Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 26 - Evidence, May 15, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 7:39 p.m. to examine and report upon rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Tonight's meeting is not being broadcast, so I will keep my opening remarks brief. Our first witnesses this evening are from the Solidarité rurale du Québec. Cherkaoui Ferdous is general secretary and Jacques Proulx — and old friend of ours — is president. In our second hour, we will hear from André Campeau, president, and Daniel Lambert, project officer, both here on behalf of MFR-Québec.
We have one hour with each set of witnesses. I will invite colleagues to keep their questions as brief as possible, so that witnesses can respond fully and for everyone to be able to contribute. I want to thank our witnesses for having the patience to stay and wait while we carried on over in the Senate.
Please proceed, Mr. Proulx.
[Translation]
Jacques Proulx, President, Solidarité rurale du Québec: Madam Chairman, thank you for the invitation this evening and the opportunity to share our thoughts on poverty. This is the first time we have been able to speak before a Senate committee. Our coalition has been doing advocacy work for rurality and observing our villages and communities for 16 years. As I just told you, I will start with a broad overview of the challenges facing the rural world.
In Quebec, we have a rurality policy, which may be different from those of the other provinces. That policy affords the rural communities the opportunity to take charge of themselves and to access a certain number of programs. In particular, it has given rural people back the desire to want to change things. Solidarité rurale du Québec is a body that advises the government on all policies directly or indirectly concerning the rural community. Since the rural estates general in 1991, Quebec's rural population has constantly demanded two things: their right to be different and their right to prosperity. I will not read you the entire text that I have prepared, but I will summarize it in order to allow as much time as possible for the question period.
In 2007, in our highly industrialized societies, it is not only essential to respect this right to be different, as a result of which citizens have chosen to live in small and medium-size communities, to live in their rural communities; it is the responsibility of organizations and governments to provide equitable support for the exercise of this freedom of choice. It is all too often forgotten that it is the rural world's difference that is the basis of its social, cultural and economic contribution to our communities. It is the basis of recognition for collective land ownership so that it can serve the common good.
Talking about difference also means saying that village and town can live together and grow interdependently, because rurality and urbanity are not two phases of modernity; they are two complementary ways of life that will remain complementary as long as we know how to preserve their differences. A number of countries have done that. Finland, Ireland, Austria and Switzerland, to name only a few, are some of the countries that are often cited as development models as a result of their sustained growth and the standard of living of their citizens. Quebec and Canada have also achieved a level of urbanization and geographic concentration among the highest of the OECD countries, despite their immense territories.
So we are engaged in a new century full of unprecedented challenges for humanity, but also full of promise and hope. Rurality in the 21st century is not what it was in the 20th century. We continue to associate rural development with agriculture, whereas less than seven per cent of rural people — I am not talking about seven per cent of the general population — live from agriculture and agrifood. The range of agricultural programs of all kinds is aimed at kind of sectoral development that concerns a relative fringe of rural society. To continue in fact confusing agricultural policies with rural development is to reduce the multiple, contemporary reality of the rural world.
Rural dwellers are demanding their right to prosperity because, some people, too many, think that the rural world, still in 2007, is bound to disappear and that our governments should prepare for its funeral rather than invest in those communities.
According to that belief, any development effort in the rural regions would be a burden on the communities. This culture of defeatism feeds off a lack of ideas and imagination. However, we cannot take charge of our future and progressive destiny without taking another look at things or imagining them differently. And yet these very real and profound crises reveal the limits, if not the bankruptcy, of a development model designed and managed in a centralized manner, far from the reality of the rural communities. This is the crisis of a model and of a form of governance that must be reformed, failing which the rural communities will readily fall prey to global competition.
Rurality is not disappearing, quite the contrary; it is synonymous with a different way of life and different relationship to time and space from that of the urban world, one that meets the aspirations not only of rural people, but also of a growing number of urban people, who are choosing to settle in small- and medium-sized communities.
The other issue is reconversion. Globalization and its impact have revealed the weakness of the development model that, in the name of specialization, has pushed our communities into extreme dependence and a high degree of vulnerability. As was the case in the nineteenth century, the century of major industrialization, we have dedicated entire regions to one single type of production. In Quebec, for example, the Saguenay is often said to be reserved for aluminium, the Gaspé for fishing, even though there are no more fish, Abitibi for mining, even though that is very cyclical, and so on. Over the years, the major companies have merged and become giant global paper tigers.
Today, entire regions and populations are more influenced by the decisions of a head office located in a major city that is not necessarily in Canada than by the decisions of our governments at all levels. The resulting feeling of powerlessness is as harmful as the vicious circle of dependence.
We never stop. These days, we hear about Alcoa wanting to buy Alcan, and people crow, saying that they are fine, that they have security, except that, at the same time, we see, in the case referred to, that Alcoa says it is reserving secondary and tertiary processing for itself.
That means that the rural world is being perpetuated as a place for picking, without anyone having an opportunity to create jobs or, especially, to generate prosperity.
Our communities are bound to be extensively reconverted in order to diversify their economies and to restore their ability to act and influence their destinies. In the era of competition from the economies of the southern hemisphere, we have to stop always thinking bigger and think instead about getting involved in very specific, smaller, high value-added markets. New avenues and opportunities are opening up, but they require new skills, new infrastructures and no doubt a new form of governance for development.
Another point that should be raised is connectivity. If there is one infrastructure that should be considered strategic these days it is new technologies and their many uses.
In this regard, the disparities between urban and rural areas are reaching proportions that exclude citizens solely on the basis of their place of residence. We are distressed to see the growing gulf between our rural communities and not only the cities, but also, and especially, the U.S. and European rural areas.
Day after day, we see that our communities are falling behind the knowledge economy and away from diversification opportunities. For Solidarité rurale du Québec, this situation considerably undermines the appeal of our rural areas. And, day after day, our villages are being deprived of skills, talent and development opportunities.
Thus, massive investments that western and emerging countries are making to provide their territories with high- speed Internet connections are constantly eroding our long-term competitiveness. For the rural and isolated communities of Quebec and Canada, the law of supply and demand alone will not close the gap that it has helped to increase.
In that sense, the deregulation of the telecommunications market that the federal government has just introduced probably addresses concerns that are more those of the major urban centres than the rural communities, because basic services for citizens in the rural areas will become more costly and less accessible starting on June 1. Deregulation will in no way reduce this gap in accessibility of telecommunication services. Quite the contrary, a new injustice has just been added to existing disparities.
Another point to emphasize is new governance. For decades, our governments have deployed their machinery of government sector by sector, each with its own rules, its sectoral standards, building, over the years, airtight compartments that undermine integrated, coherent action in the field. This way of doing things stifles local initiative and makes it impossible to seize opportunities in a constantly changing world.
