Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 22 - Evidence - Meeting of March 30, 2007 - Afternoon meeting
ATHENS, ONTARIO, Friday, March 30, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 1 p.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to this historic occasion of having a Senate committee here to talk about the issues of agriculture in our country and in this area.
I first want to introduce to you the Mayor of Athens, John Conley. We are so pleased that you have come to visit us. Now, evidently, you have become a witness, which is even better.
As I understand, sir, you have been the mayor for four months, and you spent six years as a councillor and you have 31 years of experience in the conservation field. You have lived, sir. We are very glad to have you here. Thank you for spending time with us.
John Conley, Mayor of Athens: I wish to say thank you very much and a special thanks to Senator Segal for having this meeting here in our township, which is dear to the heart of some newcomers, as well as the old-timers. We are pleased to have you here enjoying the day and the activities.
The Chairman: From the Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association, I would like to introduce Shawn Carmichael, Director, and Jacqueline Fennell, President.
We also have Sandra Lawn, who is here as an individual with good views. Peggy Sweet-McCumber is the Chair of Seely's Bay-Lyndhurst and Area Non-Profit Seniors Residence Corporation. All of you are very welcome, and we are interested in hearing what you have to say.
Shawn Carmichael, Director, Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association: You will have to pardon me. Farmers do not always make the best public speakers, but we will try our best today.
We were asked to come today to discuss rural poverty in Ontario. We must understand that we are living it here; we are in it every day. With no disrespect, the majority of people sitting in this room today are paid to be here; we are not. This is coming out of our time.
Our biggest problem is our freedom of choice to market our agricultural products. In Ontario and throughout Canada, we do not have that freedom. It is guaranteed to us under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we do not have it. In this country, we have a system called supply management, which is a monopoly in the marketplace that controls agricultural products. What we need in Ontario, and of course throughout the rest of Canada, is the ability to market our own products.
To give a little history and see how this affects rural Ontario, 40 years ago, marketing boards were put into place to help the family farm. To no avail, producers and farmers bought into that. We felt that processors were a threat to us and collectively, as a group, we would get more clout in the marketplace if we were just one group selling the product. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy crept into the marketing boards and the marketing boards took on a life of their own. They never did fulfil the promise of protecting the family farm.
Forty years ago in our area, in a square mile from our house, we had over 12 milk producers and those milk producers milked, on average, 30 or 40 cows. Back then, neighbour helped neighbour. Everyone up and down the road helped one another and looked after one another. No one was rich, but on one was living in poverty either. Today in that same square mile, we have one producer, and that one producer is milking 300 cows.
You might ask how this affects our rural economy. Well, it does, because now one producer buys all of his inputs outside of the local economy, whereas before, 12 producers bought their inputs within the local economy and supported the local economy. They went to the hardware store and the grocery store. There was a cheese factory almost every five miles down the road. Those cheese factories employed local people. In return, we supplied those cheese factories with local milk. Today, there are no local cheese factories; they are all gone.
To understand how that affects the local economy, when you no longer have those producers producing, that money is no longer there in the local economy, supporting the community. On behalf of the Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association, we are saying that we are not looking for money from the government to solve our problems. That is not what we need. We need the government to make the choice to say, we want to help you and we are willing to do something so that the producer has the freedom of choice to market his products.
We are not looking for a handout. Does the government have the will to help the rural economy, to help the local producer so that he can market his products? That is all we are asking from the government.
I am more than happy and willing to answer any questions that senators might have.
Jacqueline Fennell, President, Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association: I am very pleased that the Senate has recognized that there is a crisis in agriculture in rural Ontario.
The main reason for poverty or trouble in the rural area is over-regulation. We are bombarded with new regulations from commodity groups every facet of government. It does not matter where we turn we find new regulations that are taking away our ability to earn a living from our property. I refer to the Clean Water Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Nutrient Management Act, and others. Of course, these are important; no farmer wants dirty water or a polluted landscape. However, these measures are taking away our ability to earn a living. They all cost money and they are costing the farmers money for the public good. Clean water is for the public good, but the real person who pays the bill is the farmer who loses the right to use his property and to earn a living off that property.
We need to get back to a point where the urban population has a tangible link to the food source. So many people in the city think, I just go to Loblaws and it is there. They do not seem to know that there is someone an hour or two hours away who has the ability to grow that food for them.
If we think back 30-40 years, pretty much everyone knew someone that operated a farm. They had an understanding of how that worked — how the food was grown, the labour and the time that goes into that work. Now we have an urban population that believes that it just shows up at the store and they get to buy it; that it does not matter whether we have food that is produced here, because we can always have it imported.
The problem with that is, first, we do not know what is being imported as far as quality goes. Recent event indicate that some imported food is not the same quality as Canadian food. The reason for that poorer quality can be pesticide use in the foreign country. These foods are not screened like our Canadian food. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency plays a very active role in harassing local producers, but they do not do much of anything when the food is imported.
Getting back to my point, we need to reconnect people with where their food comes from. When a consumer wants to buy local produce that should be encouraged. They should not be scared into not doing that, which is something that some government agencies have been doing with fear mongering; scaring consumers and telling them that local food production is not going to be as safe for you as what you might get at the grocery store, which is very sad and very untrue.
Our current regulatory system, which I will speak to for a few minutes, is supply management; and it was brought in with very good intentions to protect the small family farms. Unfortunately, that is not what it is doing. The dairy farmers have already made statements claiming that they cannot make a living on 20 cows. I say that if you want to make that choice, you should be allowed to make that choice; no one should be telling you that you cannot have a small farm. If these farmers are stopped, they will soon go out of business. We should be encouraging small farm operations. We should be suspicious of the mass corporate farms that seem to be moving into this area of Canada.
We need the ability to market directly to the consumer. There are huge numbers of people in the cities who want to purchase products directly from the farmers. Some city people recognize that buying directly from the farmer means they know where and how the food is produced. That direct purchase creates a tangible relationship with the farmer and his land. The people know what they are getting. They know whether they are getting an organic product or a natural product, something that is free of pesticides or chemicals. Unfortunately, we have almost a police state in farming, where farmers are being charged for providing good food to people who want it. We need to get away from that system.
I will touch a little on the pasteurization process. Right now, we have regulations that ensure that milk must be pasteurized. These regulations came into force in 1938. I say much has changed since 1938 and the regulations need to be reviewed, at both the federal and provincial level. I understand that there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the debate, but it needs to be revisited to ensure that our laws are current.
I feel that people deserve the choice to buy drinking milk from the grocery store or from the farm; eggs from the grocery store or eggs from the farm; bread or pickles from the grocery store or from the farm. We had a situation in the last while here where people were charged for making pickles and selling them. The health units were telling people they would become ill from eating homemade pickles or pies.
