Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 25 - Evidence - Meeting of March 9, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 9, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:02 a.m. to continue its study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through a Spanish interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our witness.
This morning the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry continues its study of farmland in Canada and its potential impact on the farming sector.
Today, from Perennia Food and Agriculture Inc., we have Mr. Wayne Adams, Special Project Co-ordinator.
My name is Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. I would like the senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia. I know the witness very well.
Senator Gagné: Good morning. Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from East Preston, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Toronto.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Plett: Good morning. My name is Don Plett. I'm from Manitoba as well.
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning. Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for accepting our invitation. We are ready for your presentation.
Wayne Adams, Special Project Co-ordinator, Perennia Food and Agriculture Inc.: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for your kind invitation for me to be here today. I particularly want to offer special thanks to my good friend Senator Bernard and my other lifetime friend from Halifax, Senator Mercer, for the special interest in what I am doing in augmenting the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia.
I work as the Special Project Co-ordinator for Perennia, a non-profit Crown corporation in the province. They are farm food management experts and known for their expertise in food safety, food development, research and training.
For the past two years, I've had the opportunity of working to recruit and encourage members of the African Nova Scotia community to consider being participants in the agricultural farming and fishing industries.
I will begin with a brief overview of where the African Nova Scotia Black community stands in regard to farming and/or agricultural use of former and existing lands.
The African Nova Scotian community has a long history of significant involvement in the agricultural sector. In all of our early settlements in Nova Scotia, African Nova Scotians were relegated, located or directed to the worst rocky soils upon which to settle their families and to farm.
Between the time that the majority of our people arrived in Nova Scotia, and the early 1960s, Blacks participated in farming commercially and self-sufficiently. They were at a subsistence level in spite of the very rough, rocky and unfertile soils that made up the land grants that they settled upon.
Historically, the good news is that the majority of Black families farmed all the food they consumed and bartered food for other supplies. They made lemonade when given lemons a long time ago.
Those who farmed on a commercial scale were fully involved in hog, poultry and beef cattle. They had small farms of two or three acres, and then there were the 10-to 15-acre sites where vegetables and livestock were grown. A large farm included livestock and crops, and the largest ones would average 20 to 30 acres.
Practically all African Nova Scotia farmland across the province was family owned and operated. The more children in the family, the bigger the farm sites. Each one had at least one dairy cow for personal milk and dairy needs as well as a team of horses and/or oxen for heavy hauling and plowing of the fields. Motorized vehicles were too expensive in the days and years that African Nova Scotians worked the farmlands of their communities.
Specifically, there was large-scale hog and dairy farming in the Preston area at one time, as well as in Upper Hammonds Plains, Hants County and Tracadie, Nova Scotia.
By way of more contemporary times, I recall that in the 1980s a cooperative group known as the Willing Workers established a large hydroponics farm in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, under the leadership of the former Black United Front, an enabling human rights organization. This very successful operation was able to grow substantial amounts of cucumbers and tomatoes, to be a main supplier to Sobeys stores in southwestern Nova Scotia.
The farmers of North and East Preston, Cherry Brook, as well as Upper Hammonds Plains and Beechville at one time, were major suppliers of vegetable produce, wild flowers and berries, and seasonal plants and Christmas trees at the Halifax farmers market from the 1880s to the 1960s. Of course, they also sold chickens or hens and eggs, and fish products such as gaspereau and mackerel. Many of them had permanent customers, but today less than a dozen Black farmers service the Dartmouth and Halifax farm markets.
You may wonder why so few. There are various reasons for the low numbers. One reason is that mainly the agri-foods industry has not heretofore reached out to include Black farmers on the journey of growth and opportunity. Right now we experience change in Nova Scotia. The province has initiated an outreach project to include its Black community in the farm industry or vocation. We now, as of 2014, have renewed insights to agriculture and its related industries. African Nova Scotians can now expect to become a part of the jobs or careers associated with food production in farming and agriculture.
The farming foreparents gave up the farm and went looking for work that would pay better. They grew increasingly disillusioned in the 1980s, with hog farm shutdowns resulting from pork disease outbreaks. There was also the perception that government regulations were excessive and intrusive, rendering farming as no longer a viable or worthwhile vocation.
These reasons, while true, served as negative examples for the youth, and that younger generation developed a real lack of interest in farming or agriculture. To them, farming was for a past generation, those older folks that needed to farm in order to survive.
Today, I am happy to say there is a small but important renaissance among our young people, who I now meet on a regular basis and express a keen interest in modern day farming and agricultural operations and businesses, perhaps on an efficient and a smaller land use basis.
There have been several studies and conferences carried out in and by the African Nova Scotia community since 2011, looking at factors that can attract new farmers and what will drive them away. Studies have looked at everything from and including agricultural needs assessments, the future of food and fibre, trends and opportunities in agriculture, rewards and risks in farm ownership, the various supports for newcomers in agriculture, but very little with respect to the availability of adequate farmable land.
It is my feeling that this committee should know about the Nova Scotia issue of restricted land use with established ownership, but not legal ownership, under the Land Titles Clarification Act, which has been a barrier to farming beyond the old traditional family plots.
The issue of land titles is an ongoing struggle throughout rural Nova Scotia but is most prevalent in our African Nova Scotia communities, with much of the struggle arising from the old squatters rights' activity; that is, if you live on land for at least 20 years you could claim ownership, but there was not a deed to show or proof of legal ownership. Then when a family member reached the age or the stage to subdivide land for sale or for a personal building, they were not able to do so without engaging lawyers at high rates, which is difficult for marginalized people. That process is usually long, slow and, like I said, very expensive.