Today, what rural dwellers are demanding most is air, latitude and flexibility to shake off the yoke and standards of the bureaucracy and to revive democracy.
They want to devote themselves to the development of their communities and to the vitality of their children rather than constantly fight against standards that cause their schools to close, concentrate institutions, reduce postal services move health centres father away. As you know, for our rural citizens, travelling increasing distances is also becoming a cause of impoverishment in itself. We could cite a host of examples in different regions across the country. In Quebec, we could talk about the Gaspé Peninsula or the North Shore. Health care is definitely different, depending whether you are in Quebec City or Montreal, or whether you live in central Quebec.
With these ``wall-to-wall'' standards, our governments are levelling the rural world to urban benchmarks. The urbanization of the world is moreover a major problem. One recipe may be good for a major city, but harmful for a village. It is not enough to reduce the proportions in order to engage in rural development; you have to do nothing more or less than change ingredients and approach, especially when the result is a bitter one.
Another issue is demographics. This is a decisive factor, and, beyond alarmist projections, changes in our populations have mainly just rehabilitated an obvious fact for those who have forgotten it, and that is the fundamental importance of the human capital at the very centre of any sustainable development.
In my humble opinion, two aspects are addressed too hastily in relation to the rural world. The first is the exodus, the departure of young people from the rural communities. I would say that departure is not necessarily negative. I would even say that it is a good thing, because they leave to explore the world, finish their education, go to university and gather experience elsewhere. Those who come back do so more out of choice than obligation. That makes for a more solid foundation. This is something to be encouraged; that is obvious. But we have to find ways to interest them in coming back. The problem is not that they leave; the problem is that, too often, we forget that, for them to come back, we have to put various things in place, as I mentioned earlier, whether it be high-speed Internet, recreation and so on. The rural community is a completely different lifestyle. Most of those who want to come back want to do so for the lifestyle.
The second aspect concerns aging as a threat to our society. The experience and memory of older people are an outstanding commodity of inestimable value. There are models of intergenerational integration in rural communities that rely on proximity and a small scale in order to keep older people in their communities, near their families and local solidarity networks. There are innovations in that area that deserve the attention and support of our managers.
In conclusion, my dearest wish would be that your mandate on rural poverty is first and foremost an opportunity to become aware of the need to seriously address rurality and to lend this country a helping hand so that it takes care of its land and takes charge of it, relying on those of its citizens who have chosen to live and grow there.
The sum of agricultural, forest, manufacturing, educational and environmental issues, addressed separately in a sectoral form of logic, whether it be from Ottawa or from Quebec City, or from the various capitals of the country, no longer enables us to grasp the multiple, changing realities of our rural areas. To refocus on the rural world and consider its particular characteristics throughout the decision-making chain, nothing more or less than separate ministerial responsibility is required. As long as rural issues are addressed in a sectoral, agricultural or other context, they will remain confined to a program so that someone can have a clear conscience. Sending a clear signal to rural dwellers in all provinces means finally recognizing the obvious fact that rurality does not just mean agriculture and that it deserves its own place in the government's decision-making process.
Without this structural change, the reports will continue to accumulate, and yours, which is very much awaited, may be no exception.
Since our governments mainly wonder how much it would cost, I would dare advance a figure: nothing. No additional officials or experts. There is already a Rural Secretariat, smaller teams in the provinces, a promising approach, expertise and partnerships, all the ingredients for developing and promoting contemporary and exemplary modern rurality. The only thing lacking is political will, a vision and the determination to assist the rural communities in taking charge of themselves on a sustainable basis.
To combat rural poverty, we must attack a set of issues and combat problems at all levels. We must especially look at things differently and abandon fatalistic thinking. I will close on this note of hope and optimism sounded by a great rural man, my late friend Raymond Lacombe, a Frenchman who fought hard for the rural community and who said: There are no territories without a future; there are only territories without plans.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Proulx, the goals you are hoping for are the goals we are hoping to be able to make recommendations for when we finish these hearings.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for your appearance tonight.
Throughout this study, we have heard about three things almost everywhere we have gone — child care, high-speed Internet and transportation. You only mentioned high-speed Internet. Have you not mentioned child care as an issue in rural Quebec because of the unique and successful child care program in Quebec sponsored by the Government of Quebec? Is transportation not as big an issue in rural Quebec as it is elsewhere?
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: We did not talk about that because the text of our brief would have been too long. We could have gone into the details, because the problems experienced back home are the same, but with more or less intensity. We have a public child care system, but it is far from complete. We know the demands in that area.
We do not even dare address the question of transportation, because we are ashamed; I do not know whether it is worse than elsewhere, but it is definitely not better than elsewhere.
We wanted to address the rural question as a whole, with all that includes. You might have had two dozen pages more if we had listed all the problems. That is a concern. Moreover, that is the entire issue of local services.
The urbanization of the planet, as I have emphasized a number of times — because it is not only in Canada, Quebec or the other provinces that the planet is being urbanized — means that support policies and programs that do not necessarily suit the rural communities are being implemented. The purpose of the work that we have been doing for 16 years is to get a complete grasp on the rural space and to address this question from a territorial standpoint, in other words how the territory is organized; that is how the many services necessary in those areas are developed.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement has two mandates, to earn the best return it can for its members and to contribute to the growth of the Quebec economy. How big a role has the Caisse historically played in the provincial economy and how much investment has been made in the province's rural regions? Do you believe that the Caisse should play a bigger role in helping Quebec's regions?
[Translation]
Cherkaoui Ferdous, Secretary General, Solidarité rurale du Québec: Historically, the Caisse de dépôt has invested in the major economic structures of Quebec, the large corporations. In the past few years, there has indeed been a trend toward recentering the Caisse de dépôt's mission on savers' returns. Solidarité rurale du Québec believes that this mission is not inconsistent with the still important role of that collective instrument for Quebec's regions.
I would like to mention a point raised by Mr. Proulx in his remarks on villages and communities. The Caisse de depot is a fantastic instrument; we built it together when we were less rich than we are today. I believe that we now have a responsibility to look at development differently, since all the major instruments of the Government of Quebec were built at a time when we were much less rich and were experiencing economic and social realities of an entirely different order.
Today we have the ability and means to build on a type of development that is more community development, in which communities play a major part.
[English]
Senator Mercer: The switch to a greater focus on profitability would seem to me to be a move away from concentrating on the effects they might have in the communities. Sometimes, the effect in communities is not built on profit but, rather, on what services the communities needs. By switching the emphasis to profitability, have they lost part of the mandate they previously had?
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: We can definitely say that these large organizations have lost a little of their sense of responsibility, whether it be the Caisse de dépôt or the various institutions; they have all fallen into the trap of globalization and competition for the highest possible return.
