Agriculture Committee on April 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll call this meeting to order.

I welcome to the table Bob Butler, from the Delta Farmers' Institute, along with John Savage, also of the Delta Farmers.

We're expecting Tony Lodder, but we'll just have to wait until he makes his way into the room.

Finally, from the B.C. Milk Producers, we have Lorne Hunter; and from the Okanagan Kootenay Cherry Growers Association, we have Greg Norton.

I welcome you all to the table. We'll open it up to your opening comments, with ten minutes per organization.

I'll turn it over to you, Bob.

[Bob Butler, Delta Farmers' Institute]

Thank you very much.

I won't take much of your time. I will read from some notes that I have passed to the clerk for later translation.

There are two items we wish to discuss with you today. One is crop loss from wildlife, and the second is Transport Canada and agriculture in Delta.

On the first issue, crop losses from wildlife are not a new issue in B.C., or across this country. There have been several programs running in B.C. during agricultural policy framework 1, which is now coming to an end. Most have been designed as stop-gap measures and pilot projects, and they have been quite successful. The one we work with in Delta is the Delta forage compensation program, and it is only one of many within the province. There are several programs dealing with elk and deer damage in the Peace country, northern B.C., the Kootenays, etc., along with the Comox wildlife forage program as well.

APF 2, to my knowledge, has no provision to continue or enhance the work that commenced under APF 1. Those farms that have been able to see some type of limited compensation will cease to see any as of March next year. This is a concern to the DFI, the Delta Farmers' Institute, unless there is some provision to continue and enhance those programs.

Damages from wildlife amount to several hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in the province, and if the true cost of crop losses was known, the amount would be even greater. Most of the programs are barely scratching the surface in regard to compensation payments.

As society continues to demand the protection of environmental values, including wildlife, it is essential for society to find resolutions between the protection of wildlife and the ability to recover ag losses from wildlife damage. It is an issue that must be dealt with fairly, and it must be dealt with immediately. There are farmers who are suffering as a result of this particular issue.

The second issue I want to talk about is port development at Roberts Bank, in Delta, B.C. It is a reality, and change is very evident. New highway and rail capacity to move goods and services is to be built to service the port expansion. More road traffic and more rail traffic is the offshoot of that increased economic activity—activity that benefits Canada as a whole.

New or expanded conveyance routes, be they rail or road, will be at the expense of prime farmland in Delta, an area generating millions of dollars of food or feed products. We understand that Transport Canada has offered to fund some overpasses for rail lines leading to Deltaport and through various communities within B.C. The Transport Canada options were released to us on or about March 7, with a request for a response by April 2, a date that we could not meet due to other commitments.

Transport Canada did not undertake any discussion with the agricultural communities as to impacts before they released their proposed options. Indeed, it is possible that none of their options may be satisfactory to the farming community in Delta.

Their options fail to understand that the economics of farming are just as important to the individual farmer as they are to any other business today, including railways that move goods and services. Economics drives our society. We know that. Economics also drives the agricultural sector of our society, right down to the farmer who actually grows the food and feed products that we consume.

So why is it that we have no or little input into decisions that may affect our ability to increase our economics--all at the expense of others who wish to increase theirs? Elongated crossings due to larger and more trains do nothing to reduce our costs, but the railways gain. The businesses handling those delivered goods and services gain, but the farmer loses once more.

It is time for everyone to understand that farming is a business that must fine-tune its economic base to gain or increase its profitability, just like every other business. As we know, businesses that cannot fine-tune those economics will fail.

We believe we have to be part of the larger decision as to where those overpasses are placed—not just to service residential and industrial areas, but to ensure that the movement of our fresh produce is not held up; and to ensure that our homes and business buildings are not left subject to risk, such as fire, when fire trucks or emergency vehicles have to wait an extra five to ten minutes to get across a railbed.

It's time to recognize that agriculture, to gain and retain profitability, must not be shunted aside in major decisions. Transport Canada must work with the ag community in Delta and, indeed, other ag communities in B.C. that may be affected by such undertakings, all for the economic benefit of Canada, not just B.C. or for the municipality of Delta.

That's our submission. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is there anything you want to follow up on there, John?

[John Savage, President, Delta Farmers' Institute]

Mr. Chairman, I have a different issue, very briefly, and that's country of origin labelling.

As you know, the United States now is really moving forward on dealing with this issue. We've been raising this at the Canadian Horticultural Council for the last two years. This issue of landed value to which 51% or more is added to the cost--I think many of you are probably well aware of that--is an issue with farming communities and should be an issue for everybody.