I've had personal experience in that area because I myself had to do it, in spite of the fact that my grandparents and their children — my mother and her siblings — paid taxes on the family land for close to 100 years before leaving it to me. I also pay the taxes. But once I developed some of the land, I had to get a clear title and deed; 15 years later we get our deed.
Earlier I made reference to the renaissance of our Black youth, so now is the right time to tear down or remove the large elephant from the land — the land titles clarification.
It would be wonderful if this committee, with its conclusions, was able to recommend ways and means in which the federal and provincial governments may jointly bring about a resolution to the Land Titles Clarification Act difficulties, especially where economically challenged claimants cannot otherwise afford the significant legal costs. Perhaps the committee could call for the establishment of a land titles resolve program of some sort.
It's gratifying that a number of new and existing African immigrants are looking to farm and looking for agricultural opportunities in Nova Scotia. Today's African immigrants are looking to growing large volumes of African produce, specialty herbs and vegetables, on large tracts of land or in large greenhouses. The question is: Where do they access such tracts of farmland?
Africans come with a long record of agricultural experiences. They wish to share their experiences with local enterprises and to find and utilize independent farm space.
We are at the point in Nova Scotia where African Nova Scotians, along with others in the agricultural industry, realize that the world is running low in food, particularly in protein and other high food value crops.
We also realize that climate change is also beginning to control the way today's and tomorrow's farmers will farm, simply because some climates will no longer support some plant growth, and severe or extremes in variable weather conditions will prohibit some long-standing traditional means of farming.
I noticed recently in and around where I live today that some traditional greenhouses suffered major damage to their structures following three severe windstorms this past winter. Going forward — a small example but nonetheless a real one — greenhouses will need to be better structured to meet climate change conditions.
Beyond climate change, I want to reflect a bit on my experience as an elected municipal representative, when and where we saw growing towns and cities using up land, which was former farmland, as they grow or sprawl out to rural farming spaces. The one example that stands out in my long memory was the loss of the mega-acreage of wonderful farmland at Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia, the former rural area southeast of Dartmouth.
Between the 1960s and the 1980s, several retiring farmers sold their farms to the onslaught of commercial developers and tax hungry municipalities, who quickly rezoned to accommodate the rapid urban development. Described once as the best agricultural farmland east of the Annapolis Valley, Cole Harbour is now a ribbon of streets, highways and roads servicing thousands of homes, schools, institutions and commercial businesses. Suffice it to say that those former farmers and even some of today's farmers may also face significant challenges from increasing pressures of municipal growth and development, and from municipal bylaws that may encumber agricultural practices and spaces.
Land use planning is a dynamic process. It is one where well-planned communities attract jobs and investments; and they are guided by the general principles of prosperity, sustainability, livability and uniqueness of the local community. It's very clear that a farmer's greatest asset is land and we are told that God is not making any more of it, so we must protect and preserve all that we have.
When municipal financial concerns are not an issue, farmland and surrounding areas typically remain in agricultural production. But when money is an issue, the local community could be affected by potential land developments.
In Nova Scotia, under the Municipal Government Act, land use planning is the responsibility of individual municipalities; and that act should, I believe, have a definitive policy on protection of agricultural lands. That, my friends, might be a recommendation that this committee could put forward.
It is my understanding that the act does contain a Statement of Provincial Interest regarding agricultural lands, but it does not formally require land preservation. Instead, it acknowledges an overall goal to protect agricultural land for the development of a viable and sustainable industry. In view of this observation, I feel it incumbent upon both the federal and provincial governments to insist on municipal acts to go beyond goal setting when it comes to farmland use and require statements of intent.
In any community, the debate cannot be limited to just the preservation of land but also protection and its interim uses. Usable land space is limited in and around our African Nova Scotia communities, so it's time now, while interest is on the rebound, to look at, explore and promote the concept of community land banking or community landholdings in trust. It's not new but this is a concept to adopt wherein a number of families or individuals can buy land communally, use it together and profit together.
To make a real and concerted effort to encourage and embrace the African Nova Scotia farmer, I believe the federal and provincial governments could jointly purchase old, abandoned or terminated farms and their assets all over the province. There are any number of farms in various states of closure across Nova Scotia, and government could make the investment to purchase them on behalf of or in the interest of our Black, land-disadvantaged farm entrepreneurs. We could have organized training on these acquired sites, apprenticeship programs, and good employment would be the fruits of this incubator style of farm growth.
I want to speak briefly on a successful model for preserving farmland in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. It is the Annapolis Valley Farmland Trust, a not-for-profit society that convinced the provincial government to legislate into effect the Community Easements Act. That became law in 2016, just last year. That act enshrines that the legal title to land owned and used by farmers will include an easement that restricts the use of lands under such title; it will always be restricted to the various types of agricultural use.
We spoke with one of the farmland trust members, who described the new act as a badly needed tool, much appreciated by the entire agricultural industry. The member I spoke with asked me to make a point in today's presentation. He asked me to request, through this Senate committee, the federal government to encourage more farm people to put their lands into a farmland trust. The protection and preservation is critical.
Having addressed the valley trust program, I would like to ask the federal government, through this committee, to make an initial investment into a Preston-area agricultural trust fund, a fund structured similar to the Nova Scotia Community Economic Development Investment Funds, that would finance the purchase of former farmland in the former African Nova Scotian community called the Old Guysborough Road, located between the Halifax Stanfield Airport and the communities of the Prestons. It's been lying dormant since the early 1980s when the development of the Aerotech Business Park displaced the community.