They, like many others, all too often forget their roots, forget who brought them into this world and supported them. We think they should invest more in their mission. They have specific missions, but those missions should not decline to the point where they are limited solely to enormous projects, because, from that point on, we are automatically eliminated.
The right to prosperity that I mentioned in my presentation is not a right to charity; it is a right to the extent that we can create prosperity. The rural space should not be exclusively a space for picking, where we never harvest the results of that resource that exists in our communities. Forest, mining and fishing resources are not found in downtown Ottawa, Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto; they are in our regions. The missions of those institutions should therefore be readjusted.
Mr. Ferdous: The role of the Caisse de dépôt or of SFG, for example, in Quebec, is decisive. There is even another broader reality, that of the small and medium-size businesses. It is often forgotten that today's giants were in many cases very small businesses. I would like to cite the example of the Cirque du Soleil, which started out in a village of less than 10,000 inhabitants in Quebec, in Baie-Saint-Paul.
Bombardier, today a Canadian a giant, was born in Valcourt, a village of 2,000 inhabitants.
We must support the leaders of tomorrow, who need special assistance, not necessarily that of the Caisse de dépôt. It is often assistance adapted to the rural communities and to micro-businesses that can make a difference for tomorrow.
[English]
Senator Mercer: The federal government announced in February of 2004 that your group would receive $180,000 over three years toward a project called Rural Community Migration and Development. In collaboration with the Institut national de recherche scientifique, the project looks at urban-rural migration and helps identify conditions under which people who move to rural areas tend to stay in their new communities.
Do you have a summary of the findings of that study and of what sort of people are moving to rural Quebec?
Have you studied the rural secretariat's attempts to bring francophone immigrants to rural New Brunswick? If so, what have you learned from that effort?
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: Indeed, Solidarité rurale had the idea that it would look at the migration of urban dwellers to the countryside, when people were talking a lot about the exodus of young people to the cities. This is an aspect that has grown over the years. The first activity we organized on this issue dates back to 2001, with the first Foire des villages, encouraging urban dwellers to settle in rural communities. We conducted research and submitted a report, but Solidarité rurale's research was obviously not limited to a report. We organized workshops as part of the national conferences held in 2006. We have a network of 140 rural development officers in the communities who also received training on the subject. We also produced a number of guides.
This allows me to go back to an extremely important migration issue. From a more quantitative standpoint, I can tell you that virtually everywhere in the OECD countries, we are observing a net migration to rural communities, which is positive. The migratory trend has reversed in most countries, in the United States, England, France and in a large number of European countries. This is not a recent trend, but dates back roughly 10 years. We have observed that the trend in Quebec has really been toward an increasingly positive balance for rural areas. The 2006 statistics will definitely provide highly relevant information on this question.
We have also observed that migration has become positive in a large number of RCMs, which are the communities in Quebec. The number of RCMs, which have a positive balance, has doubled in the past decade. So there is a big movement. Quebec is slowly catching up to the rate of the western countries that have seen this movement change.
We also have to view migration as more than a movement of people. This movement is related to economic development. The arrival of young families, people of all ages and baby boomers contributes to economic development because it brings skills to the communities. It also brings new cohabitation demands and challenges for the communities.
The situation is not easy to summarize since it is not uniform. The way migration works around the major centres, as compared to the isolated regions, is very different. What is certain is that it affects all regions, even those that are isolated.
Senator Biron: I have here the Gazette des campagnes, published on April 25, 1872. The editor-owner at that time was a Firmin H. Proulx.
Mr. Proulx: We are not related.
Senator Biron: In this issue of the Gazette des campagnes, they talked about depopulation and the desertion of farmers who were heading to the United States to work in the factories. They also mentioned that not everyone could afford faster instruments, and that this obvious fact of the desertion of the countryside had to be seriously considered by all farmers wishing to benefit from their land.
On the last page, it also states, and I quote:
We have learned, from an advertisement published by the Department of Public Works and Agriculture of the Province of Quebec, that the farmers who need farmers and servants coming from Europe may contact the immigration and colonization officers appointed for that purpose. We draw the attention of our farmers to that announcement, which they can read in the leading newspapers.
In the past 20 years, have there not been a lot of Europeans buying land in the Nicolet region or in the province of Quebec?
Mr. Proulx: There have not been a lot in recent years. It was in the 1980s and 1990s that there were the most. There was strong immigration by farmers, particularly from Switzerland and Belgium. There was a large percentage of Swiss- Germans, more particularly in Montérégie. We have not had that kind of wave of agricultural immigration in the past 10 or 15 years.
However, the article you refer to is more than a century old. They were already talking about an agricultural exodus. At that time — and up until the 1980s — it could still be said that the rural areas were agricultural areas. What we have repeated a number of times is that rurality today is no longer what it was 20 years ago. It is no longer agricultural. Of course the land is cultivated, but industrialization and concentration, not only of farms, but particularly of processing, have meant that agriculture no longer creates jobs. The number of people who devote themselves to agriculture is constantly declining across the country. A set of activities has developed around that.
In Quebec, less than seven per cent of rural dwellers live from agriculture and agrifood. That is saying a lot. That means that 93 per cent of rural inhabitants do something else, that is to say that they are professionals or work in the service industry. That is the change that has occurred. It is this paradigm that has to be changed. Our governments and major public institutions must change paradigms.
Agriculture can no longer be the driver of rural development. That can no longer be the case. This is another world. Globalization has greatly changed things. If decision-makers changed this paradigm, that would be an extremely important step taken. I am not saying that to disparage agriculture; it is globalization that has produced these results.
Senator Biron: In fact, there would not be a lot less land cultivated. The properties are larger and, through mechanization, will produce more.
Mr. Proulx: Agriculture produces like it has never produced before. The efficiency is there, but it is no longer creating jobs. It can no longer create prosperity. It can no longer support local services, such as schools, child care centres or first-line health care services. That is a fact that we refuse to consider because we insist that rurality means agriculture.
The best proof of that is that it is very difficult to have a department that is concerned with rurality. People only concern themselves with it if they have the time. I am blaming no one. It is not that way out of spitefulness, but out of a lack of understanding.
We have been fighting for 10 years to explain the difference between ``rural'' and ``agricultural.'' I remember coming to Ottawa to try to make certain members of Parliament understand the difference between the two. We are not asking you to give us a minister, but we are asking you to stop shuffling the cards. We can talk about all the services we want. We can talk about child care centres, funding, health care. We will change nothing; things are still done on the basis of whether they address agriculture.
That is not the question that must be asked. We must solve the problems of agriculture, but that does not solve the problems of rurality.
Senator Biron: That is why we have invited you here today.
Mr. Proulx: That is what we thought.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: I want to congratulate you, Mr. Proulx. I have been on this committee now for quite a while, and we have heard from many witnesses, and your presentation is excellent. You have a lot of answers that we have been looking for.