I'll take the example of the amount of product coming in from China at this stage, landing in this particular case in Vancouver. It could be, in the east, from Thailand or wherever it comes from, landing maybe in Montreal. Once that is packaged, after being shipped in bulk, very often the cost to package and store that product exceeds that 51% margin, and so it can therefore be labelled as a product of Canada. To me, that is deceiving the consumer. You know there are problems with heavy metals in China. In the event that we have a problem with some of that product, and it says “product of Canada” on it, that is not healthy--and no pun intended--for the future of the farming community, because the consumer will likely say that if it says “product of Canada”, it must have been grown here.

We're asking this committee to take this forward and see if you can fast-track this a bit to make sure that if it's labelled “product of Canada”, it is in fact grown or produced in this country, and not in another one.

That's basically my concern, Mr. Chairman and panel members.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

We'll go to Mr. Hunter of the B.C. Milk Producers.

[Lorne Hunter, Director, British Columbia Milk Producers Association]

I'm a dairy farmer from the North Okanagan. I'm also a director of the B.C. Milk Producers Association, and I'm here as a director of the B.C. Milk Producers Association today.

The B.C. Milk Producers Association has been the voice for dairy farmers in British Columbia since it was founded in 1936 as a committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Our purpose is to advance the legitimate business interests of this province's dairy farmers and to promote a vibrant, sustainable industry that supplies high-quality dairy products to the consumer. Representing the interests of all dairy farmers in B.C., BCMPA is pleased to participate and provide input to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Over the last four decades, Canadian dairy farmers have operated their businesses in a supply-managed system in which farmers produce milk to meet consumer demands. Supply management promotes the steady production of high-quality milk. It is a sustainable agricultural system that encourages consumption of local products. It allows dairy farmers to earn a living from farming, not from taxpayer dollars.

We believe that the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy should fully integrate all components of Canadian agriculture. It is the framework for policies for agriculture and agrifood as a whole. The principal goal should be to achieve profitability and growth for every sector. Therefore, it must go beyond simply identifying solutions to problems; it must also identify and strengthen the components that are successful.

The next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy must identify and strengthen those programs that work to maintain farm incomes and producer bargaining power in the marketplace, programs such as Canada's collective and orderly marketing system, including supply management and its three pillars: production discipline, import control, and producer pricing. These programs should be strengthened and defended in international agreements to ensure the strength and stability of those programs in the future.

I will discuss our views on the current level of recognition of supply management and suggest ways in which government can acknowledge it as a business risk management program in the new agrifood policy framework.

The first generation of APF failed to properly recognize supply management as a business risk management program. The only reference to supply management within the framework agreement reads as follows, under “Supply Management”, in subsection 17.1: “For the purposes of supply-managed commodities, supply management constitutes a risk management tool.”

BCMPA's view is that this is a poor recognition of supply management, because the wording does not include recognition of the three pillars. It uses the word “tool”, as opposed to “program”, in a bureaucratic language that is limiting.

The APF is an overarching policy framework and therefore must not exclude supply management. All provinces and territories have signed on to the first APF and have signed the implementation agreements with the Government of Canada. Only three of the provinces--Ontario, P.E.I., and Quebec--have recognized supply management and its three pillars in their implementation agreements. They went as far as recognizing supply management as a cornerstone of Canadian agricultural policy in section 28.3, “Purpose of Supply Management”:

The Parties remain committed to the supply management system, which is a cornerstone of Canadian agricultural policy and constitutes a vital risk management tool. The Parties recognize the importance of preserving the three essential pillars of supply management: (1) control over imports of products and several by-products; (2) a pricing policy administered according to production costs; and (3) production management.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2004 supply-managed production represented 20% of the total cash receipts for Canada. One-fifth of Canadian agriculture cannot be left aside from an overall Canadian agricultural policy framework.

