Agriculture Committee on April 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dancause, did you have some comments?

[Hervé Dancause]

As Mr. Desjardins said, in Quebec, we've developed... There are a number of ad pensum payments in my area. I live near the border, in the high country, as I mentioned in my address. We live from maple syrup production. A number of producers there live off forests. We also produce grain and milk. You're penalized from the moment you register for the CAIS program. This year, our syrup harvest is very poor. A producer who only produces maple syrup and who also works off the farm will be put at an advantage because he'll be able to use the program. But, for me, who produces milk and a bit of grain, all that will cancel out. I'm required to register for CAIS in order to have grain and all kinds of things. It's a problem.

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

Let me just ask you this. If a nation were part of the nation called Canada, if we as a nation believe that food security—food sovereignty is probably a better term—is something that we need to be striving for, and we need to have that as a sort of over-arching premise from which we develop all farm programs, if that were to be the case, would we not be able to develop better programs, knowing that, first of all, we believe in food security, whether that's the way we produce it, the way we allow other imports into this country? All of our programs would then fit around that. Would that not be a good premise, an ideal to strive for? We haven't said that. We've assumed it; we've never really said that.

[Charles Proulx]

In Quebec, we really like to talk about sovereignty. I'm going to take the risk of talking about dairy production, which I know less about, because I'm a pork producer. We've taken aim at global markets. In my opinion, dairy production, which is governed by a supply management system, is like a form of sovereignty.

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

I don't want to cut you off, but that was not my question. My question was this. Should we not have a policy of food sovereignty in this country, not provincial sovereignty, but food sovereignty, where we are in control and make sure we can feed our people?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Desjardins.

[Louis Desjardins]

I entirely agree on that. Whatever they say, dairy producers have a form of sovereignty in Canada, and they live quite well. When people ask us not to produce pork for export because we don't need it, I answer that we could do it provided people stop eating bananas, peaches and so on.

People don't realize that, if you buy products from other countries, you'll have to pay for them one day. They say it would be better to buy pork elsewhere rather than produce it ourselves. But what are we going to pay for it with? If we do nothing, we'll be paying with Monopoly money! We must not wind up looking like an African country. It's very important that we be able to eat our local production. It would be ideal, a dream, if the products that the stores sold were 75% Canadian and Québécois. When we buy products from elsewhere, we have to pay for them.

Ask anyone on the street, and you'll see how he answers you: he doesn't know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dancause.

[Hervé Dancause]

The Americans, who are also my neighbours, have understood what food sovereignty is. They offer assistance for transportation, which is free on the river. Their army does drainage for producers. We should have their patriotism. I don't mean to praise them, but the Americans subsidize their agriculture because they've understood that they have to produce food to feed their country. When they see they're short of oil, they go get it elsewhere.

Perhaps we should close up a little more and group the people who are already in place together, instead of undoing our country by impeding agriculture and reducing subsidies, regardless of the meaning given to that word. The Americans understood this before us. They passed the Farm Bill and increased direct and indirect subsidies, which will benefit them in the years to come.

One indirect way or another should be found, one that is not prohibited by MPs, to assist agriculture in the regions and in all provinces, based on the specific characteristics of each province. The west is devoted to cattle breeding, and the east is multifunctional. There are also other specific characteristics. We should head in that direction soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Steckle.

Monsieur Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Desjardins.

[Louis Desjardins]

I've always thought it was unfortunate that we are led around by the Americans. If I were the Prime Minister of Canada, I would tell the Americans that that's enough and that we have two things they don't have and that they need, that we're through with crawling around on our hands and knees. The Americans need our oil and our water. I would also tell them to stop subsidizing grain and exporting it to Canada. You're familiar with the trial concerning grain, exports, etc. The Americans disgusted us over mad cow disease. They don't have any mad cow problem because they don't conduct tests. It's clear: they don't do any. The Americans have never been barred and they don't get bogged down in anything. We bog down in banana peels. I'm going to stop there.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Dancause, I'm pleased that you talked about farm succession. Earlier this morning, we heard about farm succession from a group of young people from your region. As our time was limited, I wasn't able to ask them this question because there were other speakers.

We've introduced a motion on a number of occasions, and we're introducing it again. That motion concerns the tax measures that could assist with farm succession. Our motion refers, for example, to a kind of farm transfer savings plan that would enable producers to accumulate tax-sheltered retirement funds, of course, to which the government would contribute, as it does in the case of the Registered Education Savings Plan, provided the farm is kept in place.

Our motion also suggests softening the rules for purchasing a house in Quebec, to extend the Home Buyers' Plan, the HBP, to the acquisition of a farm business. This would be an RRSP that would make it possible to acquire a farm business. Another measure could be designed to allow the carry-over of the capital gains deduction in respect of the transfer of a farm to a family member other than a parent or child, to a nephew or a niece, for example. We could also increase the eligible amount of the capital gains deduction for farm property, which would increase from $500,000 to $1 million. That could also be a promising measure. Obviously, the money would have to be transferred to the Government of Quebec on a recurring basis to enable it to adopt those measures.

Ultimately, these are tax measures that are proposed in our motion. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would guarantee the survival of our agriculture, but would they at least encourage farm succession? A number of young people in your region are interested by these kinds of measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dancause.

