Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 27 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
NICOLET, QUEBEC, Friday, May 18, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 1:45 p.m. to examine and report upon rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are pleased to welcome, first of all, the Mayor of Nicolet, Mr. Alain Drouin.
Thank you very much for coming out today. You will be pleased to know that we had a vigorous and interesting morning with very good people telling us exactly how they felt. They gave us good ideas about how we might consider recommending changes when we come to the end of this study.
This afternoon we are also pleased to welcome Mr. Robert Gendron and Mr. Charles Cartier.
[Translation]
Alain Drouin, Mayor, Town of Nicolet: Madam Chairman, I would first like to thank you for having chosen Nicolet to hold a hearing of the Standing Senate committee that is currently examining rural poverty. It is an honour to be with you this afternoon. I imagine that the fact that Senator Biron is here had something to do with your visit to Nicolet today.
I feel somewhat uncomfortable that rural poverty has been chosen as the theme for your visit, not because this issue should not be studied and that we should bury our head in the sand, but because we are dealing with it. We are studying rural poverty because it is a hard reality. To my mind, rural poverty stems from structural rather than historical causes. It is a structural problem.
This morning, Mr. Duhaime mentioned how difficult it was for a telecommunications company to provide services because of low population density. Municipalities face a similar problem for similar reasons. The density of the population is such that municipal organizations, regardless of their nature, are unable to provide services beyond the basic services needed in a community.
This morning, we briefly talked about electricity and its distribution. In Quebec, the nationalization of electricity in the early 1960s made it possible for Quebec to find a way to further its development. There are other public services, but I will simply refer to public transport. We all understand that the mobility of individuals is crucial to an area's vitality. If a municipality is unable to provide public transport or some form of mass transit, this may have a major impact on its vitality.
A young person who does not have access to public transport to get to school and continue on to higher education may perhaps drop out more quickly . He would then have to find a job, which may not be available in his own village but in a neighbouring village, or in a larger city. If there is no means of transportation from his place and if he does not earn enough to afford a car, what does he do? He will move closer to his work. As a consequence, the lifeblood of his village drains away. One consequence for young people who are not necessarily rich and under-educated, is that they will be stuck in low-paying jobs.
In addition to young people, senior citizens in need of health care service and who live outside an organized area are also faced with this problem. They are obliged to move closer to where health care services are provided because they have no means of transportation to get there. They are loathe to take their cars in more urban centres. Those people will also want to move towards urban centres, closer to services. At some point, in a small village with no more young people, the school will finally disappear. The post-office will shut down. A similar threat hovers over services such as grocery stores and convenience stores that are no longer able to survive. This is something that we are witnessing in some villages.
To my mind, this due to a structural problem. This morning, we briefly talked about the history of electricity and this brings me to the topic of the nationalization of electricity. I do not want to see our services be nationalized. Mr. Duhaime alluded to this when he talked about the type of support that can be given to telecommunications companies. I do not want my comments to necessarily be associated to those made by Mr. Duhaime.
Overall, with respect to all the collective services, low-density municipalities have a great deal of difficulty to provide a minimum level of service for the people who live in their regions. Once again, people end up leaving the area. Gradually, the level of poverty in rural community affects us a great deal more than agriculture. We now know that poverty is worsening, that is the poor are poorer and there are more and more of them. There are more and more people living below the poverty line. We are extremely concerned about this.
I am going to speak my mind — we are in the process of becoming like a third world country, Madam Chairman. This concerns me and disturbs me. Our offer of services is becoming similar to that available in third world countries. The same is true in the way we provide them. I do not want to be dramatic, but I am extremely concerned about this for our children, not just for today, but for their future.
I know that our choices focus on the community. I do not want the government to take responsibility — and I do not think that is the solution, but I do think the government should really support community-focused initiatives.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for coming here, for listening to us and for the work you will have to do, because the job you have taken on is not an easy one.