You talked about Europe and about the fact that people are going back to the rural areas. In Finland, for example, when a young family moves into a rural area, is there a community centre? Are there hospitals? Is there a transportation system? There must be activities. If you are going to raise children, there is a need for good teachers and schools. That is part of what attracts people.
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: You refer to the case of Finland, which is entirely relevant. The population density in the Scandinavian countries is not comparable to that of Quebec or Canada. According to the projections of the statisticians and demographers, some rural regions in northern Finland were bound to disappear. However, the resilience encountered in those communities made it possible not only to preserve services, but the populations of those same regions, which are located in Lapland, increased. That teaches us a lot about the ability of rural communities to bounce back.
The government and communities have established an instrument for action. When a school or store closes, the last one in the village, for example, an institution at the government level, in partnership with the communities, intervenes to maintain services in the rural communities.
Whether it be there, or even elsewhere, there is one element that stands out in those countries. That is their way of considering lack of uniformity and the diversification of the land; if people choose to live in an area, you have to have policies adapted to that area.
Norway applies a positive form of discrimination to areas located along the fjords in order to keep its fishing, agricultural and other communities. That enables it to apply different standards for those communities with regard to services and the delivery of programs. What is certain is that, if we apply standards based on the number of inhabitants in order to preserve schools or any service, we do not help the communities, because, from year to year, statistic to statistic, we reduce resources. And once they have disappeared, they will no longer have any opportunity to come back.
Mr. Proulx: I would add that one of the biggest gains of the national rurality policy that we have in Quebec — we started the second cycle five years ago — was the modulating clause, that is to say that all the programs that apply can be modulated in rural communities. For example, if you want to do training, you are not required to meet requirements concerning the minimum number of persons enrolled. If a minimum of 15 children are required to open a child care facility, in a rural area, you can do it with eight children. The same is true if you want to keep a school: the number of students per class is lower.
These are very beneficial factors that make it possible not only to develop different services, but also to enhance them and add local services. The first question that young people who decide to migrate to rural communities ask is: how many recreational services are there? Are there open air camps, high-speed Internet, and so on? They also want primary schools for their children. These are their first concerns. That is what serves as the basis for their decision to come and settle in a rural area or not.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: You mentioned Alcan in Chicoutimi. Has Alcan participated in, say, helping that community with a facility such as a golf course or a community centre? Did Alcan invest in the community in any way?
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: I cited the recent example of Alcoa wanting to buy Alcan. That was to illustrate how far concentration- mania can go and how it changes the rural landscape. Why is Alcoa interested in Alcan? Because the raw material is not costly, because hydro rates are very low, because it has acquired incredible advantages over the years. A business like Alcoa is obviously interested because it would reserve secondary and tertiary processing for itself, which it will have done elsewhere with raw material that it can get nowhere else at such low prices.
This urbanization of the planet means that rural areas are always on the losing end and will continue to be so as long as matters are allowed to go this way.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Thank you very much for being here this evening. Since 1977, when your organization was established, you have been an advisory body to the provincial government on rural issues. No doubt you had a lot to do with the anti-poverty program that was set up in 2004. I want to ask you about a couple of components of that. One is the micro-credit, small loans, $500 to $20,000. It was set up in 2004, so it has not had a long history, but has that been successful? Are many people trying to take advantage of that? Are most of the people who access the program from urban areas or from rural areas?
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: I cannot give a precise answer to your question. We are working directly and indirectly on access to credit. You mentioned micro-credit. We have the Caisses populaires network in Quebec, and I will make a comment in passing here. Earlier I said that it was not only a government responsibility to renew and revitalize rural areas, but that all stakeholders, be they the caisses populaires, the banks, the Société générale de financement, the Province of Quebec, the federal government or whoever, also had a responsibility to do that. It is a bit shocking that we are required to put a micro-credit program in place because we have institutions that should be as concerned about providing services and that should be required to do so. Because, if we do not change our economic model, which is coming to the end of its run, which has produced good results, but which today no longer meets the demand, then we need a diversification of our economies in the rural communities. That means that nano-businesses and micro-businesses, from micro to macro, will make it so that we can make rational use of all that.
So, yes, micro-credit is promising, but in what we are experiencing right now, there are very few institutions. There are so few that we have to put a special program in place. We have to implement it as best we can, but the lending businesses, be it the Financière agricole or other institutions, should keep part of that. This goes back to a question asked earlier about the Société générale de financement: There should be an obligation to maintain a certain percentage in order to support initiatives that diversify the local economy.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I had intended to ask you who it is that administers these micro-loans, but I take from you that all the financial institutions were to be involved in some way in this.
I was on the Prime Minister's Task Force on Women Entrepreneurs — it was announced by Prime Minister Chrétien in 2002 — and all across the country we heard about women who wanted to borrow small amounts of money, $1,000 to $5,000, but that it was practically impossible for them to get it from the banks. They were advocating setting up a micro-credit that would be administered by, for instance, in my province, ACOA, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I take it you say this was to be administered by the existing financial institutions, the credit unions and banks and so on?
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: I am going to try to answer the question. For the program you refer to, we do not really have any specific measures for the rural world. This is a program that is being deployed in both the urban and rural communities.
But the situation of micro-businesses that want access to financing is definitely a reality and a concrete issue, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. This reveals access and financing problems, particularly when you are a micro- business. In government programs, there are many forms of funding.
Mr. Proulx brought up the question of institutions. The caisses populaires are democratic institutions that belong to their members, and thus to the public. Some caisses populaires operate differently from others. Some take on this role of micro-credit and financing for small businesses in a different way. Everything depends on the influence and participation by local populations in their institutions.
Mr. Proulx: I would like to clarify one point. I did not mean that, if there were a micro-credit program, it should be managed by the banks, the caisses populaires or the corporations. I meant that it is an admission of failure to say that we are forced to put in place a specific micro-credit program, when our institutions, caisses populaires, banks and others are making billions of dollars in profits.
I think that, if we are forced to put a micro-credit program in place, that is an admission of failure. If we nevertheless have to put it in place, it must not be managed by those who caused the failure. They have shown that they were incapable of managing it. It should be the communities, organizations of communities or men and women who managed that micro-credit in some form. That micro-credit will definitely be wasted quickly if it is managed by the large institutions.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: The other component I wanted to ask about is the funds that go to the non-profit organizations. How is that administered? Are the amounts large or small? I should like a little bit of information on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: These definitely are not astronomical amounts. Normally, when you lend to non-profit corporations, there are a lot of requirements and the amounts involved are never enormous.
Mr. Ferdous: Are you talking about subsidy programs for non-profit organizations or still about micro-credit?