For generations, people have lived in the country by sharing food, bartering, or going to community suppers where they could eat the food someone else made. Right now, that is not legal and that is scary.
My presentation is that we need to ensure freedom of choice for the consumer, and freedom of choice for the farmer to produce whatever that product might be, free from regulation.
Sandra Lawn, as an individual: Distinguished members of the Senate and other guests, it is certainly a pleasure to be here as someone who grew up in the wilds of Northern Ontario, where forestry was certainly very important. As the granddaughter of a farmer, I can feel the connections between your committee and the issue before us today, which is rural poverty, particularly within the context of agriculture and forestry.
I am here as an individual, but that is a bit of a misconception in that I do have some very definite views that were shaped by my upbringing. They are also shaped by my association with some of the groups that are active in our rural community, particularly the Mohawk community at Akwesasne. I have worked with that community for 15 years.
I want to direct my comments to the basic principles of the naturalized knowledge system of the Mohawks, because I believe they are relevant to what we are talking about, which is the very complicated subject of rural poverty and rural life.
The Mohawk community has seven basic principles. I believe you have a copy before you. In no special order, they include: cooperation is the way to survive; responsibility is the best practice; the earth is our mother; knowledge is powerful, but only when it is shared; the spiritual is close to the earth; and everything is connected to everything. They have added recently, because they feel so strongly about it, that place is important.
I want to direct my comments to those particular points, beginning with cooperation is the way to survive and responsibility is the best practice. Just briefly, I would like to highlight the great changes that have taken place in the rural community in the last 50 years from when almost everyone in the rural community was either a farmer or a logger in the northern communities, or was associated with the farming and the logging industry. In those days, there was a tremendous amount of cooperation and support from one family to another. They were effective models of consensus building and working together. We still see that in our community with country fairs and the conservation authorities, stewardship councils, the agricultural associations and so on.
Everything is connected to everything else, everyone is connected to everyone else in one way or another, and we see this very much in the rural community. I would like to mention some of the key things that are of concern in the areas where I work, which is in the area of mental health for children and youth, the environment and community economic development.
I will use as an example a rural community that is attempting to influence the issue of poverty in that rural community, where many of the jobs that were there in past years have disappeared. The community is looking at the strengths of the community and building on the resource of the St. Lawrence River. We are on the south coast of Canada and we have been able to develop a professional Shakespeare theatrical company, which is not unusual in our rural communities. In this very hall, over the last few years, we have had some interesting cultural presentations. On CBC, they mentioned that the Canada Council presents $6 per capita to Canadians for the arts. We would love to see that come into our rural communities to assist us in the things that we are trying to do.
The fact that knowledge is important, but only when it is shared, is also extremely important because it ties to the importance of education and developing special programs that apply to the rural community. When I went to school in Matachewan, I studied agriculture. Now there is a community, Norwood, which has introduced a curriculum around forestry.
I would like to speak very briefly to the issue of the environment and the landscape. Particularly, I will zero in on Eastern Ontario. You have a map before you, which shows the forest resource inventory. You will notice, I hope, and wonder why it says 1978, 1991 and 1996. The reason it has those dates on it is that here in Ontario, we are very far behind in our inventory and knowledge of the landscape.
It is extremely important to know about and support the work of, for example, the Canadian Forest Service, which has set up 11 model forests across Canada. Here in Eastern Ontario, we have 1.5 million hectares of land, most of which is rural and owned by private individuals. Unlike the boreal forest and other areas, which are Crown lands, here it is privately owned.
The Eastern Ontario Model Forest, which occupies these 1.5 million hectares of land, has made a tremendous effort for the past 15 years. One of our latest initiatives has to do with trying to come to grips with the issue of rural poverty by looking at what our strengths are in the way of the mixed wood forest. We are looking at the science that applies in today's world, where we are looking at sustainability of communities and resources, together with the opportunity that this presents for Eastern Ontario, in particular, for value-added wood products. We are in the process of developing an eco-industrial park in Edwardsburgh-Cardinal Township, where there is a port. It used to be a national port, but it is now owned by the township.
The local people are taking the initiative. They are innovative, forward thinking and looking for the kind of support that they will need from the Government of Canada. For example, they are looking to the government to help in continuing this unique model forest or community forest as it is now called. It is a forest for all of Canada. I am particularly interested in our Eastern Ontario mixedwood forest, which is unique. The only similar forested land of the same merit is located in Russia.
I believe that it is extremely important to keep our rural communities strong. Although they make up on 20 per cent or less of the population, they have the responsibility and the stewardship for about 95 per cent of the landscape. The communities must be a strong element in maintaining and protecting the identity of our country, because our forested and agricultural areas set the identity for this amazing country.
Peggy Sweet-McCumber, Chair, Seeley's Bay/Lyndhurst and Area Non-Profit Seniors Residence Corporation: I was born and raised in Seeley's Bay, which is 15 to 20 minutes from here, just on the edge of Leeds County. I came back to the area to take over two third-generation businesses that my grandfather and father had — a small grocery store and school buses. My background is in small business.
I was asked here today in my capacity as the chair of a non-profit corporation. We have been trying to build affordable seniors housing in Seeley's Bay. We have been working at this diligently for over three years. It is a huge struggle. I would like to speak briefly about the housing situation in the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.
Almost 30 per cent of the households in Leeds and Grenville have incomes of less than $30 000, which is the mark where someone can own their own home. It is much more difficult if you earn less than $30,000. Frequently, we have a high demand for rental units. Over one-half of our seniors in this county have incomes less than $20,000. Many own their own homes but they would prefer, as they get older, to move into rental accommodations. The high cost of maintaining their homes and the high price of fuel makes it very difficult for the elderly to maintain their homes. The local food bank people tell me that they are aware of several seniors who, during the winter, move into one room of their home, as it is the only room they can afford to keep warm.
Our vacancy rates are dropping and our rents are escalating. Many of the homes in this area are older homes. We have a higher percentage of older homes than the national average. In my municipality of Leeds and the Thousand Islands, 40 per cent of the homes need major and minor repair, which makes housing situations difficult.
There has been no new money for new affordable houses in Ontario since the early 1990s. I realize this is a provincial responsibility, which is now at the county level, but I feel it is important you realize the need.
Leeds and Grenville did a study to say that we need to build 570 units per year of affordable housing. Just recently, our county has entered into an agreement called the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program, which puts money toward building new homes. Our county was allocated 25 units. This is for an area that includes Brockville, Westport, et cetera. It is meant for housing victims of troubled youth, victims of domestic violence, families and seniors with low income. It is a drop in the bucket. That is why our group is fairly pessimistic that we will be allocated any of those units.
In order to save and serve the needs of the rural poor, we need more rental housing. It is a basic right of Canadians, and it is a concern in our area. We need a strong commitment from all levels of government, the private sector, service agencies and the local community to work together.