These old farmlands comprise lots totalling close to a thousand acres. Then, at Musquodoboit Harbour, I see a 1,200-acre farm site looking for a buyer. These are examples that can be included in any proposed acquisitions.
I see this as having wonderful potential for a joint development with two senior levels of government participating with community stewardship.
Let me suggest to you that the federal Department of Agriculture should seriously consider starting a Preston-area agricultural trust fund and, with their investment, develop land banking in areas of the country where potential farms, businesses or industry could be developed in those identified African immigrant and minority communities.
The feds could purchase those lands that I have outlined, initiating a land banking program that would be developed into farm incubator sites for budding African Nova Scotia agriculture entrepreneurs.
Let me conclude by referencing the 2010 paper on agricultural land use planning. The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture speaks well to the condition of economics that can accrue to the African Nova Scotia renaissance of agribusinesses. The paper says:
Agriculture helps stabilize and maintain rural communities by creating a critical business infrastructure and tax base. Local communities benefit from agriculture through the purchases of goods and services, wages and salaries from employment, and taxes collected from the business income generated. A less-recognizable economic benefit, diversification, ensures that our economy does not rely on only one industry.
Beyond the economic benefits, less obvious intrinsic benefits accrue from agriculture. For instance, agriculture connects small communities across great distances. As one drives through the Annapolis Valley, there are psychological benefits from the pastoral settings and farm infrastructure that may not occur with less visually diversified landscapes.
There are two paragraphs that I just put to you that would effectively drive and steer a national policy on agricultural land use in Canada, further benefiting the African Nova Scotian agribusiness renaissance.
The Guysborough Road lands, developed and preserved for agricultural use by African Nova Scotians, could eventually become a site for agricultural tourism; an agricultural centre of excellence harkening back to the historical contributions by African farmers such a long time ago to Canada and certainly to Nova Scotia.
My people came here in the worst of times and in the best of times. We settled in the worst land conditions, making the best of its fruits. We have endured long after our times of survival and we persevered to make our condition of life better than it was in the beginning. We want to always be seen as purveyors and participants in our local and national economies. With federal investment, together we can all move away from the margins, and agricultural development can and should be the collective way forward.
We look forward to and appreciate help from Canada's federal government in establishing solid land use policy, land preservation policy, and land availability policies and practices that will enable the marginalized sector of our Canadian population an extended hand-up to assist African Nova Scotians to become full participants in the much-needed industry of food production for home and abroad.
That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Adams.
First, the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: Dr. Adams, thank you very much. I'm very pleased you're here. Farming and agriculture in marginal communities or communities that haven't traditionally, or recently, benefited is a subject we haven't talked about. But, as you rightly pointed out, the history in the African Nova Scotia community is one of survival on the land. Our forefathers made certain parcels of land available to the African Nova Scotia community, but they didn't give you the best land.
Mr. Adams: A lot of rock.
Senator Mercer: If you find a market for the rock, you're in good shape.
How many young farmers are involved in the program today?
Mr. Adams: In my program, I have 14 clients, which is significant.
Senator Mercer: That is significant in the community; I appreciate that. One advantage I see that you might have is that the provincial Minister of Agriculture happens to be the MLA for the Preston community, which is the largest African community in Nova Scotia. Have you spoken to him about these suggestions?
Mr. Adams: On a weekly basis, yes.
Senator Mercer: And what has been his response?
Mr. Adams: Really positive. We're generating some good, positive developments. We're having a major information forum at the end of March in the community, and the first move of inclusion.
Senator Mercer: Has he had an opportunity to meet with Minister MacAuley to talk about possible joint venture, as you recommended?
Mr. Adams: Not at this point, as far as I'm aware.
Senator Mercer: Anything we can do to facilitate that, let's do it.
Land banking is not something we've talked about here, but land banking has a historic place in Nova Scotia land development. As folks from Nova Scotia know, the entirety of the communities in the Sackville-Cole Harbour area was developed by using a land bank.
Mr. Adams: Two good examples, yes.
Senator Mercer: Two very good examples of how land banking works in a positive way and develops good, stable communities.
Of the farms that you indicated, one is on the Old Guysborough Road, where my father's family had a hunting camp many years ago. I don't know if it's still standing, but one of my cousins owns it. That land has laid dormant for how many years?
Mr. Adams: Since the early 1980s.
Senator Mercer: Is it for sale or not?
Mr. Adams: Yes, there are quite a few "For Sale" signs on the lots. I've taken a couple of drives through and I've called the real estate numbers on the signs. I calculated the acreage, and it's close to a thousand acres.
Senator Mercer: One of the ongoing problems in the African Nova Scotia community is the subject you brought up about land titles, because of squatters' rights. How many properties in the African Nova Scotia community do you think are still affected by disputes over ownership?
Mr. Adams: I wouldn't have a number, but I can tell you that it's far too many.
Senator Mercer: On a percentage basis, is 25 per cent, 50 per cent?
Mr. Adams: Of the Black community?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Adams: Well over 50 per cent.
Senator Mercer: For my colleagues, some of this property is rough, but they didn't realize when they gave it to the African Nova Scotia community that North Preston also has the best view of the entire Halifax-Dartmouth community. If you stand on the steps of the church, you can see forever.
Mr. Adams: You'll recognize that Governor Wentworth had a home and farm on the top of the hill on Upper Governor's Street in East Preston.
Senator Mercer: Let's assume something does happen and you get some young African Nova Scotians involved in agriculture. Where do you see the market? Where do you see them selling their products?
