500 phone lines. Urban service is provided in a rural area, and has been since the 1980s. This is something Bell Canada does not do in other rural areas.

The Quebec Ministry of the Regions is responsible for economic and industrial development, but does it also look after rural and agricultural development or does it leave that up to the Department of Agriculture? Is there any co-operation between the two departments?

Mr. Proulx: I am not in on the secret of the powers that be, but I think that there is limited co-operation, at best. The Quebec Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the entire agricultural sector, and it guards its territory jealously. It would very much like to administer rural affairs, but it runs up against systematic opposition to that because for us, it would be a catastrophe. It is to some extent responsible for rural issues, but I would say that we have been fighting for years for a true rural policy that would be managed and administered by the Ministry of the Regions. We are expecting the first rural policy within the next few weeks. Moreover, in the budget that will be brought down today, we expect there will be some money for that. Agriculture is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, and it is not easy to get at that.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to thank you for an interesting morning. The Province of Quebec can teach some good lessons to our farm economies in the rest of the country. I am impressed that your organization represents some 20 or more farm organizations that work together. I believe that you do get the ear of government more than other parts of Canada, both at the provincial and federal level.

Honourable senators, we will have a short business meeting later.

[Translation]

Mr. Proulx: I too would like to thank you for having listened to us and for your questions. I would simply like to make a clarification. I said earlier that three families in Quebec, and not two, control over 80 per cent of all pork production.

I would also like to say that in Quebec, we have invested a lot in rural issues in recent years. We want nothing more than to share this expertise with other organizations in Canada. This is not simply out of generosity. We cannot isolate ourselves and do things alone. The more the situation progresses, the more we will need the entire country to mobilize around rural issues, and that is fundamental for the future. If only two or three provinces in Canada get involved, it will not work, even if they invest a lot of money. This is a Canadian issue, an issue of territory, and we must study it together. I want to repeat once again that it is always a great pleasure for us to debate this issue, because it causes us to compare our positions, and the discussion enables us to bring about positive changes. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, let us move to the next order of business.

Senator Tunney: Honourable senators, I should like to present the following motion:

That this committee instruct the chairman to send a letter of apology expressing our regrets to the Minister of Agriculture for any embarrassment that this committee may have caused in its fifth report, which wrongly accused the minister of cancelling his appearance before the committee on October 18;

And that a copy of this letter be sent to Barrie Wilson, of the Western Producer, and all members of the committee.

The Chairman: I will permit a little discussion on this before you present that situation, which is entirely false.

The first meeting of the steering committee - of which Senator Wiebe and Senator Fairbairn were members - was August 29. The steering committee decided that we would call the three ministers, Minister of Agriculture, Ralph Goodale, and the Minister of Trade, because that was the priority

I do not want to put the committee clerk in an unfortunate position, but on some phone calls he indicated that we were not getting far with the ministers. I went over this with the chair last night and he asked if I would make some phone calls, especially to the Minister of Trade, which I did because he had rejected us three times. We were getting setbacks all the time from the ministries. I conferred with the chair last night, and the clerks, and found out this is not unusual. It is very difficult sometimes to get the ministers to appear before a committee.

However, two months had passed and we were not getting anywhere. We were continually being turned down. While I was not, as chairman, part of what happened, I was as surprised as anyone when the motion came. I believe this motion would be entirely out of order and will not do anything to help the situation of agriculture. If agriculture is not in a crisis today, and if it is not a responsibility of the Senate as a whole to deal with it, I think I missed my cue.

Senator Wiebe: It was on August 29 that the steering committee decided to invite Minister Vanclief. The clerk was away at another parliamentary meeting, so he was not able to place that call to the parliamentary affairs office of Agriculture Canada. It is important to note that the clerk cannot speak directly to the minister or to the Department of Agriculture; he must go through that protocol. He made that phone call on September 12. On October 4, the clerk issued a schedule for the month of October. On that schedule, it clearly stated that the October 18 date was not confirmed. The next day, the clerk was advised that October 18 would not be suitable.

If there was some thought in some committee members' minds that the minister had cancelled, why was that not raised, in a motion similar to this one, at the next meeting of the committee? Why, for some reason, did it happen to occur when Senator Tkachuk was here? Why did it happen on a particular morning - and let us be blunt about it - on which we did not have enough members here to defeat a motion?

