Evidence of meeting #20 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farm.
11:20 a.m.
Director, Atlantic Grains Council
I'll let our executive director answer that. I have a personal view on that one.
11:20 a.m.
Director, Atlantic Grains Council
Sure.
The thing is that we're relying on research right now that's coming out of western Canada or even Ontario. We have a special climate here that would need to be addressed as far as varieties or climate. That's why, with research coming out of Ontario, I don't think we can adapt it over here.
That's why it's important to have a growth in research and not deplete it down here in order to gain better varieties, better disease-resistant varieties, for a niche market. We're able to export out of different ports, either Halifax or eventually maybe P.E.I., we never know, but we have the potential with the land base we have here to grow our grain industry. And we're going the other way.
11:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Atlantic Grains Council
As well, we don't have the big companies back here. We just have small ones, so it's hard for us to partner.
Plus, being a not-for-profit organization, it's hard for us to get the funds to get going to apply for some of these programs. By the time we put the project in, it's depleted of all funds. It takes a while to get through.
That's just another concern.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
You talked about federal agriculture research, talking about an overarching view, that I believe you said equalled young farmers' futures, which I found quite fascinating. I agree with that, by the way.
Let me talk to the two young guys who are in the beef sector. I know the chairperson was talking about the labelling, what the content meant, and so forth. I have an issue with labelling as well, by the way. On clarity in labelling, I agree with what Larry said. There has to be a percentage there to actually make it a product of Canada. I know that's under review. It's a different argument for our group and a consideration.
But there's something that aggravates me about clarity in labelling, and I'll use an example from the Niagara region where I live. It is really wine country. I know my friends in the Okanagan will argue, but as far as we're concerned in southern Ontario and the peninsula, we make the finest wines in the world.
There's a product called “Cellared in Canada”. When you talk about wine in cellars, you assume it's made there. But none of the juice in that bottle comes from the Niagara Peninsula. In fact it doesn't come from anywhere in North America. If you bought that product you would assume, if you were relatively educated about the wine industry, it was probably Canadian-made. But it isn't. It's bottled here for sure, but VQA wines are actually bottled in the peninsula.
I wonder if clarity in labelling--not so much the “product of”, because there is a defining piece to that--is something you'd like to see that may be of help to you.
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I think that would be huge. It goes along with the consumer today being misinformed. Not to say that the consumer isn't educated, but it needs to be as clear as possible. As you say, there's just a lack of clarity. It says it's “packaged here” and “processed here”, but it's either from here or it's not. That's how it should be. It has to be cut and dried. I think you're right.
We face the same thing with beef as what you're talking about with wine. There's a percentage--it has to be 95%, 98%, or whatever--but how closely is that followed? Anybody's guess is as good as ours. Leaving that extra 2% is just giving them leeway for misinformation.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
Personally, I'd like to see it 100%, but a lot want it 85%; you should know that.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Yes.
Anyway, on that labelling, when you talk about country of origin and what have you, it goes back to the debate on “Product of Canada”. If it's a product of Canada it's about educating the consumer. It cannot have “Product of Canada” on it unless it is truly a product of Canada. The beef and pork industries—in your case, the Canadian cattlemen, because we export so much of our beef--do not want this labelling because they're afraid it will hurt them when they send their exports around.
I'm a beef farmer, but I disagree with that. I think we have a product here that we can be proud of. I would sooner have it on there. But unless the industry that represents you--in your case the cattlemen--comports with that, the government's not going to push for it. If the industry itself doesn't push it's not going to happen. I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Richards has five minutes.
May 11th, 2010 / 11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I sure appreciate you all being here today.
It's been mentioned already that we're nearing the end of our trip to hear from young farmers all across this country. I have to say that one of the things I've taken out of this is that I am more encouraged and have more of a positive feeling about the future of farming in this country, having been on this tour. Don't get me wrong; it's not because I don't recognize that there are challenges and that things need to change to help ensure the future of farming. Certainly we've heard many suggestions and many concerns as we've travelled across the country. The reason I feel more positive and more encouraged is the quality of the young farmers we've heard from, and today is no exception—certainly both panels, the one earlier this morning and the one we're seeing now.
I hear a lot of talk about the fact that young farmers recognize the need to run the farm like a business; it's not as easy as planting a crop and then expecting the profits to roll in. There's a need to run the farm like a business, to be innovative, to find niche markets, to find ways to value add. I hear that and I recognize that. I'm glad to hear what I'm hearing.
What I want to do with the panel we have here is what I didn't have a chance to do with the earlier panel. Some members like to talk a little too much. I'm going to try to avoid that tendency myself. I really grabbed onto two things I heard this morning. One of them was Becky Perry talking about her idea, which we've heard in other places in the country as well, of the need to better educate the public on where their food comes from. She certainly had some great suggestions with regard to that. I've heard other suggestions that I think were equally good. Her suggestions in particular were about using the school system and having a mandatory agriculture food science course, something along that line; trying to open up farms for the public to come to hear and see and experience what happens on the farm so they can understand their food doesn't just come off the shelf in the grocery store.
I wanted to hear your comments on those types of initiatives, whether you think they're valuable, and if you yourselves have any other suggestions on what might be useful there.
The other was from Mr. MacLeod, who talked about the need to better educate farmers themselves in terms of how to manage their business. It's one of the toughest businesses to operate. I think farmers are some of the best businessmen in this country, and need to be.
I want to hear comments and thoughts and suggestions you might have on those two items.
I'll start at this end with you, Corey, and work my way down.