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I read that one of the components of the anti-poverty strategy was funds given to the non-profit organizations. That is what I was wondering about. Who administers it, and are the amounts small or large?
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: In the social economy, there are a lot of organizations and lenders, but it is nevertheless true, based on our observation of the rural world, that those organizations play a fundamental, an important role. But often, when financing problems arise, the amounts are indeed limited. There is also a scattering of development with the number of organizations and programs that support them, and so on, but I would not be able to tell you more about that.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I should like to have your opinion on the Community Futures Program. In your view, has that program been successful in your province?
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: You are referring to the federal government's Models Program, the Rural Secretariat or the national policy on rurality?
[English]
Senator Callbeck: In my province, it is delivered through the community development groups.
[Translation]
Mr. Ferdous: We could tell you more about Quebec, since we have a national rurality policy, which is managed in a decentralized manner and responsibility for which falls to the local communities, which are the regional county municipalities. This is a communities policy. Essentially, in Quebec, we have citizen and volunteer committees supported by a rural officer who assists the communities in their development, considers the challenges and brings on initiatives. That has created support for the rural communities since the start of this policy which, as I told you earlier, is one of the most decentralized measures there is in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: That is what I was talking about. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: One thing that has not been raised today that often has been when we have talked about agricultural issues in various parts of Canada is supply management. Is supply management still a tough issue in your province? Has it flattened out a bit, or is it still of great concern to the farmers?
[Translation]
Mr. Proulx: It is neither one or the other. We intentionally avoided the subject because it is not our responsibility, but rather that of the agricultural organizations. Their disappearance would obviously have an economic impact in the rural community. If I told you about it, it would really be a personal opinion, not that of Solidarité rurale du Québec. But I will tell that we intentionally did not address specific agricultural issues. That has to be separate; we have to stop mixing the two. And that excludes nothing and no one, except that, until we emerge — I want to repeat this again — until we emerge from the paradigm in which we are operating, that rural means agriculture, we will not find any solutions, not in the West or in the East.
When I go to the rural West, there is agriculture, of course, but there are also oil rigs and all kinds of activities. There will be prosperity, provided diversification and diversified land use are imposed. We have to address these questions by asking ourselves what the land's capacity is. There is an agricultural part, a forest part and a mining part. There are all kinds of resources.
We have used a sectoral development method, that is to say that we develop a resource without concerning ourselves with the rest. In doing that, we become terribly dependent on market prices and so on. We have to come up with comprehensive solutions that take into account all factors so that there can be a satisfactory commingling of those factors. We must get out of the sectoral market, or else we will be condemned, since we no longer have the ability in North America to bear the changes that have occurred.
Today mass produced products come from elsewhere: Asia and South America. It is these countries that are able to provide us with lower-cost products that I cannot produce at my farm. That is what has changed and what is causing us a lot of difficulty. You know as well as I do that, even if all agricultural production in Quebec and Canada stopped tomorrow morning, the grocery stores would be full of products, just as they are today. Globalization has changed that.
In winter, you have the entire range of fruits of vegetables, and yet we produce nothing here in winter. How can we adapt for the greater well-being and prosperity of the community? We have to do things differently. Management remains an extremely important tool. It is a fundamental tool that should have been adopted by all countries. But that was not the case, and today we are elsewhere. I cannot want both to export a range of products and to close our borders; as we say back home, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
What are the possible compromises? I hope we find some good compromises so that we can adapt and find ways of functioning in order to retain at least the spirit of these major policies. At the same time, we will have to be satisfied with a different approach in other sectors.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I had to ask the question, but I like your attitude. I think we have had a much broader discussion tonight than very often when simply talking about agriculture.
Thank you once again, and all the best of luck. We hope to meet again before this series is complete. We still have a long way to go, but you can be assured that your information will be included in our report.
I now wish to welcome our next panel of witnesses. In our second round tonight, we will hear from Mr. André Campeau, who is the president, and Mr. Daniel Lambert, who is the project officer for the Maisons familiales rurales Québec — MFR-Québec. We are very interested in what you have to say. As well, you will notice that we are full of questions.
[Translation]
André Campeau, President, MFR-Québec: Madam Chairman, my first remarks are to thank you for inviting us. I am the President and founder of MFR-Québec and of the first ``maison familiale rurale'' in Canada, and even in North America; and Daniel was also in the group that founded that first MFR. Thanks to you, Rural Development Canada saw the light of day because you were a great support for us and you still are today. Thank you very much.
First, I am going to explain what MFR-Québec is. It is an organization established in 2003 in response to requests for information from all regions of Quebec. People called us for information on how to start up a project like ours.
So we decided in 2003 to create MFR-Québec, an organization whose role is to promote, support and coordinate the development of new MFRs. The implementation was carried out first in Quebec and, second, through a grant from Rural Development Canada one year later, in a number of Canadian provinces. We will be able to answer any questions you have on that subject later.
What is a maison familiale rurale? It is a project that was introduced in France in 1936, the concept of which we imported in 1997. In Quebec, we obviously have a rural development problem related to training.
In Quebec, approximately 35 per cent of youths do not finish high school. Some of them even enter the labour market with no training.
To address this issue, we looked for a solution that might respond to the specific needs of youths who are manual learners. In Quebec, the regular school system is designed more for auditory learners, who have the ability to learn by listening to a teacher explaining things at the blackboard. Manual learners need to touch things in order to understand.
The school system is not suited to youths 14, 15 or 16 years of age who are searching for their identity and who, because the law allows them to do so, leave school at the age of 16 with a second year of high school. So they enter the labour market directly with little or no training. It is for these youths that the MFRs were created.
What characterizes this project is the community's involvement. First, the structure is cooperative in form. Parents and trainers occupy an important place on the cooperative board; they all have a say. Obviously, the academic environment also plays an important role.
This project is somewhat like a three-legged tabled. On the one hand, you have the parents, who are responsible for boarding arrangements. The youths must board for two weeks a month, an arrangement that is entirely managed by the parents, who teach the youths living skills, including sharing and living in a group. The MFR is associated with the school board, which offers the general training component.
The youths we take in are generally 14 or 15 years of age and have only grade nine. They must make it to grade 12 and earn their high school diploma. At the same time, they also receive occupational training leading to a vocational training diploma. It may be training in dairy production, cattle production, forestry or maple syrup production. It is up to each youth to choose his field.
At the end of his education, he earns a high school diploma and a vocational school diploma. All the general training is provided at the school, and the practical portion is given during the boarding period, when the youth learns living skills. As regards the living skills portion, the student lives, for the other two weeks, at the home of a trainer who carries on the occupation that the youth has chosen.
