Agriculture Committee on April 25th, 2007

[Pierre Lemieux]

I think it's essential to preserve supply management. Here we're talking about tools that provide producers with income security and cost government nothing. I'll give you an example. In the maple syrup sector, there were collective marketing tools in the early 1990s. Producers were in bankruptcy because there were no more maple syrup buyers. The federal government had to invest $23 million in the industry. In 2000, we went through a similar crisis. Even though the early payments system existed, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had to invest several millions of dollars to assist producers who were unable to make their early payments. La Financière agricole du Québec also invested $22 million and granted producers lines of credit. It took five years to close that file.

Today we have collective marketing and a system that works well. The question is whether individual rights take precedence over collective rights. We could also ask our government whether, in its view, the individual right takes precedence over the collective right to govern and regulate. I must say that, as a citizen, I don't always agree on the regulations that are put into effect, but I'm forced to deal with them, since they have been passed by the government. The same is true in the case of all the government orders that enforce regulations, even my municipality.

I hope we'll be able to continue living in a Canadian society where the collective right, which makes it possible to regulate, is slightly stronger than the individual right. Otherwise I really wonder where all this will lead us.

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

Thank you very much. I'm pleased that you were able to properly express what you meant. That's very interesting.

Mr. Vigneault, you put your finger on a very sensitive point. I've been emphasizing it since the start of the consultations. That is to say that I don't really need to emphasize, but I often come back to the same question.

You expressed in one or two sentences exactly [Technical difficulties - Editor], that is to say when you spoke about flexible programs, complementary programs. You said that one level that imposes its vision on the others was not necessary. We heard about that concern in a number of provinces, but not everywhere. There is still this annoying tendency, even within the committee and sometimes in government backrooms: the wish to centralize is expressed because it's thought that that's the best solution.

I want to remind everyone that, as regards the first component of the Agricultural Policy Framework, that is exactly what has happened. Extensive consultations were conducted, and the minister of the time, Mr. Vanclief, ultimately said that that was the Agricultural Policy Framework.

In Quebec, we realized that, although a lot of things were said during the consultations, those things did not appear in the Agricultural Policy Framework, which was imposed. This Ottawa-knows-best attitude still exists. I don't believe it's bad faith on the part of political decision-makers or even government officials and so on. They sincerely think this is probably the best solution. They know what is good for the people and they're going to implement it. However, we're conducting consultations as we're doing today, as the government has also done, because we want to know people's opinions.

Which is what you often repeat. I'd also like you to provide examples, with regard to the Agricultural Policy Framework, that show that we have our hands tied, that this has been imposed on us and that show that flexibility in programs and decentralization would be the best solutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Vigneault.

[Maurice Vigneault]

If we ourselves [Technical difficulties - Editor] the Agricultural Policy Framework, that would have been extremely simple: our organization would have suggested that the federal government send the money to Quebec for us to manage it. That may seem simplistic, but it simply would have looked like that.

I don't want to engage in politics, partisanship or whatever. That's not my role. I want people to understand that we are managed by various levels of government at various levels: federal, provincial, regional, RCM and municipal. There are five levels of government above us, in addition to a host of collective organizations that try to find solutions in the field.

That's pleasant, but, in general for this model for governing our society to be functional and efficient—that's not inappropriate; it's appropriate—collaboration among these various levels is absolutely necessary. That would enable us not only to have a promising general Canadian vision, but also to adapt it to each particular regional or sub-regional situation based on issues and realities.

If there is no collaboration between all levels of government, it becomes complicated, costs a fortune and doesn't achieve a lot of results. It may be the CAIS program, but also a host of areas in our everyday lives where the levels of government pose a problem. There are these areas where coherence between the actions of some and those of others comes about with difficulty, where one prevents the other from touching its private preserve, while the other wants to impose a particular thing because... We're wasting our time; it's not efficient. So for pity's sake...

I've elected people to all levels, and every morning I pray that they'll agree on something. That prayer comes right after: Protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maurice Vigneault]

The levels of government must talk to each other and find efficient solutions in the field.

I don't want to engage in politics. I'm sending a message to all parties, to all levels. There's no reeve here. If there was one, I'd say that to him as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Thanks, André. Your time has expired.

