Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 18 - Evidence - Meeting of November 15, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5 p.m. to study the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Senator Maltais, chair of this committee. I'm from Quebec.
Before beginning, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting with the co-chair of this committee.
Senator Mercer: Senator Terry Mercer, deputy chair of the committee. I'm from Nova Scotia.
Senator Tardif: Good evening. I'm Claudette Tardif, senator from Alberta.
Senator Ogilvie: Senator Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
Senator Merchant: Good evening. I'm Senator Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Today the committee is continuing its study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
[Translation]
Today we are pleased to have with us Mr. Chris van den Heuvel, President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture; Mr. Mervin Wiseman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture; Ms. Mary Robinson, President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, and Mr. Andrew Lovell from the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick. Welcome to all of you.
If you have comments to make before the question period, please don't hesitate to make them. I wanted to remind you that the longer your presentation, the less time senators will have to ask you questions. Consequently I invite you to be concise and precise. The senators look forward to asking you questions. We are very pleased to welcome various federations of agriculture. Who would like to begin? Mr. van den Heuvel?
[English]
Chris van den Heuvel, President, Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture: Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you here today about agricultural land values in Nova Scotia. As mentioned, my name is Chris van den Heuvel, and I am the President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. I'm a dairy farmer on the sunset side of Cape Breton Island.
Increasing farm values are definitely an issue that Nova Scotia farmers are facing. To start off with, to provide a bit of background on agriculture in Nova Scotia, our province generates $581 million in farm gate receipts on approximately a million acres of farmland.
In the 2006 Census, Nova Scotia is the only Atlantic province that has experienced an increase in the number of farms and the only province in Canada that has experienced an increase in the amount of land being farmed. Additionally, farm registration numbers show that there has been a positive shift in the number of farmers from the lower income brackets to the higher revenue brackets. Both of these statistics indicate growth in our industry, which also leads to an increase in demand for resources such as land.
The invitation to appear here as a witness highlighted three areas to focus on. One of those areas was the reason for an increase in farmland values. I can only speak for Nova Scotia. However, in my opinion, I would say the reason is simple: supply and demand, and location. Some of the best agricultural land in Nova Scotia lies within an hour of urban Halifax and other areas that are putting urban development pressures on agricultural land. Being in a prime development location, land values are, of course, going to increase.
As I mentioned earlier, our industry is growing, indicating there is internal industry demand for land. The 2015 Farmland Values Report by Farm Credit Canada indicated the competition for agricultural land is high and parcels do not stay on the market for very long. The report also mentioned that the western region of the province has significant upward pressure. This region is both relatively close to the city but also very active in agriculture and has 18 per cent of Nova Scotia's agricultural land base.
As farmers, we face challenges with regards to acquiring land. Purchasing land at high values takes up capital that could be used on equipment upgrades and infrastructure to value add. Active farmland in 2006 was about a third of the area in use back in 1901. Bringing farmland back into production is definitely possible. However, there is a cost associated with this, especially resources, money and time.
Losing agricultural land is also a concern. Development opportunities are often tempting for municipalities to consider, but when development encroaches on agricultural land, it threatens a resource loss that we are never able to recover.
The NSFA has had a policy on agricultural land for quite a few years now. The policy identifies recommendations on how to increase the amount of agricultural land in Nova Scotia. A good way is through the establishment of a provincial agricultural land bank.
While land banking is not a new concept, in the 1970s, under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, Nova Scotia had a land bank program that was administered by the Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board. The Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board would purchase agricultural land that was at risk of being developed for non-agricultural use at fair market value and lease that land to farmers at an affordable cost. Unfortunately, this program no longer exists.
Under the Community Easements Act in Nova Scotia, an organization can become designated and hold easements on land. These easements remove the development rights on land and state that the land is only to be used for a specific purpose. Agriculture can be one of those purposes.
If a program like the land bank program under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act was brought back, an easement could be put on land to ensure that it stays in agricultural production.
In Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley Farmland Trust Society can hold these land easements, or conservation easements, as they are commonly known. They are a charitable organization that holds easements on agricultural land but educates and raises awareness of the importance of protecting farmland and supporting the farming community working the land.
In their efforts in protecting land, the Annapolis Valley Farmland Trust Society has learned that there are significant costs to placing easements on land, including surveying, migration, legal; and, varying by parcel, these costs can be upwards of $20,000. Currently, the parcels under easement have been voluntarily placed, meaning that the landowner was not compensated for removing the development rights of their land.
We see a new land bank program as a key part of the solution to both maintain agricultural land for future generations and ensure agricultural land is affordable for farmers today. Removing development rights through a land bank program would allow new entrants to use scarce capital elsewhere, but to make it successful, we need a funding program that will cover these costs of placing easements on the land.
The other two prongs of our land use policy are zero taxation on farmland and the use of Crown land for agricultural purposes. Land that is government-owned is owned by the people, and all people, including agricultural operations, should have equal access to the use of that land.
Timing is optimal. With negotiations under way for the next policy framework, we have a great opportunity to bring such programs in place. Additionally, we need to increase the amount of land protected. A program to compensate farmers by paying them the difference between the fair market value of their land and the farm market value for which they could presumably sell the land with the easement in place is also necessary.
All in all, preserving agricultural land in Canada must be a national interest. I would like to echo the recommendations that resulted from a study on agricultural land across Canada conducted by Dr. David J. Connell. AAFC should make a clear, direct statement of policy to protect Canada's farmland. Also, Privy Council should build provincial collaborations around the federal statement of interest to protect farmland. Finally, AAFC should establish a national land use monitoring program to track the changed uses and loss of agricultural lands.
Once again, thank you for the invitation to speak here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. van den Heuvel. Before we continue, I ask the new senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good evening, my name is Jean-Guy Dagenais; I am a senator for Quebec, from Montreal.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Duffy: Mike Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Good evening, my name is André Pratte, senator from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will go now to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Wiseman.
Mervin Wiseman, Board Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture: Thank you. I'm actually a silver fox farmer. I operate one of the largest silver fox farms in the world, located in North Harbour, Placentia Bay, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for accepting me as a witness to present Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture's perspective on farmland acquisition and values within the scope of the broader Canadian situation.
After researching the topic and having learned about the experiences of other provinces through presentations to this committee and other forums, it is clear Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the common thread on farmland that extends throughout the country. Farmland is indeed a precious commodity in Newfoundland and Labrador, and like in other parts of Canada it is under extreme pressure from many interest groups, which include a wide range of industrial competitors, such as forestry, mining, oil and gas; urban growth and encroachment; recreational encroachment with a playground mentality; land speculators and brokers; and municipal expansion needs.