The basic principle is simple. It is to make the youths happy and to enable them to experience success. Then we transmit the knowledge to them. The volunteer trainer passes on his interest in his occupation and supervises his trainee. It must be said that 50 per cent of the general training is given in the practical training portion because, as I said earlier, these youths are manual learners and cannot study in an academic classroom context as we know it. They must touch things in order to learn.
The Maison familiale rurale du Granit opened in 1999 and has been operating at full capacity for three years. Students often come from very far away. We have observed that, in some instances, two or three children from a single family have gone through the MFR du Granit. We believe that this teaching approach addresses a real need, and its popularity is a proven fact.
I would like to say one final thing. With regard to school results, we have to ask ourselves some questions because most of the students have already left the regular school system. Of all the youths who come and study with us, 67 per cent earn a high school diploma, which represents approximately the general average for the public school system in Quebec.
In addition, approximately 90 per cent of youths earn a vocational school diploma. With this different teaching approach, youths succeed, and that is what has to be understood. They succeed. They are not unintelligent youths; they only need to learn differently. I will now hand over to Daniel.
Daniel Lambert, Project Officer, MFR-Québec: MFR-Québec was created in 2003. Since then, there have been some 15 promoter groups in, among other provinces, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta, that have had plans to start up other MFRs. The school boards of those rural areas were involved from the start of implementation efforts. Some of them contributed financially to the conduct of feasibility studies. Others showed reluctance to cooperate in the implementation of those projects. That had the effect of preventing start-ups of MFRs in various regions across Canada. That happened in Manitoba and in a number of rural areas in Quebec.
I would like to talk about the benefits of the MFRs. André named a few, but more specifically, an MFR represents another way of teaching. Moreover, the slogan of the MFR movement is ``Succeed Another Way.'' Knowledge is acquired in a working environment and that continues at school. The youths who study at the MFR can improve their training level and eventually become players in the development of the society that forms the rural area where they live.
In addition, the MFR arrangement enables the youths to gain earlier access to occupational training. Usually, you acquire occupational training after high school training, whereas, at the MFR, youths start experimenting with various trades, depending on their interests, starting in high school.
In Quebec, these youths can take advantage of this alternating concept starting in the third year of high school. This opportunity helps prevent them from dropping out because the alternating work and study approach used in the MFRs provides a response to youths to whom traditional methods are less suited.
It is important to emphasize that the opportunity for these youths to continue occupational studies in agriculture without leaving their living environment helps fight the exodus. Note that the MFRs do not just offer instruction in agriculture. This stabilization has the effect of enhancing the self-sufficiency of our rural communities and contributes directly to reducing rural poverty by promoting employment and economic growth in the rural regions of Canada.
An MFR is a place that also promotes the growth and development of leaders because it requires a high degree of involvement on the part of community volunteers, whether it be parents, the businesses that take in these young trainees or various community partners who get involved in the project. Each one provides his own expertise and contribution.
The MFRs help to reinforce the ability of the rural communities to meet their training needs so that they can counter social disintegration in a lasting way.
Mr. Campeau: We have eight years' experience at the Maison familiale rurale du Granit. Earlier I gave you some success statistics, but I can add that, in the first five or six cooperatives, 40 per cent of youths continued their education after leaving us, that approximately 15 per cent continued on to the college level and some even to university. That is incredible. The parents could not believe their eyes.
Twenty-six per cent of that 40 per cent of youths will continue on to other training more suited to their interests. The work portion of our concept enables youths to validate their interests, and often after completing their high school education, they will complete related or unrelated training, depending on their interests. They validate their interests through work. That is what is important to understand.
We all know youths who, after their college or university education, discover that they are not on the right track and go back to school. They have often reached the ages of 24, 25 or 26, whereas, with us, at the age of 17, they have already completed an education suited to their interests in the occupation they will work in later.
This year, one-third of our students are enrolled at the college level, another third are continuing on at school, but in a related occupation, and the final third are going into the labour market.
That is really rewarding and extraordinary, and that is what enables us to continue.
To ensure the survival of the existing MFRs and the implementation of projects underway, we are asking the Government of Canada to open talks with the provincial governments through the Rural Secretariat to find ways to support the development of the MFRs.
As you will understand, we are encountering resistance from the school boards in Quebec, as we are virtually everywhere else in Canada.
Public institutions look at us and often see us as a threat because the youths who come to us take away their funding. I will give you the example of a community where we had assembled a good group of students in order to start up an MFR project, but where the school board said no at the last minute.
That was unfortunate for those students because most of them wound up in the labour market at the age of 16 or 17 because they were unable to continue their education. These are youths who will always have trouble in life. As you will understand, a youth who has only a grade nine or 10 education will find it extremely difficult to go back to adult school to finish high school, as a result of financial obligations and so on.
We must all get involved together if we want to go further in introducing this format.
Despite the fact that education is a provincial jurisdiction, we believe that the federal government should help the provinces implement initiatives like the MFRs in order to raise the level of education of the next generation of farmers and enable the rural regions to train their youths locally and thus to combat the rural exodus.
We are ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Your brief was interesting.
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much for being here. I am fascinated by the concept of the MFR. I want to clarify it in my own mind. I think I know what you are doing here and I think I like it, but I want to clarify it.
This is for young people for whom the system has failed. It is not that the young people themselves have failed; it is the system has not been there to teach them in the way in which they learn, if I understand correctly. You also say it is in a boarding school setting. That raises the question of the cost of a boarding school and who pays for that. Many boarding schools are religious-based. Is that an issue? Other boarding schools are discipline-based, with fairly strict discipline. Can you fill in the blanks that I have given you there?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: You have three or four questions, if I understand correctly. We are going to take them one by one, and, if I forget, you will remind me of the order.
First, why is it that way? It is simple. As a result of rationalization, in Quebec in any case, we at some point shifted from small school structures to big structures. From small structures involving a few hundreds of students, we switched to structures involving some thousands of students, in certain cases. As you can understand, when you expand a structure, you cannot individualize education, as a result of which students drop out. That is part of the explanation.
The number of students per class has also increased. At the Maison familiale du Granit, we have 12 or 15 students per class at most, whereas you have twice that number at the comprehensive schools. At our MFR, the teacher is very close to the student. His goal is for the student to understand, whereas that goal is impossible to achieve in a class of 30 students.
Our specialty is an individual approach, in addition to an approach for youths who are manual, practical learners.
Parents pay the full cost of boarding. This part includes a building that was constructed in 2000, all supervision of the student, food, and activities, because the student is there 24 hours a day, 12 hours at school and 12 hours in residence, from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. We have to supervise the students from 8 to 10 p.m. We have a lot of activities that can be related to their training, such as entertainment, sports, and so on; that also entails costs.
We bill $300 a month, for two weeks per month. The other two weeks are taken over entirely and on a volunteer basis by the trainer. So they are in residence for two weeks, when they are at school, on a mandatory basis.