Wording has been developed by supply-managed groups to better recognize supply management as business risk management, but also to define its three pillars. This wording should be included in the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy, and it should read as follows:

The APF fully integrates all components of Canadian agriculture. It is a framework of policies for agriculture and agri-food as a whole. The principal goal should be to achieve profitability and growth for every sector and, therefore, must go beyond simply identifying solutions to problems; it must also identify and strengthen the components that are successful. The APF identifies and strengthens those mechanisms that work to maintain farm incomes and bargaining power in the marketplace such as Canada's collective and orderly marketing systems, including supply management and its three pillars. These mechanisms should be strengthened and defended in international agreements in order to ensure the strength and sustainability of these programs [and the farmers who live under it] in the future. Also, supply management needs to be clearly defined, as a program, under the Business Risk Management pillar: Supply management systems are Federal-Provincial agreements initiated and supported by appropriate legislation that regulates the marketing of dairy, poultry and eggs in Canada. These systems are dependent upon the support of three equally important pillars: a) Producer Pricing Pricing Pricing mechanisms are based on farmers collectively negotiating fair market returns for milk, poultry and eggs; and reflect what it costs to produce the food. b) Import Controls Import control measures are essential to efficiently plan production to meet Canadian demand by permitting imports to the level of access agreed to at the World Trade Organization. Proper mechanisms to administer and classify products that are imported under TRQs are also essential. c) Production Discipline Production discipline allows for the balance of supply and demand, thereby promoting price and market stability. Production is determined regularly to efficiently reflect changes in consumer demand.

In conclusion, we would like to restate our position. Supply management needs to be clearly defined as a program under the business risk management pillar. More emphasis should be put on programs that work to maintain farm incomes and producer bargaining power in the marketplace, programs such as Canada's collective and orderly marketing systems, including supply management and its three pillars: production discipline, import controls, and producer pricing.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Norton.

[Greg Norton, Okanagan Kootenay Cherry Growers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and certainly welcome to the south Okanagan. It's nice to see such a learned group of folks in our neighbourhood. We appreciate the opportunity today, on behalf of British Columbia cherry growers, to reach out to Ottawa and perhaps expose a few of our local issues to you, and then we can have improvements.

This is my second visit. About seven years ago, I presented to one of the former standing committees, and out of that I must say we had some very good results. So I'm encouraged to be here and I'm encouraged by this process.

The Okanagan Kootenay Cherry Growers Association is a vital but small organization. We represent the B.C. cherry growing industry. We're at $50 million annually now. That figure has doubled in the last five years. We're growing and we're strong and we're vital, and we're looking to be progressive in agriculture in Canada. You have a role to play in that, and we hope that we can come to some resolutions.

Our members rely mostly on exporting cherries. Unfortunately, Canadians can't pay, or are unwilling to pay, the price that we need to get at market in order to justify the expenditures that we have on our farms to produce an incredibly high-quality product.

It is an exciting time, and it's an exciting way to make a living, but there are some issues. One of the issues I would like to speak on today on behalf of the membership is the trade issue.

Last summer we had an incredibly sharp decline in some of our markets, Canadian markets, because our American neighbours to the south were dumping cherries into the marketplace. Both the Toronto and Vancouver markets were affected. On my farm I personally lost sales, and I had sales that we had already secured severely compromised on delivery because of this dumping.

In the case of Toronto, cherries were put in there on consignment. In other words, they were landed into Toronto, and the American sellers said, “Do what you can with them. Just pay what you can.” In Vancouver we had $8-a-case cherries, which is extremely below the cost of production. It doesn't even come close. That's about a quarter of what I need to get in order to be viable.

Ironically, three weeks after all this happened, when basically I was out of the market but some B.C. cherry growers were still in, I got a call from Ottawa, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and this nice gentleman asked me about the rumours about dumping cherries in Canada, and what could I say about it. I think you can all imagine what I said about that. I think it's unacceptable that this country allows our competitors to dump food into this country that compromises Canadian producers. It's a severe issue to us.

There's no easy answer, however. It's there. It's an issue, and it's a federal issue, and here we are today.

One of our biggest issues, and probably our biggest issue--even greater than that--is our labour. Cherries are a high-labour crop. Agriculture in this valley is very high labour. We have been looking at seasonal workers because we're in and out in four to six weeks as producers, and we've relied, for the last 20 years, on young Quebeckers coming across. At our farm itself we hire 55 every year, annually, all Quebec young people. We pay them just under $300,000 in wages throughout our season. My full-time employee is a Quebecker who started off as a picker and who stayed on. He's been working for us for seven years. His partner is a Quebecker. She's been with us for three years, and they've made a life in the Okanagan Valley as a result of their annual trek across the country.

My wife and I really love those young people, because they have an attitude. They're able to get a top-quality product into the box for us, and we just think that as Canadian producers employing Canadians is important to our farm.