From an agricultural standpoint, the situation is compounded by the amount of arable land throughout the province. It is estimated that only about 2 per cent of the entire land mass in Newfoundland and Labrador is suitable for agriculture. The serious reality in the face of this situation is that the full thrust of agriculture in Newfoundland and Labrador is being farmed on less than 50 per cent of the valuable farmland existing within the province. The remainder of suitable farmland has been lost to other types of commercial use and/or held by intergenerational transfers who have lost interest in farming for a living.
Provincial government policy, followed by strategies and investment, has provided some measure of mitigation against the loss of valuable farmland. The Provincial Lands Act of 1978 changed agricultural land ownership from grants to long-term leases. Agriculture development areas were established, which made it difficult and sometimes impossible for those with granted farmland to develop the land for any purpose other than agriculture. Additionally, a government-funded buyback program was instituted whereby farmlands that were not in use were purchased by government and made available to be leased to farmers.
A little bit on land value: Consistent with the dynamic in other provinces, land values have increased significantly in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last decade, but it has been primarily restricted to areas with active residential expansion and commercial activity. The greater St. John's and Avalon area and the West Coast, Corner Brook and Humber Valley area have been critical. Furthermore, land values have had an impact on the situations where granted land has been at play. High values against this backdrop have made it too expensive for many farmers to purchase and have largely resulted in the loss of good farmland to commercial interest.
Unfortunately, the agricultural development areas set up to protect farmlands in this area have had their original allocation reduced by more than 50 per cent, after a number of reviews deemed significant land unsuitable for agriculture and thereby released to private developers.
Fortunately, the government agriculture leases have had a stabilizing effect on the cost of purchase for agricultural lands in Newfoundland and Labrador. Leases are long-term and are purchased for a relatively inexpensive, nominal annual fee. The major drawback is that the cost of land development falls to the farmer, and in Newfoundland and Labrador land development is significantly greater than the national average.
The most serious shortcoming of this is the lease stipulation that requires land and its full development to revert to the Crown when farming activity ceases. This dynamic creates a disincentive and barrier to land development. While the lease arrangement is a farmland protective measure, its conditional tenure impairs the ability of farmers to build equity through investment in land improvements.
Rationalization for farmland acquisition: Ostensibly the trends for farmland acquisition must be substantively improved in Canada. From a Newfoundland and Labrador perspective, where farmland is a scarce commodity, acquisition and enhancement is a fundamental imperative simply from the standpoint of food security. Newfoundland and Labrador currently imports over 90 per cent of its horticulture food consumption and 99 per cent of its livestock red meat products. Changing this requires significantly more agricultural land and creative ways of making it available to farmers at economical rates.
In addition to achieving food security goals, agricultural development is being viewed as a significant generator of economic activity and an economic diversification measure in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is largely considered a rural activity where economic options are limited. The agriculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is currently valued at approximately $500 million annually. Setting higher limits on achieving food security certainly gives good rationale for a renewed emphasis on farmland acquisition.
New and emerging opportunities in the province are adding impetus to the creation of agricultural activity and corresponding farmland expansion. Peat-based activity, berry production and other functional foods have to a certain extent redefined areas suitable for agriculture. Wetlands and marshes, where many of these products are produced, are no longer considered wastelands void of agricultural production capacity.
Finally, a major shift in the production of forest products in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the pulp and paper sector, has created huge capacity for additional farmland. Previous to the closure of paper mills, hundreds of thousands of land acreages were locked up in long-term leases for the forest industry. Current policy-based evidence indicates that these lands are now being considered for agricultural use in the near future. These combined options for agriculture expansion can potentially move the percentage of suitable farmland in Newfoundland and Labrador as much as 6 to 8 per cent of total land mass. Facilitating an orderly and economical farmland development plan against this backdrop will clearly be the new operative for farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Conclusions and recommendations: Farmland operatives around acquisitions and values primarily fall to provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Nevertheless, there is an important rationalization and role for our national government in the land use equation. While food security and food sovereignty is largely provincial, it is also a national imperative. Likewise, regional economic prosperity associated with agricultural production also adds to national interests.
Notwithstanding provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdiction over farmland operatives, a federal overlay is clearly needed. In fact, many believe the absence of a coherent and comprehensive federal policy on farmland acquisition and protection has led to a shortcoming and concerning trend in productive agricultural land losses. New and emerging issues around social licence, climate change and alternate farmland use have national implications that once again illustrate the need for FPT collaboration on preserving and enhancing farmland in Canada.
Agricultural policy framework agreements that have come to be known as Growing Forward have proven to be an excellent vehicle for FPT collaborations on a full suite of agriculture programs. Given their success, it makes sense that future agreements, starting with the next generation of agreements — Growing Forward 3 in 2018 — should entrench the principle of farmland preservation and enhancement along the following lines: Farmland protection and enhancements should contain qualifying criteria as a function of food sovereignty and food security. Farmland enhancements should have qualifying criteria for lands that involve new and emerging functional foods. Climate change effects involving farmland drought mitigation, erosion and greenhouse gas mitigation on farmlands should have GF3 qualifying criteria. Environmental best practices and alternate farmland use options involving public good measures such as green cover, soil and water protection all should have qualifying criteria in the framework. Finally, qualifying criteria should be available for farmland development in areas deemed to be seriously underdeveloped and experiencing unique development challenges, such as high costs, from the province I come from. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wiseman. Permit me to introduce another member to the committee, Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
[Translation]
We now welcome Mr. Andrew Lovell from the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick.
[English]
Andrew Lovell, Director, Board of Directors, Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick: Thank you for having us here to present today. My name is Andrew Lovell. I'm a director of the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick, Atlantic Canada's 2016 Outstanding Young Farmer and an apple producer from Keswick Ridge, just outside Fredericton.
The agriculture industry in New Brunswick faces some tremendous opportunities and challenges. Currently the agri-food sector and agriculture generates a little over $1 billion, I think $1.2 billion, to the New Brunswick economy, and 11,000 full-time-equivalent jobs in New Brunswick, so we believe that New Brunswick is currently in a pretty good position to help meet our future needs for food.
For more than 20 years, our industry has been calling out to government to implement a comprehensive provincial agriculture land use policy. Multiple attempts have been made in the past but did not result in having any effective legislation or policies that protect or preserve agricultural land.
