[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, December 11, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, everyone, to the meeting today.
I've just had a request from one of the press to take a photo or two when people are around the table, for use in articles. I've been told their snapshot camera doesn't have sound attached to it, so if you see someone taking a picture, the press is taking a picture; that's the purpose.
Just before we start with the witnesses, I want to remind the committee of the meeting with the minister tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.
Is it possible, Elwin - I know Wayne is available - to get together the steering committee? This is at the spur of the moment. If we could get together for even a few minutes tomorrow morning to discuss where we might go on a letter to someone, or whatever after yesterday's meeting... What's your schedule, Elwin, for tomorrow morning? Is that possible?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): I think I'm on duty tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The Chairman: So if we could tee up something between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. tomorrow for whether we just meet...
Mr. Hermanson: I don't have my calendar for tomorrow, but I think that's okay.
The Chairman: Okay. We'll ask Marc to see what he can work out tomorrow. If not, we're not going to have a chance to have any discussion after yesterday's meeting on where we go next on that issue.
Again, I welcome everyone here today. We have a number of presentations today, and, as usual, everyone has been asked to be as concise as possible.
We are going to start then with the issue we're discussing today, rural development in Canada. The committee sent out a press release last spring, suggesting that if groups or individuals wished to come before the committee and make some comments on rural development in Canada, we would be open to the possibility to work it into our schedule of committee meetings. Today's meeting is a result of that.
There were four groups in particular, and all of you who made that request are here today. So we welcome you here.
We will start first with Jack Wilkinson and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Again, Jack, welcome to the meeting today.
Mr. Jack Wilkinson (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you very much. I'd like to introduce Loretta Smith, the chair of our committee from Ontario. She'll be giving a substantive part of the brief. I'm beginning to feel that we have met so often in the last little while that it may have lost some of the impact of new and fresh ideas. So Loretta is going to start off.
Was that a good move on my part?
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Jack, let me assure you, you never lose your impact. I don't know about the new and fresh ideas, but you've always had the impact.
Go ahead, Loretta. Welcome.
Ms Loretta Smith (Eastern Womens' Representative, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): The federal government's key focus is on job creation, so we're going to centre our brief on how rural development can be linked to job creation.
Of Canada's total employment, 14% is on agriculture jobs. Computers and technology right now are touted as economic growth industries, but they're not job creators. Agriculture is a job creator and it is an economic growth industry right now. Just in two provinces alone, Ontario and Quebec, between November 1995 and November 1996, 42,000 new jobs were created. Of these, 16,000 were created in Ontario and 24,000 in Quebec.
Agriculture isn't the only industry in the rural economy that is a job creator. There are 151,000 jobs in mining, 53,000 in minerals and fuels, and 14,000 more in the manufacturing of petroleum. Then 105,000 are attributed to commercial fisheries, with a $3.3 billion value, and 75,000 in forestry, with a timber value of $1.25 billion. So as you can see, the rural economy does have jobs; it can be a job creator.
The problems we have right now in anything involving rural economic development are basically infrastructure problems. We don't have access, equality or parity in either telecommunications or gasification. There is the problem of access to capital, the problem of continuing education, and a problem encouraging entrepreneurial developments in the rural economy.
.1540
The government must set an environment that inspires confidence in investment in a rural community. That's where we think rural economic development can take place.
Jack's going to talk about the needs we have.
Mr. Wilkinson: Okay, thanks, Loretta.
One area where we think the federal government has to move is away from the attitude that rural development is strictly a subsection of agriculture and food.
We know that over the last number of months there have been attempts by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to broaden out. To some extent, a rural committee has been set up to deal with a number of issues. But in our opinion, if we're going to really look at this issue seriously, it's now time to have a minister of rural affairs.
We're not talking of a large bureaucracy being created around it. But very clearly, in our mind, there are many areas where to tag this on to any minister's responsibility. That means it's going to be basically at the tail-end of activities. This is in no way a negative run at Mr. Goodale. It's just almost impossible to have the type of focus needed for this very large issue, to deal with it. As well, it is our sense that much more can be done than has been done.