Senator Segal: I want to address my question to Mr. Carmichael and Ms. Fennell. I want to ensure I understand what you are saying. If I misunderstand, please correct me.
What will happen if we do away with supply management?
Mr. Carmichael: We are not asking to do away with supply management by any means. That is not what we are interested in.
Supply management reflects what we would call corporate agriculture — factory farms. They have their market that they need to fill. We do not want that market. We do not want anything to do with that market. That is not a market that small producers want to go after. We have a totally separate market that we want to serve, but we do not have the ability to do that under the present legislation.
We do not want to do away with supply management. They have a market that they need to fill. They have a capacity they need to fulfill and that is not something that we would ever be interested in.
Ms. Fennell: We can work side by side without affecting each other, which is the easy way to say it. We have two separate markets. I think many of the small producers will fill the direct market, similar to what you can do with other commodities. The supply management market will process the large volumes that Parmalat or Neilson's might need, whereas a small operation with milk cows will never be a drop in the bucket to those large corporations.
We have a problem within that system with transportation. That is becoming a problem in the area, the countryside, because they have to drive further to get the milk because the farmers are leaving. Now we are bringing in transports. Transportation within the system is becoming a problem. This takes out some of the smaller stops and you can have the big transport that will stop and pick up 100,000 litres in one place and provide you the choice whether you want to be involved in that system or not. We do not want to get rid of that system, but we do not want it to be a mandatory system.
Senator Segal: You referred to legislation imposed on landowners that makes it very hard to run a farm. Could you share the legislation that does the most harm and limit people's freedoms most?
Ms. Fennell: The Clean Water Act will have terrible consequences on rural Ontario. The Species at Risk Act is very scary as well, if someone hears a noise or sees some sort of remnants of an endangered species. Let us use the loggerhead shrike, as an example, which has been found in the Smiths Falls area. You cannot do anything with that property. You may own 500 acres; you pay taxes on those acres and maintain those acres, but you cannot use them. I feel property rights need to be addressed at the federal and provincial level to ensure that if land or property is taken for the public good, the public pays for it.
Senator Segal: In my last comment, there was a proposal some years ago for ``constitutionalizing.'' I take it you would be supportive of that?
Ms. Fennell: Yes, very much so.
Senator Mercer: I, too, am a little confused on this. You would like to work outside of supply management.
Ms. Fennell: Yes.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes.
Senator Mercer: You want to compete with people inside of supply management and compete with large factory firms. How do you do that? We have had supply management for a long time. Farms are getting larger. They are not nearly as large here as they are in parts of Western Canada, where they produce a different product, but they are much larger.
Mr. Carmichael: It is the same analogy that Minister Strahl will hopefully put into place for the Canadian Wheat Board. What we are asking for is the same as he is asking for the Wheat Board, where the farmers have voted saying they want freedom of choice to be able to market their barley. What that does is put the Wheat Board, the egg board or whatever board in a position where they no longer can be a monopoly. They must be competitive in the marketplace.
We are saying, no, we do not want to sell to the board; we want to have the option to make private contracts with the consumer. We have heard the rhetoric for years that this will spell the end of supply management. It will not be its death knell. Supply management will still carry on long after it is implemented. What we will see from it is the revitalization of the rural economy, because people will be putting money back into the economy. This will solve a lot of those problems.
Ms. Fennell: We do not want to compete with them because we are seeking different markets. In that context, we are not competing with each other. To me, it is the same commodity, whether it is a chicken, milk or eggs, but we are going to different markets.
Niche markets are something we are encouraged to do. I believe that a successful niche market is a sale between the producer and the consumer. It is something we have lost. It is value added because they can see what they are getting. They have the ability to go to the farm, see how you are growing that product, approve of that and tell you this is how they want it done. This is a custom-grown food. You cannot do that in the grocery store, where the product is packaged and you buy it or you do not. I do not believe we are going after the same market.
Senator Mercer: I can only refer you to my speech in the Senate on the Wheat Board. Minister Strahl adds up farmers' votes against the Wheat Board and I add them up in favour of the Wheat Board, but I will not argue that today.
This housing issue is frustrating for all of us. It is not just a rural thing, but it becomes magnified when you factor in the transportation issues and the isolation.
You said the recommendation was 570 units per year, but in reality, you are getting 25 units a year. Is that correct?
Ms. Sweet McCumber: It is 25 units for this year, and we have not had anything since the 1990s.
Senator Mercer: Is it the old-style public housing that is publicly owned?
Ms. Sweet-McCumber: It is not actually publicly owned. They do not want to build it or own it. They want us out in the community saying, we will build it and we will own it; just give us money toward the construction.
Senator Mercer: If it will be the Province of Ontario, or the Government of Canada or a combination, which says the 570 number seems realistic for the area, let us do it, can you deliver? Could 570 units be delivered in a year?
Ms. Sweet-McCumber: I believe so. I know there are many organizations in towns and cities that will be applying for these 25 units. If there was money for 570 units, we could do it.
Senator Mercer: Those units would be spread throughout the entire region, is that correct?
Ms. Sweet-McCumber: Yes, the units would be throughout the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.
Senator Mercer: If you get 570 units, I am sure Lanark County will want their share as well. I appreciate that.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Lawn, you have not had any questions yet, have you? You mentioned the basic principles here and that cooperation is a way to survive.
In our hearings last fall, we heard from academics and government people who talked about the way rural communities should survive is by getting together, cooperating with one another, pooling their resources and so on. Are you talking about that kind of cooperation? You mentioned fairs, which are held in the community.
Ms. Lawn: I am talking about all kinds of cooperation among all different groups, individuals and families. I think this was always the way of the rural community, right from the very beginning. One of the things that has happened is the fabric of the rural community has changed drastically, whereas previously people were in farming and forestry. Now, only 15 per cent of the people in the rural countryside are involved in farming.
We have pockets of rural areas that are well off, the rural rich. We also have pockets of the rural poor, people that perhaps are living in substandard housing. Their children particularly, are one of my main concerns. I am concerned with the isolation of children and families and how it relates to mental health problems. With 20 per cent of the Canadian population having, at one time or another in their lives, a diagnosable mental health problem, this is a well- substantiated statistic.
This is magnified many times in a rural community where the services are not available. We talk about senior citizens, for example, that might be suffering from Alzheimer's and other types of disabilities, who become isolated. In the past, there was cooperation; everyone would have jumped in and helped — the grandmothers or there were the aunts and uncles. It is not like that anymore in the rural community, except in rare situations.