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
First, I appreciate your compliments, for sure. That's one thing I should note. I know there's lots of talk about the issues we're facing, and the province is facing, but we have lots of optimism. We're here because we see there is a future and we all plan to be part of that future.
What Becky's saying is 110% correct. As Nathan mentioned, the consumer is just so far away from the farm. With fewer farmers, it's bound to happen. I think the schools are good places to start. Also, open farm days, as you mentioned, are good chances for people to come out to see what goes on.
The only issue I see in our industry, in a feedlot, is that, for instance, we were actually in a...for co-op beef, I guess it was. A gentleman came out to take a few pictures to put in the thing. There were about 800 cattle along the manger, eating. I said, “Gee, that would be a good picture.” He said, “Oh, goodness, no, you can't put cattle in there. People don't want to relate cute cattle to steak.”
11:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
So we kind of run into a bit of an issue there, but I think that can be overcome with proper information.
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I like Becky's idea. I've been out of school long enough now that I don't know what the kids are doing or not doing, but I do remember, when I was a kid, that we did take field trips. We would go here or go there, and it might be a day trip to get out of the city and go see a farm. I personally would gladly offer a tour of my farm and allow children to see what's going on and how it has changed.
As far as us being educated, I don't know if we're any more educated than what you think. But I think back in my grandfather's generation, and maybe the generation before him, everybody was making a dollar, so you didn't have to be as cautious or as careful. You could afford to lose $20 a day and write it off and not really care. Today, where margins are so tight and we're facing so many challenges, we have to better ourselves and educate ourselves more, because the margin of error isn't there.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Director, Atlantic Grains Council
Yes.
It kind of hit a nerve when I heard you with regard to getting courses for better management. It's hard for me to tell a farmer, if they're always selling their product on a negative margin....
How much better can you be? It's almost impossible; you can be the best manager you want, but if you buy a farm as a young farmer, and you have all that debt and you have a disaster in a crop or whatever, you have nothing else to fall back on.
For the last 10 or 12 years we've been selling grain below the cost of production, so for anything we're growing, we're in a system now that when you have all the equipment and you have everything else, you can't quit farming. You're going to quit when you die.
Looking at that aspect of it, we need to try to recoup our costs of production first. As for better management, I think every grower out there....
I heard the comment about seven years ago from a farmer. He said, “If I had been farming with my head, I would have quit a long time ago.”
I'm of that same point of view.
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
There's only one comment that I would like to add, I guess.
In this province, the dairy industry is working with a school milk program. I'm not sure of the awareness but I think it's a very good product that we are using to market into the schools.
There's only one thing that I have noticed. I asked my own daughter about the school milk program, and I asked the teacher at a parent-teacher meeting, and the teacher was not aware that the dairy farmers in the province were supporting the school milk program. I think we need to take it a step further than what we have. I would really like to see a broad spectrum of education, as has been voiced, about where our food does come from, who we support, and why we support them.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We were visiting a feedlot and a killing plant in Alberta. It is interesting; you mentioned the concern about the killing plants owning the cattle. We visited a feedlot in Alberta and, lo and behold, as we were touring it we found that a lot of the cattle in there he didn't own. He was feeding them for the plants.
We also found out that in the United States there was a law passed through the U.S. Congress--I'm not sure on the date, I don't think it's more than a week--that processors are not allowed to own cattle for more than a week. The chair might correct me on this. They're not allowed to own cattle, period. It is for that reason, because they were holding cattle in the United States and they were making the prices...pulling the farmers down.
I guess my first question is, do you think there should be legislation in Canada similar to that of the United States on that ruling of packers owning cattle?
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I am.
On our farm, we personally have 700 shares in the Atlantic Beef Products abattoir on the island. However, they're only running at half capacity and some weeks we can't get cattle in there. We might go three or four weeks. So our only other alternative is to go on the open market and sell them live and take a gamble, pray for the best that we're going to get top dollar--we don't know we will--or call Cargill, which is our closest abattoir in Guelph, and they tell us “Yes, we'll take them, in four weeks' time”, and at what price. So there's another gamble.
So yes, I would like to see that, because when the price is high, they start pulling their contract cattle in and make everybody else wait till the prices are low. When the prices are low, they'll hang on to their contract cattle and start buying up cheaper cattle.
So yes, certainly, I would like to see legislation that they can't hold on to them any longer than a week.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
It seems that in the whole supply chain, whether it's processors or retailers, there are more farmers than buyers, technically. I think we need to look at our competitive rules and check into some of the operators out there, whether they're processors. But that is a law that should be passed in this country, the same as is in the United States, so they can't hold on to the cattle and manipulate the price.
My second question is about the programs. What we find across Canada is it that depends on the area. If you're in an area where there's a lot of mixed farming, AgriFlexibility is not working. For instance, if you grow only one crop in an area and it goes down, you can draw from it. But if you grow different crops, you cannot seem to get the benefit of that one crop going down, whether it's a different commodity.
Do you think there should be changes to that AgriFlexibility for different kinds of operations? It just doesn't seem that you can draw out of it if you have one commodity that's going down and you can't pull from it. Whereas another farmer, if he's only grown that one commodity, he seems to be able to take it out. That was the first question.
The other thing we hear about, especially from the older farmers, is that they like the NISA program. They're putting in some money, in good years or whatever, and the federal or provincial are putting in money. Then you just draw out of it when times get tough. It was much simpler, and the trigger mechanism was a lot better.
So I'm looking at these programs because at the end of the day it doesn't matter which government is in power, there's only so much money going to agriculture, probably, to a certain extent. Should we go back to some of the old ways of programming, and should we be tweaking some of the ones we have right now?
Anybody could answer these questions.