Robert Gendron, as an individual: Madam Chairman, I entitled my presentation ``How did this happen?'' First, a lot of companies closed down. I am thinking of Vallières, American Optical, which was bought out by Chinese interests. They came here and left with the equipment and the skills, and also with the clients. Now, the factory is empty. There is also the Magie group, a clothing manufacturer that closed down. There is another company, Les Ateliers Pépin, which could not withstand the competition from China, and has also closed its doors.
There is also the situation regarding National Defence, a situation with which I am familiar because my father was a commandant. At the time, there were between 160 and 200 employees, and these jobs supported almost as many families. Canadian Arsenaux Limited made a deal with SNC Tech, which resulted in the loss of 30 employees. Although my sources are not reliable, I heard that SNC Tech paid $14 million to buy out Canadian Arsenaux. A few years later, SNC Tech was bought again by General Dynamics for $315 million. So there are no more jobs being created. All we see are shareholders' profits, and there is no regard at all for the social context.
Poverty has resulted in our region becoming a drug producer. As you probably know, we have major problems with marijuana grow-ups in our region, and this is all linked to the issue of poverty. When people are without work, they try to find a way of managing. Drugs are an illegal activity and this is the wrong direction for people to take. We also got what we call corporate BS — a bunch of grants to companies that never help boost employees' wages. So we have to wonder what they were used for. It is a mystery.
I and many others have suffered because of the import of Chinese goods, even in agriculture. For example, in this region, we grow fruits and vegetables in Notre-Dame-de-Pierreville and Saint-Pierre-des-Baquets. These people grow strawberries. Companies such as IGA, Métro, Loblaws, and so on are no longer buying these strawberries. They buy strawberries from California, which are white inside, probably full of chemicals and picked by Mexicans who are in the U.S. illegally. These are publicly-traded companies and all the shareholders see are the profits. They do not care at all about the social situation, about supporting local farmers. That is a big problem here in our region.
What are the alternatives? It is true that globalization is a fact of life. China and India import products that do not comply with our environmental standards or with human considerations. There are some countries such as Italy, France and Germany that do manage well. For example, I was listening to a program the other day about an Italian company that manufactures glasses. The glasses are manufactured in China and the very high-quality glasses stay in Italy.
I think we should move towards this type of development throughout the world. We should not just stay focused on Quebec. We too have an opportunity to be part of this major challenge called globalization. To do that, we have to get out of Quebec. We have to go to foreign markets. We have to go to Europe, Asia and the United States. I travelled throughout the United States for 20 years. There is a huge market there. We have to have people where we want to sell. We have to develop and know the market. We have to innovate, manufacture and export. Then we will have a way of creating viable jobs.
Charles Cartier, as an individual: I am making my presentation rather at the last minute, Madam Chairman. I would, however, like to talk to you about agriculture — I am an organic farmer. I would like to tell you what I think about this.
If we look at the situation in Quebec during the years our parents and grandparents were growing up, population grew as the economy prospered and the social issues evolved at the same time. Small farms drove the rural economy and it was a period of prosperity. This promoted economic growth. Economic considerations took precedence over social issues and provided free access to common property. To some extent, we abandoned the communities to their own devices, and we focused rather on a collective vision. However, during this time, people moved away from subsistence farming, and today, farming has once again become a way of surviving.
I have gone into organic farming. After analyzing and evaluating the situation, I decided that traditional agriculture as it has developed depends to a large extent on oil and directly on diesel, gas and propane and indirectly on fertilizers, pesticides and machinery. Today, we find ourselves in a situation where we have allowed the industry to take over farming and profits to suit its own purposes. We are caught in an economic spiral. The industry has the right to make its operations cost-effective, because farmers and producers have been left on their own. Farmers find themselves being dependent. If we look at China and India, their population is continuing to grow, and they have become part of the green revolution and have increased their food production. Today, they can still export, and they are coming to direct our markets.