Mr. Adams: The market?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Adams: The world, quite frankly. I've found that young guys who have visions, particularly African immigrants, are producing elite and value-added foods that can be shipped to countries that need food. So I say the world is the market — even Toronto. I have one guy who wants to do goat products for the market of Toronto and Montreal. That kind of vision is taking place.
Senator Mercer: Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, with its rough land, is the wild blueberry capital of Canada.
Mr. Adams: No question.
Senator Mercer: This is a berry that can grow pretty well anywhere. Has that been a thought, using that very rough land that many in your community have?
Mr. Adams: Berries have been one of the crops that have sustained the communities since the beginning, particularly blueberries, yes.
Senator Plett: I have a few questions, but clarify something for me: ". . . successful operation was able to grow substantial amounts of cucumbers and tomatoes without soils." You didn't use the words "without soils" earlier, but it's in your presentation.
Mr. Adams: Hydroponic farms.
Senator Plett: And that is going on a lot?
Mr. Adams: No, that ended in the early 1980s, but it was an example of success.
Senator Plett: I'm not old enough to remember when my ancestors came to Canada, but I think my ancestors shared some of the same problems when they came. They started in the 1500s in Poland, went to Ukraine, and from Ukraine to North America. They were given some pretty tough land in Manitoba to farm. It took some time to clear the land, and it has become very productive land. You mentioned the rocky soils that the Black communities have in Nova Scotia. Is this clearable land that can be made into productive land, or is there no way of making that as productive as some of the land in Nova Scotia obviously is?
Mr. Adams: I believe all land can be clearable and made productive, but historically we've had no help from government in terms of that enterprise. People were on their own from the day they arrived to the present time in terms of land development for farming. I'm sure that in Manitoba there has been government participation to clear the Prairies and to make it the vast farmland it is now.
Senator Plett: Actually, they weren't. I've read stories and heard stories from my grandfather and great grandfather about how they had to do this. They were plunked on a piece of land and told, "Here you go, make do." But they were given titles, and it appears that you were not given titles to land. That is some of the problem.
Were titles not sought immediately when you got these lands and you are now facing these problems?
Mr. Adams: You're talking about a generation of people who were driven to live in a certain place with no choice of location. They were given plots of land, and the title was not legal.
Senator Plett: Okay. So they thought they had titles but now they find they're not legal?
Mr. Adams: Exactly. For the past 30 years, we've been fighting this issue.
Senator Plett: Are you an elected municipal official?
Mr. Adams: I used to be.
Senator Mercer: And a provincial MLA.
Senator Plett: I'm not wanting in any way to pass the buck, sir, but to me this would appear that this is largely a municipal issue; the municipality could make it easier for these titles to happen because I don't think it's the federal government that is —
Mr. Adams: Provincial.
Senator Plett: It's the provincial government?
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Plett: I'm sorry. I thought in Manitoba it would all be municipal, but I may be wrong in that. I'm going to make some inquiries as to whether that is the case.
You talked about and Senator Mercer asked about parcels of land that are not being used, which are lying dormant and have for sale signs on them. From your presentation: ". . . this is a concept to adopt wherein a number of families or individuals can buy land communally . . . ."
We certainly have a lot of colonies in Manitoba and Western Canada, Hutterite colonies mostly.
Mr. Adams: Hutterite?
Senator Plett: Yes. It's a group of people who do communal living. A group of families buy this land. You might want to look into that, because it's actually quite a successful enterprise in much of Western Canada. I don't know how much of it there is east of Manitoba. I'm assuming Ontario has some. It's actually quite successful. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe that is a way you could start your communal buying of land: Buy the 1,200 acres as a group and the group would start farming it. Has that been tried at all?
Mr. Adams: It sounds like a co-op effort.
Senator Plett: It could be similar to a co-op effort but not quite the same. Have you tried that?
Mr. Adams: Not that I'm aware of, but I think that's worth pursuing.
Senator Plett: I think it is.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Adams. I would like to hear more about your municipal political experience. In your presentation, you mentioned that in Nova Scotia, municipalities are responsible for protecting agricultural lands.
Can you talk to us about the situation where projects that aim to urbanize certain farmlands are submitted to municipalities? We have seen this in Quebec; cities get larger and encroach on farmland. How is it in your region? Do cities tend to urbanize agricultural areas?
[English]
Mr. Adams: I made reference to the one in Cole Harbour. There was less activity in the Sackville area in terms of encroachment, but we've had less of that problem in Nova Scotia and Halifax County than you have in Quebec. I recognize from the various news articles that I read that we're not as unfortunate as you are in that area.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You referred to the experience of the black community in Nova Scotia regarding farming. Is it easy to access aid programs to acquire farmland? Are there programs to distribute your produce? Would you have any recommendations to make to us that could help you distribute the food you produce? What should the government do to help your community have access to all farmland-related programs, whether to acquire land or distribute your products?
[English]
Mr. Adams: We are just in the early stages of putting together programs for acquisition. I use the word "renaissance" for bringing back the industry in the African Nova Scotia community. It's been rather low and dead for some time, which is opposite to where we were back in the early days. Up until the 1960s, we were really productive in marketing produce. That has tapered off to almost zero, and one of my roles as project coordinator is to bring people and government together to facilitate new farm growth or new agricultural growth.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Adams, I have a passion for history. It is surprising that the African-Canadians who live in Nova Scotia have made it to where they are today when one remembers the conditions in which they were brought to Nova Scotia. You also were deported, but in the other direction, from the United States to Canada. You were not very well received. You were thrown off the boat and told, "You're on your own." It is impressive that you are still here today, and that your community has produced so many persons of great quality such as Senator Bernard, one example. I wonder if Canada does not owe you an apology.