Before we suspend, I wanted to get a clarification, because Monsieur Vigneault just talked about too much regulation and too much government. We've had a lot of discussion over the last week and a half about needing to have a stronger central policy in Canada for agriculture, yet Monsieur Lemieux talked about stronger regulations. He's not opposed to more regulations. So how do we reconcile that comment, when we have one industry that wants more regulation and farmers in general are saying we're drowning in red tape?

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux]

I didn't hear Mr. Vigneault say that there were too many regulations. I heard him say that there were a number of levels of regulation. He was asking that people be able to talk to each other and exchange views in order to come to a satisfactory result for producers. I didn't hear him say that there were too many regulations.

As far as we're concerned, as citizens—I told you this earlier—we could say the same thing about the governments that govern us: there are too many regulations. You have to go beyond that and see to the promotion of a living regional agriculture in Canada.

The government should therefore ask itself what it can do that is as economic as possible in order to keep these people in place, while enabling them to enjoy living conditions similar to those of society, to those of people we live beside every day. It should ask itself what it can give the agricultural producer to make him a full-fledged citizen in his community, in the same respect as a teacher, journalist or someone who works in any trade. It should ask itself what it can give him, given the risks he must take. Let's think about weather conditions, the unknown aspects of the market, globalization. The government should ask itself what it can give him that is as economic as possible. That's the question.

In this context, a form of regulation is necessary to enable us, as producers, to face everything that comes from outside the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have one question for our young farmers.

I'm a farmer from Manitoba, a cow-calf operator. Up until two years ago, I was able to still participate in the Manitoba young farmer loan program, through which I actually received a rebate on a percentage of my interest every year. That definitely helped, but I'm already thinking ahead to the next generation—I have kids, and I know my oldest daughter is interested in farming—and trying to developing policy to ensure that those farms can transfer.

Barry had a pretty good idea that maybe we need something like the CMHC program for first-time homeowners. Maybe we need to do something similar to that degree in agriculture. We do have the Farm Credit Canada corporation that's been out there. Possibly we should be putting together some sort of a capital trust program through them to help young farmers get kick-started.

Have things like that been looked at in Quebec? What specific provincial programs can you benefit from?

[Benoit Martin]

In Quebec, La Financière agricole manages what's called the financial support for farm succession program. These start-up grants are paid based on the level of training that the young people have achieved. This encourages young people to get training. For example, the grants to college diploma holders are $40,000, and a certain form of interest rate protection can be added during the first years; once again that's based on the level of training. We think these initiatives could be put in place in the other provinces to support the next generation.

We also thought of another thing: the creation of a retirement fund for agricultural producers. As a young producer, I could already start investing in a fund, so that, once the transfer occurs, I won't be forced to rely on the value of my business in order to retire. Then I can pick out a certain part of my fund and thus request a smaller amount from my successor once he is established. That could be something interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Just as a point of interest, world population and intergenerational transfer of farms is a systemic problem worldwide. Europe has been trying to deal with it. I know Switzerland has put in place that a farm unit is a farm unit and it has to stay in the family or be transferred as a farm unit, essentially making it impossible to grow those farm operations. We're seeing a lot of those Swiss farmers actually coming to Canada, and I have a lot in my riding in Manitoba, because they didn't have that chance to grow and expand and improve their livelihoods. They felt there was more opportunity here in Canada than they had back in Switzerland. We always have to be cognizant of that fact that the policies we institute may always have a downside. The CAIS program's a good example of the downside. It didn't actually work for everybody.

Anyway, I do appreciate all of your interventions today and your taking time out of your busy schedules to help us form our report, which we'll report back to the House of Commons later this spring.

With that, we're going to suspend. For those of you who need to get out of your rooms, I'd recommend that you do it right now. We will reconvene at 10:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting back to order.

I want to welcome to the table three representatives who are going to speak to us today from the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Côte-du-Sud—Louis Desjardins, Hervé Dancause, and Charles Proulx—as well as Hélène Méthot, who is with the Centre d'expertise en production ovine du Québec.

I ask that all witnesses keep their opening comments to ten minutes or less.

Mr. Desjardins, President of the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Côte-du-Sud, you have 10 minutes, please.

[Louis Desjardins, President, Union des producteurs agricoles de la Côte-du-Sud]

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be with you.

The Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud thanks you for this opportunity to outline its concerns and the expectations of agricultural producers in our region. This shows us that you're interested in proceeding with the renewal of the Agricultural Policy Framework.

In this document, we take the liberty of first introducing the regional federation. Then we state our concerns and recommendations in support of the family agricultural business model in Quebec. The themes addressed focus on developing the profession and the skilled labour shortage.

The Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud is a non-profit organization whose objective is the defence of the interests of agricultural producers established in its territory. As of March 22 of this year, the regional federation represents 1,389 family agricultural businesses operated by 1,945 agricultural producers. Within the federation's structure, producers are grouped under seven core unions and 14 specialized unions and services: maple syrup production, lambs and sheep, farmers, cattle, wood, commercial crops, horticultural crops, milk, potatoes, hogs, succession, poultry, agricultural advisory groups of the South Shore.

The Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud offers various services to its producers: agricultural employment centre, agricultural prevention, land use advisory services, environment and wildlife, regional cooperation and development, training, facilitation, information and support for union affiliates, promotion and development of the profession, etc.

Since 1998, it has also offered the services of an agri-environmental professional whose role it is to make producers aware of the importance of adopting sustainable agricultural practices to promote the sustainability of water, air and soil resources in the territory. It also supports producer coalitions in projects designed to solve problems specific to their production.

The Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud overlaps two administrative regions, Chaudière-Appalaches and the Lower St. Lawrence. The territory includes, from west to east, the RCMs of Kamouraska, Montmagny, L'Islet, Kamouraska and part of Rivière-du-Loup, as well as the territory of Témiscouata. Covering the municipalities of Berthier-sur-Mer to the west, to the eastern end of Rivière-du-Loup, and bounded by the St. Lawrence River to the north and by the U.S. border to the south, our regional federation is located between the river and the U.S. border, and farm businesses have to deal with very different conditions. Agricultural producers carry on their occupation on many farms. The businesses are characterized by diversification and especially by management, which is essentially familial.

Agricultural development in recent decades has been characterized by specialization and concentration of agricultural production. These economic trends aim to offer the Canadian population agricultural products of excellent quality and quantity at competitive prices in global markets.

This rapid agricultural evolution has resulted in the growing isolation of agricultural producers. At the same time, we have an urbanizing population which has gradually lost this knowledge of agricultural realities.

Agricultural development in recent years has clearly had secondary effects that must be corrected, and we are working on that. However, we are convinced that the future of agriculture, which is still the fundamental sector of the Canadian economy, depends on restoring the permanent dialogue between agricultural producers and the population.

The Canadian population needs to be reassured about the quality of the food that we produce and that meets the highest standards of quality on the planet. It must acquire a greater knowledge of the production techniques that we use and that, in most cases have been developed and adapted by Canadian researchers.

We must especially make people understand that Canadian agriculture, in particular Quebec agriculture, is carried on today almost essentially by women and men who live in rural areas and live from the operation of their own farms.

As is the case in the various sectors, agricultural businesses have benefited from technological development. They feel pressures from the mergers of large businesses, whether it be in chain food stores, input sellers, banks or post offices.

We believe that it is up to producers to restore this dialogue. However, the means must be adapted to the specific characteristics of a mostly urbanized population. Our contacts with our fellow citizens on the farm are no longer enough. Today we have developed new ways to meet them in their living environment.

Consequently, we are asking the Canadian government to get involved as a partner in events and projects designed to promote agricultural producers and their practical knowledge. These activities can be carried out in both rural and urban areas. We are also asking it to support the specialized Canadian federations in their agricultural products promotion campaign.

With respect to the labour shortage, the agricultural world can rely on a solid, motivated new generation. However, that succession is too small to fill all available positions. And yet agriculture offers a dynamic, varied living environment full of passionate people. Even though the worker's trade is an interesting and motivating occupation in the minds of agricultural producers, the majority of young people nevertheless remain indifferent to the sector. The prejudices and preconceived ideas that the public generally has about agriculture and young people's ignorance of the evolution that the agricultural worker's occupation has undergone in the past 15 years are aspects that reduce the occupation's appeal for young people.

And yet the working conditions now offered in farm businesses are often comparable to those of other sectors of economic activity. Some means of action are currently underway to change this perception and to attract certain young people toward a more informed career choice. However, that is not enough because of the lack of financial resources.