For our part, we have worked more on restricting ourselves to our own markets. Our population growth has slowed down. We are also trying to slow down the process of our farm products in keeping with the supply management style. That makes us dependent.
When I went into organic farming, I made a decision to assume some responsibility myself. It is often a question of attitude. Either we assume responsibility for ourselves or we allow a system to be imposed on us that leads to dependency.
I often say that there is no collective solution. If we look at the marijuana problem, it is a collective problem, but there is no collective solution. If we have a problem, we take collective action, but there is no collective solution.
The strength of organic farming is that it is different from industry. We eliminate the dependency by indirectly removing the indirect expenses of energy and oil. We have worked to develop a type of farming that is less reliant on direct energy by improving our methods. With organic farming, it is possible to move away from agriculture that just allows us to survive. However, this must remain a personal choice. I think organic farming is the only way of regaining a little prosperity by remaining in control of our farms.
By allowing industry to take over agriculture, we left agriculture to its own devices. Agriculture is what needs to be managed. We work harder managing crops than we do managing farming. In order to have sustainable crops, we must have sustainable agriculture. Organic farming is an alternative type of farming. Other types of alternative farming are being developed in the world at the moment, such as agroforestry. The focus must be placed on farming — that is the important thing.
That is what I wanted to say. I was not very prepared to speak, and you may have some questions you would like to ask.
Senator Biron: Some municipalities have been given increased responsibilities by the province. The decline in the population creates a sort of fiscal imbalance. Could subsidies for municipal facilities be helpful or should they be continued or increased in order to assist you?
Mr. Drouin: I understand what you are getting at in your question, senator.
Mr. Cartier said that some problems were collective in nature, but that there is no single solution to them. There are often a number of small solutions that combine to solve the problem. If we compare the problems of a municipality of the size of Nicolet, for example, with a population of about 8,000, with the problems of a municipality the size of La Visitation, which has a population of only 400, the problems are very different. The solutions are very different as well.
The fact remains that these municipalities face certain challenges. For example, it is difficult to compare our geographical position and our recent history with the situation that occurred in 1955, when there was a landslide close to the bridge across the river. That had a tremendous impact. I am sure you know all about that, Senator Biron.
More recently, even last year, our geographical location and the presence of the Nicolet River meant that despite the fact that our annual budget is $9 million, Nicolet had to invest at home for the first two years just to protect our investment, to protect what we had. We had to invest $1 million. That may not sound like much to you, but in the context of $9 million, that was 12 per cent of our budget that went to protecting our investment.
You asked whether government financial assistance could be helpful. Well of course it could. However, there are conditions attached to this assistance. I think the problems are structural in nature; for example, urgent work is needed on the concession road in the downstream part of the river. That does not fit the criteria for government grants.
Senator Biron: Infrastructure work.
Mr. Drouin: Yes, but the work that needs to be done there does not fit into the criteria. So we will probably have to do that on our own. That is particularly true in the part of Nicolet where the population density is low. According to the rules at the moment, we may have to invest between $1.5 million and $2 million just to protect our equipment. I am not talking about development, but just about protecting our equipment. So it is not such a trivial matter at all.
This morning, a farm producer appeared before the committee, and today, Mr. Cartier also talked about the food system we are trying to develop in Quebec with the goal of attaining a certain degree of food self-sufficiency. The town of Nicolet wants to develop an agri-food incubator, whose purpose would be to help farm producers, including vegetable growers and producers, to meet the food production standards set by the ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation, which is responsible for setting the conditions governing the processing or sale of those products. Under this system, our farm producers, ranchers and vegetable growers could process their products in accordance with the province's standards and could sell them at the retail level. But because of an administrative mistake, and a mistake made by an official, the agri-food incubator was delayed by a year, a year and a half, or maybe it will even be two years. Of course we need financial support.