The first motion to condemn the Minister of Agriculture because we were caught with our pants down is fair ball. I congratulate Senator Tkachuk for doing that, because had I been in his position I would have probably done the same thing. However, honourable senators, when a senator then takes advantage of that situation and decides that, having made his point, he will rub the noses of my caucus members into the fact that we did not have enough members, I will not stand for that. I said to the committee chair afterwards that my relationship with this committee has been excellent over the years. The only time it seems that we have problems is when Senator Tkachuk appears here. I said that if the chairman wants me to get down and play dirty gutter politics like Senator Tkachuk has done, I am prepared and willing to do it. However, it is not the route that I want to follow.

As a result of playing pure and simple politics, this committee presented a false report to the chamber. This committee made the Minister of Agriculture look very bad. As well, Barry Wilson, who reported on that story, is beside himself. He said that he had been duped by the Agriculture Committee in writing what he wrote in the Western Producer. The only way that we can rectify this is by supporting this motion and making an apology to the Minister of Agriculture.

What I did not say in my remarks in the Senate last night is that the Minister of Agriculture confirmed with our clerk, at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, that negotiations are well underway for a meeting with this committee.

Let me also remind the members of this committee that we only presented the Minister of Agriculture or the department with two dates. Both were Thursdays. Let us go back to the last time that the Minister of Agriculture appeared before this committee was on April 4. It was not a Thursday; it was a Wednesday. At that time we were having difficulty trying to work out a date that would suit both the committee and the Minister of Agriculture. As we have done in the past, we compromised on that date and said that we will get special permission to meet with the Minister of Agriculture on Wednesday. We did not provide his department with that opportunity. After October 18, the clerk phoned the Department of Agriculture and said that our committee was prepared to meet with the minister any time, anyplace, anywhere between 9:00 a.m. and 10 o'clock at night. It was with that kind of response that he got a phone call yesterday to work out a time that the minister can appear before the committee.

The minister has appeared before this committee three times in the last 18 months. The last time he appeared here was April 4. He has given every indication to us that he is willing to appear with us again. I think that we have hurt the Minister of Agriculture by dragging politics into a very serious issue. That serious issue is the farmers of this country. I feel strongly that members on both sides of this committee have a deep feeling for the farmers in this country. We can do the job that was presented to us by the Senate.

Running back to the chamber like we did the other day with cap in hand bothered me very much. I would certainly encourage all members to support this resolution. We can get it out of the way and we can then go back to looking after the concerns of the farmers in this country.

The Chairman: I should like to speak to that, if I could.

Senator Tunney: I will speak after you have made your comment.

The Chairman: First, it was the responsibility of your side, Senator Wiebe, to have your members here, not our side.

Senator Wiebe: I said fair ball.

The Chairman: What do you want? You have two-thirds of the members in the Senate now. You almost have a one-party system in Canada where you can run roughshod over everyone else if you want to do so, and you are doing that.

Senator Wiebe: Well, I think it should be the committee's responsibility.

The Chairman: Well, it is. It is part of your responsibility as well to ensure that democracy flows. I live in Saskatchewan, where the farmers have called and called and called for the resignation of the minister. I have been the one who has defended him. I defended him in my speech last night to say that not only did I put the full responsibility of the neglect of agriculture on the minister but also on the government of the day.

I will take you on in Saskatchewan any day in a debate in any forum on this subject and they will probably boo you out of the hall.

Senator Chalifoux: I do not think you have to get into that.

The Chairman: I must do so because I have to defend things.

Senator Chalifoux: You can defend the motion.

The Chairman: But it is politics! It is plain and unadulterated politics.

Senator LeBreton: I have been in and out of the committee because I am also on the health care study, which is taking a lot of time.

I do not see why a motion like this should even be presented to this committee. As senators, we have a job to do. The ministers of the Crown have a responsibility to Parliament. We are in a situation now where there is absolutely no accountability to Parliament. We saw an example of that yesterday on Bill C- 11, where people clearly voted not the way they wanted to vote. The idea that a parliamentary committee should be compelled by motion, or whatever, to apologize to a minister flies in the face of what we are supposed to be doing as senators. It states that we cannot have individual views and that, somehow or other, our principles must be parked at the door. I think it is very unhealthy to have any kind of motion apologizing to a minister for a committee making a statement. I was not here for the motion but I heard about it. I think we will be going down a road that we do not want to go down by approving a motion like this. I will not be any part of it. I think you will create an even worse situation, because you will carry the debate further into the public where we have a situation where there appears to be such control of the ministry that we have parliamentary committees apologizing to them every time they are embarrassed in public.

Senator Wiebe: Honourable senators, going back to the comments made by our chairman, yes, there is a crisis out there in agriculture. However, I have been a strong believer that the end does not justify the means. As a result of the crisis in agriculture, should we then defend a lie in the chamber to try to get the minister to defend it? This is what has happened.