In summary, it is fundamentally important that we continue our work and efforts to promote the agricultural sector to the target clientele in order to secure a more promising future for farmers in terms of labour availability.

That is why we are asking the federal government to provide financial support, together with the provincial government, for the agricultural employment centres, the AECs, in the development of sectoral promotion and development activities to improve people's perceptions of agriculture, to plan and organize a Canada-wide campaign for the valuing and promotion of the agricultural sector and its occupations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dancause.

[Hervé Dancause, President, Comité Finances et Assurance Agricole, Union des producteurs agricoles de la Côte-du-Sud]

Good morning everyone. We thank you for having us.

I'm going to tell you about my concerns and give you my recommendations.

Here are some facts concerning the greater snow goose scaring program. Over the past 40 years, the population of greater snow geese has grown exponentially. Both Canadian and American scientists have concluded that the over-abundance of the species has repercussions for the plant community in gathering and reproducing areas, to the point of threatening their establishment. In addition, there is the pronounced phenomenon of crop depredation, having regard to the fact that, during the seasonal migration, the geese have adopted the farmlands that provide them with valued energy food resources.

In view of the scope of this problem, a scientific report was prepared in 2002, and a strategy for managing the greater snow goose was approved jointly by the signatory governments to the Migratory Birds Convention, Canada and the United States. The federal government, which has responsibility for migrating birds, has adopted a series of measures to meet the objectives of that management strategy.

To protect nordic ecosystems, the provisions implemented by Environment Canada are the liberalization of quotas and hunting techniques, including, since 1999 in Quebec, a spring harvest hunt of the greater snow goose on farmlands. Acknowledging that hunting alone would not be sufficient to control the goose population, the report by the Canada-U.S. expert panel proposed that the government explore other arrangements at the same time. Active control of goose movements in agricultural areas, with the aid of planned disturbance, scaring, was accepted as an additional method.

Furthermore, scaring is the only preventing action authorized with the spring hunt, which makes it necessary to continue this activity. For the South Shore in particular, scaring is also the only measure permitted in the no-hunt areas of Berthier-sur-Mer, Montmagny and Cap-Saint-Ignace.

Agricultural producers have observed that scaring methods are effective complementary measures to synergistic activities. They also meet one of the objectives set by Environment Canada in its draft amendments to the migratory birds regulations, which is to reduce crop damage. In view of the recurrent damage, crop insurance cannot compensate agricultural producers, as a result of which a special program called the Water Fowl Plan was put in place in 1992 to compensate them for losses caused by the passage of geese.

Agricultural producers are also under pressure from external factors such as society's environmental protection expectations and the maintenance of biodiversity, for example. However, we believe that the contribution to maintaining this biodiversity can only be made at the expense of agricultural producers. To the extent that the abundance of geese can generate significant economic activities, for hunting and observation activities, for example, it is normal to expect that individuals who suffer damage can benefit from public assistance programs, both to fund proven prevention measures such as scaring activities and to compensate for crop losses caused by the passage of geese, since they now feed on farmlands.

Here we emphasize that it is important to bear in mind that it is recognized that scaring activities contribute to reducing crop damage and, in so doing, to compensation paid under the Water Fowl Plan. If scaring activities were to be reduced for lack of adequate financial support, it could be foreseen that crop damage would increase, together, inevitably, with related compensation claims.

It is also clear that the damage caused to feed crops is irreversible and affects the performance of dairy, cattle and other farms, not only for the current year, but for a number of years. As a result of the specific characteristics of Quebec farms, the greater snow goose, and even the Canada goose, caused more damage in Quebec before the scaring program and the spring hunt were implemented.

For more than 15 years, the regional federation has set up spring scaring projects. Those projects, together with the spring hunt programs, have proven themselves and made it possible to reduce crop damage. On the other hand, every year, we are still uncertain about federal government financial support.

Consequently, the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud asks that the Canadian government renew funding for the greater snow goose scaring project to protect crops, enabling producers suffering recurring damage caused by the geese to receive financial assistance through the regional federation to pay the cost of organized geese scaring activities. This project, under a contribution agreement between Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec, for the management of the funds, will expire on March 31, 2008, and we ask that it be renewed for another five-year period.