But I'd like to get back to the issue of your lands. The problem is not having a title. If you don't have title, does the municipality collect taxes on those lands?
[English]
Mr. Adams: I'll answer your last question first. The municipality receives taxes from these lands. I paid taxes after my mother's family passed, and they paid them before that. We have 98 years of paying taxes on the property I live on, and I had to go for land titles when I went to subdivide. Your title was not clear, sir.
Going back to your compliment regarding historian benefactors and entrepreneurs like myself, I appreciate your comments. We are a resilient race of people, as history has proven. We make the best of nothing. I said earlier, we made lemonade out of lemons before that became a proper expression. It's the pedigree of the culture of the race.
[Translation]
The Chair: I'll go back to the issue of taxes. You registered the land that belongs to you, and you pay your taxes. Do the members of your community pay taxes to the municipality on fallow lands they farm, even if they don't have title?
[English]
Mr. Adams: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: What do they pay taxes on?
[English]
Mr. Adams: On the land. You get a tax bill every year because your land is registered. You get a municipal number, you get a tax bill and you pay your taxes. In my case, I believed that we owned the land. But when I went to develop it, we were met with a legal challenge that we didn't have clear title to the land. After three lawyers and 15 years, we got clear title.
[Translation]
The Chair: There is a proverb that says that land belongs to the one who farms it. So it should belong to you. To conclude, I yield the floor to Senator Bernard.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you, Dr. Adams, for your presentation and for coming here to be a witness.
I think it would be helpful to know about the systemic barriers that are still impacting people's choices in the African Nova Scotian community, or the absence of choice, not seeing agricultural business as a business.
Mr. Adams: Indeed. I think it's really because we've been left out. I don't want to say deliberately, but we have seen the industries of agriculture, forestry and fisheries growing in Nova Scotia. The fishery is at an all-time high in terms of industry, and we as a race have not been participants. We have not been encouraged to be part of that, but we're actually challenged to the more traditional types of industry, trades or business.
I think with the door being opened to show us the opportunity, that is why we're having new growth in young people showing some interest. Is that to your point?
Senator Bernard: Yes. Thank you very much.
I have a comment that does not relate to agriculture directly, but it picks up on your comment that there should be a Canadian apology for the treatment of African Canadians. First of all, I want to thank you for the thought, and I think it ties nicely with your statement about whether we are being left out deliberately. I dare say we are. But it's almost as though we're a forgotten people. I'm reminded, for the historians in the room, of a book written by an academic from York University, Dr. Frances Henry. She did an ethnographic study of African Nova Scotians. You may remember this.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Bernard: The book is called the Forgotten Canadians. We are indeed the forgotten Canadians and we are continually being left behind. Your presentation this morning I think created more awareness about that and how it's affecting this particular industry. It's affecting all industries.
Until we're recognized as a distinct people, I think we will continue to be forgotten people and we will continue to be systemically left behind. As long as we are the exceptions and the first, then the critical mass is still being left behind. So we don't celebrate being the first. We cannot celebrate being the first because the critical mass is being left behind.
Senator Mercer: I think that Senator Bernard makes a very good point. To describe what I understand of the history, when the African community arrived in Nova Scotia, they weren't welcomed with open arms. But the government of the day said, "We have these people, now what are we going to do with them?"
In their wisdom — and I underscore the word "wisdom" — they said they were going to go a day's march to the east, and that's where the people ended up, in the Preston area. It is a day's march from the harbour. They knew full well how rough the land was and that the existing farming community was not interested in at that time. The good land was in Cole Harbour and other areas.
They did the same all around. If you go all around the greater Halifax area, you get to Beechville, Hammonds Plains. These communities have two things in common: a very large African Nova Scotia community and a lot of rock. That's where our forefathers thought it would be a good place to settle people on land. We never gave them a good piece of land for farming. In the reality of today's Nova Scotia, it's pretty good real estate, but still, it's not good land to farm. You can't remove those kinds of rocks. They're just too big.
Mr. Adams: In my experience, I found the rocks grow every year.
Senator Mercer: If you find a market for them —
Mr. Adams: It's a cash crop. You need a rock crusher beside your garden and you're all set.
Senator Mercer: It's a unique problem. The land title issue is one that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Adams: It needs to be cleared up. It has been going on too long.
Senator Mercer: Even when you were in the provincial government, you didn't have a chance to solve that.
Mr. Adams: We had a few experiments with some free legal work by lawyers, but they didn't sustain themselves.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mercer.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your suggestion on the apology.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adams. I think Senator Plett's suggestion is a good one. Sometimes working in co-operation in small groups can become the launching point for a large enterprise. I suggest that you examine that proposal carefully and discuss it with the members of your community.
I also hope that you can solve your land problems, and that you will finally be able to own it. When the land belongs to you it is easier to put your heart into it and farm it. I wish your community all the best. Thank you very much for having come to speak with the committee this morning.
We will now have the privilege of hearing Mr. Eduardo De Zavalia, from Argentina. Welcome to Canada and to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
You have the floor.
[Interpretation]
Eduardo A.C. De Zavalia, Lawyer, Sociedad Rural Argentina: I am a lawyer and agricultural producer in Argentina. I have worked for a long time. I have been the president of the Argentine rural society and I have also worked in international associations with agricultural producers, many times cooperating with producers in your country, so I believe that I am in a position to give you some information.