When I ran as a municipal candidate, some people told me ``We want to develop a culture at home.'' I answered ``Yes, that's great. What are you asking the town to do?'' ``We don't want any obstruction.'' I said ``What? You are not asking for money from the town?'' ``No, just don't engage in obstruction. Don't prevent us from doing what we want to do.'' This had to do with developing a culture.
So yes, we need financial support from government to provide basic services and to maintain them. When I said that we are becoming like the third world — and Mr. Gendron talked about the consequences of poverty and the number of marijuana fields — this is not only happening in the region which directly surrounds Nicolet. What are we heading towards? I do not have magic solutions. I hope that people will try to find more than one solution to rural poverty. There is not just one solution; there are many. Of course, the government must step in, and its actions must be focused.
I hope that the work you have begun, which in fact you began a while ago, yields solutions. I cannot tell you what those solutions are, I just do not know. However, I can tell you again that I can see the direct consequences on the ground, and Mr. Gendron gave much more concrete examples of those than I did.
These are not just mere words, because our young people are dropping out of high school to take jobs which pay $25, $30 or $35 an hour. They drop out of secondary 111 or secondary IV and work for that kind of money. They leave school. They will work at a job for a while, but then the work dries up.
This is what happens when you pay a young person $40 an hour, when you pay that much for a young boy or girl of 16 to work illegally. I say ``illegally,'' but people are not yet fully aware of the problem, which is serious.
Poverty is spreading and deepening. More and more people are becoming increasingly poor. If the government, society, and we, as elected representatives, as members of the Senate, as politicians cannot provide services to our people, basic services to everyone, that is worrying. That is a very long answer to a question which could have been answered much more briefly.
Senator Biron: Mr. Cartier, how many acres do you have under cultivation?
Mr. Cartier: Three hundred and fifty acres.
Senator Biron: You manage to cover your costs.
Mr. Cartier: I would say so. It is more or less profitable, but you have to look at organic farming as a long-term development. You have to adopt a long-term perspective. We always tend to manage in the short-term and this has led agriculture to its economic decline. Producers have been made to see themselves playing the role of industry.
Senator Biron: Have you developed a local market?
Mr. Cartier: Part of the grain is destined for the local market and part for export. I must say that when we got into organic farming, the Japanese market helped us. The Japanese love organic soya and they have always appreciated the quality of organic soya grown in Quebec, which helped us when we began marketing our products.
In organic farming, you have to build your confidence. Generally speaking, in this sector, people always tend to go to what is easy. The industry provides solutions whereas in organic farming, you have to find solutions. There are no magic solutions.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I have been very impressed with the town with Nicolet. We had a tour with my colleague last night and he showed us around, very proud of where he lives and where he is from, as he should be.
I was impressed with the established infrastructure, the old convent and the seminary that have been here for years. I was also impressed by the fact that you are now using some of them for other things, including the agriculture school and the police school. You have institutions that once thrived as religious orders and are now available to be developed as other industries for the town. Is that an advantage that Nicolet has over other towns of this size in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Drouin: Yes, having these institutions is an advantage for the town of Nicolet. Indeed, they have enabled us to have a pool of available jobs, government-related jobs that are relatively well paid. However, the town of Nicolet, and Mr. Gendron alluded to this fact earlier, was once a significant industrial town not so long ago. However that has dwindled down next to nothing over the past few years. We now have very small businesses here and, on average, the processing companies employ five or six individuals, with one or two exceptions, Nicolet Plastique and Thermo Forma, I believe. Most of the businesses are very small.
You asked whether Nicolet was deriving any benefits, and yes, we do. However, the fact remains that we have been and still are a victim. We talked about globalization. We are the victims of that. We are not one of the players. We are not at the helm. The two people beside me said the same thing. We are not at the front of things. We are not a partner of globalization. We are not proactive. When I say ``we,'' I am not referring exclusively to Nicolet. I think that in North American society, with a few exceptions, some huge corporations may have benefited from it, but if you look at the people working at the bottom, the workers, I feel that they are the victims.