Unfortunately, the competition is not from McDonald's anymore, but from the oil patch. Our competition used to be McDonald's, and I can assure you that we provide a better working atmosphere and a better wage than McDonald's does, so it wasn't hard to compete with McDonald's. Today we're competing with Fort McMurray, northern Alberta, and really high-paying jobs, and it's becoming a larger and larger issue.

The Mexican program doesn't work for us because we're so short term. Our farm can't provide that length of time of employment, and it's just not possible, it's not viable. We are suggesting, though, that we ask the federal government to entertain a backpacker guest temporary work permit system. In New Zealand, cherry producers, who I've met when I travelled down there, have access to this system. Basically when we're short of labour, we could go to the international travelling, backpacker type of workers.

We'd like to ask, on behalf of our producers, that you have a look at that.

Apart from the temporary labour force...it's not the only solution, but apart from that, our full-time people, because of the nature of our business, can't work 12 months a year straight. We just can't. Horticulturally, I can't do my pruning in the winter. Below minus seven degrees Celsius, we have to back off, because it actually damages our trees. As a result, even my full-time person is laid off for six to eight weeks every winter.

Unfortunately, we have noticed on several farms in the valley—it hasn't happened to me personally—employment insurance is now harassing these folks and saying they haven't got a full-time job and need to go and get some other kind of work. That is a terrible negative to our full-time or permanent workforce. It's really difficult. I have put thousands of hours of training into our full-time staff, and to have that compromised simply because we can't provide them year-round work.... We don't think it's a crime that you have to have EI for six weeks a year. We really need some recognition and some sympathy from the federal government.

This brief will be coming to you when it gets translated.

There is a shortage for our farm workers in education and skills development. We do it on-farm, we do it through conventions, but there isn't a really good formal education process for agriculture workers in this country. We need to have a look at that.

As to renewal of the extension services, it's interesting that we have the most amazing federal facilities a 14-minute drive from where we're sitting today, called PARC, the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre. They are an incredibly valuable tool for us. I can't even phone them today. I challenge any one of you today: I'll give you the name of a research scientist and I challenge you to get through to him by phone. It's impossible. They have a call centre thing now. It's all digital, and you just can't raise them.

I'm suggesting that we open the doors of PARC again. It used to be great, but because of security and some bureaucratic Ottawa kind of thinking, we can't get at them anymore.

While we're in the Okanagan, you're going to talk my language, fellows. I'm not in Ottawa anymore.

What I'm saying to you is that there is a depth of knowledge that I love and we've all paid for. Those are the most amazing people up there. My industry is built on varieties and on knowledge developed in that station. All I need is access to it. Perhaps an extension public service person, or two people, who could be a catalyst between the scientists and us would be a really cheap, simple, and I think very productive way to go.

I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by addressing two or three issues specific to the agriculture policy framework discussions that are going on right now.

I want to draw your attention to the Pest Management Centre. Six years ago I made a presentation to a standing committee, and our biggest issue at the time was getting new products from around the world, with softer, better chemistries, into our farms. We couldn't do it seven years ago, and today I'm really thrilled to report to you that we can. The Pest Management Centre that was formulated under Agriculture Canada is fabulous; it's working. Please don't let this APF discussion destroy that. We have broken down barriers with the PMRA and with our companies. We are now a team.

I was in Ottawa a month ago, as I have been for the last five years, in the minor use priority-setting meetings. I am just thrilled. it is a very successful Canadian agriculture story. Please continue to support it. Please allow those doors, because if you don't, the priorities we set this year will not be developed, and that would be a tragedy. That's a wonderful thing that we did.

On environmental farm plans, I want to again, on behalf of the chair, say that we have to continue to do them. Canadian producers have to be able to prove that we're growing responsibly and are growing safe food. Please let's not muck that up; in fact, let's expand it. Let's work towards mandatory EFPs. That would be fab.

As for the agricultural environment initiative fund, our little organization subscribed to that fund. We were able to take $5,000 and turn it into $40,000 and do research, and actually, we've been able to reduce the number of pesticides we use in cherry production through the agricultural environment initiative fund. It's a fabulous idea.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is CAIS and crop insurance—two programs, because we deal with a very volatile crop. We are under threat of winter cold, spring frost, and rain splitting. Those are three very powerful forces of nature. Because of the nature of our crop we really enjoy CAIS, and we're one of the few commodity groups that actually like CAIS.

Keep the old CAIS for cherry growers. You can fix it for the rest of them; that would be great. However, our reality is that we know you can't do that.