If we want our industry to continue to be sustainable and grow, we must have access to suitable farmland and assurance that our investments are not eroded from non-agricultural developments such as topsoil harvesting and encroachment by urban centres.
Our industry is recognized as one of the most important economic drivers for our province. Agriculture in New Brunswick is growing at a rate of 1.5 per cent a year, and we're the only industry in the province that is showing consistent growth at that rate year after year.
However, many more efforts are required beyond the need for preserving and protecting our land for generations to come. Focus on creating market access for both domestic and international markets, attracting and supporting new entrants, immigration, optimizing use of the best current technology and innovation, and attracting youth to the sector at a young age are some of the few priorities identified by our key stakeholders during the development of the 2016-18 Agriculture Industry Action Plan.
The following will highlight some of the values of farmland in New Brunswick and some of the concerns we have regarding acquiring farmland and the potential solutions resulting from the acquisition of farmland in our province.
Our province continues to be privileged compared to other provinces in terms of our farmland values. Based on the 2015 Farm Credit Canada Farmland Values Report, New Brunswick farmland values have experienced an increase of 4.6 per cent since 2015. Values of productive land have increased steadily since 2008. Within the province, the highest farmland values are found to be in the western and northwestern side of the province, where mostly potatoes are produced. Those, of course, would be sold to McCain for further processing. The land in that area is in high demand, and most of it is purchased by existing producers.
However, New Brunswick producers are not immune to potential land value increases, and access to capital to enable producers to purchase land, especially new entrants, continues to be a major challenge. The provincial government has a program called the New Land Purchase Program, which will finance agriculture land up to 100 per cent of the enhanced value and provide the producer a lease for six years, with a buyout of the land at the end of the lease. The program's criteria currently exclude land that has been actively farmed for the last two consecutive years. This is a significant stumbling block for new or young producers trying to enter the industry or expand an existing business and who have limited access to capital. You can find more information on that on the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture website.
Just as a personal note, I bought our farm in 2012. I didn't come from a farming family. I'm in the growth mode now, and it's extremely hard to find farmland.
One of the most frequent situations regarding acquiring farmland is the generational ownership of farmland not actively farmed. New entrants and existing producers are often faced with landowners not willing to sell or in some instances to even lease the land. Because that land has been in their family for generations, they want to keep it there.
In addition, the Farm Land Identification Program contributes to the challenge of bringing fallow land back into production. Under the program's guidelines, not actively farmed land can continue to be eligible for the program if it continues to be suitable and available for agriculture production, which doesn't mean it has to be farmed; it just has to be sitting there and you can say that one day you're going to use it. That's all that's required. The province estimates that 47 per cent of active agricultural land is registered under FLIP. However, it is not known what proportion of the land registered would be deemed abandoned.
Based on this information, it is clear there's currently no incentive in place to bring that land into production. Approximately 48 per cent of the land in our province is deemed appropriate for agriculture production. However, only 5.2 per cent is currently being farmed. A report released by the Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries in 2008 found that approximately 47,000 hectares, or 116,000 acres, of agricultural land was classified as abandoned. This map has not been updated by the government and is a major stumbling point in the expansion of the agriculture industry for potential new and existing producers.
Over the course of the last few years, I've also travelled across the country. I'm reminded of Logan Grant from Chamberlain, Saskatchewan. He bought his first farm, with the help of his parents, in 2008-09, and today he is farming 15,000 acres. But of course everybody's largest problem is cost of entry.
We'd also like to see a directory of land for sale and lease in our province to assist producers and individuals interested in entering our industry. The Farm Land Identification Program provides for the deferral of applicable provincial real property tax on the assessed value of registered farmland and farm outbuildings. The portion of the local or municipal tax rate that is above the average local service district, or LSD, rate for the province is also deferred. Owners of farm properties must submit an application to be considered for registration. Registration is a long-term commitment to maintain land in agricultural use.
There may be substantial financial costs to exiting the program. When a property registered in the FLIP program is deregistered or withdrawn from the program by the assessed owner, the deferred taxes, to a maximum of 15 previous years, with associated interest, becomes due and payable. The total amount of interest is added to the deferred taxes, payable upon deregistration or withdrawal on or after September 1, 2007, and is limited to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total taxes deferred.
We believe that a comprehensive review of the FLIP program should be taking place in collaboration with industry to resolve some of the issues listed above. A potential solution could be to modify the FLIP program for land registered under the program that is not being actively farmed for two years to receive deregistration or be placed into changing status, and that an appeal process be developed. The government should also conduct a study to compare other provinces' tax incentives and consider whether FLIP is meeting its goal, which is to preserve and protect agricultural land, and either improve the program or develop another program altogether. Ultimately, the need for the implementation of a provincial agriculture land policy with ties to existing acts and regulations is certainly overdue, and we are pleased that our provincial government has committed to release a policy this fall or early winter.
On behalf of the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick, that's all for me.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Robinson, you have the floor.
Mary Robinson, President, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture: Good evening, chair and committee members. My name is Mary Robinson and I am the President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture. I'm also fortunate to be the sixth generation in my family to be farming in Augustine Cove, Prince Edward Island.
I want to take this moment to thank you for inviting me to present on behalf of our federation. Our Federation of Agriculture is P.E.I.'s largest general farm association, representing the interests of more than 80 per cent of farms across our island. We have approximately 600 farm members and 15 different commodity associations. Our membership is not only diverse in production — cattle, dairy, potatoes, strawberry, fur, honey and so on — but also varied in the quantity and quality of agricultural land that they control — a few acres to a few thousand acres, blueberry production to potato production.
Agriculture is consistently P.E.I.'s largest economic driver, contributing $450 million to the 2014 provincial GDP, almost $100 million more than the next closest industry.
The 2011 Census reported P.E.I. had 1,495 farms, averaging 400 acres each. Total land under production in 2011 was around 600,000 acres. Compare this with 1997. There were 2,200 farms and 655,000 acres in production.
In order to gain economies of scale and satisfy buyers' requirements for a consistent supply of product, farms are amalgamating in P.E.I., just as they are across the country. At the same time, we are seeing the disappearance of cultivated land.
The value of P.E.I. farmland has grown at an average rate of 4 per cent a year since 2010. In the last two years alone, P.E.I. has seen land values jump 9.3 per cent in 2014 and a further 8.5 per cent in 2015. Although the magnitude of rising farmland prices may vary across Canada, we all know the nationwide trend is up.