Your concern over the increase in the price of land is also a concern for us in Argentina. If we take the last 25 years, the price of land has increased by 700 per cent in U.S. dollars, which means that it has multiplied by seven. If we take it from the beginning of the century, from the year 2000, the increase has been approximately 350 to 400 per cent. That is to say that today it is at important levels, which creates complications probably similar to what I have heard from you.
I don't know whether you're interested in the reasons we see for that increase, but if you're interested, I can get that to you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes, that would be very interesting for us.
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: We started out from a low level, and to that we added the boom and increase in agricultural commodities, which of course means that the price of land also increased. However, that is not the only reason. For example, in 1990, you could buy one hectare with six or seven, up to fifteen tonnes of soy. Today, those same values are between 33 and 60 tonnes. That means it's not only the increase in prices that caused the phenomenon.
Another aspect that had an impact was the greater use of technology, which resulted in better yields and better use of lands which prior to that had not been good for agricultural purposes. That also led to an increase in the price.
Something which is typical to our country but which had a great impact was a lack of investment possibilities. As you know, Argentina has gone through important economic difficulties. We have gone through very violent changes with very little security for investments. Many people then started buying land as a means of placing their money safely so as not to lose money. That also led to an increase in the value of the land.
Another important aspect was that, together with the increase in commodity prices, financial groups and investment funds surfaced that were leasing fields for seeding. That means that many producers who had small plots or did not want to continue working their land because they were old were able to retain their property because they leased it at a good price and they didn't have to sell it. That reduced the supply of land, and this had an impact on prices.
Finally, there have also been investments by foreign buyers, and this has also led to an increase in prices.
All of these reasons led to the increase in prices that I mentioned.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think that the overvaluation of farmland has also been a problem in Canada, and since the 2010 decade, the value of agricultural land has spiked. I see we are not alone.
[English]
Senator Plett: I have a few questions. You talked about small farms. What would be the average size of farms in Argentina? In Canada, it's becoming more common that there are fewer people owning the majority of the land. Would you have the same type of problem in Argentina where you have large landowners?0
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: That depends. We don't have large landowners, or we have very few. But the size depends on the part of Argentina we're talking about. If we speak of the area that we consider the nucleus area, the more productive one, the size of the fields is about 300 hectares on average, some 700 acres, approximately. The size increases in other areas which are less productive. We cannot speak of an average size given the diversity of these areas.
With regard to a certain concentration in the ownership of the land, yes, we have that. But I mentioned a moment ago that what contributed to this was the possibility of leasing. Small landowners who were not within certain economic levels or who were too old to work their fields were able to lease the land and therefore retain ownership.
[English]
Senator Plett: At the end of your presentation, you talked briefly about foreign ownership. How much foreign ownership? Do you have any regulations against foreign ownership? Where are foreign owners coming from, and are they doing this for investment purposes or for the purpose of them farming the land themselves?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: We don't have clear statistics on that point, because up to 2011, there were no regulations establishing a different regime for national and foreign producers. Beginning in 2011, we established some standards and we opened registries, but we do not have specific numbers. I would say no more than 3 to 5 per cent of the land.
With regard to whether these are producing lands or speculative lands, I would say that foreign investment is more focused in those areas that have not been developed in Patagonia, for example, or in the north of the country, where the prices are much lower and where it is possible to have important tracts of land. There we see more the influence of foreign investment — not in terms of production as much, although there are foreign firms that are exploiting and developing the land for production.
[English]
Senator Plett: In Canada, another problem we face, especially in some of our larger cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and possibly others as well, is urbanization. The land around the cities is extremely valuable and we're losing a lot of farmland to urbanization. Are you facing that same problem in Argentina?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: To a lesser extent. We have concentration in two or three cities — Buenos Aires, Rosario — where we have had a loss of agricultural land because of urbanization. But it is a large country and it has not had a decisive impact.
What we have today is a conflict between producers and urbanization with regard to the use of agrochemicals and fertilizers. Those who live in these urban centres complain that this could cause injury, and the producers are sometimes limited in their use of such products.
[English]
Senator Plett: We certainly have many of those same issues here in Canada. Thank you very much, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. De Zavalia. I have two questions for you.
You mentioned that in Argentina there are small farms. I imagine land is passed on from father to son. Are there government assistance programs to meet the needs of farmers, allow them to farm their lands and distribute their produce?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: There have been some attempts with this type of program, but in general terms, the results were not very significant. The cooperative system that is used in other countries, perhaps Canada, has worked fairly well, but not in Argentina. I don't really understand why. It hasn't really developed to the same level. Cooperatives are generally poorly managed. Their managers are not good, and therefore producers don't truly benefit from that type of program.
Now, in what we call marginal areas, where they produce perhaps wine, fruit, sugar, there are some programs that help people.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: In Canada, to distribute agricultural products we have NAFTA, as well as the agreement with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, although we do not at this time know how the latter agreement will fare. Has Argentina made agreements to conduct bilateral trade with other countries? Do you participate in that type of agreement?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: We have a free trade agreement called Mercosur. This involves Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay. Venezuela has joined and left several times. You know the reasons behind that. This has worked pretty well in the agricultural area, but we're really in competition with one another rather than buying and selling. This goes for Uruguay and Brazil, too. Paraguay's production has also improved, so they're also in competition with us. It's really in other goods, rather than the agricultural commodities, that this trade agreement works well. Brazil buys Argentine wheat and that's been very useful for us.