As to crop insurance, we use those programs and we need those programs to try to level our income. Right now in my orchards, I have 50% blossom damage. That was from winter cold and spring frost. We have wind machines that we make a heck of an investment in, and we also hire helicopters to blow the rain off to preserve the integrity of that crop. However, sometimes Mother Nature is a pretty powerful person and she has a big bat.

But I would like to see the continuation. I do want to caution and say that it is a little clumsy. These programs are difficult for us. We're not accountants. My wife is very sharp, she's very good, but it's very difficult sometimes, particularly with CAIS, to understand all the forms in it. So if we keep them in place, whatever programs, please think of us as producers as you're setting out your programs, and the understandability and the actual usability of the program. If we stay focused on that, I think it will continue to improve.

Mr. Chairman, do I have one more minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No.

[Greg Norton]

Seriously? I have just one intangible.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

One short one.

[Greg Norton]

I want to draw the attention of this committee to the changing world of agriculture producers in Canada, and that's the intangibles. I spend hundreds of hours a year dealing with rezoning applications, because if the farmers don't go to these rezoning applications....

We're in the Okanagan. We go to a lot of meetings to preserve our right to water, to preserve our right to be able to make a bit of noise, to be able to continue to do what my grandfather and my father have been able to do. I'm third generation. It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours.

And then you throw this national park thing at us, and that's a threat to agriculture in the south Okanagan, from our perspective. I use helicopters. The helicopters are here because they can use the mountain. I use compost. My manure supply will be compromised if we lose the cattle grazing in the national park.

Those intangibles, I think, are a lot harder on us as farmers, because there hasn't been a strong statement of support from our senior government. I don't hear enough, and we as producers don't hear enough--and I'm not talking about safety net programs or anything like that--commitment from our federal and our provincial governments that agriculture is important, that farmers are important people in our communities.

I would like to leave that thought with you, that in any way, in any of your meetings, you can think, hey, why don't we say something good and strong about our agriculture producers? We do, after all, feed you. Each and every one of you needs us, and each and every other Canadian does. But it's this intangible thing. The walls are coming in on us. We spend thousands of hours defending our right to farm and being part of the community as farmers, and it's getting harder and harder and harder.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the extra two minutes. I much appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're welcome, Mr. Norton.

We're going to stick with five-minute rounds.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

I was going to start with Bob, but I want to start with you, Greg, because you've just touched on a whole lot of things that I think all of us would agree with.

First, in regard to call centres, we all are frustrated with call centres, and they should be banned. There should be a law against that.

I think it's important that we understand the principle that today we're dealing with a different hand than we were 25 years ago. We now have third- and fourth-generation people away from the farm. We used to have one and two generations. People don't know agriculture, and what you said just a few moments ago is so true. There are quite a number of us around this table who are still farmers—in fact, all of us on the official opposition side are farmers—so we know what you're talking about.

What did we do seven years ago with PMRA that is working better now than what was working then? I realize we've now brought accountability to that body, where they now have to speak to us twice a year. We've changed some personnel and all of that, but very quickly, what really happened?

[Greg Norton]

Specifically, you started the Pest Management Centre. That didn't really exist before then. I think the standing committee got to the PMRA, its minister and the health ministry. There was a real problem at PMRA. There were some personnel changes that I think were stimulated politically. But with the fact that we have the Pest Management Centre, whose job it is to help us do trials, it would be embarrassing for PMRA if they didn't deliver some results out of the Pest Management Centre.

So specifically, you invented the PMRA, and I believe the Minister of Health of the day got the message from the members of the standing committee. Whatever it was, I can't pinpoint....

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Lorne, you're a dairyman. We don't have the chicken producers here today, but you represent the SM5 group, so we understand your issue.

Are you confident going forward with WTO talks, given the issues confronting us there, given that we have a group of people who see things differently than you do, that we're going to be successful? Just quickly, yes, no, or I don't know.

[Lorne Hunter]

When it comes to politics, the future is always very cloudy. My industry and my livelihood are based on the supply management system and the fact that I can project into a year what I need to produce to fill my obligation to the marketplace. I know that I will get paid, instead of getting a kick in the teeth halfway through the crop year. That is very important to our industry.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The pillars of supply management are fundamentally right, and we cannot lose them.

John, I'll go to you. You talked about truth in advertising. Two years ago this committee--I was then the chair of the committee--with the cooperation of all parties put forward Bill C-27, which was a compilation of eight or nine different pieces of legislation under CFIA dealing with the issues of bringing things in uniform form into legislation. We brought in a piece of legislation that was never there before, and that is truth in advertising, or the dairy terms act, as we would....