Just recently we lost the Norsk Hydro plant, which shut down and 400 good, well-paying jobs disappeared. Of course this has an impact on people. The company itself lost out. The individuals, the workers lost out. Even the town of Bécancourt, which is located beside us, lost out, and this is a town that has quite a significant industrial base, some big corporations are located there. The municipality will lose from $800,000 to $1 million in taxes per year because this company will no longer be there. What do we do?
To answer your question, and I will speak straight from my gut, yes, we are pleased and yes, that has helped us and will continue to do so. It provides interesting and important jobs. Just think of the National Police School, this has enabled us to rebuild this building, which has burned down on several occasions; the most recent fire was in 1973. The Government of Quebec reinvested $50 million to rebuild it. Now, with the school, we can foresee that there will be some further development. The National Police School has not yet reached maturity.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Mr. Gendron, I was interested in your remarks and the mayor's comments about the plant closures. We have heard of others in a lot of places. Canadians tend to think of the industrial base as being in the Montreal- Windsor corridor, but really it is not. We find it out in places like this part of Quebec and other parts of the country. I know that in my province of Nova Scotia we have lost 1,000 jobs since January. That is a lot for a small province.
I also found it interesting that a community with a police college has a grow-op problem. Maybe there is something they should practise on.
You referred to marketing and then mentioned China and India. Is there no marketing happening through either the Government of Quebec or the Department of International Trade in Ottawa? Do they not focus on marketing products from this region?
Mr. Gendron: I have been sending my products to the U.S. mostly for the last 20 years. I am not big enough to build a big corporation. You need funds, experts and all types of people to do that. You have to have someone on the spot in Boston, New York and Philadelphia, for example, to let you know what is going on, if the tendency is to go right or left, so that you can make the right decisions. You need a big team to do those types of things. You need a lot of help, good advisers and the funds to support those activities.
Senator Mercer: What do you market?
Mr. Gendron: I was marketing what they call accessories, lamps. I started with duck decoys. My father was doing that when I was young, when St. Peters was the place for hunting. I started with duck decoys when I was 15 years old. After that, a guy came to my place to get my decoys. I told him they were not for sale. He came back the following year and he had changed his truck. I said, ``My God, that is a good business,'' so I decided to go to Boston with that. That is how I discovered the American market.
I started marketing a game fishing product in Florida. There are a lot of fishermen game fishing in Florida. I offered about 15 different models. After that, a Chinese manufacturer copied me, another Chinese manufacturer copied the first one, and the last one was a model from Haiti made of metal. I heard that the manufacturer was paying a guy in Port-au-Prince $1 a day for 10 hours of labour, meaning 10 cents an hour. How can we compete with those guys? It is impossible.
We have to make a decision. I mentioned the Italians who made glasses; the low-cost ones are made in China. If you want something of high quality, we can develop those things here in Canada. The Italians, the French and the Germans do those types of things and are successful. Why can Canadians not do that? Perhaps the culture in Quebec is that we are too afraid to cross the border. We are afraid to talk with people.
Culpepper & Company from West Palm Beach is a client of mine in the U.S. Ms. Culpepper already has a factory in China. Those guys move a lot and are not afraid to take risks. I think that if you want to do something, we have to go in that direction.
Senator Mercer: Mr. Cartier, we are always interested in talking to organic farmers. We have only talked to a couple in our travels, and we are glad to hear from you.
I was interested in two things you said. First, you made a passing reference to supply management. I did not quite catch whether you were in favour of supply management and expanding it. I would like to hear a little more from you on supply management.
[Translation]
Mr. Cartier: As far as I am concerned, supply management is a management system, but it is not agriculture. The way I see it, a supply management system would enable farmers to stop and take stock, position themselves and then be able to move forward, to progress. I feel that it is more about treading water than trying to develop a more competitive agriculture. These are societal choices, but there are negative repercussions that are felt in society.