I would like to talk to you about the tax measure and the transferability of farm businesses. For a number of years now, the Union des producteurs agricoles has been working with the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec to find various solutions to keep farm succession active. Beyond efforts made to develop agricultural employment, and interest young people in taking over or staying in agriculture, the various levels of government must show a more pronounced interest in putting tax programs and measures in place to facilitate and promote the transfer of farm businesses between relatives or non-relatives.

For a number of businesses located in the municipalities south of the RCMs of L'Islet and Montmagny, the phenomenon is even more obvious, since farm businesses are often isolated. The exodus of young people is thus felt more strongly, and the services offered are more limited. In addition, the investment credit is not applicable for those two RCMs, which are readily comparable in economic terms with the number of municipalities in the resource regions such as the Lower St. Lawrence and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Similarly, our region used to receive transportation assistance. That support enabled our businesses to remain competitive with those of the central regions.

Consequently, the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud is asking the Canadian government: to put in place tax or other measures favouring the transfer of farm businesses, instead of their dismantling; to consider expanding, for the RCMs of L'Islet and Montmagny, the territory for the application of the investment tax credit to farm businesses; a support measure that is similar to the accelerated capital cost allowance recently adopted in the last federal budget; and to support farm businesses so that they can remain competitive with businesses located near the major centres.

As regards income security, agriculture has always been and today still is an important economic sector for regional development in Quebec and the other provinces. Even though this sector no longer occupies the role of virtually sole driver of regional development, as it did in the past, it nevertheless still plays a primary role. In Quebec, and elsewhere in the world, it would be difficult and virtually impossible to design a regional development plan without necessarily thinking about the agricultural producers who are at the centre of the action.

Agriculture in our region contributes to wealth and job creation. According to the figures published in 2004 by the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MAPAQ, it may be seen that, in Chaudière-Appalaches, the RCMs of Montmagny and L'Islet contribute appreciably the same percentages of regional GDP, 4% for Montmagny and 4.1% of L'Islet. The RCMs of Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup and Témiscouata contribute respectively 26%, 13% and 12% of agricultural GDP.

Despite the fact that these figures clearly attest to the agricultural sector's outstanding contribution to the economic health of the regions, it would be desirable to include in the analysis its undeniable contribution to the development of other sectors related to agriculture upstream, that is input and service suppliers, and downstream, the carriers, processors, distributors, retailers and restaurant operators, in measuring the size and entire economic scope of the sector.

It has been possible to maintain a dynamic agricultural sector in all regions of Quebec, even those that are isolated, as a result of our collective marketing tools and income security programs. Net farm income has constantly declined over the years. Even though this income crisis has spread to all types of production, it is not experienced in the same way by all producers. It must be recognized that the situation is not brilliant in supply-managed types of production, but they do better than all the others, thanks to supply management or the joint plan system. Once again, this situation demonstrates the importance of the union tools that Quebec has and argues in favour of keeping them.

Furthermore, we know that transportation is one of a farm business's big expenditure items. However, through our collective marketing tools, we note a certain fairness in the sharing of transportation expenses among producers. That same fairness is also applied at other levels, thus making it possible to share marketing costs, whether farmers are in Saint-Just-de-Bretenières, Saint-Athanase, Kamouraska or Montmagny. It is also the salvation of many family businesses in the region located far from the processing centres, which are often in the National Capital Region or in Montreal.

Consequently, the Fédération de l'Union des producteurs agricoles de la Côte-du-Sud asks the Canadian government: to maintain the pillars of Canada's agricultural policy, which are the collective marketing acts, the supply management system and income security tools; to deny any concession on the reduction of customs tariffs; to defend and promote collective marketing and supply management internationally as fair models; to develop the orientations of Canada's agricultural policy in complementary fashion with those of the provinces; to leave enough flexibility to maintain and design Quebec programs; to assign the delivery of agricultural programs to organizations already established in Quebec, among others; and to grant the necessary budgets to the Canadian agricultural sector so that it can remain dynamic and competitive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Proulx.

[Charles Proulx, President, Comité aménagement du territoire, environnement et faune]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I have two subjects to present to you: new productions and the environment.

Let's start with new productions. New food habits are making it possible to develop, in some of our regions, new types of production that respond to these new markets. For some people, they represent an opportunity to set up in agriculture and to develop a business that develops the agricultural potential of the community.