In the other two weeks, the youth is working on the premises of a trainer, who takes full responsibility for the student's supervision, food — not clothing, obviously, which is the parents' responsibility. The trainer transmits not only his interest in the occupation, but also 50 per cent of the vocational training. In dairy production, 50 per cent of dairy production training is given during the work portion; so it is the trainer who does that.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Is there some protection for the young people with regard to the trainers who are offsite and not at the school, where I assume you have the usual checks and balances on teachers and people interacting with young people? How do you ensure that the trainers meet certain standards and treat the students with that degree of respect that we would expect in other parts of society?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: A very close relationship is established between the school and the trainer. This particular feature enables us, first, to tell the trainer how far the student's training has advanced and what he must show him in the course of his training. We call that training specifications. When the trainer takes in the student, he also receives the training specifications on the training needs that must be met during the following two weeks. Second, in six of the 10 work sessions in the year, a teacher visits the trainer to see how things are going. So there is a very close relationship between the school and the trainer to ensure training continuity.
[English]
Senator Mercer: You have had some years of experience now. How many of these students actually stay in rural Quebec and do not take off to the cities, which is the norm?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: It is hard to answer that question because we have not checked that statistic. What I can tell you is that 90 per cent of the youths who come to us come from a rural area. Roughly 10 per cent come from an urban area. We observed, following a survey conducted last year to determine where these youths wind up, that most of them returned to a rural area to carry on an occupation related to the training they did with us or different occupation.
For example, a youth who studied with us in dairy production for a few years will, for all kinds of reasons — the father is not ready to take him on right away because he has an employee — often have taken other training in welding. For example, he will go to work at the village shop to acquire some experience, and the business can take him in. That youth most often goes back to the business.
We have other youths, in my region, for example, who, after working with their father for a year or two, are now full partners with their fathers.
They are very mature youths when they leave us because they are constantly supervised by adults. They mature more quickly than in the normal school system. They know where they are headed.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: In answer to a question from Senator Mercer, you said that parents pay the costs associated with boarding school. What happens if a parent cannot afford to pay?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: In Quebec, youths come to us with a Grade 9 education, that is Grade 10 for those who live outside Quebec. So that is often at the age of 15.
For grade 10, we have them do a first year in that grade, and the provincial government and the Department of Education provide assistance equivalent to $225 a month. It costs the parents $156 a month. It costs less in our system than in the public system, despite everything that is said.
As regards Grades 11 and 12, the occupational training and general training portions are subject to the same regulations as occupational and college training. In other words, they are eligible for the department's loans and bursaries, based on the parents' incomes. So the youths can qualify for those.
It is not ideal, but if we had assistance in order to lower these costs, obviously we would probably have more parents sending their children to us.
Despite all that, it is the parents who must pay the costs. One woman came with me last fall to send her two sons to us. She was a single parent working at a small plant for minimum wage or a little more. Ultimately, she did not send them to our centre. Poverty was really the issue. There is a minimum amount that the parents can bear, and we are aware that we lose students as a result of that and that that does not render service. We are in the process of thinking about means.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: You said that the parents play a major role. That is the cost. What other role do parents play? Is that it?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: The cooperative has a board of directors consisting of 11 members, including six parents. It is the cooperative that manages the residence. Those same cooperative members sit on the school's institutional council, which manages the education portion. So they have a role to play. They are duly elected by the general meeting.
It should also be mentioned that we make sure that the parents are constantly made aware of their children's progress. We pay closer attention to that than a large institution.
Parents are made aware of the slightest problem. We need the parents to motivate the youths to continue, especially those who are having a little trouble. That is essential to the project's success.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: On the financing, you mentioned the $300. You also said that some school boards provide financial assistance; am I right? Does the $300 cover the operation? From where does the extra money come?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: The $300 is solely for the boarding portion. Everything concerning the regular school system is paid for by the Department of Education. It is free like any public school.
All the student has to pay at the start of the year is approximately $250 for minor expenses for the entire year. The entire educational portion is paid for by the Government of Quebec.
The housing portion is the parents' responsibility. That can definitely be more costly for a parent who has two children. That is how it is today, but we are thinking about that.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: However, the school boards do not give any financial assistance. Did I hear that wrong?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: We get no assistance from the school boards. The Department of Education nevertheless makes assistance of $225 a month available to students in the third year of high school. Those in Grades 10 and 11, that is at the end of high school, are eligible for loans and bursaries. That helps pay for accommodation.
Mr. Lambert: I see that the concept is not easy to understand. It is really a partnership between the community and the school board.
The MFR is a public school, just like other schools. However, the community is very much involved. And one of the ways to get involved financially is to manage the boarding component. The parents, the community and the trainers also help in managing the educational component, in partnership with the school board.
It is in this situation that a number of projects have run into trouble because, in several cases, the school boards did not want to cooperate with the community. They thought it was simpler to continue managing their schools independently without any parent involvement in this component.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: The trainers are all volunteers?
[Translation]
Mr. Lambert: Yes, the trainers are volunteers. The trainers are hired by the school board, but the trainers are volunteers.
Mr. Campeau: And not only are the trainers volunteers, but they also pay $5 a day into the student's fund, the goal being to pay for a final two-week work term in France at the end of the student's training. That is paid out of the remuneration paid by the trainers. That is the international component that we give them at the end of their training.
Senator Biron: In what town is your establishment located?
Mr. Campeau: Saint-Romain, near Lac-Mégantic.
Senator Biron: St-Romain is served by Télébec or Bell Canada?
Mr. Campeau: Bell Canada.
Senator Biron: Do you have Internet service?
Mr. Campeau: We have high-speed Internet service.
Senator Biron: It is a small parish?
Mr. Campeau: Yes, 700 inhabitants.
Senator Biron: Your occupational training program currently has four components. Do you eventually plan to increase the number of services offered, such as computer science?
Mr. Campeau: There are obviously mandatory courses for earning the diploma, but the students have access to activities related to their training, during their free time, including computer science. We hire someone to supervise them.
There is computer science, but also more manual trades like welding, for example, so in the evenings, rather than play volleyball or hockey, the youths often go the shop and work on personal projects. Last week, I was going by the workshop, and one student was redoing the chains on his skidder, which were worn. He pays for the equipment, and someone shows him how to do it. Those are free-time activities for the students.
Senator Biron: Your establishment has how many students?
Mr. Campeau: In the past two years, we have had approximately 85 students. That is an overall figure, but that is two weeks of school and two weeks of work. So that is 40 to 45 students per group. When one group is at school, the other one is working. There is a rotation.
That is why, with 40 or 45 students spread over two years, plus general training, that makes for small classes. That encourages a much closer teacher-student relationship. That is what enables these youths to make progress in their training.