I think it's fair to say that people back away from rural development for a simple reason. It is such a big topic, and people have expectations of dollar signs every time you talk about what needs to happen in rural development. In our approach there are many things the federal government can do that do not require big expenditures. It's the way of doing business that is critical. I'm not implying for a second that some money would not be required.
You do have control over regulatory frameworks, where you can insist that a certain level of services be made available in the areas Loretta has talked about, for example, telecommunications and other areas. Depending on the structure we have in agriculture, we can make some very serious decisions on whether the agri-food industry develops in the urban areas, or whether we make attempts to develop it more in the rural areas so that we have the philosophy and job creation in those areas as well. Infrastructure program expenditures can deal with a number of areas.
Over the last period FCC's mandate has been expanded to do some work in rural areas, and to expand their activity there. We think that is a plus, and think more linkages can be done between them and the Federal Business Development Bank to share activities and coordinate activities much more.
In their brief to the finance committee, the Federal Business Development Bank said that they have 10% of their portfolio in agriculture and agriculture lending. However, from the work we've done and the information we've seen, we think that is quite a stretch, and possibly to the point of maybe being an overstatement on their part. We think much more can be done in that whole area to encourage activity.
As well, quite frankly, there are going to be some initiatives relating to investment tax credits. We think research tax credits are at the point soon - if not now - where the federal government will have the opportunity to loosen up just a little on the tax credit side of things, and encourage activity through those means to spur activity, and move it ahead.
The whole area of trade is very important. Quite frankly, you would be disappointed if I didn't bring up the area of cost recovery at this time. The other day Mr. Weaver from the Meat Council made something very clear, and we certainly will be looking into this very seriously with them. If you take his numbers, and his estimation that 1.3 million live hogs, and an increasing number of those over the last couple of years, are in fact going to the U.S., and coming back as processed product... I'm not sure of the degree of accuracy, but in his assessment of the cost regime building up in the processing sector, there are going to be very serious ramifications down the road.
If we create a system that is too costly for processors to work, in an area where everybody is talking about value-adding agriculture exports and increasing the capacity of agriculture with the explosion in the Far East markets... It would just be a crime if we stick to selling raw product, and not create the jobs and infrastructure that could be there potentially, as this is one of the biggest employers.
Those numbers out of Quebec and Ontario are not our numbers. They were in the media, in Quebec newspapers, and we'll be tracking down their sources and study further. But it is incredibly good news to see that growth in the agrifood industry over the last period.
.1545
With that, we think the coordination of strategy, a number of areas on the industrial side and for the farm, a host of areas where the government has the ability to move, which are critical from our point of view... It is a very serious issue. What was talked about, as far as the ability of moving into this new age of communication, really decentralizing urban areas, giving people the flexibility of a new generation of technology and communication, not having to be in urban areas, is not happening in many cases. So much can be done, and it's critical to have that focus within a particularly small ministry that will be the advocate of rural Canada, and we hope do some great things over the next short time.
We would like to think that more can be done than a public relations exercise on what is being done now.
Thank you very much. We'd be happy to answer questions in the future.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much, Jack.
The way we've done it in the committee in the recent past is to have all the presentations. I find that by the time we give members a chance to answer a question, we go all the way around and we use up a lot of time, whereas the members may later want to make a question and a couple of people answered at once.
So we'll move on to the supply-managed industry. Cynthia, are you making the only presentation, or are there two or three short ones?
Ms Cynthia Currie (General Manager, Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency): This is a partnership, so it will be divided in three, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Okay. Are you beginning?
Ms Currie: Felix will start.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Felix.
[Translation]
Mr. Felix Destrijker (Chairman, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, in the name of our five national organizations represented here today, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before your committee.
My name is Felix Destrijker and I am the chairman of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. I live in Saint Ludger, Quebec, a small village with a population of around 1,200, in the Beauce region. That's where I operate my business. It is also where the revenues from my business are reinvested, to create more jobs, more revenue, leading to a healthier, more vibrant community. This is also where I live with my wife and my children.
The setting that I just described is quite typical of what our today's presentation is about. You surely noticed that I didn't come here alone. I have with me Ken Huttema, the chairman of the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, and Cynthia Currie, the executive director of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.
Unfortunately, because of other engagements, the spokespersons for the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency and for the Dairy Farmers of Canada could not be here with us today.
