Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 24 - Evidence, May 1, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 7:01 p.m. to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening, honourable senators, witnesses, and to all of those watching the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Last May, this committee was authorized to examine and report on rural poverty in Canada. Last fall, we heard from a number of expert witnesses who gave us an overview of rural Canada and its poverty.
On the basis of that testimony, we wrote an interim report which we released in December and which, by all accounts, really struck a nerve. We are now in the midst of our second phase of the study, where we meet with rural Canadians in rural Canada.
So far, we have travelled the four Eastern and the four Western provinces, and along the way we have met a truly wonderful and diverse group of rural Canadians who have welcomed us with open arms into their communities and sometimes even into their homes.
However, the committee still has work to do. We still have to visit rural communities in Quebec, Ontario and the Territories. We still want to meet with as many people as we can right here in Ottawa, because we need to get this right and we need to understand rural poverty in its core.
This evening's witnesses are from the Ontario Landowners Association, an organization formed in February 2006 by various existing county-level associations. With us tonight are Bill Duncan from Packenham and Jacqueline Fennell from Spencerville; both are directors of the Ontario Landowners Association. They are joined by Merle Bowes of Carleton Place, an executive with the association, and Shawn Carmichael, a member of the association from Spencerville.
Welcome to you all.
Jacqueline Fennell, Director, Ontario Landowners Association: I would like to thank you for having us here this evening. I would like to further explain our background with the Ontario Landowners Association. I am with the Leeds and Grenville Landowners Association, south of Ottawa.
Our organization began in November of 1994, and we represent about 550 families in Leeds and Grenville. The Ontario Landowners Association represents over 15,000 families across Ontario, and we have 16 county chapters. As Senator Fairbairn stated, we amalgamated into the Ontario Landowners Association in February of last year.
Our main focus is over-regulation and property rights. We feel that should property rights be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, it would begin to address some of the problems, but it is not the answer; it is just one step that will help us to get to where we need to be. Rural poverty is a very important issue, and of course it is becoming a greater concern to all of us who live in Ontario and, indeed, across Canada.
Mr. Bowes will give you an overview of the core issues.
Merle Bowes, Executive, Ontario Landowners Association: I would like to speak about food imports and the problems that creates for Canadian producers. In many ways, we are absolutely over-regulated with production and processing standards here in Canada.
None of us have any problem with the high standards. That is not our complaint. Our complaint is that we are faced with more and more imports coming in from countries that absolutely do not have the same production or processing standards in many cases, which creates an unlevel playing field and eats up our market.
I submitted information for you from the parliamentary library concerning imports from China. It is amazing to me some of the things we are importing. There is no need to import certain items. The biggest problem I have is the quality of food imported from China. We know that there are severe problems with production and processing standards in China, but even greater than that are the things we do not know about. There are severe problems with them and there are many examples.
I also submitted an article from the Associated Press in the United States talking about food imports from China coming into the United States and the problems it is causing there.
We have managed to create a playing field that is very unfair to Canadian producers because of the regulations we face in this country that are not being lived up to, nor requested to be lived up to, by foreign exporters of food into Canada.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the UN body designed to create world food standards and fair trade practices. These people are unelected and are unaccountable to Canadians. They are tremendously influenced by other UN bodies, such as WHO, WTO, FAO, all of which in turn are strongly influenced by multinational food corporations.
Canada's standards of food production are very high compared to most other countries in the world. When the decision is made to create a world standard, Canada's food standard has nowhere to go but down if it is to be in sync with a world food standard.
At home we have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which seems intent on attacking Canadian producers, in spite of the fact we have a good-quality product in this country, probably the highest in the world. When they attack us, we have no recourse but through the legal system, which is expensive. You must then prove yourself innocent rather than be proven guilty of some infraction by them. It is too costly. Most of us cannot afford to deal with these problems through the legal system.
Food safety programs instituted by the CFIA and provincial health units are deliberately confusing food grading with food safety. The requirement to grade vegetables at a farmers' market, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with safety. The grading in the stores of produce and food for the most part has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It is about appearance, shape and size. That is expensive for vegetable growers like myself and those who sell their products directly to consumers. For me to unnecessarily grade all of my product when it provides no benefit to myself or my clients or customers is just extra time and effort for nothing.