People are often strangers in a rural community that is around a large centre. We are lucky in this community, which used to be called ``Farmersville.'' If someone is burned out, there is cooperation among the neighbours. Therefore, cooperation is the way to survive among businesses that work together in a small community, among individuals and families helping each other. I use the model forest as an analogy, where we brought together people who are concerned about the maintenance of forest cover. They understand the importance of cooperating one with another, to ensure the groundwater is protected in the communities. Cooperation is definitely the way to survive. For human beings, it is the only way we have ever been able to survive. The natives had that same thought when they first came here.
Senator Callbeck: Do you think that the rural communities should be looking at cooperating with other rural communities in promoting tourism, economic development or whatever the case may be?
Ms. Lawn: They are doing that. We have made a supreme effort to cooperate with the communities to organize the winter games. We see more cooperation with the separated towns. Of the four separated towns in Ontario, three of them are right around here. I think that says something about the kind of people that grew up here.
Smiths Falls is a separated town from the county, as are Prescott and St. Marys in another part of Ontario. We are now cooperating and bringing them back into closer discussions. Sometimes the small towns feel the cities get their own way more than the small rural municipalities. We are seeing a lot of cooperation in cultural tourism, sport tourism and ecotourism. Obviously, one community cannot do it alone.
Senator Callbeck: That is great. I noticed one program you mentioned on which you did not elaborate. We have heard other people talk about it and in my own province it is very successful. It is the Community Futures Development Corporation. I assume you feel that is a good program. Do you see any way that it could be expanded?
Ms. Lawn: I was part of that program about 20 years ago when this whole thing got going. In 1989, we were able to redevelop a major waterfront in the town of Prescott. It was called Community Futures then and it is called that again.
The Eastern Ontario Development Program is extremely important for people in Eastern Ontario. It has its roots at the federal level, but the decisions and the momentum comes from the local communities such as downtown revitalization and the development of food processing plants. In the case of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, we were able to receive funding from the Eastern Ontario Development Program, which was extremely beneficial. We must be aware of what is happening, particularly in communities where forestry and logging have been important. We must be equally aware when that industry is no longer an important part of the economy. There are ways to do it in a sustainable fashion, and this is what we are intent on doing. The EODP, the Eastern Ontario Development Program through the Community Futures Program has been very helpful.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have any recommendations to expand on programs or improvements?
Ms. Lawn: Obviously, we are extremely pleased with how it is working. I could recommend more money. There is a lot of innovation and entrepreneurship at the community level and we must pay attention to what the communities are saying about their needs.
I think it would be most beneficial if we could see added support for some of the big things coming down the pipe in terms of bio-energy and forest products. Forty per cent of our farmers have traditionally sold wood from their wood lots and it has been a part of the local economy as well. Those days have changed so much. We could have more support to build a futuristic economy for the rural country side that is sustainable and based on solid science.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Sweet-McCumber, I agree with you that more money should be spent on housing. In my province, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, delivers a program to low-income Islanders. These are people who need their roofs shingled or problems that should be fixed today or tomorrow. The waiting list is seven and one- half years. I certainly concur with what you say.
Mr. Carmichael, I can certainly understand what you are saying about growing up where, in a square mile there were all kinds of farms, and now there is only one. That is exactly the situation in Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Carmichael: A lot of rhetoric from this planned energy industry says that is the way the world is going, that is globalization. You have to understand that it is not. That is called `gobble-ization'; neighbours gobbling up neighbours. That system has failed us. We have to take a step back and ask where we went wrong and fix the problem.
As Ms. Lawn has said, the problem will be fixed amongst neighbours, amongst the rural community. We have to get back to neighbour helping neighbour and not neighbour eating neighbour.
Mr. Conley: I would like to add one comment about the social housing. Remember, I am just new at this job. Last month we went on a tour of the units that the county owns and maintains. I believe there are 667 units. From what I could see, the inventory that Leeds and Grenville has, with respect to this type of unit, is one of the oldest in the province. Most of the money we receive, either from taxpayers' dollars or from grants given to the county to look after these units, is spent keeping the units up to date and repairing them. We cannot afford to put new ones up. Of the 667 units, two in one community should be sold or taken down. When that happens, we are responsible for putting those two units back into the inventory again. We will never get ahead. If anything, we need more money to do that, to keep up to where we should be at a county level. There is more to the social housing as well, but these people need homes. I as a taxpayer am more than willing to help out with that.
I think if taxpayers realized the amount of money going into the program, they would be surprised as I am. Social housing is a big component at the county level.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think you would find agreement in various places across the country as well.
Thank you all for appearing. We very much appreciate your remarks. Godspeed for what you are doing.
We will now move into our Town Hall meeting. We have quite a bevy of witnesses before us. To keep things moving, I will ask you to each introduce yourselves and exactly what it is you are here to discuss. We will go one by one. My clerk tells me that she has already asked to keep your remarks to five minutes. That will give our senators a chance to ask questions. We will start with Mr. Duncan.
Bill Duncan, President, Lanark Landowners Association: I am Bill Duncan, President of Lanark Landowners Association. We represent over 2,200 landowners in Lanark County. We would like to address the challenged of the rural poor.
Merle Bowes, as an individual: I am Merle Bowes. I am also a member of the Lanark Landowners Association, and I am representing the Eastern Ontario Producers Farmers Markets Association.
Deborah Heintzman, Member, LINKS: I am Deborah Heintzman. I am a member of the LINKS committee out of Portland, Ontario. I am also a single mother and I am concerned with the issues of rural poverty and economic development in our area.
David Campbell, as an individual: I am David Campbell. I am a farmer and I am here to tell you my stories today.
Dr. Denise Bowes, as an individual: I am Dr. Denise Bowes. I have practised family medicine here in Athens since 1976. I took early retirement due to illness in 1998. I am a volunteer at Queen's University, among other places, where I helped to establish an elective course for students in six professional faculties to train them how to live and work in rural areas. I do a great deal of other volunteer work here in the community. Welcome to our community.
Laurie Wight, as an individual: I am Laurie Wight and I have resided by choice in rural Leeds for 37 years.
Rosemary Kralik, as an individual: I am Rosemary Kralik, a farmer in the Lanark highlands. I am also a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and a few other agricultural groups.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have 50 minutes, so I will let you loose. If you can each stay to five minutes that would be great because I know that our senators wish to ask questions.
Mr. Duncan: You asked, what is causing the poverty in the rural areas of Canada? What is causing the demise of the rural economy? It does not require a sophisticated answer. It is not necessary to probe too deeply into the causes of a failing rural economy. For the most part, the answers are prevalent in our everyday lives. The rural residents of Canada have been forced into this position not by an economic disaster in the country or the world, or by a strong or weak Canadian dollar. The answer to the decline in the rural economy does not lie with low commodity prices for agricultural products or reluctance to compete in the world market. What then are the factors that have caused this devastation?