I would like to set out some of the issues which we think are relevant to this discussion about rural development. Let me first put forward a few data showing the importance of our respective productions for the economy of our rural communities.
Over the years, the Canadian orderly marketing industries have evolved and will continue to evolve to meet Canadians' demands.
Innovative marketing of our products has played a major role in our success. That has translated into tangible benefits at all levels of our industries, both in rural Canada and in urban areas where processors, distributors and restaurateurs benefit from a steady, fresh and local supply of high quality products.
Orderly marketing and the sustainable returns usually associated with it help create a stable economic climate at the rural community level enabling the community to flourish both economically as well as socially.
The stability provided by the orderly marketing of our products has contributed significantly to the economic stability of rural Canada and has in fact become the backbone of the economy in several rural communities.
.1550
Together, our primary sectors represent more than 31,000 individual farm businesses. Total sales at the farm gate amounted to some $5.3 billion in 1995, representing 20% of all farm gate revenues generated in Canada.
In some regions, such as Ontario, our production amounts to over 60% of the total revenues generated by the livestock sector. At the retail level, that is at the grocery and food service levels, this translates into national sales of approximately $12.6 billion.
I think it is worth noting that all this is done with no reliance on government grants or subsidies.
It is not only the domestic legislation that affects agriculture. Unquestionably, international trade agreements have also a significant impact on our businesses.
Recently, our industries were challenged by the Americans before a NAFTA panel who had been charged to look into the legitimacy of Canada's import tariffs on eggs, poultry and dairy products. As you know, that panel found that Canada's position was right. Moreover, the panel's decision was unanimous. It shows the soundness of Canada's arguments.
Canada was perfectly right in applying those tariffs, as we already knew, and as the Americans knew too. Those are very good news for Canadians. The Sword of Damocles which was hanging over our producers' head is gone. We may now move to something else.
So, we all thank the federal government and the federal members of Parliament who strongly supported the integrity of our supply managed agricultural industry. We must also mention that our ten provincial governments played a major part in that victory. Each one of them supported federal efforts, and the same can be said of our organizations.
With your permission, I will now invite Ms Cynthia Currie, the executive director of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, to deliver the rest of our presentation.
[English]
Ms Currie: Thank you, Felix.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, bonjour.
I will speak today about the chicken industry as an example of what supply management means to rural Canada.
The chicken industry, as you know, has evolved over the last few years. We have responded more and more to the needs of Canadians. As an example, the number of chicken farmers across Canada has increased by 25% in the last 10 years, while the number of all other farms has decreased by some 14%. We're pretty proud of what we've done.
Also, chicken production went up by 45% over the last decade. This means not only are there more farms, but they're also larger and more efficient. In 1995 chicken farming directly employed more than 4,000 Canadian people and generated approximately $1.4 billion in sales at the farm gate level.
The bottom line is chicken is definitely a growth industry. With that growth it brings security and stability to rural Canada.
Let's look at what has happened in the primary and further processing sectors. We have processing and further processing plants in all the regions of Canada. Last year alone, the processing sector, which employs approximately 11,000 Canadians, generated about $1.6 billion in sales at the wholesale level. This then translates into approximately $2.6 billion at the retail level.
In addition to that, more than 15,000 people are employed on our farms and in the processing plants, and of course loads of other people work in the hatcheries, the feed mills and all of the different inputs that go into growing chicken. That job creation process benefits all regions of Canada.
I'd like to give you an example of what this really means. I'll start off with Atlantic Canada, to profile what supply management means in Atlantic Canada. I'll use the community of Saint-François-de-Madawaska in New Brunswick as an example. It's a small community in northern New Brunswick, heart of the New Brunswick chicken industry. In Saint-François you basically have two choices if you want a job: working with chicken or in the furniture industry.
.1555
On the chicken side of things, Saint-François has the only chicken processing plant of significance. There's also a feed mill and a hatchery that supplies chicks to the 20 chicken farmers in that area of the province - 20 chicken farmers. That's half the number of chicken farmers in New Brunswick. Without the chicken industry in Saint-François as much as one worker out of two could lose his or her job.