As a general rule, the people who invest in these businesses are left to their own devices. They are continually coping with the under-financing of their businesses. Available knowledge is limited and not very accessible, and technical support is virtually non-existent.

Furthermore, when we want to market these processed or unprocessed products, we come up against a restriction by the food chains, but especially against unfair competition from imported products which do not meet the same rules as are imposed on us, be they environmental, phytosanitary or concerning food safety.

The South Shore region currently has many centres of expertise such as the biofood incubator, the CDBQ, which can therefore provide a major contribution to agricultural producers. However, all the centres have to remain in the forefront and must therefore be supported financially by the various levels of government.

Lastly, if consumers were better informed of all the food safety rules to which agricultural producers and processors are subject, they would choose Canadian food products more often. To that, we can add all the favourable impacts caused by an information campaign on the economic importance of buying here at home.

To do this, the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud has developed a trademark in recent years: it distributes bags to people identifying local purchases. We usually give them out, but, in view of the major financial crisis we're currently going through, we are pleased to sell them these days. Those interested should know that, in view of our financial situation, we sell them for $5.

Consequently, the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud asks the Canadian government: to recognize the importance of new and emerging productions and products that rely on development of the resources of the community; to make resources and research and development equipment accessible to support certain farm businesses that must design or adapt production techniques; to maintain and even increase its support so that research and development organizations can remain dynamic in their region, such as the CDBQ, CQEPP and the Centre d'expertise en production porcine; to support the creation of a centre of expertise for cattle; to maintain funding and support for food monitoring and quality control management agencies and HACCP standards—CFIA, Agri-Traçabilité Québec, specialized federations for putting quality assurance programs in place—to exercise better customs control in order to prevent any clandestine introduction of agricultural and agri-food products; to require that all imported food products meet the same standards as those set for Canadian and Quebec producers.

Now let's talk about the environment. You're not unaware that the Province of Quebec has extremely strict environmental regulations for the agricultural sector. Producers must invest significant sums in order to meet these new requirements. Agricultural development in our regions is currently being slowed and, in many cases, that is as a result of these new regulations and various pressures. For example, in hog production, Quebec, which was a world leader in the early 1990s and was cited as an example, has today virtually become an object of ridicule. That's proof that things have changed over the years.

We expect the federal government to invest to more in research, development and the introduction of technology in the environmental field. We need new technologies in the treatment, storage and application of solid and liquid manure.

For some years now, certain soil cultivation activities have been considered harmful to the environment. The usual culprits include manure and liquid manure applications, and more particularly hog production. Hog production, which was at the origin of the first Portrait agroenvironnemental des fermes du Québec in 1987, is singled out today. The fact that hog production is criticized has led all producers to ask themselves the question: which type of production will be considered as a culprit next?

Before it's too late, it's important that we all work together to provide accurate information on the mode of operation and framework governing agriculture.

Who has the obligation to make these adjustments requested for certain methods used in agricultural production? Who will pay the cost to protect this collective asset which is the environment? Is it agricultural producers alone?

In Quebec, a lot of money has been invested for land analysis. For example, consider orthophotographs. An image came to mind earlier: in watching a James Bond film in which a satellite takes a picture of the Earth, you can see someone tanning on a building or committing a theft. The same thing exists in agriculture. With this data, we have an overview of a plot of land. We can see how the drainage works and how crops and buffer strips are behaving. We need to shed light on these tools and study them in greater depth. We can't do that alone.

Producers have done these things in recent years in order to distinguish themselves and become models for other regions. These sums have been invested in order to protect the environment and ensure it survives. Government authorities have an obligation to take the history of Quebec's agriculture into account and to ensure that the policies that are implemented will make it possible to maintain and develop this sector.

Consequently, the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud asks the Canadian government: to increase its budgets for research and development and for support for the introduction of new technologies; to use the necessary means to ensure that standards for the import of agricultural products to Canada are as strict as those currently in effect in the country, mainly with regard to the environment; to increase and ensure the long-term funding of the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec, the CDAQ; to provide financial support for the implementation of the strategic agri-environmental plans of the Fédération de l'UPA de la Côte-du-Sud; to provide refundable tax credits for all investments in work performed by agricultural producers to preserve the environment; to provide financial support for the development of new environmental protection analysis methods such as LIDAR, which I talked about briefly earlier; to extend the Greencover Canada Program, to provide financial support to agricultural producers in their development and environmental work.