We believe farmland price increases in P.E.I. can be largely attributed to the requirement of more acres so as to be in compliance with our mandatory three-year crop rotation. As well, land that has had strategic value for individual farms has garnered big prices. For example, a field that is close to your main operation or one that might complete a block of land, you would be willing to pay more for that type of land.
We have seen out-of-province farmers choose to sell in higher-value markets and relocate to our province and buy complete farms at a fraction of the cost. We have seen religious groups buying up tracts of land and potentially taking it out of production. We have seen pressure from urban sprawl and more notably ribbon development that is whittling away at our arable land. All of these factors have placed pressures on land prices.
P.E.I. does have a Lands Protection Act. The purpose of this act was to halt single entities controlling more than 3,000 acres. It has been a thorn in the side of some producers and has probably been effective to quell some of the land grab that we feared was starting to happen in the 1980s.
I wish I could tell you we have an easy solution for this problem, but unfortunately we don't. We strongly support the protection of resource land in Canada.
Provincial governments could be encouraged to develop a sliding tax scale that would reward the owner for keeping agricultural land in production. Taxing land that is not kept in agricultural production at a higher rate would incentivize non-farming landowners to develop a relationship with an established farm or perhaps a new entrant.
A recent report led by Dr. David Connell from the University of Northern British Columbia suggests that the federal government must show leadership by making a clear policy statement about the importance of farmland. This policy statement should become a foundation within the next agricultural policy framework agreement that is currently under consultation here in Ottawa. This would send a message to all provinces about the need to protect the farmland we have.
Prince Edward Island is currently undergoing municipal amalgamation. Provincial government legislation on this subject includes the downloading of land use policy powers to municipal governments. This has the farming community calling for reconsideration. Much like the suggestion Dr. Connell has given the federal government, we are asking that our provincial government deem farmland on P.E.I. to be resource land that needs protection. We are asking that the province retain power over land use planning for farmland and ultimately protect land from being taken out of production.
In closing, I want to thank you again for this opportunity and would like to assure you that the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture is prepared to work with governments at all levels to protect farmland for future generations and further the interests of Canadian farmers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson. Thank you very much to the other witnesses as well.
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I've been a member of this committee for 13 years. Mr. Wiseman, you're the first fox farmer that has appeared before us. I'm interested in having a side conversation about that later on because it sounds fascinating.
Mr. van den Heuvel, you talked about land prices in Nova Scotia and in particular in the Annapolis Valley. You didn't talk about your own area of Cape Breton and what the pressures are on the cost of land on Cape Breton Island.
Mr. van den Heuvel: Thank you very much for the question. We're seeing upward pressure in our area, especially with the recent opening of the world-class golf course development in Cabot Cliffs and Cabot Links. It has been a huge contributor to the economy in Cape Breton. What we're starting to see now is an interest, especially from foreign ownership. It has been there always, simmering kind of under the radar, and we are starting to see some definite upwards pressures.
One example of a farm just 10 minutes outside of Inverness, 285 acres recently went on the market for $989,000, just simply way out of the reach of a farmer looking to expand operations or a new entrant. That's with no infrastructure on the farm at all. That is just the land.
Senator Mercer: A number of years ago, $900,000 would have bought you a good share of Inverness County. It's interesting. You all mentioned taxes, and the suggestion of a sliding tax or at least a production benefit in taxation seems to be a consistent message. If you are going to be taxed as agricultural land, then it better be agricultural land. It can't be disguised as agricultural land. It has to be in production. I see heads nodding. Are we in agreement on that?
Mr. van den Heuvel: Absolutely. In Nova Scotia, we already have a zero taxation policy in place, so agricultural land is zero-tax rated by the municipalities. The enforcement of that is a little bit on the lackadaisical side, so we'd like to see shoring up on that end. The sliding scale Mary mentioned, if that was a clear-cut policy across the nation, it would really enforce that message that if you're coming in and purchasing land for speculative purposes, or whatever the case may be, to get that benefit of zero taxation, you must establish that relationship with a new or an existing agricultural operation and make sure that land stays in production.
Our local area activity might be compounded by the astounding U.S. election results and the fact that there has been a website touting the benefits of Americans moving to Cape Breton Island. Typically what we see when land comes under foreign ownership is a gate or chain goes across the driveway and that land is taken out of production, but they still get the benefit of zero taxation. It's an important policy to have, and we need the enforcement to back it up.
Senator Mercer: For those who haven't paid attention, it started as a joke, but unfortunately it's no joke now. It quickly became a movement. A recent report on the tourism numbers on Cape Breton for this past season have been extraordinarily high, mostly from Americans coming up and looking around. It's amazing what happens when you put an idea out there.
I'm not from Prince Edward Island. I understood that Prince Edward Island was more progressive in their protection of farmland than other provinces. Would you say that's the case? Did you say that the mandatory three-year crop rotation was a hindrance as opposed to a help?
Ms. Robinson: The three-year crop rotation would specifically deal with soil quality. It's not a hindrance so much as it poses challenges for people who have their operations set up to crop a certain acreage, let's say, for example, of potatoes. If you're set up to grow 500 acres of potatoes and you were on a two-year rotation, you could do that with 1,000 arable acres, but with the three-year mandatory rotation act, you suddenly need to have 1,500 acres of land because you need to have that row crop only one in three years. There are exceptions made with a two in five.
Senator Mercer: In that third year, what are you growing on that land?
Ms. Robinson: A typical rotation might be potatoes followed by grain followed by hay. On our farm, we're fortunate enough that we're able to do potatoes, soybeans, barley and hay. We're on a four-year rotation. Some people are in a two in five, so they may have ryegrass or something that would be a more aggressive builder of organic matters.
When we talk about protecting farmland, from a soil's perspective, we're in good shape with the legislation we have, but we're talking specifically about reclassifying or removing agricultural land from production. Currently, I don't think we have anything adequate in place to do that.
Senator Mercer: The issue of having some sort of loan program to help young farmers to get into the business has been a subject around this table for a number of years because we understand the difficulty for people such as you getting into the business, Mr. Lovell. That's an extraordinary commitment to make to get in, especially if you come from a non-farming family. You're not starting with inheriting part of the family's acreage. That's a big commitment and a big debt to take on early in one's career.
Is there no assistance at all in New Brunswick to help young people such as you to start farming?
Mr. Lovell: There is, but I have to say it's a little bit embarrassing. I believe that last year there were 74 applications for people that wanted to begin farming as new entrants in New Brunswick, and there might have been one that was approved.