[Translation]
The federal constituency of Berthier - Montcalm in Quebec, where about a hundred chicken farmers and their families make their living out of that industry, is a good example of what I want to tell you in my comments. Those families are responsible for the production of over 58 million kilograms of chicken, which represents more than 20% of the whole chicken production in the province and some $72 million in farm gate revenues. And that is the actual situation in a Quebec's constituency.
It is also in that constituency that we can find the largest poultry processing plant in Quebec. That plant, which is located in Berthier, hires some 300 workers. The same company also owns a plant in Joliette, where 300 other people are working. In that constituency, there are also several flour-mills, some major hatcheries and several breeder henhouses. That means hundreds of additional jobs that are directly dependent on the grain-fed chicken industry. Thus, our industry is highly important in Quebec.
[English]
Ontario is the largest chicken-producing province. There are over 1,000 chicken farmers in Ontario. They produce approximately 330 million kilograms of chicken, which generates sales of about $400 million a year. About 51 of the 120 poultry processing plants across Canada are situated in Ontario. They employ close to 5,000 people.
As you can see, again, supply management in the chicken industry in Ontario is a pretty powerful industry to have. It brings benefits to both rural and urban Canada.
If I move west, again, chicken is one of the primary products in some of the provinces. In western Canada there are about 840 chicken farmers. A lot of people don't realize that we have so many chicken farmers out west, but I'm here to tell you that we do. These people produce about 265 million kilograms of chicken. That's about 30% of the Canadian level of production. There are also four processing plants in these four western provinces. They hire and employ several hundred people.
The bottom line in this is that you can see that chicken is a growth industry and that the Canadian chicken industry is well distributed across the various regions of Canada. Our industry is expanding. We have begun to tap the growing export market. In 1995 Canada exported 33 million kilograms of chicken, worth about $40 million Canadian. Our level for 1996 is pretty much at the same height.
Canadian chicken is being sold to countries as far away as South Africa and China, and as close to home as Cuba. One of our recent accomplishments in the chicken agency is the finalization of an export policy we developed in close cooperation with the processing community. The objective of this policy is to facilitate planned exports in a way that does not disrupt the domestic marketplace.
As well, we are planning to use this export policy to tap into those niche markets around the world where we can have value-added chicken products going to those countries. By doing that we will create jobs at home instead of shipping our jobs abroad. By encouraging our processors to take advantage of the growing world demand for chicken, the policy will allow the Canadian chicken industry in its entirety to become more competitive through economies of scale, both at the farm and in the processing industry.
That in a nutshell is what the chicken industry is doing, and that in a nutshell is an example of what supply management means to rural Canada, in all regions of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to Ken Huttema, chairman of the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, to wrap up the conclusion of our presentation.
Mr. Ken Huttema (Chairman, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency): Thank you. I'll speak briefly on the trade aspect.
.1600
As Felix pointed out to you earlier, trade agreements have an enormous impact on the continued viability of the supply-managed sectors. As far as the Americans are concerned, we know the fight definitely is not over. As U.S. trade representative Charlene Barshefsky has been quoted: ``Our goal is to get access to the Canadian market for dairy and agricultural products. We will continue to pursue that goal.''
Not one of us is burying our head in the sand. We know this is one fight we won, but they're going to continue coming after us.
The National Milk Producers Federation, a group of U.S. dairy co-ops whose membership accounts for about 65% of the milk sold in the U.S., has indicated that they will not waver on efforts to establish free trade with Canada just because of this misguided panel report.
The writing is on the wall. The American industry and administration do not intend to let the matter end there. This is why we need the continued support of the federal government in ensuring that none of the American attempts to weaken our system are successful. We need that support because agriculture is of significance for the well-being of Canadians in both rural and urban Canada. We believe the stability provided by orderly marketing has contributed to the economic stability of rural Canada and has in fact become the backbone of many rural communities. Our orderly marketing system creates jobs and helps maintain them in Canada.
For these jobs to be maintained in the future we need a sustained commitment by the federal government. We believe this is extremely relevant today, since the first WTO ministerial conference is taking place this week in Singapore. We remain confident that, as in the past, the government will continue to work with our organizations to ensure that the outcome of the next round of WTO negotiations maintains our ability to effectively manage our orderly marketing programs.