The development of our rural community is a major concern for our producers. Agriculture and agri-food definitely remain important links. That is why the federal government must take concrete action in the above areas of activity.

In conclusion, with your permission, we would like to present to you the vision for the future of the South Shore's farmers, the result of the thinking of those producers in 1986. The declaration reads as follows:

We farmers of the South Shore declare that there is a future for agriculture in our region and that we are proud and passionate in carrying on our occupation. We hope it is known, recognized and valued for its primary purpose, which is to feed the population here and elsewhere. In our agriculture, all types of production of all sizes of business will have their place to the extent they meet sustainable development criteria, that is criteria for a form of development that is economically viable, environmentally friendly and socially acceptable.

We undertake to contribute to the land use and development of our region through the development of agriculture. Our future depends on the vitality of the people who live from our industry and who wish to get involved in it for their own good and that of their communities. We want the population to appreciate and be proud, as we are, of the quality and diversity of the products of our agriculture. We will make every effort to ensure that listening, dialogue and mutual respect among producers in the community are central to development—

We want to share this vision with our government partners, training institutions, local and regional, agricultural and urban communities as well as the agri-food industry.

We hope this presentation will enable the members of your committee to gain a clearer understanding of the specific issues in agriculture and thus to promote the renewal of the Agricultural Policy Framework in a manner consistent with the needs and expectations of the agricultural producers of the South Shore.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Méthot.

[Hélène Méthot, Researcher, Centre d'expertise en production ovine du Québec]

Thank you for travelling here to get to know our industry a little better.

I represent the Centre d'expertise en production ovine du Québec, the CEPOQ, which is thus concerned with sheep production in Canada.

To give you a brief profile, there are nearly one million ewes in Canada, and Quebec has approximately one-quarter of that number. We are the second largest producer after Ontario. We monitor each other very closely because, at the start of the year, we were number one. Sheep production is highly intensive in the eastern part of the country.

You should also know that we are spoiled in Quebec. As a result of a reversal of the situation, we now have a research centre. Ten years ago, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which had a research farm at La Pocatière, decided to withdraw from those operations. So, in order not to miss the opportunity to work on improving their production, producers joined forces and went looking for partners, including François Castonguay, an AAFC researcher, as well as people from the federal government to create the Centre d'expertise en production ovine. They were able to take over the facilities from AAFC, which assigned them to the Centre de développement bioalimentaire du Québec.

CEPOQ has been working in sheep production for 10 years. We have set ourselves the mission of improving the profitability of sheep farm businesses in Quebec. In the past few years, there has been an openness on the part of other Canadian provinces as well as a number of partnerships.

We are a very small team of some 10 persons. We essentially have people who have training in agronomy, masters-level research, veterinarians and agricultural technicians. We also have a research herd of approximately 350 head, which has been improved over the past 10 years for research purposes.

With a small team, we have no choice but to develop all kinds of partnerships in order to tap into outside expertise that will enable us somewhat to broaden our aims and increase the potential impact for our sector. We've worked very closely with the people from AAFC, MAPAQ and universities. The main and most frequently recurring collaborative efforts are with the University of Guelph and Laval University. We are currently working on implementing a genetics project with the University of Nova Scotia. In short we are developing various partnerships.

As for CEPOQ's board of directors, AAFC and MAPAQ are members along with producers representing the producer associations.

In recent years, AAFC has somewhat withdrawn from sheep production research, but not completely. On the other hand, as regards investment in sheep production, particularly for research—which concerns me—in the organization I work for, there is very little direct participation in the furtherance of our work.

I must emphasize that the investments in the Conseil pour le développement de l'agriculture du Québec, the CDAQ, which supports research projects, makes an enormous contribution to sheep production. We are lucky to have a number of projects in partnership with that agency, which receives federal funding. In that sense, the federal government is active in sheep production. However, as far as direct support goes, through the same kind of partnerships as the one we have with MAPAQ, there is very little intervention.

In addition, in recent years, Quebec and Ontario have developed a breeding program called GenOvis. A somewhat awkward parallel can be drawn with Quebec's dairy herds analysis program, the PATLQ.