Meanwhile, we see all sorts of abuse of the grading system. It is not uncommon in grocery stores to see a product with ``Canada Grade A'' on it. The example I will give you is carrots in a cellophane pack with ``Canada Grade 1'' written on the outside and mould on the inside. There is deliberate confusion.
``Product of Canada'' labelling has to stop and be better defined so it actually represents a product of Canada, not just where 51 per cent of the cost in producing that product was incurred. There needs to be absolute truth in labelling. I brought some examples of poor labelling to our last meeting with Senator Gustafson, where products, well-known brand names, have no name on them as to where they were produced or manufactured. They would chase me all over my farmers' market to ensure that the products I grow in Lanark County are products of Ontario and they make me say so.
There seems to be a double standard in regard to labelling. There is a lot of focus on the little guy, while multinational corporations are getting away with improper labelling and using the ``Product of Canada'' label, which is totally misleading to consumers. Most would believe the contents would be from Canada and it is not necessarily so.
Shawn Carmichael, Member, Ontario Landowners Association: I have two important points. One is access to the domestic market. As small producers, we need that and it must be guaranteed. It is guaranteed to us under the Charter.
Second, following up on Mr. Bowes' point with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, this monster was created back in 1997 and is out of hand. On April 19, a 27-page decision was released by a judge of the Federal Court stating that, in our case, these people no longer follow their own rules and regulations. The question becomes: When is the taxpayer going to stop paying for these people's mistakes?
Don Salkeld from Northern Goose Processors Ltd. was awarded $9 million two years ago from these people. The exact same thing that they did to him, they did to me. It is one thing for a little farmer to tell you these people are corrupt and biased, but it is another thing when a Federal Court judge tells you this.
Minister Strahl is responsible for these people, and our message tonight is that something has to be done. These people have to be held accountable.
Bill Duncan, Director, Ontario Landowners Association: The three main themes we would like to concentrate on have already been mentioned: over-regulation of Canadian agriculture; restricted access to the Canadian domestic market; and property rights. From our point of view these three issues are tied together at the hip. To have a prosperous rural economy the three have to be linked together.
With over-regulation, we have seen our once prosperous agricultural industry and rural communities forced into ``slavery.'' I do not like to use that word, but we are being restricted to the point where we are being over-regulated. The government has allowed imports to come into the country, which basically takes away our good Canadian jobs.
Mr. Carmichael mentioned the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The only thing I could add regarding that agency and the local health units is that the CFIA has no control over imported products. With regard to food imported into this country, CFIA does not have any control over processing, legislation or regulations in China or any other foreign nation. The only job they have, then, is to regulate and inspect Canadian products. I think that we are being over-regulated to the detriment of all of rural agriculture and the rural communities.
I, too, am more interested in answering questions. I do not want to preach to senators this evening. This stuff is old hat to us, but our purpose this evening is to understand what the rest of the Canadian public does not understand about what is happening to agriculture and rural communities. When you ask us questions, we get a better understanding of where we have to concentrate our message.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We are pleased that you have come here tonight.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you folks for being here tonight and making your presentations. I, too, am one who feels that property rights should be enshrined in our Constitution, and unfortunately they are not and it is causing concerns. I did not know it was causing concerns with people like you at the farm level.
There is an example in British Columbia, where I am from, where a creek was actually re-routed through someone's property. The authorities said, ``Look, you have no property rights.'' I would like to know how that is impacting you.
I will play devil's advocate because the CFIA did an incredible job on BSE and several other issues.
Mr. Bowes, you indicated that they are hassling you in your little market with respect to the products you are trying to sell. I gather you are growing these products on your own farm or buying from local farmers.
Mr. Bowes: I grow them myself. Our markets for the most part in Eastern Ontario are all producer-based markets, which means you grow it and sell it. There is no reselling.
Senator St. Germain: Does CFIA actually come into your market?
Mr. Bowes: With the grading standards they can, and I am expecting more of that sort of action in the near future.
Senator St. Germain: Would you explain to me how property rights are affecting you negatively in your operations?
Mr. Carmichael: If we had property rights enshrined in the Constitution, that would solve about 80 per cent of our problems with one stroke of the pen. With many of these regulations and rules that we face, if property rights were enshrined in the Constitution, we would not have a lot to worry about. The fact that we have no control over our property leaves us vulnerable to the next whim of the government.