Orderly marketing generates important economic activity in rural areas across Canada. We believe these activities must be fully taken into account in the federal policy process. Revenues generated at the farm gate and processing level also benefit those living in urban areas through the creation of thousands of jobs in urban Canada.
Occasionally in the past rural development has meant providing government grants or other types of financial aid. We suggest this is not the way to go in the future. To take full advantage of the potential of the market we need effective participation by government, government that provides a supportive environment through minimal, direct intervention, clear regulations and legislative stability.
On behalf of the 31,000 producers we represent, we would like to thank the members for hearing us this afternoon. We're willing to entertain any questions if time permits.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ken.
Our next presenter is Mr. Bill Poole from Ducks Unlimited.
Bill, welcome to committee.
Mr. Bill Poole (Provincial Agrologist, Ducks Unlimited Canada): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
I had a brief discussion with Mr. McKinnon before the meeting started in which I asked whether he thought it would be a help or a hindrance if I mentioned that he and I were room-mates at Brandon University for a year some years ago. We didn't come to any conclusion on that, so I won't mention it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Maybe you'd want to speak to some of us later and we'll fill you in. Perhaps we'll pass that judgment on Mr. McKinnon for you.
Mr. Poole: Barring climatic catastrophe or massive human error, Canada's rural landscape can be expected to sustain agricultural production into perpetuity. Every Canadian is absolutely dependent on the food and fibre that's produced on that landscape to satisfy many of their daily life requirements. The sale of surplus agricultural products provides high-quality food for people in many other countries. Those sales also make a major contribution to the Canadian economy.
Now, those are truths that I'm sure are self-evident to the members of this committee. What may not be so obvious, however, is the fact that this same rural landscape produces many other goods that also contribute to the health and well-being of Canadians. The benefits from most of them, such as aquifer recharge, flood control, riparian buffer zones, wildlife and biodiversity, occur to society as a whole rather than to the owner of the property that produces them.
A paper entitled Canada's Agricultural and Trade Policies: Implications for Rural Renewal and Biodiversity, which Robert Sopuck prepared for the national round table on the environment and economy in 1993, referred to those other goods as ecological services. Sopuck defined them as non-traded public goods that are produced on privately owned land.
.1605
I'd like to spend a few minutes visiting with you about how a concern for one of those ecological services, the waterfowl habitat, has resulted in a significant rural development program over the past ten years. I do so for one reason: to point out that diversification and value-added processing of agricultural products are not the only available opportunities for rural development.
Ten years ago Canada and the United States signed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan because of a mutual concern for declining waterfowl populations. It was one of the most ambitious environmental agreements ever undertaken. Mexico joined the plan formally in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The document before you called Taking Flight gives a brief overview of the results of the first ten years of the plan's activities.
I'll also be referring to several other publications, which I understand will be circulated to you as soon as translation is completed.
Since I'm most familiar with the plan activities in the prairie provinces, that's the part of the country the majority of my remarks will be focused on.
By way of introduction to those remarks, I should make two brief points. One of them I've already alluded to. In many parts of the prairies the rural landscape produces both agricultural products and waterfowl. The second point is that some land management techniques can benefit both agriculture and wildlife, as a result. That interrelationship has led to much of the success the plan has enjoyed.
How successful has the plan been as a catalyst for rural development? Here are some of the highlights from the information you'll be receiving.
The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy calls it ``a model of a cooperative cross-sectoral approach for conserving biodiversity and sustaining biological resources''.
In their 1995 study entitled ``Agriculture and Sustainable Development: Policy Analysis on the Great Plains'', the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that the plan ``is compatible with and also promotes sustainable agriculture''.
Dr. Richard Gray, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan, concluded in a 1992 study that ``it's clear from either a provincial or a federal taxpayer perspective the PHJV is a very good investment.'' I should explain that the PHJV stands for the prairie habitat joint venture, which is the largest regional program under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Dr. Ray Josephson of the University of Manitoba interviewed 80 southwestern Manitoba farmers in 1992 to measure the financial impacts of six land use practices that the plan was supporting because they were mutually beneficial to farmers and wildlife. He found that range of conservation practice improved net farm income by $13.27 per acre, per year, exclusive of any government subsidy or plan incentive payment.