So in the last four years, to my knowledge, there have been four new entrants approved in the province of New Brunswick, with me being one of them.
Senator Mercer: Approved through the loan program.
Mr. Lovell: Yes.
Senator Mercer: You said 74 applications. What did the other 73 applicants do? Did they walk away from the idea of farming entirely, or did they take another route?
Mr. Lovell: They were turned down by the provincial government. The government would have said, "You're project is not viable, or there is this issue or that issue.'' It's very much a no-risk approach.
Senator Mercer: Most economists who sit down and look at the prospects of farming would say an awful lot of farms are not viable because they don't understand that the farmers are willing to take those risks that are much higher than most other business people are willing to take.
Mr. Lovell: You're right there to a point. One thing about agriculture is that farmers are tied to the land. Land is an asset that always appreciates in value. Obviously, there are other depreciable assets — tractors, equipment, trucks, whatever it is — but the land itself always appreciates. So yes, there is risk, but at the same time you're growing your value and your net worth all the time, probably at a quicker rate than you would in today's stock market.
Senator Mercer: Mr. van den Heuvel, you talked about a new land bank program. I'm not speaking against it, but who would fund it, in your estimation?
Mr. van den Heuvel: We're hoping that with the negotiations for the next policy framework or whatever it's going to be called, we take a look at some sort of a seed fund to help to fund that because, obviously, part of that land banking policy has to be farmers that are looking to retire. As Andrew just mentioned, land values are always appreciating. So they might have purchased their land, and they deserve to sell out and use that as their retirement. So yes, we do need some seed money. We hope that the program would become revenue-neutral for the program itself because land that goes into that land bank would be able to be leased out to new or existing operators for a certain portion of time in order for the land bank to gain its money back. Then that land could be sold, either a lease-to-own or an outright purchase, by people to buy the land out of the land bank.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses.
According to a recent Farm Credit Canada Farmland Values Report, the average value of Canadian farmland increased 10.1 per cent in 2015. This upward trend has increased steadily since 2006. How would you explain the steady increase in the value of farmland in Canada and, more specifically, in your respective provinces?
Ms. Robinson: What we have seen is an increased pressure on how much land a farmer has to have to stay in business, so that has perhaps contributed to the increasing cost of land.
We've also seen pressure from development and urban encroachment, and we have also seen other farmers moving into our area because we have, on the scale of the costs of agricultural land, really good land for what it costs in our province.
So we see those kinds of pressures all working on increasing land costs. As well, we've heard about high commodity prices and what that's done to drive values up and low interest rates making it more attractive to maybe pay a little more because you're paying less interest and are able to chip away at that debt a little more quickly.
Senator Oh: Do you know that your Island population has increased significantly?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Oh: From where?
Ms. Robinson: We have seen a decent increase in growth in our province. I'm not sure on the numbers. I think about 140,000 was our population. We've seen a fairly large influx of immigration. That pressure, I don't think, is as great on land costs in our province. We have a large inventory of land that has been subdivided and approved for development but sits idle, waiting for a buyer, so we have a large inventory of that land. So the bigger pressures on land prices on Prince Edward Island are not so much from that foreign residential. We do see, in southeastern Prince Edward Island, we've had a religious group move in and buy a fairly large amount of land. They're gaining residency in the province, and once they gain residency, then each person is, under the law, allowed to own 1,000 acres.
Senator Oh: You said 1,000 acres.
Ms. Robinson: Yes, 1,000 acres if you're a resident. For a corporation, it's 3,000 acres. There are requirements around that that mean that it is pretty much 1,000 acres a person. In my family, there are six of us that own our farm, but we're only allowed to control 3,000 acres. "Control'' is the word because if you are leasing or owning it, you are controlling it.
Senator Oh: I suppose it's a balancing act. The retiring farmer would like to see that after 30 years of farming, the value has gone up.
Ms. Robinson: It's very much that. It depends on which side of the equation you're on. If you're a new entrant, you would like land prices to be low. If you are an exiting farmer, you would probably like to see the land prices higher so that you can either retire well or finance the succession of your farm for the next generation.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Wiseman, if I understood you correctly, you said that your lands are used among other things for residential development, despite a provincial legislative framework. You do less local production. You depend more on imports.
What would be the first measure to take to curb this trend? How would you feel about a federal government intervention that would be in harmony with the responsibilities of your province?
[English]
Mr. Wiseman: Thank you for the question. There have been some moves by the provincial government to mitigate that kind of a situation that you've just described in your preamble to the question. For example, legislated agriculture development areas which restrict the land from being developed for any means other than agriculture has been a fairly large measure.
It hasn't gone all the way because, like everything, people will find ways to navigate around it. There is a huge political lobby, for example, with government on agriculture development areas saying, "Look, you have too much of this area put into agriculture. It's not warranted.'' They have had reviews and extracted from the original agriculture development area as much as 50 per cent of the land that was originally put there. So it has some weaknesses there.
Newfoundland and Labrador has it right in terms of the lease arrangements. Since 1978 no one can own land for agriculture in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador without it being a lease. It has to be a lease arrangement. Legislation can't affect the people who already had Crown land, granted land, before that. That's where a problem lies.
Like the other presenters here, there have been big issues about people in these urban areas around St. John's, Avalon, Corner Brook and so on, where they sat on the land and said it's not going anywhere. I know it's agriculture development areas, but it's a chunk of land. I'm not going to farm it, so it will sit there forever. What we as agriculture proponents would say to government is if you are going to let it sit there, then tax it. We have to use that taxation. It's a great leverage.
On the extra development, we have a lot of areas that we believe can be developed, and the government recognizes this as the key to making more land accessible.
Of course, the lease arrangement in terms of land value kind of neutralized the cost of land going up. When land is granted in Newfoundland and Labrador, it costs $4 an acre per year as a lease arrangement. It's basically nothing. Of course, the shortfall on that is when you cease to farm it, it reverts back to the Crown.
If I'm an agricultural producer and I have this leased land and am going to put $500,000 into it to develop it, I know that if I become sick and three years after that it reverts back to the Crown, or when I retire it reverts back to the Crown, all that development goes with it, and there is no means to compensate the farmer. So there's a big government role there. There's no question about that.
The only thing, to finish on this, that I believe in terms of the agricultural policy framework, where that could come into play, is that the land that's there and with the expectation for the producer to develop it, that could be mitigated against some additional federal-provincial funding that could be used to develop that land.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before giving the floor to Senator Dagenais again, we want to excuse Mr. van den Heuvel, because he has to catch a plane in the next few minutes.