Ms. Fennell: A document I believe you have been given, entitled ``The Problems,'' deals with the major problem facing rural Canada, which is over-regulation. This document goes into some of the regulations that are being brought upon us in Ontario. The Clean Water Act, the Species at Risk Act and the provincial policy statement are three pieces of legislation that remove access to one's own property for the benefit of the public good, through conservation authorities.
You mentioned the gentleman who had his creek rerouted. We have a problem in Ontario where the creek or municipal drain is there. Now we are losing the right to use the land around that water. If there is an aquifer on your property, with this Clean Water Act that was passed last year, you will lose the right to use some of that property around that aquifer.
There is no compensation for the farmer who is losing possibly hundreds of acres. There is no compensation for a farmer or a landowner who has a loggerhead shrike living on their property because the bird is now one of the endangered species. Basically, they cannot alter any of the terrain where that loggerhead shrike, as one example, might be living. There is an example in Carleton Place of a family who lost, I believe, 500 acres of their property because the loggerhead shrike habitat had been found on that property.
There is no compensation for any of these things. You pay the taxes and the mortgage, but the bird or the water or whatever else comes before your rights.
Mr. Duncan: I will paraphrase because I do not have the legislation in front of me to read the actual act, but section 83 of the Clean Water Act essentially refers to seizing private property without consent, payment or compensation. Sections 47 and 53 provide municipalities with the authority to charge for water extraction permits — for example, water meters on rural wells.
Sections 49 and 50 outlaw land-use activities that are deemed a threat to groundwater. Under section 56, anything a permanent inspector requires to be done must be done regardless of the expense. Declaring bankruptcy to avoid payment will not be tolerated. The expense must be paid.
Property rights would at least give us compensation. If I have 400 acres with a creek running through the middle of my property, and a buffer zone is designated on either side of that creek — some buffer zones are as wide as 400 metres — I will not get paid for it. I cannot use the land. I am restricted from using the land to protect that creek, but I will receive no compensation. Property rights will at least ensure that if that land is for the public good, we will be compensated in a fair and timely fashion.
The other thing about property rights that perhaps is confusing to some people, we do not want to write property rights down and create a legal document that is 5,500 pages long. I will explain property rights to you the way that I like it best — it is like the tie that you have around your neck. You can wear a blue one or a green one. You can take it off your neck and put it on your head and wear it as a bandanna. You can wear it around your waist. That is your tie; you own it. That is your property and you get to do with it as you wish, as long as you do not use that tie to hang someone.
Owning property allows you to enjoy it and make a living from it, as long as you do not affect your neighbour. In the case of water, you have the right to access that water, but you do not have the right to create a dam and restrict your neighbour from having the same access. To me, that is the essence of property rights.
Mr. Bowes: I have one more example of a problem. In the new Ontario Species at Risk Act, there is a statement in the preamble that says something like the people of Ontario have decided to do their share in protecting Ontario's wildlife and wildlife habitat. That is absolutely untrue. The weight, the cost of it all, falls on the rural landowner. It does not affect someone on Bank Street in Ottawa or on any street in any other urban area of this country. The cost is on our shoulders; there is no compensation whatsoever. The people of Ontario have not decided they will do their share; they have decided I will do mine as a landowner.
There are many examples of these things, which are adding cost that is totally unaffordable to the farming community. The Nutrient Management Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Clean Water Act, the provincial statement of land use — there are so many of these examples. We cannot afford it, especially when we are dealing with imported food products from countries where the same regulations and costs of these regulations do not exist.
Senator St. Germain: The dominance of urban Canada on rural Canada is a negative impact. I live on acreage and I know what you are talking about. They want to continue polluting with their vehicles and dumping their sewage, and yet they want to have rural Canada pay the ultimate price, sometimes indiscriminately.
I have sympathy with what you are saying. However, in the same breath, as our population grows, how do we regulate things like safe drinking water? The thing is that may we end up with a situation like we have had in Ontario with Walkerton, for instance.
Mr. Carmichael: Let us be honest. That was two drunks who did not know what they were doing. We are saying that, yes, everyone wants safe drinking water. No one would argue against that, but everyone has to pay their fair share. It cannot be just the rural landowner who bears all the cost.