Senator LeBreton: What is the lie?

Senator Wiebe: The lie is that the Minister of Agriculture cancelled his meeting with this committee on October 18. There is no basis of fact that the minister ever confirmed that he would be attending on October 18; neither is there any basis of fact that the minister cancelled his meeting on October 18. That is what appeared in the legislature; that is what this motion addresses. If we are taking the attitude that the end justifies the means, ladies and gentlemen, we have become a difficult group of people.

We can debate this for hours. There is a motion before the committee. Let us vote on it and decide what the members of this committee feel and we must live with it.

Senator Oliver: You have spoken three times. Some of us have not even had a chance to say a word.

Senator Wiebe: By all means. I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

Senator Oliver: First, I am from Eastern Canada, and both the motion and Senator Wiebe have referred to something called the Western Producer, which I do not get and I have not read the article. I would think that since it is in the motion and referred to strongly by Senator Wiebe that, at least, I should be allowed to read what was said so I can make a determination of what he said about the minister and about the crisis.

Second, I agree with Senator LeBreton that this is the type of matter that should be dealt with by the steering committee and that three people - two Liberals and one Conservative, Senator Fairbairn, Senator Wiebe and our chair - should get together and determine what they will do. It may well be that they will go to see the minister, I do not know, but that is the proper way to resolve something like this, not by way of a motion.

Senator Wiebe: I have the article in the Western Producer by Barrie Wilson on October 25, if the honourable senator wishes to see my copy.

Senator Oliver: Yes, I would.

Senator Tunney: If our Minister of Agriculture refused to appear before this committee, which he never has, or if he cancelled an arranged and confirmed appearance, then I would be as critical of him as anyone around this table. My real concern is the false impression that is out there that he will not, and did refuse to, come before this committee. I know it is not true.

When I heard this false rumour going around, I confronted the minister. I said that he had refused to come before the committee. He said that he had never refused. I knew he had not but I wanted to hear his response. I said that he had cancelled an appearance on October 18. He said that is not true. I knew it was not true. I wanted to hear his reaction to it, though. Hence, I put a motion before this committee.

The Chairman: The Minister of Trade has been asked for three years to come before this committee and has turned us down three times. If you want to speak to him, that would be fine. When I called the minister's office, at the suggestion of the clerk, the secretary asked what the Minister of Trade got to do with agriculture. I was taken aback because we do produce about 25 per cent of all products that are exported out of the country in the trade sector.

We are dealing with a significant situation that does not make sense. Is this the first time the Liberal caucus has ever been beaten and cannot deal with the situation? We take this heat all the time. We have taken it for years.

Senator Tunney: If we do not have our numbers we deserve to be beaten too.

The Chairman: That is what your house leader told me, too.

Senator LeBreton: May I make a comment about this article that was just circulated? The whole article is a strong attack on the Minister of Agriculture, but it did not relate to the committee. It was a paragraph at the end.

The Chairman: Read the paragraph.

Senator LeBreton: There was nothing attacking the minister that this committee said. It was only the last paragraph. This committee did not generate the other criticisms of him.

Senator Wiebe: Let me read it and then we can go to the question. The last paragraph reads as follows:

Vanclief was scheduled to appear before the Senate Agriculture committee October 18 but cancelled hisappearance.

The Chairman: That is it.

Senator LeBreton: There is no criticism.

Senator Oliver: It is not the essence of the article at all.

The Chairman: I do not think he would win that in a court of law if it took all the facts before it. We cannot do anything about it, but I do want to register my position on this situation. If Senator Wiebe wants to continue this, fine, that is up to him.

Senator Wiebe: I think your argument is with Senator Tkachuk, not with us.

The Chairman: Your argument may be with him, then.

Senator Wiebe: Our whole committee's. Mr. Chairman, the question has been called.

Senator LeBreton: Mr. Chairman, I urge you not to force the committee to do this.

The Chairman: Any questions?

All in favour?

Senator LeBreton: There was not a seconder of the motion.

Senator Wiebe: There does not have to be.

Senator LeBreton: I will not even participate in a sham like this.

Senator Chalifoux: That is how we felt the other day, however, we stood.

The Chairman: The clerk tells me that the article that Senator Wiebe brought forward should be an exhibit appended to the committee.

Senator Wiebe: I will do that.

The Chairman: Anyone opposed?

Everyone is in favour, so it must be a good motion.

Senator Wiebe: I move that the committee adjourn.

The Chairman: I believe I have to move that the committee adjourn. I move that the committee adjourn. Thank you.

The committee adjourned.