Mr. van den Heuvel, I want to thank you most sincerely for your presence at our committee meeting. You presentation was very interesting and particularly instructive. Please note that the members of the committee are very concerned by what is happening in Canada. We have learned a lot on the files that affect your region. Your comments are very useful to us. I wish you a good trip back.
Senator Dagenais: My second question is for Mr. Lovell. You spoke about potato production. You mentioned unused lands. What other production could New Brunswick engage in? How could the government help you if you were to consider another type of production?
[English]
Mr. Lovell: At this time, we're working on a strategic plan for the apple industry in New Brunswick. As part of that strategic plan, we've put out an outline for what we would like to see for loans that would help producers. The land cost in the development of an orchard is the minimal part. Orchard development is about $25,000 an acre. Basically, we're looking for a type of program where years 1 through 5 there are no payments, interest deferred; interest-only payments in years 6 through 8; and repayment of that loan in blended repayment in years 9 through 15.
I'm also a committee member of the Apple Working Group for the Canadian Horticultural Council, and we'll be presenting a proposal to government just in the form of interest relief, because it's those first five years that are so tough when you're first trying to get production ramped up and going. Once you've got your revenue, you can afford to pay that loan back.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before giving the floor to Senator Merchant, I would have one question to ask. Ms. Robinson, you said something intriguing. You said that religious groups are purchasing land in your area. Are they buying it to farm it or to pray on it?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: It's a secret. No, my apologies.
The group I'm speaking of in particular, I think it's all right to speak in the specifics of it that I understand. A group of monks has set up a college or a school in southeastern Kings, in Kings County, Prince Edward Island. They are Buddhist monks, and they have bought a large amount of land. I'm not sure how much, if it's 3,000 or 5,000 or 6,000. There are people who know, but they're not in this room. By Island standards, they've bought a large amount of land.
They have set up this school, and they have over 1,000 people living in rural P.E.I., which has somewhat forced the issue of land use planning on Prince Edward Island. Our province has kind of been caught out.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are they farming those lands, or just teaching?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: They are and are not. They do not want to kill anything, so I understand they care for their vermin, the rats and whatnot. They don't want to till land and kill worms. So as far as modern agriculture goes, they're obviously organic producers if they are in production. There are Amish farmers in the area that I think they might be working with. I think they consider the Amish method of farming to be acceptable.
Generally speaking, a large percentage of that land has come out of production and has also impacted neighbouring farms. Neighbouring farms, instead of being next to a field that's cared for, are next to something sitting fallow. You might call it a weed farm.
Senator Merchant: Thank you very much to our presenters. Because we are just starting this study, the question that I have is this: If there is such a crisis in acquiring agricultural land, why isn't there a national policy? You made some reference, Mr. Wiseman, to that.
Of course there are constitutional issues, so I want to turn that around. Shouldn't the provinces be asking the federal government to assist them in creating a national policy, or to work together?
Mr. Wiseman: The jurisdictional issue is an issue and a barrier, to a degree. We have found the agricultural policy framework to be a great vehicle for collaboration. It's somewhat of a bilateral arrangement between provinces and territories that has worked very well. We have taken pillars to say this is what is national in scope but has provincial variations. Environmental protection has been a big issue. Climate change and food safety are big issues. It's national, but it's also provincial. The collaboration we have had has worked really well.
In terms of land protection and enhancement, the policy from the government, which has been translated through the framework agreement, has been that we do not get involved with enhancing the land, with clearing land, for example.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are so underdeveloped in the area of land; we have always had to come in through the back door and say that there's no qualifying criteria in the federal-provincial agreement to allow us to clear 500 acres of land — it's just not eligible for funding. So we said let's call it a place where we can do manure spreading and make it an environmental issue.
We have had to step dance and navigate around all kinds of barriers, because there has been a federal policy saying that we will not do this to our land. We think that's crazy. We need that development in our province. I see and hear about that in other provinces.
That's where the old process of policy and how that translates into practice can work, and it can work best through this agricultural policy framework agreement. That's the vehicle we have to work through.
Senator Merchant: When you say "we,'' is that your province?
Mr. Wiseman: I think the provinces collaboratively, federal and provincial.
Senator Merchant: Your provinces are asking the federal government?
Mr. Wiseman: Yes.
Senator Tardif: I'm looking at a report here by Mr. Connell. In it he provides a summary of the provincial legislative frameworks and the land use planning principles of the different provinces. It appears that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and I'm not seeing here necessarily Newfoundland, but they're considered to have weak provincial legislative frameworks and land use planning principles. Your provinces have been identified as the weakest; Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have the strongest legislative frameworks.
Perhaps to follow up on what you said, Mr. Wiseman, there's more to be done with the provinces. I don't know what the federal government can do to provide incentives to your provinces to move. I don't know if you have any suggestions for adopting better and stronger legislative frameworks.
Mr. Wiseman: I didn't speak to the legislative process a lot, because I see some barriers around jurisdictional issues where land is. I feel it has to be done through a different arrangement, like the policy framework.
There's no question that land use planning is a huge inhibitor in our province. I know it's not mentioned there. There's been a call to create land use advisory councils, because there's this great competition. We've had to force industry, for example, for a long time that has been using anything that would be considered good agricultural land.
It's only when the paper mills have closed down and the big companies have moved out that this land has become available. We have a big fight going on about who is going to get this. Is it going to be the oil and gas sector or recreational users? We have unbelievable pressure from the recreational people, and most of them come from urban areas. As I mentioned, they have a playground mentality. They believe that rural and agricultural areas are there for their luxury and play, and how dare you put up a farm next to us, and the pressure is incredible.
The land use planning part of it is simply lacking. How the federal government could get involved there, I don't know. But certainly in terms of creating new land areas and helping with that development, that's where federal government policy could come in.
Ms. Robinson: As we go through this process in Prince Edward Island with our land use planning, currently we have 74 municipalities in P.E.I., and we need to streamline that. Not all our land is currently within a municipality, so the end goal here for the provincial government, as we understand, is to have all land within a municipality and to pare down to about a third of the municipalities we currently have.
What I see as the opportunity would be for federal government, through money granted to municipalities for whatever programs they offer, to place value on farmland for a municipality. Currently municipalities do not care to have farmland within their municipality because it doesn't provide a tax base. If we could come up with some incentive for municipalities to place value on farmland, they would be more willing to embrace what farming brings to their community and municipality.