Mr. Bowes: In our area in Eastern Ontario, a $2.1 million groundwater study was conducted, funded by the Ministry of the Environment, regarding threats or potential threats to groundwater in the study area, which was the Mississippi River and the Rideau River watersheds. In that area, 400 sites were identified as potential threats to groundwater supplies. Of those, 385 were on government-owned facilities, and yet we are the villain. That study was done by Golder Associates.
Senator Peterson: On the issue of property rights, I understand what you are getting at, but what percentage of people would be impacted by this in a detrimental way? Not everyone has easements running through their land. How big an issue is it? Is it every farmer?
Ms. Fennell: Most farmers have tile drainage, so there is a municipal drain travelling through most properties. The municipal drain then becomes a creek — frogs, fish, beaver and other species and habitat live there. When this happens, we need to protect it for those animals, not for the drainage that the farmer needs to grow the crops to feed Canada.
Senator St. Germain referred to something very important. Yes, our population is growing, and we are not going to be able to feed our population soon because we are eliminating the Canadian farmer.
While it is fine for everyone to say there is always food in the grocery store, the document that Mr. Bowes has given you about the imports, if the consumers knew what they were buying when they were buying the imported food, they would not buy it. If they were given an opportunity to buy food where the country of origin was Canada rather than China, as an example, Canadians would buy the products that they know meet Canada's high level of standards.
These regulations are eliminating the farmers in Canada, and soon we will not be able to grow the food that we need to provide for Canadian citizens. It is a huge issue.
Senator Peterson: I did not realize it was that large. I am from Saskatchewan and have not been apprised of this, but certainly it should be looked into.
Mr. Bowes: There are so many ways in which it can impact with all of the various regulations. Allow me to give you an example. I have a 65-acre property that is all one field. First, I went to get a building permit on that property a few years ago and was told by the local building official that I could not get a permit on it because it is a buffer zone for an aggregate resource on the next property. Thus, there is no way I can build a home on my own property.
Second, the property is impacted by the floodplain along the Mississippi River, which then has a buffer zone around it that extends out into my field. There is a creek at one end of the property that has a buffer zone. I will be grandfathered to allow me to continue to use my land, but when I sell it or change the nature of my operation, the 65 acres of productive land will be reduced to about 15 acres by the regulations. We do not have property rights and we have no right to compensation when our land is taken out of production. It has tremendous impact on many farmers.
Senator Peterson: What do you mean by the phrase ``access to domestic markets?''
Mr. Carmichael: Canadian producers want access to the domestic market and do not want to be forced to join a cartel or marketing board. We want the right to sell to the domestic market because that right has been guaranteed to us in the Charter. We are simply asking that government recognize that right.
Senator Peterson: How has that right been lost? I do not understand why you cannot sell to the domestic market.
Ms. Fennell: Currently, we can sell only to a board or commodity organization, depending on the nature of the commodity. For example, if someone would like to go to Mr. Duncan's farm to buy a chicken to eat rather than buy one from the grocery store, he is not allowed to do so without Mr. Duncan first investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a quota in order to fill that market. It is a product that you cannot buy at the grocery store. The food at the grocery store is generally from large factory-style farms. Many consumers want to regain a connection to the place where their food is grown and have a personal relationship with the grower of their food. In that way, they can know what the animals have been fed and whether pesticides or other possible contaminants have been used on the property. Right now, you do not have that right. If you want to buy a chicken from me, I would not be allowed to sell it to you because I would be breaking the law, and you would be breaking the law for buying it. That is the domestic market that we cannot access.
Mr. Carmichael: Further, in respect of how it ties into rural poverty, prior to the 1960s we had access to the domestic market, and all farmers could produce and share in that market. We talk about globalization, but in the rural countryside we call it ``gobble-ization'' because so many aspects of our economy have been gobbled up, such as the cheese factories, slaughterhouses and grading stations from every other concession, all of which contributed to the local economy, making it prosperous. Today, we have commuters occupying these farms or they have been bought up by factory farm operations. These commuters do not benefit the local economy. God bless them, I would do the same if I were one of them, but when they come to the city, they buy their groceries and supplies and come back home. We no longer see those dollars in the local economy.
Senator Peterson: Are marketing boards part of the issue?
Mr. Carmichael: They are, part and parcel. We have no issues with the marketing boards in that they serve a purpose to deal with the Saputos and the Parmalats of the world. We have no interest in that market. As small producers, we have a market of people who want a direct connection with the producer so they know where their food comes from.