The answer, quite simply, is government and an out-of-control, unaccountable bureaucracy. The intention of government was, for the most part, honourable, not to be callous toward one sector of the country or favour of one economy over another. It did not intend to discriminate against us but the machinery of government has tilled the rural soil too deep and that has resulted in crop failure. This failure will not last for just one season, but will last for a generation of seasons.
Ask yourself what could have happened to Canada, a nation that was once called the breadbasket of the world. That prosperity was replaced by regulation and restrictions. What transpired that restricted Canadian farmers from accessing the Canadian domestic market, while allowing foreign farmers more and more access to the Canadian consumer? Canada is no long are able to produce enough food to feed this country. We are now a net importer of food. Eighty per cent of what Canadians serve on their dinner tables is produced somewhere else.
Three levels of government and their bureaucracies have played a strategic role in the demise of the rural economy. Provincially, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation is assessing farms and rural business on the value of property at the point of sale, adding unjustified financial burden. This unaccountable out-of-control corporation will soon be assessing property every four years. Any improvement to farms causes an increase in assessment. Maple syrup producers were faced with the threat of being assessed as industrial producers because they package a product. Strawberry farmers are faced with an increased assessment if they make strawberry jam and package it for sale. Any farm operation that value adds will be assessed at a higher rate.
Increased legislation and regulations such as the greenbelt legislation restricting farmers' ability to expand, devaluates farmland prices and restricts agricultural practice and production. While this legislation restricts farmers, the government allows the building of roads, hydro transmission lines, landfill sites, railroad lines and pipelines. More greenbelt areas are planned. The Algonquin to Adirondack greenbelt will link Eastern Ontario with the Highway 401 greenbelt corridor, restricting agriculture production even further.
The Clean Water Act legislation will give unprecedented powers to bureaucrats. For example, section 83, allows seizure of private property without consent and without payment as compensation. Section 47 to section 53 provides municipalities with the authority to charge for water extraction permits and to use water metres on rural wells. Section 49 and section 50 outlaws land use activities that are deemed a threat to groundwater. Section 56 stipulates that anything a permit inspector requires to be done must be done regardless of the expense. Declaring bankruptcy to avoid payment is not tolerated; the expense must be paid.
Provincial land use policy allows the province to create buffer zones around wetlands and waterways. This policy restricts agricultural production to 150 metres from the water and allows for the creation of areas of natural and scientific interest. The farmer does not receive compensation for the loss of property.
The Nutrient Management Act includes reparations without compensation. Even though the farmers are forced to comply with provincial policy, they receive little or no compensation.
They face financial hardship in complying with the legislation that creates little benefit for the farm or the environment. Instead of managing wildlife, the Ministry of Natural Resources, which enforces the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, allows herds of deer and flocks of wild turkeys and geese to ravage farm fields with no compensation for the farmers.
At the same time, the ministry threatens and intimidates farmers who obtain legal cull permits. The Ministry of Natural Resources has power to enter all property and outbuildings without warrant, only person's home is off limits. The Ministry of the Environment has all-encompassing powers. Work orders are issued without cause or justification. Failure to comply with the ministry's work orders results in fines and lengthy trials. The ministry closed seven sawmills in Lanark County and hundreds of people lost their jobs. Sawdust was deemed an environmental hazard to groundwater, while millions of consumers and government hauled bags of sawdust and bark mulch from local garden centres to flower beds.
Mr. Bowes: Historically, markets have played a role in Ontario and Canada where produce is sold directly from the farm. Starting about three years ago, the Ontario Ministry of Health and the district health units launched an attack on Ontario farmers' markets. I represent the producer-based markets in which the producer deals directly with customers. There is no in-between person.
It started with letters from the district health units saying they would be assessing markets and possibly condemning food sold during market operations. A group was set up to study the situation and at first, a number of people from farmers' markets sat on the board. By the time the second and third set of recommendations were proposed only two farm representatives were left on the board. The board did not have any real contact or knowledge of the markets.
To give an example, the health unit came out with a list of items considered appropriate for sale at the markets. The list included cold drinks sold in the original container, canned pop and juices, frozen confections sold in the original package or wrapper and hot beverages. It is only at number four on the list that you see any items relating to farm produce. These three sets of proposals went from bad to worse. They were unacceptable. Their acceptance would have put every producer-based market in Ontario out of business.
Finally, Mr. Smitherman and the Ontario Ministry of Health created exemptions from these rigid food rules. That was followed by a criticism from the health units saying that Mr. Smitherman's decision would expose Canadians to unknown risks from the markets. Throughout our negotiations with food health units and the Ministry of Health, we asked for examples of food that had caused health problem or illness. We did not receive a single example, yet we were under attack from those two groups the whole time.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is unaccountable. They supposedly protect Canadians from dangerous food. We do not have access to that agency or its decision-making policies. One of the things they push is the grading of vegetables. They deliberately confuse consumers, stating it is an aspect of food safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with food safety. I am familiar with the grading of vegetables, and you could dip a cucumber in gasoline and it would qualify as Canada number 1. It has nothing to do with food safety at all, but appearance, shape and size.
Labelling is extremely misleading to Canadian consumers. The 51 per cent rule, allows the term ``Product of Canada'' to be used on food containers. All that means is that 51 per cent of the final cost of the product must be incurred in Canada and the content must have changed significantly in appearance. It does not mean that the container saying ``Product of Canada'' contains food from Canada. Blending of Canadian or Ontario products with imported products occurs all the time. This is information available on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website. It is so ridiculous: Most of us know that we do not produce olives in Canada. Olives can be sold as a product of Canada under CFIA regulations.
CFIA has shown a tremendous desire to attack small business. The Renfrew Home Bakery recently came under a needless attack. When we objected to it, the CFIA had to back down because they were overstepping their own mandate. They could not realistically enforce any of the orders that they were trying to impose on the bakery.
In a time when more Canadians are talking about buying locally produced products, fresh products, we have our own government and bureaucracy standing in the way.
Ms. Heintzman: I will talk about my own personal history as well as the issues that concern myself and other people I know. I am a single mother and I have gone from being employed, from a bad marriage, to being on social assistance trying to get myself re-educated. I have been fighting the system to get educated because it does not support you to do that and get employment insurance at the same time. If I could do that, I could finish my education. I have very little money to do anything. I have been trying to get work on jobs that are seasonal and low-paying. I have had trouble trying to find affordable child care, which is almost impossible because I am not getting paid enough to afford it. Jobs in this area are almost non-existent, at least good ones.
We need more economic development and more services like affordable dental care. There are three dentists in my area, but some of them no longer take people on social assistance. They will take you if you can pay or if you can work out some kind of deal with them. That is not guaranteed. It depends on the dentist. We need more dentists in the area that are willing to let people pay an affordable monthly fee. That is part of my problem. I cannot afford to go to a dentist and get my teeth fixed. I know I am not alone in this problem. I know people who need dental work and cannot afford it. There is no help available for those people.