[English]
Senator Mercer: You indicated that you are selling some of your grain in Japan. I will now put on my other hat as a member of the Senate Transport Committee. We have been hearing of the difficulties in transporting agricultural products to Asian markets in a timely manner so that the product arrives in as good a quality as possible, so that it maintains its value when it gets to market. I would be interested in hearing your experiences.
[Translation]
Mr. Cartier: Quebec's organic farmers do not export directly. We go through agribusinessmen. However, last summer, I met with a Japanese representative who explained how to do business. At the same time, what is important — Japan is somewhat outside of what you are asking — and that is to understand the consumers. Japan has set up JAA certification, Japanese Accreditation System, an association to protect its consumers because they realized that they were importing three times as many so-called organic products as genuine organic products.
He also explained that Japan recognizes two types of food products, organic and non organic. That is a trend in Japan with respect to its products. Japan produces 40 per cent of its food. As for the rest, they travel throughout the world to buy top quality products.
With respect to quality, if we look at Japan's example, the price paid for quality is based on what it takes for small producers to be able to live. They are concerned about their farmers, farms and agriculture.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: A few years ago, the Tibetan leader of the monks, the Dalai Lama, visited Ottawa. Senator Pierre De Bané was the first to ask a question, which was, ``What would be your choice for helping the world?'' The Dalai Lama smiled and gave his answer. He said that he would close the gap between the rich and the poor. The whole room was filled and everybody was amazed. What a great answer he gave.
I think that every government and every system that has been created has tried to close that gap, but we have not been able to do it. You are saying that the poor are getting poorer in this area, which means we are widening that gap again.
Back when the bridge was built, was the country prosperous then? Did we have problems in those days? When I look at that bridge, I think this area is pretty rich. It is a beautiful bridge and makes having a business in this area very convenient.
[Translation]
Mr. Drouin: At the time, we said that we had to have the bridge, we need it, and we will get it. Finally, I think that this was a slogan that we repeated several years running. Yes, the bridge did enable some development. The bridge enabled the town of Bécancourt, in particular, to establish its industrial park, with heavy industry, large businesses and attractive salaries. There must be between 3,000 to 4,000 employees who work in Bécancourt's industrial park. It is quite big. The bridge also enabled people to be a bit closer to services and to work on the South Shore, namely in Nicolet or Bécancourt. The bridge made development possible, but it also enabled people to settle, to live in Trois- Rivières, another municipality located on the other side of the bridge, and these people could come and work here.
Of course the bridge also allowed us to obtain services in Trois-Rivières. This perhaps happened in the opposite direction as well. By that I mean that the services that we could have started here, that we could have established here on the South Shore, well, we did not need to do this because we concentrated these services in the Trois-Rivières regional capital. It was easy for us to go and get the services there. If we had not had the bridge, what would have happened? Perhaps we would not have had so much industrial development. So yes, it was beneficial. Yes, this did bring us some industrial wealth. Perhaps we may have lost some of our services.
One proof of this is that the nuns built, here in Nicolet, a hospital that managed to survive financially for nearly 50 years. This hospital has become a Health Centre, it is no longer a hospital. There is an emergency ward, a small maternity ward, but it is no longer a hospital. Patients no longer reside there. There are people who are nearing the end of their lives or who need laboratory services or a quick consultation with a physician but we have also lost that. Indeed, the bridge brought economic development, but it also brought some loss. Things are never entirely black or white.
Let me share an opinion that will not be new to you. Wealth necessarily involves money and economics. I think that in a social sense, we were mistaken in focusing all our efforts on the economy. We impoverished ourselves by focusing solely on the economy. Let me repeat this, we impoverished ourselves socially by focusing on the economy alone. This is important. We must continue working on economic development. We cannot abandon economic development. We must continue increasing our wealth. However, we have become poorer by focusing only on the economy.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: You have to have a balance.