The last government that left office approximately one year ago embraced a closed policy for the economy, and therefore we were not open to other countries. From our point of view, that was a mistake. The current administration has made announcements and hasn't yet implemented them, but it intends to get involved in this type of program, such as an agreement between Mercosur and the European Union, and contemplating Argentina joining the group of Pacific countries.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, Mr. De Zavalia, for your testimony. I wonder if you could give us some general comments on the health and competitiveness of Argentina's agricultural sector. I'm interested in productivity of the land and in improvement in yields over the years, composition of products, export markets. Could you give us a sense of how healthy the sector is?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: That's a very broad question, but let me give you a general panorama.
First, we have a political impact that has affected the agricultural sector. In the last 12 years, until the government changeover, the policy was truly against the agricultural sector. Through taxes on exports — we did have and still do have taxes on exports of about 20, 30, even 35, 40 per cent. As you can well imagine, with such a high rate, it's very difficult to develop the agricultural sector.
The current administration has eliminated those levels, except for soya, where we're still paying 30 per cent tax on exports. In other words, the agricultural sector is now recovering, but there are still certain constraints, such as that one, that because of fiscal issues, the government has not yet been able to eliminate.
However, there is a more broad policy. The prior government was also limiting and hindering exports of meat and dairy products or milk. We had to obtain special permits to export cereals and grains. All of that was keeping the price of agricultural products low.
We're recovering from all of that today. I think that in the most common commodities, our production is good. Our soya production is between 3,000 and 4,000 kilos per hectare. You can divide that by two in order to have an idea of the yield per acre.
We're at levels pretty much equivalent to those of the United States. In wheat, we were lagging for the reasons I explained. Today, we have good productions and yields of approximately 3,500 kilos per hectare. We have sunflower, which is something that had been lost before. There is also soya and corn, of course, which we're producing in high quantities, with high yield. We believe the yield this year will be greater than 7,000 kilos. We'll even see 10,000, 12,000 and up to 14,000 kilos per hectare. I would say that from that standpoint, we're in a good, healthy position.
The same cannot be said about more specialized production such as fruit and sugar. All these crop products are far from ports and therefore have a very high freight cost, which limits production, and distribution is not as effective as one would like to see. So we're lagging there a little bit and we're going to have to fight in order to recover.
Yet another area where we see a lag is the extension of the agricultural land. There is farmland not being used or used in a very deficient manner because they have structural problems or there are no roads or services in the area. Then there are some cultural issues with populations that are not used to this type of work, so it's difficult to find skilled labourers. This applies to the north of the country.
In the south, it's a different problem. You've probably heard about the region called Patagonia, which is colder, but there is a lack of water. There is no irrigation that makes it possible to offset the lack of rainfall, so we have that problem.
In the central part of the country, the nucleus, we are in a good, healthy situation, but the other areas are lagging. This is harmful to the country because it harms overall production, and it also means that there is poverty and a lack of resources in those areas due to lack of activity.
Our exports are sent throughout the world. We work with the Chicago market prices and we obviously sell to China, just like everybody else. The Chinese are the first purchasers for everything, but we also do a lot of business with Europe and with countries in Asia, as well as India. And some additional countries are now starting to buy from us, including Africa and Egypt, which buy a lot of our wheat. So we are involved in the international market based on demand.
[English]
Senator Woo: I would like to follow up quickly on the previous policy of taxing exports of agricultural products. Was that for the purpose of promoting food self-sufficiency or to encourage value-added production? What was the motivation behind that policy?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: The taxes were high. They were actually decreasing production instead of increasing it, because if the price is higher, they're going to produce less.
There were two reasons for this. One was political, and that was to have low-cost foodstuffs for the country. In other words, we are controlled by international prices. I know you have different systems, the soil management programs and all those other systems in Canada, which I'm familiar with. We don't have them. We have a free market here, where export prices set the price of products on the domestic market; so if export prices go down, the domestic prices also go down.
On the other hand, it's also a tremendous source of resources for the government. You can well imagine what 30 or 35 per cent of total production is for the treasury. That allowed those governments to have funds to implement their populist policies.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Mr. De Zavalia, on the price of agricultural lands, you mentioned the same factors that we hear about here, such as the cost of foodstuffs, the improvement in the yields of farmland, and institutional investors and foreign buyers.
Most specialists here tell us that the dominant factor is the price of products, the other factors being relatively marginal. Would you say that the situation in Argentina is the same, that is to say that the other factors aside from the price of products count much less, since the price of products is really the crucial factor?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Many of those investors said the price needs to be measured in foreign currency instead of national currency, and this offers greater security than they would obtain from a different kind of investment.
I forgot to mention it before, but a good sign of this is that starting in 2015, in other words, when we had the government changeover, prices have remained stable. In some cases they even fell 10 to 15 per cent. In other words, as these investors were finding new alternatives for their money, the demand for farmland dropped, and if you speak to brokers who sell farmland, you will hear from them that very little is being sold and that there are not many buyers.
[English]
Senator Pratte: What do these investors do once they buy the land? Do they simply lease the land to the farmers so that farming continues on those lands? What do they do? Do they speculate on that land? Do they resell it?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Well, there are lots of different things happening. Some are more enterprising and they perhaps start exploiting the land themselves. Perhaps with their experience in other business or with their industrial experience they can start using greater technology and make progress that way. Others, no. They just want to receive the rent from their land. They don't really have a major problem just renting it out. So you see both things. You can't say that one factor predominates over the other one.
[English]
Senator Pratte: Is there some worry, then? Here, we hear that there is some worry that institutional investors buying the land threatens local agriculture. Is there that type of concern in Argentina?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: There are complaints about that. Some producer entities are complaining about this. I personally don't agree with that line of thought. I believe that the more invested in farmland, the industry is going to improve and not worsen.