Senator Mercer: I sense a paranoia about government involvement in everything from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to land regulations to environmental protection. The fact is that Walkerton might indeed have been a problem because of a couple of drunks who did not know what they were doing. When such a tragedy happens, government has the responsibility to respond and to protect the greater good of the citizens. Indeed, the events at Walkerton have caused all of us across the country to look at how we manage our water. In Walkerton, they were drunks who did a lousy job, which meant that all citizens of the country, whether rural or urban, were exposed to the possibility of drinking bad water.
You live on farms and know that sometimes the products and by-products on farms can contribute to pollution if they not managed properly by you and by the community. In the case of Walkerton, they did a lousy job, and we know that.
Mr. Carmichael, I believe you said that property rights in the Constitution would solve 80 per cent of the problems. I believe those were your words.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes.
Senator Mercer: I do not understand how that would solve 80 per cent of your problems.
Mr. Carmichael: The issue of property rights is the common link between all of our problems. If we had property rights, we would have the right to enjoy the use of our properties for our purposes. No one is saying that we would want to inflict any wrongdoing on our neighbour, such as infect the water or anything like that. We simply need the right to enjoy and to use our properties without facing all of these rules and regulations that will not allow us to derive an income from our property.
Ms. Fennell: I agree that we need to ensure clean water for all citizens of Canada to drink. However, that is a benefit for all and it should not be shouldered by us. If it is for the public good, then the public has to pay, not the individual farmer.
For example, someone might buy 300 acres to provide an income for their family in order to feed them and put the kids through school. Then, they face the Clean Water Act, the provincial policy statement and the Species at Risk Act. If they lose access to part of that 300 acres, say 100 to 150 acres, they have lost the ability to feed their family. Yes, it is important for everyone to have clean water. However, property is often bought with a specific purpose in mind after careful examination and exploration of the relevant information to ensure that there were no restrictions. Yes, things can change, but if the right to earn a living, enjoy and use your property is taken away, then there must be compensation in a timely fashion.
Senator Mercer: Compensation by whom?
Ms. Fennell: I would say by the public, which is the government.
Senator Mercer: Let us consider the scenario: There is a 300-acre operation with a stream running through it; there are regulations; all of the things that could go wrong go wrong; and 150 acres of the 300 acres are lost. Who should pay?
Mr. Carmichael: The question is: Who will benefit from it? In our case, the urban population will benefit. Whoever is going to be benefiting from this should be paying for it; since it is the general public, the government has the responsibility.
Senator Mercer: You are saying that any time a regulation, whether it be the Clean Water Act or any regulation that might come along — and obviously you think there are too many regulations — the federal, provincial and municipal governments have to say, ``Okay, this is going to affect Ms. Fennell's farm. She is going to lose the use of 50 acres. We have to compensate her and her family for her inability to use that acreage as she had before.''
Mr. Carmichael: Correct.
Senator Mercer: Let us follow this scenario down a little. Let us assume we do that. I am having difficulty following how this plays out.
If we agree with everything you have said and we found some way of enshrining the property rights in the Constitution and doing some of the other things you want, I am trying to figure out who pays. There is only one taxpayer. It is you and me, whether we live in Lanark County or downtown Toronto or downtown Halifax. They will all pay. If we do this, does it not significantly drive up the cost of what the government does?
Ms. Fennell: The government would look at what they are doing and how it would impact the taxpayers. Why should I shoulder that cost and everyone else get this for free?
Senator Mercer: I am not suggesting you are wrong. You will find many sympathetic ears on this committee regarding the fact that farmers are not paid a fair price for the work they do or for the products they produce. That is probably one of the easiest things to agree on around this table.
We also have the responsibility of asking how we get there without causing rampant inflation and skyrocketing taxes. How do we do that in a manageable way?
Mr. Carmichael: You have to look first at the regulation being implemented. Is it common sense? Do we need that regulation?
Senator Mercer: Let us look at the Ontario legislation in response to the Walkerton tragedy. People died because of bad water. Yes, they died because of —
Mr. Carmichael: Two drunks.
Senator Mercer: — two incompetent people managing the water in Walkerton. I understand that. However, government has the responsibility to protect the rural people in the area of Walkerton, as well as the people who live in the Town of Walkerton and other towns. I am trying to find an answer.