Senator Biron: In one of the parts of the debate between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, it was proposed that there be no more than 600 students in the schools. We understand that small is beautiful.
Mr. Campeau: I can add that we do not have any ambition to get any bigger than we are right now. We can offer high-quality service. We prefer to work on quality rather than quantity. We are currently meeting our costs. Why get bigger? We are meeting a need, and students are happy. What especially concerns us is going further in the students' training, to enable them to develop further.
Mr. Lambert: In connection with what Mr. Campeau just said, I would add that another ambition we have is to develop the MFR system across Canada, because the MFRs first have a local role, which is to serve the youths of a region, and not to have a provincial centre that groups all students together in the same place. The idea is thus to have a number of MFRs in the various regions that need them in order to provide training tailored to the needs and realities of those regions. Doing work terms in their communities enables youths to develop relationships and affinities with the businesses in their region and to form a network that will later enable them to fit into that community more easily since they will have been trained in the community where they belong.
Senator Biron: You work within a radius of how many kilometers?
Mr. Lambert: I would say nearly 60 per cent of the students come from within a radius of 60 kilometers. As Mr. Campeau said earlier, we are definitely the only school in Quebec that offers this arrangement.
This attracts youths from outside who cannot find this service in their region. So we take in students who come from as far away as Témiscamingue, more than 1,000 kilometers away. This is mainly for youths who are within a radius of 60 to 100 kilometers.
Mr. Campeau: Our dream is to have a number of MFRs across Quebec, but with different types of training. At our MFR, we offer training that is related to our situation in the community, but other regions could develop training suited to their situation and we could do a student exchange. As a result of all that, we very much believe in this. The example is there. We are training leaders who will return to their communities and develop their regions.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: I am sorry, it may have been lost in translation, but is there any religious instruction with this learning? You mentioned there is a way of learning by listening and touching. Can you extrapolate on that a little bit? What do they touch?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: In the school system, that is somewhat how the students are categorized. There are youths who are more auditory. Seeing an example on a blackboard helps them understand; they can generate an image. These are more auditory students. Manual students have to touch in order to understand and learn. They have trouble forming an image of what they see on the blackboard and of what the teacher explains. The youths we take in at our MFR fall into the latter category. Youths who need to understand how to feed a dairy cow, for example, to understand how maple syrup is processed, have to take part in making those products. These are what we call manual learners. From that point, the instructor explains to them all the stages in the process. That is their way of understanding things. That is one of the reasons why certain youths leave school early. They have a lot of trouble understanding and they are unable to understand. It is these youths that we recover and, using a different method, help progress and finish high school.
With regard to religion, back home, these have been non-denominational schools for many years now. It is not that religion is banished, but the schools are non-denominational. We do not have religious instruction as such.
However, the boarding arrangement provides for different types of training from traditional schools. In other words, boarding gives youths values. That is not religion, but these are notions of respect. It's said differently in religion, but the message is the same: ``Respect your neighbour.'' Boarding plays that role. Learning to live in a community is not religion, but it is part of life. Boarding provides the youth with all the human values you need in life. In a hockey club, for example, a lot of human values are conveyed. You know something about that.
[English]
Senator Oliver: Thank you for your presentation. This is an agricultural committee, and the MFR schools provide students with vocational education tied to the community. Since the community is rural where there are farms, I would like to know specific things that relate to agriculture.
You mentioned feeding a dairy cow and you mentioned maple syrup turning into sugar, but what kind of farm- related training would the students receive?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: We have four different types of training. We have training in dairy production, which teaches youths to feed an animal, a dairy cow, to milk it, calving and all the work involving a dairy cow.
[English]
Senator Oliver: Do you have calving?
[Translation]
Mr. Campeau: Cattle production is much like dairy cattle production, except that it produces calves instead of milk. We have training in forestry, harvesting wood in the forest, and maple syrup production, which concerns maple syrup. The maple leaf is Canada's emblem. We have training where students learn to process syrup into products that we can market. These are the four types of training that we offer in relation to agriculture, obviously.
Mr. Lambert: These types of training are provided in our school because they concern the types of production that are found in our region. The specific characteristic of an MFR is that it offers training that meets the needs of the local community. Our region is very much a maple syrup producing region. We have more than 450 businesses producing maple syrup. We have some 100 businesses that have dairy operations, and 85 per cent of our region is forested; so we have a lot of forest operators as well. We really respond to a local need, whereas, if we were on the Canadian Prairies, we would perhaps be more oriented toward large-scale farming, for example.
[English]
Senator Oliver: Our subject matter is rural poverty. As a result of the practical training that you are giving, and practical training that ties to the area, are these students staying in the area and is there not as much poverty as there would otherwise be; is that the cycle?
[Translation]
Mr. Lambert: The school is still young; it is only eight years old. We have only had graduates and seen results for five years. In addition to the youths who live and work in the region, we also see that, in a number of situations, this enables businesses to continue their operations.
On a country-wide scale, it is increasingly difficult to find agricultural employees, and training youths in a rural environment makes it easier for businesses to find employees. That enables them to continue their growth and agricultural operations. We even have agricultural producers who have found partners among their trainees.
We are contributing to the development of the rural community in a number of ways, by enabling youths to live in the community and by revitalizing the agricultural community, which has an opportunity to hire these youths or even to create partnerships with them in their businesses. This causes a lot of discussion at meetings among farmers. One farmer can call another farmer who has already taken in a trainee and ask him for his comments.
Relationships are established; while they talk about other subjects, they can talk about farm equipment and all kinds of things.
Mr. Campeau: It should not be forgotten that many of the youths who attend our institutions come from rural communities and are often the sons or daughters of agricultural producers.
Agricultural producers are entrepreneurs. So these students acquire that entrepreneurial spirit very early and will be leaders in society. However, since the school system does not meet their needs, these youths cannot complete their training in the public system. We are there to give them the opportunity to do that.
Imagine the contribution these young leaders will make to their communities once they have completed their training. It is really extraordinary. We are already seeing the benefits after seven or eight years.
[English]
The Chairman: I have one final question. You said you were engaged in various parts of the country. Do you have these kinds of schools in Alberta? If so, where are they?
[Translation]
Mr. Lambert: There are only three MFRs in Quebec. However, some projects are being developed, including one in eastern Ontario and one in Alberta. Two years ago, we started up a project with a community in Manitoba, which unfortunately had to abandon it after the school board refused to cooperate. One project is also underway with an Aboriginal community in northern Quebec. These projects outside Quebec are being developed as part of Rural Secretariat Canada's Models Program.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. This has been quite different from most of our hearings. It is important, because it deals with education, which is the foundation of everything we do.
We wish you well, and we will ensure that you receive copies of what has taken place here tonight.
The committee adjourned.