The Chairman: One of the reasons this committee started these hearings was that we had been hearing time and again about dire situations in the farm regions across Canada. I come from Southern Alberta, which has experienced BSE, droughts and that kind of thing. We are thinking that if we cannot do something about the farming community to help it remain strong, then what happens to our towns? Without the towns, then what happens to the cities? It is like rolling ball.
What you have said today, probably more than any others, has made me focus on why we are doing this study. We do not want to see our towns disappear. They are the foundation of our country, both for the cities and for the farmlands.
All three of you have done a great job in responding to our questions, hitting them right on the head. We will be reading your statements and thinking of this beautiful area, not wanting to see Nicolet or any other town go.
Thank you very much for being here today.
[Translation]
Jacques Corriveau, President, Fédération de l'Union des producteurs agricoles, Centre-du-Québec: We heard about it shortly because this consultation. I met Senator Biron who said that there would be some consultation and that the UPA Federation should hear about it. We have not received any further information. This morning, I heard on the radio that you are sitting here in Nicolet. Let me say that I had not been informed.
I am Jacques Corriveau, I am a producer of character marked lumber at Saint-Léonard-D'Aston, about 20 or 25 kilometres from Nicolet. I am also a farm producer, and I am the President of the Fédération régionale de l'UPA Centre-du-Québec. When I heard about your visit on the radio this morning, I decided that I had to come. I will be improvising, because I had little time to prepare, but I think that I must raise some issues regarding agriculture in Canada.
Perhaps agriculture in Quebec receives more support than the Canadian average. We know that collective marketing and organization is strong in the Quebec agricultural sector. We must deal with supply management for marketing our goods, because we must balance supply and demand for our products across Canada, products such as feathers, poultry, eggs and so forth. These products are not at all subsidized by governments. Therefore, I think that we should adopt similar systems.
At present, our agriculture is declining. Since 2001-2002, Canadian statistics show that producers' incomes are all negative, if we do not take subsidies into account. In 2005, subsidies were adjusted to help producers who do not have an income of $15,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a family. Let us keep in mind that they are entrepreneurs.
In Quebec, there were 6,000 or 7,000 producers who were not making $15,000 as an individual entrepreneur or $25,000 as a family. Is there any other large group of entrepreneurs who would accept such conditions? Most of them did not benefit from this. Very few of them benefited from supply management.
Globalization has an influence on agriculture. We must not be afraid of globalization. However, there is no fair-play in globalization. This is due to subsidization. Let us take, for instance, the U.S. subsidization of cereal crops. We heard that last year, the U.S. subsidized cereal crops to the tune of $22 billion. Last year Canada only had the meagre sum of $1.5 billion for subsidizing agriculture. Nine hundred million dollars went to cover the CAIS program for 2003-2005. Things that should have been taken into account were left out. It is a drop in the bucket.
Quebec did somewhat better. Let us note that producers contribute to an insurance and stabilization system, and the Quebec government puts up $2 for every dollar contributed by producers. This system was set up during the 1980s, and Quebec producers were doing fairly well. However, since 2002-2003, the U.S. increased its farm subsidies, the premiums became too expensive and it has become difficult to make money with certain products.
Madam Chairman, you mentioned the mad cow crisis. I think that this crisis is a passing phenomenon. Globalization, on the other hand, is an established structure.
Just now, we heard in this room that in the industrial sector, there is no even playing field due to salaries and many other new factors. The use of certain products is an issue in agriculture. For instance, very low cost herbicides that were formerly used in Quebec and in Canada, and that are now banned for good reasons, are still being produced abroad. I think that banning these herbicides was the right thing to do, but there is little or no monitoring of products imported from countries that still allow their use.
For example, when a case of mad cow disease is declared in Canada, the United States closes its borders to our beef. There are countries that use certain products for their production, and such products should not be allowed into Canada.
If we let our producers carry on without any support while we allow all kinds of things to invade their market, I call that unfair competition.
Farm subsidies in the United States together with globalization are creating structures that spell the end of Canadian agriculture. Other industries may be in trouble, but the survival of agriculture is in jeopardy.