Employment, as I mentioned, is very hard to come by. I have a degree from Queen's University that took me nine years to get. That was a lot of hard work. I am still struggling. I entered a small business program through what used to be unemployment and is now Employment Insurance. There are many hoops you have to jump through to get it, and getting into it and staying in it is another story. I am still waiting to see whether they will approve my business plan. I hope they will, but there is no guarantee.
Business is hard to get going in this area. We really need more businesses. We need more employment that pays people a decent living wage to support themselves and their families. That is very important. We need good medical, dental and vision care services as well.
In this area, the jobs that people are forced to take are mainly seasonal. I worked in some jobs where it was unsafe and I did not have a choice in the matter. I had to do the job no matter what, because I needed that money.
I cannot stress enough that we need some changes in this area for employment and economic development. This is very important to me. That really needs to be addressed.
Mr. Campbell: I can relate to her as a farmer. I have the distinction of farming in two provinces. We farmed first in Alberta. I grew up in Lanark County.
The Chairman: Whereabouts in Alberta.
Mr. Campbell: We lived in Vermillion.
During the Mulroney years, of his helping us out which put us all out of business, we moved back to Ontario. We started farming in Ontario in 1987 as cream producers, which was an interesting struggle. We had 45 sows and raised pigs. We never had enough money to do anything aside from producing cream. My wife has always worked to continue to support us. Thank God my wife has dental care or we would be screwed off the farm.
A few years ago, we were able to convert to milk production. We went 100 per cent milk and that was a godsend because all at once we were getting paid for the full value of our milk. We are small producers. They would come and pick up our milk because we had that quota. It made a big difference for us. All at once, we had money rolling in, which we had never seen before.
We had to buy used machinery. We worked with our neighbours. We have young farmers coming up, wanting to take over their parents' farm. My daughters are waiting to take over. It has been a blessing for me to see these guys want to farm, because that keeps this old guy going.
I know there are many rules and regulations. With some of them, yes, they are overboard, but some have to be there.
I work extensively trying to help young farmers, if I can. I know the struggle and the hardship. It is terrible when you have to work two jobs to make a farm work. It is not right. We should be able to make the money off the farm. We are not able to do it.
Every election, the governments promise and promise to help the farmers. I have always felt that we do not even count. We are not even on the radar until there is a major crisis and we are all going down. Then they all wake up and say the poor farmers are in trouble. They get elected and still do not do anything. A year after Mr. Harper got in and we have not had a lot of help. Many of our farmers are in trouble. The stress line is working overtime. We should not even have a stress line.
Farmers need help. I have come through many tough times and I do not want to see the next generation do what I have had to do and live the way I have had to live. That is my bottom line.
You can influence the government and it does not matter whether it is Conservative, Liberal or NDP, they have to listen. We need help now, or yesterday, not maybe next week or a month from now. We have farmers who cannot afford to pay their bills. Sure there are some farmers who are doing well, but the majority of farmers in Lanark Country are in trouble. It is as simple as that.
The Chairman: David, we will do our best. Thank you.
Dr. Bowes: I am going to start by recommending a book that we used as a course text in this course I mentioned. It is called Writing Off the Rural West: Globalization, Governments, and the Transformation of Rural Communities. The text includes a series of essays by geographers, political scientists and sociologists about how, since World War II, government policy at all levels has worked against life in rural communities and is largely responsible for the exit from rural communities to urban areas.
This book was made into an Ideas documentary on CBC Radio called ``The Canadian Clearances.'' If you are familiar with the highland clearances in Scotland, it is exactly the same idea as what has been happening here. It documents all of the industries that have affected rural life in Canada and I highly recommend it for your project.
The students in the six faculties told us why they are afraid to move to rural communities to practise their professions. They have fears of isolation, lack of collaborative opportunities, lack of privacy and difficulty in meeting the professional and personal needs of their spouses. I believe that professionals in rural communities have a responsibility to be advocates for their congregation members, their students and their patients. That is a big part of being a rural professional. As we lose professionals in rural communities, we lose advocates for the people who need us. It also results in a smaller number of people who can take on leadership roles. We see this much in this community where our volunteers are getting older and older. In one organization, our entire work crew is now over 70 years and no one is coming to replace those people.
There is a volunteer organization here in Leeds-Grenville that promotes buying local produce from the farm gate. It is called Local Flavours. I do not believe you have heard about it, so I want to mention it. The group runs a cooking class in Gananoque to educate people to use local produce that comes straight from the farm gate. One of the teachers told me that many people younger than 50 years do not know how to can or freeze the harvest. That skill has been lost and they have no idea how to cook a squash or turnip. They are dependent on processed foods, which are expensive. Such processed food has long-term negative affects on our health.
Senator Callbeck asked earlier today about the role of government in helping rural communities to survive. One thing would be to reverse many of the policy decisions. The closure of small community hospitals, schools and police stations, et cetera, that help rural life flourish, must be reversed. That is up to governments at all levels. Downloading is a big problem because of the lack of money at the lower government levels to take on the increased roles that they now have to play.
Ms. Wight: I came here this morning to listen to what other people had to say to the committee. When Senator Segal asked the first panel, if you had only one thing you could do, what would it be, I thought about my answer to that question.
One thing the federal government could do and have an immediate effect on the rural poor would be to reduce the amount of fuel tax. I had to pay approximately $2 in fuel tax to come here today. I will have to pay another $2 to go home. In a rural community, you have to drive to shop, to bank, to receive health care services and even to go to work.
I have read that one of the contributing factors to the growing federal surplus is the increased fuel tax collected due to the increase in gasoline prices. Some of this surplus has been earmarked to return to urban Canadians in the form of a tax credit for public transportation. We do not have public transportation here as many people mentioned this morning. If you return some of these tax dollars to the rural poor, perhaps using the same system to return GST to low-income families, individuals would then have more money to live on. Public transportation tax credits are only one of a growing number of policies that ignore rural dwellers. While these policies affect all of us in some way or other, it tends to have a more severe effect on the poor. They are not able to roll with the trend as well as others.
A recent announcement of an incentive for purchasing environmentally efficient cars does not help the poor who cannot afford a new car. It is very little help to the rest of us that live in a rural area because the car that receives the largest rebate is the hybrid car that does not have efficient fuel ratings for rural driving.
I am encouraged the Senate has seen the need to review the status of rural poor people and I hope the experience will leave you more aware of how policies are not always equally applied to rural and urban individuals.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That is precisely why we are here today.
Ms. Kralik: Thank you very much for holding these conferences. I have been through the cycle of a broken marriage, single parenthood, education and working like a dog at one-half the salary of the man beside me in order to earn my way. I was able to buy a 722-acre farm where I run over 100 head of animals only to learn that it takes $10,000 worth of hay to produce $5,000 worth of meat.