Mr. Bowes: We all want clean water. On the farms, we drink the water that we have control over. We control whether it is polluted or not polluted. As I stated earlier, a groundwater study in this large area of Eastern Ontario indicated that agriculture was not the problem.
With the loggerhead shrike, for example, the provincial Minister of Natural Resources enter into a contract with individuals to breed and release loggerhead shrikes on the northern fringe of their habitat, which is in my area. No one has ever seen one that I know of, yet a government program, flowing from the legislation, made sure there was going to be a problem.
Senator Mercer: I understand that this bird is at risk. Tell me about the loggerhead shrike.
Mr. Bowes: It is a small predatory bird that eats insects, moles and mice. It is also referred to as the butcher bird because of its habit of impaling its prey on thorns and barbed wire fences.
Here is a different way of looking at that loggerhead shrike example. I am a certified organic market gardener. I have done an environmental farm plan. All that is in place. Now the loggerhead shrike comes close to one of my growing areas and builds a nest. The loggerhead shrike must have been satisfied. Why are we not getting a clap on the back instead of a slap on the head because we have an environment that will support and attract that wildlife?
Senator Mercer: We have this bird flying around Eastern Ontario, and I do not want to cage it but I want to understand it.
The government says we need to preserve this species and reintroduces it to areas where it is not currently living. What the government does not explain is that if the bird does nest on Ms. Fennell's farm, there are certain parts of her farm she cannot use because they now become protected areas. She has not been able to sell the land to conservation groups that would protect it. That is really the problem. You are saying there is no linkage between the protection of the species and where the species will live. In this case, it takes productive farm land out of production because we have to give bird some space to live if we are going to do this reintroduction.
Mr. Duncan: The new Species at Risk Act in Ontario, when it passes third reading, applies not only to animals but to plants as well. There are 150 species.
If the loggerhead shrike decided to take up residence on my property, I have to provide a 1,000-metre buffer zone around that bird and its habitat. If I were to destroy that bird to eliminate the problem, the minimum fine is $250,000.
If we are going to create legislation to protect the species, why punish the people who actually look after the bird? Where I live, we have deer and all kinds of wildlife; they live with us. That is part of what rural living is all about. The animals are part of what we are. It is what we do. It is what we are about.
Most farms have a bush lot in Eastern Ontario. That bush lot is a managed industry as well. It provides an income to the farmer, but it also provides habitat for the animals. Many farmers would harvest wood the same way as they harvest a crop, by selective cutting.
We have lived for years in harmony with our surrounding areas. Why would I destroy my farm so that I cannot make a living? Why would I want to destroy all the wildlife that lives on my property? I enjoy what lives on my property, all the wildlife around me. There are more wild turkeys than I would like to see, but I do enjoy watching them, and deer as well.
Someone has taken it upon themselves to reintroduce this endangered species. It is not endangered in North America; it just does not live here. Then I am told that I have lost all this for the sake of a bird; I cannot use the land and I cannot be compensated.
When we are talking about the protection of clean water, some of this responsibility for the clean water must fall on to the municipality that is extracting the water and where they are drilling their wells. I can give you document after document after document where a municipality has gone from taking water from a river and then decided to drill wells. They have come out into rural Ontario and plunked wells beside cattle, dairy and beef farms. They have created buffer zones and said that where this well is located, we have a 100-day catchment area, and then they have extended them out to five years.
If you look at some of the wells that have been placed in Eastern Ontario in the five-year catchment area, they start to overlap. They are saying to those farmers inside those catchment areas: ``You can farm as long as you are alive and you are farming, but the minute you quit, this is no longer a viable farm and land will have to sit vacant.''
If they want to drill wells, maybe they should put some thought into where they will drill those wells. If a person would like to go to Walkerton and visit the well in question, they would see that it was put in the wrong place to start with. We cannot change what happened 30, 40 or 50 years ago when the well was put in the wrong spot, but when the problem exists and they know it is wrong, it must be changed. You do not wait for the horse to leave the barn before shutting the door. Then we go along and start pointing fingers. This is what happened in Walkerton. Who is responsible? We watched Mike Harris being raked over the coals because that was the current provincial government. Suggestions came out of the Walkerton inquiry that turned into the Clean Water Act. I defy anyone to read the Clean Water Act and say it is all about protecting water. The Clean Water Act is about charging for water. You have to read the act.