Now what does happen is that for some producers it will be more difficult to buy farmland because the prices have gone up. And some producers who leased neighbouring land or who expanded their own property by purchasing land are now restricted because they're competing with these investment funds or with these financial groups. There is a debate between them.
Personally, I don't agree with this. The more that is invested in farmland, it is going to work much better and be a benefit for us all.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. De Zavalia, do you find that young people are interested in farming, or are they just moving to the cities and not thinking of farming as a career?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Unfortunately, it is true that they are beginning to think of other activities because agriculture has gone through so many difficulties. There have been very hard times in the last 12 to 14 years, and a young person who is 20 or 25 years old today has lived through seeing a sector which has been punished. That is why they prefer to find work in the cities where they think there is more of a future, where they think they will be able to build a better future. We see that as a serious problem.
We are undertaking all efforts to counter that trend, but I think the only way for that to improve is for the producer to have good prices and live at a descent standard of living, an attractive standard of leaving. That will be the reason for people staying in the fields. But we do have that problem.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. De Zavalia, I have a question for you. We know regions like the Pampa, Patagonia, and Gran Chaco. Are there still large haciendas where there are tens of thousands of cattle that belong to landowners? Does that still exist?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Yes. Obviously, there are large extensions, but not that large anymore. A large landowner died recently. He did have 100,000 hectares in Chaco, and it was commented on; we saw it in the newspapers. There are 12,000, 15,000 and 20,000 hectares, yes, but not as large.
The problem in the north is one that I'm sure you have as well, and that is the discussions between the environmentalists and producers. If you want to develop the land, you have to do deforestation, because these fields are forested, and that prevents their large use.
If you do deforestation, the environmentalists are not happy that nature is being altered. I'm sure that you know these arguments. There is a permanent struggle even at the political level between those who want to develop the fields and produce more food in those areas and those who want to conserve nature in its original state. That hinders the process.
[English]
Senator Gagné: Argentina put into place a foundation to protect forests that are overexploited for soya. Could you comment about those overdeveloped lands?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: As I was saying, we always have to strike a balance between the environmentalists' principles and the users' principles. If we were to follow environmentalists to the maximum, we would have to eliminate agriculture because all agriculture modifies land and modifies nature. Then we wouldn't have any food.
I think what we need to do is find a balance, and I think that we have it. There are complaints, of course, but I think we have found a reasonable balance where we are using agrochemicals and fertilizers but in much lower amounts than in the United States. Our production is reasonably good because the quality of our farmland makes it possible by using fewer fertilizers and agrochemicals. I believe this is an eternal struggle. There are always going to be those who want fewer products.
Transgenic seeds, yes or no? Well, that is a natural struggle between two interests which are basically opposed.
[English]
Senator Mercer: The Argentinian government passed rural land legislation to restrict foreign acquisition of farmland. Can you describe what this legislation is? Do you believe the adoption of this legislation enabled the achievement of the intended objectives and why?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Yes, it is true. In 2011, we approved a law which regulates land property. In practice, the only purpose of that law was to reduce the acquisition of land by foreign groups. That was the purpose of the deputies. It was the general intent.
A registry of all lands was established, which was not necessary because we had registries of ownership, and it limited purchase by foreigners to 1,000 hectares in the nucleus area. One thousand hectares in the more productive area is important. I think that that does not give rise to major problems.
It also limited the purchase of land with access to water reservoirs. There is a principle which I don't share at all that foreigners are going to take water away from Argentina, and I wonder how they're going to do that. Are they going to carry it away in a ship? The fact is that it is a political issue which doesn't really have solid grounds. But there are those limitations. If they take it away in small bottles, that will be more difficult. But, as I say, there are no solid grounds for that.
What is a limiting factor is it reduces the amount of land that can exist in foreign hands in a specific area. For example, if we look at the province of Quebec — at a specific city — in that department, foreigners could not have more than 15 per cent of the land.
In practice, as I say, we're far from that situation, but that is a limitation which is a cause for concern.
In any event, none of these provisions affect investments already made, that is to say previous investments maintain their value and are not affected. It does not affect those firms or individuals who have been residents in Argentina for over 10 years.
I don't know if this answers your question.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Thank you very much, but I asked if the legislation actually worked.
You raised the issue that it was directed at certain groups. Who were those groups that they were worried about?
[Interpretation]
Mr. De Zavalia: Well, you know that in every country there are nationalist groups that don't really favour foreign investment. There are two ways to look at this. According to one optic, when a foreigner purchases land or establishes an industry, he takes the wealth of the country away. Then there's another perspective, a more liberal perspective, that the foreigner comes in and invests in the land and an industry, opens up labour possibilities and creates production. This is helpful to the country. Those two perspectives coexist.
Depending on the tendency of one administration or another, those groups achieve more or less power. Today, the current administration looks forward to foreign investment. It's asking for this in international fora, because we need that for the country to recover. It does not see that as a constraint. The other political group thinks differently.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. De Zavalia, thank you so very much for your testimony. You mentioned the Quebec act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities. In my opinion, that is a very positive piece of legislation that ensures the continued existence of agricultural land.
Your testimony was very instructive for the members of the committee, and we thank you. We again wish you good luck for the future of agriculture in Argentina, and may I add that Canada considers itself a faithful partner to Argentina at all times.
I want to thank the technical team and the team responsible for organizing the videoconference, both here and there.
(The committee adjourned.)