Everybody has put forward good facts. I would like to remind you of a historical overview. The problems we suffer today come from government policies that favour transnational corporations over our own farmers. The only law they follow is to maximize immediate profits for their shareholders at the cost of our health, environment, humanity and future.
The economy of scale applies very well to industry. The industrial revolution showed us how we could produce widgets for next to nothing. As soon as you apply economy of scale to living creatures and entities, you suffer the consequences of disease, compromised resources and destruction of the environment, not to speak of a breeding ground for a potential pandemic.
Agriculture made civilization possible. It is the foundation on which the civilization in the history of man has come about. The first time that civilization denies its link with the earth, the first time it turns it back on agriculture, spells the end of that civilization.
For example, between 1988-02, exports increased 159 per cent from $10 or $11 billion to $28.5 billion. The net farming income went from $3 billion to $4 billion. The reduction, if you calculate the cost of living, is minus 24 per cent.
No other industry has been under the onslaught of countervailing policies and continued to produce. For the past 50 years, it has been the farmer who has struggled while everything has fought against him. It is only the farmer that has the dedication, loyalty, perseverance and honesty to keep going. Our farmers are the Spartans of our soil. They are the original stewards. They kept everything healthy. If they do not look to the future, there is no future. They cannot be involved in short-term gain.
One of the things I have heard politicians say is the best thing you can do for the rural bumpkin, or the farmer is to get him off the land into a city where he can go to the opera and the ballet and get a good education. Even if a person could discuss the contributions of Tolstoy or Archimedes, if you put that person out in the open, how would he or she survive? The farmer may not have degrees, but the farmer, on a daily basis, responds to the challenge that involve sciences, medicine, architecture, engineering, everything you need to survive. If the farmer does not act immediately and positively, Mother Nature does not accept that he is in a meeting and will call her back two years later. You die immediately, and your cattle or crop dies too. Therefore, the farmer is a uniquely creative individual who responds to a multitude of things. We can rely on the farmers' ingenuity to help us through all the problems we face today with the environment, health care and education.
The Chairman: Thank you very much to all of you. I notice that Mr. Duncan has given us his presentation, and it will be in our record. I hope any of you who have your presentations in writing can do the same thing.
This was a terrific discussion. I have learned a great deal today, because sometimes when you are on Parliament Hill you do not hear these words. We need to hear them again to remember although my own farmers in Alberta keep me on my toes.
Senator Mercer: Thank you everybody for your presentations. Ms. Kralik, all I can say is amen; that was terrific. You hit all of the high points and certainly highlighted some of the things we are considering. I do know how to cook a squash and a turnip. I passed that test.
I am curious, Ms. Wight you answered a question that Senator Segal asked others, and I think it is probably the question we all ask. I would particularly like to hear Ms. Heintzman's response because you are so by rural poverty.
If there was one thing that the government could do tomorrow to help the situation for the rural poor, what your recommendation be? If we could walk into Stephen Harper's office Monday morning and say this is what you have to do today, what would you recommend?
Ms. Heintzman: That is a difficult question because there are so many things that need to be done in this area.
One thing that would help is economic development. We need better jobs, more jobs. We need jobs that are accessible to people from all walks of life. We need good quality jobs that will help us to bring ourselves up. Along with jobs, we need the education in order to do those jobs. We need the education and the accessibility to that education. There is no support for single mothers or fathers to go back to school to get the education they need to get good quality jobs.
Dr. Bowes: I recommend a minimum guaranteed income because the poor spend money locally and it does everybody in the local area a lot of good if they have more money to spend.
Senator Mercer: It amazes me to hear the need for a guaranteed income. We have heard that in many parts of the country. I never thought I would hear those words.
Mr. Campbell, you are the first farmer we met in our travels that has said that his children are anxious to take over the farm.
Mr. Campbell: They are a little nuts like me.
Senator Mercer: The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Mr. Campbell: My brother-in-law in Alberta has kids who want to take over his farm as well. The story is no different out there. We went there last fall as we have friends all across the West, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is the same story. Some government must wake up some day and understand the agricultural community is in trouble. If you do not have farmers, you can have all the regulations you want but they do not mean anything.
Senator Mercer: We have heard from young and old farmers in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that they do not want their kids in the business. There is the issue of what you do with the large asset you have invested in the land.
I am curious, is it because of the fact that you have a milk quota?
Mr. Campbell: I have sold the quota. I am living better now. We invested that.
Senator Mercer: What is driving your two children to come home and take over the farm? It is very unique in all the hearings we have heard.
Mr. Campbell: I guess because my wife and I never talked about our hardship. We just endured it. I have a lot of friends with kids who want to take over the farm. They understand they may have to work off the farm to make a go of it. It is a way of life.
If somehow we can get out of the marketplace what we deserve to be paid, instead of $1.40 for calves but rather $3.40 a pound, we would not have to work off the farm. Other people can do most of the jobs farmers are occupying now.
Senator Mercer: How many people do you employ on the farm?
Mr. Campbell: I employ my daughters.
Senator Mercer: If you were paid fair market value for your product, would be you be willing to hire someone?
Mr. Campbell: More than likely. It would be nice to get a day off.
The Chairman: When we were in the southwest corner of Alberta, we heard from the towns, villages, farms and feedlots. They told us about the rough times they have had in the last few years. We heard from young farmers who were already at the end of the rope. They were doing their best, but they were saying they were not going to be there much longer. On the same day, we met another young fellow and his three brothers and father, who proudly took us around a feedlot operation. He was ready to go into business.
Mr. Campbell: It is a frame of mind. You have to love what you are doing.
My wife's family is from Consort. They moved away from Consort in the 1930s. My wife and her family experienced the seven-year drought in the 1930s. My wife understands the hardships of a farm. She grew up on a farm. Hardship has always been there. That is what is wrong here. We need a better price for our products.
Senator Segal: I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Bowes and Mr. Duncan. I am 100 per cent with you on the farmers' market issue. I think the government has overreacted excessively in producing unnecessary regulations.
If government were to accept Mr. Duncan's analysis there would be a public response. You suggest that we roll back, shut down the CFIA, stop grading, stop determining whether to pasteurize, et cetera.
The question I want you to help us with is this. How do you educate the public? In the end, in a democracy, whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP, whatever you like, will respond to public attitudes, and public attitudes are not as well informed about reality on the farms as we would like them to be. Urban Canadians are disconnected from rural Canadians. We do not know what is actually going on.
Can you imagine Minister Strahl standing up and announcing that we will shut down the CFIA because they are a pain in the butt? The country would go berserk. What is your advice?