[Hervé Dancause]

These are all good programs that should be implemented for the future. Earlier we talked about areas where there's more rock and where land is harder to cultivate. These are not farms in the High North. I think it would be an additional advantage for these regions, which are not very sought-after by young people, because they require a lot more work. They should be supervised on farms of this kind. That would encourage them to stay on the farm without having to invest a fortune in an attempt to earn an adequate income.

Some of my employees, young people, would like to have a farm. When we discuss it, they tell me they can't invest that much money without knowing that they'll have a good annual net income. I think it would be good to implement measures of this kind to encourage young people to operate a farm or to take over the family farm. It's high time that this was done because we are losing both the next generation and workers. We have a lot of trouble finding farm workers, given the sluggishness in the sector. Inadequate incomes, mad cow disease, problems in the sheep industry, all that has caused damage. It's a sluggishness that affects the agricultural sector. I think that implementing these measures would be like a balm.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

[Charles Proulx]

With your permission, I'm going to add a comment.

Mr. Bellavance, I'm nearly 60 years old, and I have four children. Two of them have decided to take over the farm, but I've had problems since that time. People always say that farmers are well off, but that they have one weak point. Every year that the Good Lord has given me and that I have worked, I have never purchased an RRSP. With the small amounts that were left to me, I tried to improve my farm. My farm is my pension fund. If I sell it, I'll indebt my children for the rest of their days, and they will never get out of it. If I give it to them, I'm going to be forced to spend my later years with my old age pension as my only income, and I believe it's a little less than that of an MP.

What to do? If I sell it, I'm going to be taxed quite a lot. I have a problem. I'm forced to deal with my weak point, and I don't think I'm the only one in that situation. My farm has always been my pension fund, but I could be forced to cash it in tomorrow morning. I have to face my children. My grandchildren are also starting to push me out of the way. I don't know how we're going to proceed. It's true this is a real problem. The succession is non-existent, and there are deficiencies in the areas of taxation and income security.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Desjardins.

[Louis Desjardins]

If we adopt farm succession measures, there really has to be a transfer to family or to other persons. If tax exemptions are granted and people use them to put more money in their pockets, that's worthless. It's better to find measures that will really facilitate transfers. I think that's very important.

Like Mr. Proulx, I'm in the process of transferring my farm. When you have a $3 million farm and you owe $1 million, people think you're rich, since you have $2 million. In fact, you're poor because you can't sell your farm to your children. You have to find a way to get by.

In the Gaspé Peninsula, a paper plant project was set up. Two million dollars per job was invested. With that money, the government could have suggested to young people leaving the ITA that they buy a $1 million farm in order to operate it, but that they remain owners. If those young people had managed to make the business profitable, the government could have sold the farm to them. The government of Quebec or of Canada would be rich: their land would have increased in value. We invest in things that we then lose. Land has value. It doesn't burn down. Can someone tell me that the value of land has declined in 50 years? On the contrary, it has simply increased in value.

Governments could invest in land and not see that as an expense. They always invest in things that lose value. They should do the contrary. If people can no longer keep their land because it costs them too much, governments can assign it to young people or less young people who are efficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I just have two quick questions. We are out of time, so if you could keep your responses short, I'd appreciate it.

In my former life before politics, when I was just getting started farming, I had an off-farm job managing a bull test centre for performance evaluations, carcass quality, etc., very similar to a lot of ram test centres out there now.

I've always been a very firm believer in research and genetic improvement, plant breeding and primary production research. We do have a focus today on putting more into innovation and putting new value-added product lines out there.

I guess my concern or question is, what is more important? One of the pillars of the agricultural policy framework is research and innovation, but where should we put our emphasis? Is it on primary production, or is it on this new innovation? Or should it be a 60-40 split, or 75-25?

Just very quick responses, please.

Mr. Desjardins.

[Louis Desjardins]

In Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, we had the most beautiful federal centre, but it was closed. Imagine: a group of individuals took the centre from the producers and acquired it. It takes money for producers to conduct basic research, and we don't have any. In the case of a technology transfer, I think costs should be shared equally. Someone will have to fund basic research. There was also a potato research program in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, but all that was abolished. It wasn't the producers who abolished it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Méthot.

[Hélène Méthot]

One of the problems we have in smaller livestock production is that private funding is really hard to get, whether it's for rabbits or lamb, or whatever. Private companies don't see much profit possible from investment in research in such production. So it's really hard for us to improve our production without any government help.

This diversity in agriculture is essential. You were talking about food sovereignty earlier, and diversity is essential to that concept, so it is quite important to invest in it. As my colleague mentioned, fundamental research is a little further from the producers, or it's hard to get them to invest by themselves in these sorts of projects; but it's the beginning of getting technology transfer. So I believe there is a place for government funding of research, but as organizations we have to make sure we make every effort to get those private funds also.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

We are out of time. We do appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedules to help us in our studies. We are going to wrap this up, hopefully. We have one more day left of our tour, in Ontario. We'll make sure we put together a good report to table back in the House of Commons. So we appreciate your interventions and your insight to help us put together this report.

With that, we will suspend for lunch. We will reconvene here as quickly as possible. I think we're scheduled for 2:15, but if we can get started a little bit earlier it would be better.

Thank you very much.