Senator Callbeck: I want to talk about labelling. I know we talked about this subject when we visited Athens, Ontario. As I understand it, if you are producing a product and can show that 51 per cent of the cost of that product was spent in Canada, then you can put a label on the item stating ``Product of Canada.'' Who gives the authority to put that label on the product?
Mr. Bowes: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Senator Callbeck: How long has this been in effect?
Mr. Bowes: Since 1997, probably. It has been in effect for a good number of years, and no one seems to be interested in telling the Canadian public about that problem. That is one of the problems I see. Why is not one of the roles of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to tell the truth in regard to labelling and other aspects of food production? This has been on the books for several years.
Mr. Carmichael: It also leads to the greater problem of how it affects the Canadian producer. As a registered egg grading station, I can bring eggs all the way from Mexico and sell them as Canada Grade A. The consumer does not know the difference. As long as they are repackaged and reworked at the grading station, they can be labelled as Canada Grade A. The consumer has no idea what is in there.
Senator Callbeck: You have to show that 51 per cent of the cost was in Canada.
Mr. Carmichael: Not with eggs, no. In Mexico you can buy eggs right now for 30 cents a dozen. Why would any packager in Canada buy from any producer in Canada when the price in Canada is four times as much? What does that do? That displaces Canadian producers.
Senator Callbeck: What other items are in the same category as eggs?
Mr. Carmichael: Right now there is a certain amount of dairy product that comes into the country. The list is vast and includes fish. Right now we have a situation where fish caught off the East Coast is taken to China, processed and brought back into the Canadian market to be sold as Canadian fish.
Senator Callbeck: Within that 51 per cent, can the money you spend promoting or advertising the product be part of the cost?
Mr. Bowes: Absolutely; labour, everything.
Mr. Carmichael: The product can be purely from another country, as long as you can generate 51 per cent of the cost of getting it into this country.
Mr. Bowes: This applies as long as 51 per cent of the cost of the final product is incurred in Canada. In regard to vegetables and fruit, there must be a significant change in the appearance of the product. The example used before was sliced peaches in a can. That changes the appearance significantly.
The other thing that is happening is blending the product and calling it Canadian. As an example, if peas and carrots are mixed, you can have the peas from one country and carrots from another, as long as the 51 per cent rule is met.
Senator Callbeck: You said this started in 1997.
Mr. Carmichael: The CFIA used to be Agriculture Canada. In 1997, the Chrétien government spun them off on to their own little island. They wanted the CFIA at arm's length from the government and the public so they could not be influenced. The problem occurs when you put them at arm's length from everybody. Once a cancer starts inside the organization, it spreads. They are no longer accountable to the government or the public, and this is where these regulations originate.
Senator Callbeck: Did this labelling, the 51 per cent rule, come after CFIA was spun off?
Mr. Carmichael: They really started passing regulations on labelling around 2001. Since 2001, they have been stepping up their regulations on it.
Senator Callbeck: In order to put ``Product of Canada'' on a product back in 1990, what was the regulation then?
Mr. Carmichael: I could not tell you that. I did not know about that then. I could hazard a guess, but I really would not know.
Mr. Duncan: Labelling has become so ridiculous in this country that you can actually find ``Product of Canada'' olives. We do not have to do too much research in that department as we do not grow them here. That practice restricts Canadian producers. The customer needs to understand where their food is coming from because the playing field is not level. With regulations and how commodities are governed in this country, we have swung the door open and allowed imports to come in that do not meet the same standards.
For example, beef is one of the few products that we still export. We are down to wheat and beef, the two products that Canada still exports. For the most part, 80 per cent of what we consume in this country is imported now. Scott Reid, Member of Parliament for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, brought to our attention at one his meetings in his riding that Canada is no longer able to feed itself. The agricultural sector no longer has the capacity to feed this country. If anything was to happen to our border, a closure for whatever reason, we would have a serious problem. We have basically three days of food in this country at any given time. We do not have the capacity now to feed ourselves.
A prime example occurred with the BSE crisis and what a wonderful job the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done. I will have to differ on that assessment. For example, in the last 10 years, Ontario lost 100 slaughterhouses. We have lost the capacity to process beef. When the BSE crisis hit, we were scrambling, looking for a place to get rid of our livestock. These fat steers had to go someplace and we did not have an export market. We are still restricted in that export market. Every regulation that could be thrown at an abattoir was thrown them, and it resulted in shutting them down. What was good for the last 100 years was no longer adequate. The cost of refurbishing the plants got to the point where they could not see their way out of it, so they closed. We are still scrambling to figure out what happens with the products that we create in abundance that we must export. If anything happens to those borders, we will be back in the same position.