If our governments want to ensure an adequate supply of quality food for our population, they have to help us, not only with subsidies, but also with other effective measures such as protecting our market from certain foreign goods.
We were discussing supply management. Regarding dairy products, heavily subsidized milk proteins used for making cheese are allowed into Canada. At one time, we were importing cream mixed with sugar for making ice cream. According to our rules, if the mixture had less than 50 per cent cream, it was treated as sugar so that a mixture of 51 per cent sugar with 49 per cent cream was imported as sugar. Sugar and cream are both used to make ice cream. Supply management was based on milk quotas and the quantity of butter fat. Therefore, the imported mixtures for making ice cream were eroding the Canadian producers' ability to produce.
The same thing is happening with other products. As Mr. Cartier just said, this is happening to organic products in niche markets and to the local products that we want to sell. We hear that 70 to 80 per cent of organic products on the shelves are currently imported because we are not producing enough of them in Quebec. The competitive production of these products should be regulated and monitored to ensure the respect of certain standards. We know that Quebec and Canada have very strict standards for food inspection and food safety.
As producers, we must work together to organize our systems as best we can. It is difficult to remain competitive when all kinds of things come in through the back door by various means. Canada can either feed its own population, and if it cannot do so, we will have to rely on imported food.
[English]
Senator Mercer: You have talked several times about supply management. You mentioned that farmers working under supply management are making money and doing reasonably well. Then you talked about U.S. subsidies.
Is your recommendation that we expand the supply management systems to cover other products, or is it your recommendation that we get into the subsidy business as the Americans and the European Union are doing? Is it a combination of both or none of those at all?
[Translation]
Mr. Corriveau: Let me say that my line of products is supposed to be stabilized in Quebec. I worked in association with milk producers from 1974 to 1995 and we never had to look for help from anyone. We were able to pay wages and make a living. Presently, we can still do so, although we are faced with increasing difficulty.
As an example, I mentioned the supply management of milk proteins. It gradually became weaker. The best example of good organization in Canada was the Canadian Wheat Board, although it was not involved in supply management. The Wheat Board brought new life to grain production in western Canada. Ultimately, U.S. subsidies undermined the Wheat Board. For a long time, ever since its inception, multinationals and commercial interests have tried to destroy it. I think that the Canadian government began to subsidize our nearly defunct barley production, but ultimately, the big multinationals succeeded in defeating that attempt.
In the supply management of chicken, we supposed that importing more chicken would make us more competitive. On the other hand, there are dairy companies that do business in Quebec and in Canada and that do business in the United States, with supply management. The American side has a fine system. They are making money in Canada and in Quebec and they are losing on the American side. We find that this is unreasonable.
Producers are always the first to pay for this. Supply management ensures that we meet our needs by creating a balance. We have agencies for regulating prices. This is what supply management is about. There may be different methods, and the Canadian government should be ready to put up the money to support producers so that it does not have to support the 25 or 30 per cent of entrepreneurs in Quebec to guarantee a minimum income of $15,000 or $25,000 per family it will have to guarantee a minimum income of $50,000. Canada is less powerful than the United States and we are not about to get into debt as the Americans are doing.
I think that we must get organized and create systems that are not costly to the public and that will be profitable to the public and also to the producers. I think that supply management is one of the most outstanding examples.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Corriveau. We do apologize for having to rush off and catch an airplane. I am very glad you came because you have hit on an issue that is extremely large in this country, that being trade and the movement of products.
I am from Western Canada, and I know that many farmers there are deeply concerned about the notion that we will no longer have a Wheat Board. We have a great reputation in other countries of the world regarding the way we produce our products, and we may well lose those countries as nations wishing to buy from us. It is a big issue, and we will just have to see how it plays out. The whole purpose of this committee is to support farmers. Everything that you have said today has been very much in that direction and we thank you for it.
The committee adjourned.