Well, Kraft became involved, and that bill is there somewhere in the halls of Parliament, but it likely will never see the light of day, because the politicians are afraid to touch it. I was not afraid to touch it. I think the politicians around the committee table were not afraid to touch it, but I don't think the government of the day is ready to touch it, and that's the problem we have. The Krafts of this world--the multinationals, the large players--are playing into this. There was nothing wrong with the legislation. Simply, we wanted to know that when you advertised something as having cream in it, it had to have cream in it. We needed to know that.

I know where you're coming from, and I'll allow you to comment.

Bob, on the issue of wildlife crop loss, who should pay for this when it's in the common good? We have the same thing in the sealing industry; there are certain people out there protecting the seals, and it may have contributed to the downsizing of our fishing industry. We don't know for sure, but it probably has. There are people out there who want to protect these things, just as they want to protect the elk and the deer and the moose and all these other things that are playing havoc with the industry. Who should pay for that? If is for the common good, should not the common folk pay for it?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

May we have quick responses, please?

[Bob Butler]

First off, farmers are not opposed to wildlife and we're not opposed to environmentalism or ecological safety at all. But those are society issues; therefore, if society wants to see wildlife the way it is in its form today, they should be paying this cost. That leads me to believe this should not just be sitting as a budget item on a budget each year, but should be a funded program that can be maintained year after year, so somebody can't pull the plug and say, “You're finished at the end of March.” We can't live with that, and it simply has to happen.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

John, could you comment on the advertising?

[John Savage]

Thank you very much, Paul.

You raised a good point. The truth part of it is what the consumer should be entitled to. Why are they not entitled to have a label that is absolutely truthful? If it says it's a product of Canada, it in fact is a product of Canada; otherwise, it's deceitful. Why should multinationals drive that decision? Common sense tells you--and we argued this with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency--that if you have a product and suddenly there's a health problem or a sickness breaks out, guess who gets the blame? It's just not right.

If something can be done.... I acknowledge that it's tough. I've been in politics. It's not an easy thing to deal with, but for the consumers' common good, I hope this committee--your panel here--can put these arguments forward. Everybody here has some good points, and I'd really like to thank you for participating, because it's important for government as a whole, not just the cabinet. The general MPs throughout this country have to realize what's in the best interests of the public.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, if I may add to what Robert just said, farmers do not want to bear the loss of crop from bird damage, and there is lots of it. Why should the farmer bear that cost? If the public sees it as an environmental issue or whatever, fair enough, but don't ask the farmer to pay for it, please. It's not right.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Now we're going to have Mr. Gaudet for five minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There has been an issue running through my mind since this morning. Earlier, people were talking about dumping. Mr. Hunter talked about how butter oil and cheese sticks indirectly enter the country; there are also problems concerning vegetables.

To your mind, is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency carrying out its job properly? Is it truly defending the interests of Canadian producers, or whose interest is it actually defending?

It is my impression that the United States is dumping cherries; yet, there are cherries in Vancouver. I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. There must be a problem since horticultural products are coming from places where the environmental standards are not as stringent as ours, whereas we have premium products, particularly when it comes to dairy products, cherries, horticultural products, and labelling. In short, this affects everything. What is the problem? What can the federal government do to assist all of you? We are currently heading toward a dead end.

I would like to have all four witnesses answer my question.

[Lorne Hunter]

I appreciate your concerns.

In the dairy industry, two issues are very current.

We should extend a thank you to the current government for their efforts to impose an Article 28, so that we can put tariff limits on the importations of milk protein concentrates. This was a TRQ that wasn't around when the WTO was first initiated, so we didn't have one.

Processors are importing it, and as dairy producers, we have to purchase back the Canadian portion of protein that is not currently being used in cheese or yogourt production.

The second part is the start of the implementation of standards for the production of cheese, such that a certain amount of milk production is required, so we know what goes into the cheese, into the food products we're making.

The importation of milk products and components do not improve the rural communities supported by our dairy industries. Imported MPCs are a detriment to our local communities. That's milk that I could produce, which would support the communities in our area. I'm a single farmer. My farm is operated and managed by my wife, and I employ 42 businesses in my community, which collectively support 300 employees. That's what the supply management does for the rural communities, with primary production as the basis.

Thank you.