The idea of the GenOvis breeding program is to take production data from Quebec farms and use them to guide selection decisions for the herd so as to improve the performance of our animals. So, as I was saying earlier, Quebec and Ontario have made major investments in recent years to develop this breeding program.

Last year, AAFC provided financial support to the Canadian Sheep Breeders' Association, the CSBA, thus permitting the expansion and opening of the program to all Canadian provinces. However, the project wound up last March.

We have a national breeding program that is internationally recognized. We've been invited to the World Sheep and Wool Congress, which will be held in Mexico next July. We're going to present our new breeding program, which is the envy of a number of other nations, as well as sheep production in Canada. These are market openings for us. This leadership in breeding is one aspect that enables us to get our foot in the door. At the same time, we take advantage of these opportunities to present our industry, our agriculture. Morocco has also shown interest and raised questions concerning our breeding program. This is a tool that gives us some international outreach, and that enables us to go beyond mere genetics to talk about our agriculture in a broader sense.

The project is completed, and Quebec and Ontario won't be able to hold this program out to the other provinces for very long, since it's the provincial governments, in part, and the producers of those provinces that are funding it. So there is definitely a need for financial involvement by the federal government to ensure this national breeding program is maintained and developed.

In addition, the Quebec market covers barely 50% of total sheep products consumption here in the country. So there is enormous room for our production to develop. The problem is that we're fighting some major players, New Zealand in particular, and Australia. Incredible sums of money are invested in research and development in those countries. They are advancing very quickly. Historically, we have always had an advantage over frozen products entering Canada. However, with research and development in recent years, they have managed to develop methods for supplying fresh products. By “fresh”, we mean products that are not frozen. These are products from animals that have been slaughtered several weeks earlier. That's a bit scary in itself because those products are now entering Canada by the cargo load.

We are a small industry that offers a not negligible agricultural alternative for the support of Canada's regions, and we are facing a player with financial resources that are slightly unbalanced relative to ours.

In that sense, as I mentioned earlier, CDAQ is giving us a big hand, and that's extremely appreciated. That has enabled us to develop research products for improving the quality of our products, for production techniques and to improve the efficiency of Canadian and Quebec farms. However, investment would be welcome in order to step up the pace somewhat and to be able to stand up to the competition which is coming on at a fast pace.

So, to simplify, we can say that sheep production needs are very great. If we don't want to lose our credibility, special attention must be paid to priorities and breeding, particularly for the GenOvis program. That program must be improved and consolidated. Lastly, our businesses must clearly be supported in their development and consolidation in the area of research.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly this business with sheep and lambs is something new for our committee—we haven't heard much about that in the past—but I'd like to start off by saying, first of all, it was an excellent presentation. I think most of us recognize that given our ethnic markets especially, we don't produce enough lamb in Canada, but rely on others.

In terms of the competition, and in terms of what price you get in Montreal, or wherever, for your lambs, how close is your price to what you need compared with what, let's say, the New Zealanders or Aussies can put in here? Are you competitive price-wise?

[Hélène Méthot]

Yes, we are.

It's directly because people have the wrong idea that ours was really higher than the New Zealand price, but just recently we were at

l'Hôtel L'Oiselière, in Lévis,

and they had this idea, but when you start to negotiate with some distributors like

Berac Inc. or Agneaux de l'Est,

you can get prices that are pretty close to that. Even more, we have specific original products to offer, which is really important for consumers, because lamb has a high value,

that is to say that it's a high-end product,

and usually our clients appreciate knowing it's been produced locally, and the way it has been produced.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

With your concern for genetics—and there are many different factors with sheep in terms of lambing and so forth—what is your vision on genetics? What are you trying to do? What's your main goal?

[Hélène Méthot]

When you look at the situation, we have 140 different breeds in Canada, so that is the first concern. Besides, we are not promoting a unique way to produce lamb, we're promoting a financially viable way to produce lamb, and it has to be with respect for the breeders'

strengths and weaknesses,

and it has to be produced with respect to the local possibilities.

Regarding genetics, what we are trying to sell is that you need to breed to get a higher average daily gain, and that's one point. We are also adding ultrasound measurements of back fat and loin measurements to reduce the back fat on lamb, which was a bit of a problem over past years because consumers thought it was a little bit too fatty. It's a problem for our industry, but we're working on that.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

In Quebec, do you have a way to sell your wool?