Mr. Duncan: The CFIA has excessive regulations on Canadian produce and virtually no regulations on imported produce. As a nation, we are all about regulating what we grow in this country and what Canadian consumers put on their tables. As a nation, we have no influence over the United States or China or Costa Rica on their food production and how they are allowed to apply chemicals and what chemicals they can use.
We have seen the closure of the Hershey plant here in Smiths Falls. Hershey employs 500 people and is a great economic benefit to the whole region. They consume enough milk at Hershey's to take away enough business from 300 dairy farms in Eastern Ontario. They were shut down for two months because of CFIA. That salmonella problem occurred with soy lecithin imported from Brazil. It is not even manufactured in Canada. It was not tested. Hershey discovered the problem and notified the CFIA. Whether because of embarrassment or whatever, CFIA kept that plant closed for two months and $14 million was lost in that plant.
If we are in Pennsylvania sitting around the board room table and discussing the global situation of the company and we have been shut down Smiths Falls for two months and lost $14 million, we may be tempted to say we should be doing business some place else. That is one small example.
Currently, we have a problem with wheat gluten imported from China. The wheat gluten is contaminated with rat poison, which is also a chemical component of fertilizer. That was not tested by CFIA.
If we are going to have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, let it inspect food, all food. Do not let them pick on Canadian producers and shut them down because of regulations that they can enforce. The CFIA should be more vigilant about the quality of imported food. The CFIA is shutting the Canadian farmer out.
I do not know if everybody is familiar with the term ``monopsony,'' where the corporate players buying the food are also the same companies supplying the inputs. We have a vicious circle. I am not going down this road of supply management of pasteurized or non-pasteurized milk, but we need the freedom in this country that we used to have. We need to access the consumer's table without regulation.
I will give you this little example. If I was a bricklayer working in Ottawa, all I would have to do is put my shingle out and go to work. I would pack my trowel and lunch kit, get in my vehicle and go to the job. If I am producing food in this country, there is a $1.5 million to $2 million investment. With that investment, I do not know if I can support my family. I can support myself, but there would not be any money left over to support the second generation of family that wants to take over.
Compare this to a bricklayer who can go to work laying bricks without regulations. He puts on a hard hat and goes to his job. When it comes to agriculture, a list of regulations stifles growth.
Just because you do not have any trees on your street does not mean that trees are not in abundance where I live. Just because you do not drill for water for your own well where you live I may still have to drill for water. I do not pollute the water. I do not need to be told that I have to maintain a 500-foot buffer zone from water. I have been doing that, my father did that and his father before him has been doing the same thing for generations. Now there is legislation to ensure adherence to the policies we have been doing voluntarily for years.
Walkerton was a tragedy and agriculture was a victim of that tragedy. The tragedy of Walkerton was two drunks that did not do their job. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon and portrayed agriculture as the villain. We did nothing wrong. Agriculture was exonerated but the history books show agriculture as the problem. My daughter is taking outdoor education, which is taught both outdoors and in the classroom. Part of that education is aquatics management. I wrote the school and asked for the opportunity to speak in front of the entire school concerning aquatics management. In that part of the course, it lists the pH of water at 4.5 and it lists different industries located upstream. One of the industries upstream is agriculture. To pass the test the students had to answer a question on the industries upstream. The students had to list agriculture as the culprit. It is a loaded question and the answer is agriculture as the culprit.
We need to get around this mindset. Where I live, the grass is green, the corn grows tall and we feed people. We are being punished for doing that job.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for coming today. Mr. Bowes, I would like you to explain your comment on misleading advertising. I want to know more about your comment on what can be called a Canadian product.
Mr. Bowes: If 51 per cent of the final cost is incurred in Canada, then it can be called a Canadian product. For example, a manufacturer can purchase cucumbers anywhere in the world and pickle them here in Canada. The manufacturer can purchase the cucumbers cheaply. If the cost of pickling, jarring and labelling costs 51 per cent of the final cost, it can be listed as a Canadian product even though it is not from Canada.
I am not in favour of regulations. I am in favour of removing regulations that benefit neither the consumer nor the producer. We have too many regulations. We are overloaded with them. They add cost, time and effort to our situation. The governments have become good at creating an uneven playing field for Canadian producers. The regulations do not allow Canadian food producers to compete with food produced outside of our borders, food that is not regulated.
Foreign government policies are not as stringent as they are here in Canada. We have a safe food supply here in Canada; that is not my concern. My concern is unsafe food that is not inspected.
By the way, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is directly responsible for most food sold in Canadian stores. Over 80 per cent of the food imported into Canada is not inspected. The CFIA is responsible. No other agency has such power. We all want safe food, of course we do. We need a national food policy so producers can have an objective food policy. We need to educate Canadian consumers to what is and is not inspected.
Instead of running around clapping themselves on the back about the good job they are doing, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, should be educating the public about the real dangers regarding imported food. This is the list from yesterday of recalled food items for the month of March. Canadians consumers have been used as guinea pigs with these items. The CFIA does not stop this food from reaching the consumer. That system is not working well. Canadian consumers have heard about these food safety policies, but they are empty promises.
Farmers are in trouble in this country. Farmers represent somewhere between 1.5 per cent to 2 percent of the population. Farmers are in trouble in this country, but the people in the most trouble are Canadian consumers.
Senator Callbeck: Dr. Bowes, you were in the middle of a list where you said we have to reverse certain trends. You mentioned the closure of schools and hospitals, and the downloading of services. Could you expand on those comments?
Dr. Bowes: Regulations brought in by government such as the GST Tax Credit do not really help people who cannot buy a new fridge or new car. Many of the people I know are living on less than $20,000 a year.
I also think that there is a role for regulation in government and I fully agree with what Mr. Bowes and Mr. Duncan have said. I do not think the role for government regulation is the kind of thing that happened through the local health board concerning farmers' markets. I fully support the health and safety of locally produced food. I think there is a role in protecting the public. Part of government's role then, is to educate the public on the things that Mr. Bowes has just detailed because people do not know what they are buying. They do not know the lack of safety of what they are buying or they would not eat it.
We are consuming a dreadful amount of chemicals in our air, soil, water and food and most people do not know what they are taking in. Part of it is public education, part of it is legislation. Waiting for big industry to voluntarily do the right thing by the environment has not worked. It is up to government to act to protect us.
The Chairman: This has been quite a day. We want to thank all of you for being so patient. We would like to stay here for hours. We could keep on going. We need to hear these things and we need hear them in every part of Canada. We are pleased to be here today. You obviously have gone to much trouble to come to this meeting. We thank you and we thank all of those people who have stayed with us throughout the day.
This has been a very good opportunity for this committee. I hope that you will find when we get our report out many months from now, that it will reflect some of your concerns and suggestions.
Thank you, colleagues, for your great work.
The committee adjourned.