Senator Tardif: Thank you. Mr. Lovell, would you care to add anything?
Mr. Lovell: I don't really have an answer. I have no idea why New Brunswick doesn't have a land use policy.
Senator Tardif: It is considered weak.
Mr. Lovell: Really, we don't have one. It's very weak. The alliance has been lobbying the provincial government for over 20 years for a land use policy, just to do things like stop stripping topsoil off land. There's some significant, beautiful farmland. It's interval ground — it's floodplain — just below Fredericton, and driving to Moncton a week ago, I saw they're stripping the topsoil off. That's gone; it's never coming back.
Senator Mercer: Where are they selling it?
Mr. Lovell: They'll sell it back to landscaping companies. I understand they're trying to make a living, which is fair enough, but that's land that we're losing. We're not getting it back. It's gone for generations. I'm sure other people here can correct me, but I think it takes something like a thousand years to create an inch of topsoil.
Senator Tardif: Some witnesses have told us there's a lack of reliable, accurate and timely data on land mapping and foreign sales acquisitions. Do you agree with that? Is that maybe part of the problem — we just don't have the data to know what land we have and what uses it's going toward?
Mr. Lovell: Yes. We had that discussion earlier today. In 2008 the provincial government mapped all the abandoned farmland in New Brunswick, and it could be added to a layer of what's called GoNB, but nobody has kept it up. We spent all these tax dollars finding out and identifying where this land is, and it's just been let go to the wind. Why did we do that?
Ms. Robinson: I would like to agree with what you're saying. We need to do a better job of collecting information. Right now the answer to this situation is not obvious to us. It's like planting a tree. The best time to plant a tree is yesterday or today.
We should be actively collecting information on land ownership, land use, and we should have a much better understanding of our soils. Prince Edward Island is doing a good job in that regard, and that's in part because of our Lands Protection Act, but anyone that flies under the radar of those triggers of five acres or 165 feet of shore frontage — those are the triggers for a non-resident of Prince Edward Island, a come-from-away, as we call them — if you fly under that, then your transaction goes unrecorded. We need to have a much better mechanism to collect this information now so that in three or five years, or maybe sooner, when we feel we're in a position to take action, we have the information that's passing us by now.
Mr. Wiseman: We're looking for this gateway for the federal government to come into provincial jurisdiction, if you will. We're trying to find different rationalizations, and of course we heard some.
I think the climate change issue is a great gateway for the federal government to get involved doing these kinds of things in terms of the funding and so on, and it can be done through, again, the agricultural policy framework. Climate change is a big national subject right now. We have to have the database that we need.
I think the engagement of farmers in greenhouse gas mitigation is something we're seeing in a big way in Europe and throughout Scandinavia. The idea is that farmers would now take on the responsibility of stewards of the land creating green cover; even land that's not in production, they create green cover. They create mitigation in terms of land erosion and all these things, which we consider a public good thing. This is national scope and great rationalization and a place where I think the federal government can play its card and then have the attachment to playing that card conditional upon getting all of this information and goodwill back, if you will, from the provinces and the producers.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your suggestions.
Senator Duffy: Thank you all for coming tonight. The federal government has deep roots, no pun intended, in Prince Edward Island, in our history, in the purchase of British landowners where we were tenant farmers at the time of Confederation. Then, of course, in the 1960s Premier Campbell had his visionary Island development plan.
Is this not the perfect time for P.E.I. to say we are a test bed where some of these innovative ideas should be taken? In my experience, Island farmers embrace the new environmental regulations; they embrace the green economy. They're keen because they want to be good stewards of the land. Is this a place where the feds could test some of these new concepts?
Ms. Robinson: I don't see why not. Do you want me to go on?
Senator Duffy: Let me then ask you about another aspect of what you said, Ms. Robinson, and that concerns the whole question of municipalities being reduced from 70 some to 30 some. Is it correct that the municipalities will have control over all zoning within their area?
Ms. Robinson: We've been told by the province that municipalities are much like children of the parent, which would be the province, and that whatever they do would be much aligned with current provincial approaches to this.
Senator Duffy: But if we have a patchwork quilt, you're going to get more urban development.
Ms. Robinson: Yes. We understand that every municipality will be required to have a professional land use planner on staff, whether that's a tenth or a half or a full-time person, and that all land development will have to fit criteria that the province lays out.
Now, our concern was more as to right to farm and classification of agricultural land or identification of agricultural land and wanting to make sure that we didn't find special interest areas that might view farming as unfavourable and make it very difficult to farm within that area. As Andrew said earlier, farmers are very attached to their land. Unlike a car dealership, if we don't like the neighbourhood we're in, we can't pick up our business and move. So if suddenly the area we're in decides they're unfriendly to farming, what protection do we have if that jurisdiction rests with the municipality?
Senator Duffy: One final question on environmental issues which is, again, the federal government role. Deepwater wells.
Ms. Robinson: Supplemental irrigation?
Senator Duffy: Yes.
Ms. Robinson: And what specifically?
Senator Duffy: Well, should the federal government have a larger role in this? Farmers need irrigation in our province in order to be productive enough to survive and meet commercial market needs. Are the protections for the environment for our water supply adequate, and is this another area of federal government related to the land and related to agriculture?
Ms. Robinson: Right. I think the supplemental irrigation question is perhaps blown out of proportion. I don't believe there's a very high percentage of Island farmers who would actually actively pursue supplemental irrigation if the moratorium on those wells was lifted.
I know on our farm we would not be looking to irrigate our potato crop, but we do have a select niche part of potato production in particular that views irrigation as a means that would be in order to ensure potatoes, which are 90 per cent water, continue to grow through the season. In an incredibly dry year they would use it. It wouldn't mean that it would be used every day.
So the tapping of that resource by agriculture I think has been overstated. Ironically in Prince Edward Island you can get a high-capacity or deepwater well, or however you want to call it, if you're opening a car wash, but if you're growing food, you are prevented from getting that permit to drill for water. It seems that when that moratorium was put in place, it was in response to public pressure.
So the question on high-capacity or supplemental irrigation goes much like the question on land, and should our federal government be involved in that. The question goes back to, is this a public interest issue at a national level? If it is, then perhaps our federal government should be involved.
Senator Duffy: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Mercer, if you permit me, I have two small questions.
[Translation]
My first question is for Mr. Wiseman. I am from the Quebec North Shore, which is right next to Labrador. As we know, land in that area is not very fertile.