The intention behind the regulations is a wonderful thing to shoot for, which is to make sure that all our food is safe. What is good for the goose, then, is good for the gander.
We have talked about water and pollution here this evening. We have said that it is fine to come out into rural Canada and restrict the use of land for the public good. However, how many cities in Canada do not have sewage treatment and are allowed to dump sewage into the oceans?
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has basically ruined the East and West Coast fisheries. Now they are out there regulating a mud puddle nearest you. That is what they have resorted to now — ensuring that any little area that could support a minnow is protected. However, it comes out of my pocket; it does not come out of the general coffers of any citizen in the urban centre. This is the unfair part.
If you want Canadian producers to succeed, then we have to approach this issue from a common sense perspective. Regulations must create benefits for the producer as well as the consumer.
I would be interested in finding out the age of our farmers. I do not mean the average age. I would like to know the percentage. For example, how many farmers in their seventies are still farming? How many are in their sixties, fifties or thirties? I can guarantee that the bulk of farmers still producing food in this country are well into their sixties; perhaps those over their seventies could be our major food producers.
If I could conduct a study in my small area, two farmers in my whole community are under the age of 40. Ten years ago, that number would have been 60 farmers. We have a serious situation. Time is of the essence because once these fellows retire, there is no one to take their place.
Senator Peterson, being from Saskatchewan, with its large rural area, must see the age of the farmers out there.
Senator Peterson: Sixty-three.
Mr. Duncan: Is 63 the average?
Mr. Carmichael: As was said, if you took all the 70-year-olds out of the field, the lights would go out. This is a problem.
Mr. Duncan: If you want to encourage prosperity in rural communities, there must be some hope for agriculture to exist. It is the backbone of rural communities. For all I know, in all of Canada, maybe agriculture still is the major industry in this country. We do not know.
We are living in the age of technology and the high-speed Internet. Those are glamorous occupations. Now we look at trades as being a serious problem. We do not have enough young people going into the trades. Who will feed us?
Mr. Bowes: I am a parent. I have four children, most of whom are in their early twenties. I am old enough and well enough established that I will be able to stumble my way through what is left of my agricultural career, but I have no idea what will happen to my children.
I am a sixth-generation Canadian. Many members of our family have been involved in agriculture. As far as I know, of all my close relatives, including my children, I am the last one who will be involved in agriculture. That story is true across the board.
There is a big significance in that. This is not only about the sad plight of agriculture in Canada. Primary food producers represent approximately 1.5 per cent of the population in Canada. It is the other 98.5 per cent who will suffer in the long run.
One of my great concerns is this: Where will my children be getting their food? Will we have to rely on countries like China, Brazil or Argentina for our food? I do not like that scenario.
Mr. Carmichael: We can solve this problem together. From our perspective, the problem of rural poverty will not cost the federal government a dime. We have the answers and we can solve it. It is a matter of keeping the dialogue going and getting the job done.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Two senators, Senator Mahovlich and Senator Segal, were not here for most of the meeting. They were in our Foreign Affairs Committee, I gather.
Senator Segal: I was in Athens, Ontario, when the first presentation was made.
The Chairman: Yes, of course, but I am thinking about this evening, which has been quite lively.
It has been a good evening because you have set things out for us. You have told it the way it is and you have ended in a positive way. We will pursue these issues in our report. While there are very deep problems right across the country — and we have travelled, to a large degree, across the country now — we have found that there is still spirit and desire, together with talent and experience in the agricultural sector. If the right people work together, you can make it work. That is one of the more positive things we have heard.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for coming this evening. It is good to see you again. We wish you the very best. If you have other thoughts, please get in touch with us.
Ms. Fennell: I will leave with the committee clerk the Ontario Landowners Association discussion paper entitled ``Finding Profits on Canadian Farms.'' It gives some background on some of these issues, but it also provides solutions. I think that is an important thing — not just to come here and complain about the problems but to offer solutions. I would like to leave this paper with you, in addition to the other documents we have provided this evening.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will ensure that each member of the committee receives it.
The committee continued in camera.