Our committee visited a dairy farm in Newfoundland, but has yet to visit a vegetable farm. Are there any large vegetable farms that could help you to meet your needs? You say that 90 per cent of your food products come from the outside. Would there be some way of developing vegetable production?
[English]
Mr. Wiseman: Yes, it's an interesting scenario. It's been talked about a lot, and quite frankly the amount of potatoes being consumed in Newfoundland, purchased from Newfoundland, is about 1,200 to 1,400 acres. That's the size of a very small potato farm in P.E.I., and that's for the entire province. We have about 150 farmers doing that, so we have issues around economies of scale there.
But the perennial issue has always been that we simply don't have the land. The land is there, but it's been used for other purposes, and the feeling and belief is, with the market intelligence that we've done, especially now with the idea of purchasing local, the issue around horticulture, especially potatoes, has been raised. There's no question that we can just multiply that by as many as 10 to 12 times if the land development options are available to us. We feel that's the direction that we're going.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Robinson, may I congratulate you on your contribution to agriculture over six generations. This is a very interesting topic, and we are happy to have you with us this evening.
Three or four years ago, Senator Mercer and I visited the Cavendish enterprise in connection with a program to assist for young farmers who wanted to take over their family farms. Cavendish spoke highly of this program. Does it still exist? If so, has it produced results?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: I apologize; I cannot speak to that. I'm unaware of it. As Andrew said at one point about how new entrants who don't come from a farming background have that extra pressure on them, at the beginning of your question you laid out that I'm a sixth-generation farmer, so I have had the luxury of buying the land from within my family. I am unfamiliar with that, and I do apologize. It is certainly one of my blind spots, but I can get that information to you, if you would like.
Senator Mercer: If you have access to that information, please send it to the clerk and it will be circulated to us.
Ms. Robinson mentioned the federal government dealing with municipalities. That's a huge no-no in Canadian politics because the federal government is not allowed to talk to municipalities. The federal government talks to cities all the time, but they must be creative in how it's done. The most creative thing done was when Mr. Martin was the Minister of Finance. He came up with a gas tax credit program which gave a portion of that to the municipalities. It was a way of getting around giving the money to the provinces and asking them to give it to the municipalities. You knew darn well the provinces would use it for their own purposes. There are a few ways to skin a cat.
Ms. Robinson: Or a fox.
Senator Mercer: Or a fox, yes. When I was a young fellow, it was a rabbit.
The issue is complicated by the fact there are only so many countries in this world that have the ability to add more arable land to production. We are the biggest one of those countries in the world. By 2050, there will be 9 billion or 9.6 billion people in this world. If we can't feed them, they will be angry and hungry people. Hungry people do get angry, and it creates civil disobedience and wars, et cetera. Canadians don't educate themselves. The issue is growing more potatoes in Prince Edward Island; grow more apples in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. All of that is important, but we don't put it into context with the fact that we're part of the solution of helping to feed 9 billion people.
How do we get that message across? How do farmers help us get that message across?
Ms. Robinson: It would be wonderful to see our federal government engaging with those of us in primary production to do a better job of telling our story. We've seen some great work out of FCC, Farm Credit Canada and Agriculture More Than Ever. However, in general it's fair to say, from my perspective, that it's not such a friendly place to farm anymore. There's a lot of finger pointing and a lot of misunderstanding. We know people are fed the news they want to hear, and Facebook will change that, apparently.
Senator Mercer: Good luck to them on that.
Ms. Robinson: We need definitely to become more engaged in telling our story. Canadian agriculture is a fantastic story. We talk about the capacity to increase land production, and the wonderful lifestyle that agriculture gives people who work in it. There are so many wonderful things we could be telling the story of, and I would definitely love to see our federal government become more involved in that process.
Mr. Wiseman: You've really nailed the operatives. The municipality part is our worst nightmare. I know we're seeing it in our province and in other provinces and listening to testimonies that the provincial government is now moving a lot of the jurisdiction and a lot of areas around agriculture and other things out to the municipalities. It's a huge mistake. There has been testimony to this committee about the loss of agricultural land.
When you drill down and look at the Greater Toronto Area, the Montreal area, all these great urban areas, you see it everywhere. When it's into these municipalities, they find ways to say the land is needed for industrial expansion and so on. That's a huge mistake.
I don't know how we penetrate that from a provincial government standpoint, other than to say that this is an issue of food security and food sovereignty. With regard to the world population explosion, it is very serious. It's a national issue bearing down on us. It's here now to a large degree, but it will get even worse. I think that gives the federal government a huge stake in that.
Again, there are climate change issues associated with it. We must express concern about this municipal intervention, and we have to find ways around it. I don't know what else to say about it.
Mr. Lovell: Not all farms are set up the same, but we're fortunate enough on our farm that we had almost 2,000 schoolchildren come through this year during harvest season. Our government, federal or provincial, has to be really letting children throughout their school years and their education program knows that agriculture is a viable option. Then we have to give them the tools to succeed. Maybe that's loans. Maybe that's some business training during their school years as they get older. The world is going to be hungry, and the only way that we're going to increase agriculture in Canada is to teach our children that there's opportunity there for them.
Senator Duffy: Just following up on what Mr. Wiseman said about municipalities, there's great pressure on local counsellors from local business people to purchase a piece of land and to put up some kind of attraction or car wash or whatever they want to do on land that was previously used as farmland. It takes an awful lot of courage for a local politician to say to a business person that buddy down the road built one 10 years ago but you can't build one today because our rules have changed and we want to save that land. That's why putting it in the hands of the municipalities is a dangerous course of action.
Ms. Robinson: The sliding tax rates really come into play there. If we could get quite aggressive as to the tax implications for land that's taken out of agricultural production, then it can be a stick or a carrot, depending which way you look at it. We need to somehow incentivize people to keep land in agricultural production. A car wash might be a flash in the pan for revenue, but if they have a very high tax bill to change the use of that land, they'll probably rethink their business plan.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Duffy.
[Translation]
On behalf of the members of the committee, Ms. Robinson, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Lovell, I thank you most sincerely for having travelled to provide us with your wise advice. You made some excellent suggestions, particularly concerning the agricultural bank. I understand, Mr. Lovell, that one case out of 74 is not a great result and will not suffice to ensure a new generation or to attract young farmers. Mr. Wiseman, I wish you the best of luck with your foxes, but please don't tell Ms. Bardot! Ms. Robinson, thank you so much for having come here. We are going to pray for you. You now have a good monastery.
I wish you all a good trip home!
(The committee adjourned.)