Dr. Josephson speculated that if those conservation practices were adopted throughout the 48-municipality planned target area in Manitoba, net farm income could rise by about $50 million annually.
Dr. Jim MacMillan of the University of Manitoba evaluated the economic impact of plan activities in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan for the 1991-94 period. Among his findings were the following: the plan created an estimated 2,362 annual jobs over four years, with 547 of them being outside the prairie provinces; the plan generated more than $103 million of income in the prairie provinces, and another $18 million in the rest of Canada as a result of activity in the prairies; and plan activities increased the gross domestic product of those three provinces by nearly $118 million.
The committee also might be interested to know about Dr. MacMillan's conclusion that the plan created 22 jobs per million dollars of expenditure in Manitoba, compared to 15 jobs per million dollars of expenditure in the infrastructure program.
.1610
In short, the plan has clearly shown that resources, other than agricultural products, can also help fuel rural development. The plan has also worked well for waterfowl. The continental fall flight of ducks was estimated to have been 90 million birds in 1996, and that's an increase of 35 million since 1985.
It is possible to find wins for wildlife at the same time that we're finding wins for agriculture and for rural communities. I would urge you to keep that thought in mind as the committee continues its deliberations on rural development.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Poole.
Our last presenter is Lyle Knutson. I have a staff member who has it spelled that way, but sometimes it's pronounced differently. Welcome to the committee, Lyle, and we look forward to your comments.
Mr. Lyle Knutson (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today on an area that's close to my heart: rural development.
By way of introduction, I farm at a village called Elbow, Saskatchewan, and while I'm not in Mr. Hermanson's riding, I think you can just about see us from your farm.
I farm a grain farm with my wife Gaylene and son Kris, and I've been involved as a volunteer on the Elbow Economic Development Committee, which I'm representing today, since 1991. It's through that process I've developed an interest in rural development.
The year 1991 was very challenging for us in Elbow. I believe we're a microcosm of some of the problems the province was experiencing on a broader basis. The grain trade war between the European Economic Community and the United States was as its peak at that time. It drove down grain prices to some of the lowest levels in history. Crop diversification was still in the experimental stage, and locally we were given notice that our school was about to be closed. There was talk of the grain elevator shutting down. There was talk of our rail line being in jeopardy. Local businesses, including our credit union, were struggling. Some of the land in the area was being given back by farmers.
Out of this, a small group of us got together, and under the direction of the village council we organized an economic development committee. There had never been one in our area at that time. We decided that if anything was going to be done to reverse the trend, we would have to do it ourselves. So we quickly established some short-, medium- and long-term goals in an attempt to diversify our local economy.
We held committee meetings and found the support level to be very positive in the community. Within six months we'd attracted a small manufacturing company, and with the help of some provincial community bonds we raised $1 million to assist in the start-up costs of this company. In the next six months a second community bond of $600,000 was raised, and that was to start an electronic circuit board assembly plant.
The economic development committee also initiated a couple of other studies. We were participants in one that took a look at a hotel and health spa convention centre. The other looked into the possibility of a fish farm located at Lake Diefenbaker, which is where Elbow is situated.
In the more recent months, we were successful in attracting a high-quality piano bench manufacturing company, and they provide their products to the export market all over the world. Most of the piano benches they manufacture go to the U.S. market, but they've recently shipped some to Japan as well - very little, as a matter of fact, to the Canadian market. In the last two weeks our committee has opened discussions with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on the possibility of establishing a large intensive hog operation in our area.
The progress we made in providing local opportunities was exciting for this small community. However, there have been some major disappointments. The two community-bond-assisted companies have both failed. The lessons we learned from each of these companies were almost identical. Both were started by entrepreneurs, they had great ideas, but they were short of working capital. Management of the companies was weak, and just as important, the local individuals who sat on the boards of directors appointed by the community bonds boards were well intentioned but inexperienced. They were hesitant to challenge management or suggest alternatives, and were therefore ineffective.
A major lesson learned, and an important recommendation, would be to provide community groups, or potential candidates for boards of directors, with the opportunity to receive professional training before they advance into these positions. I'd also suggest that there may be some training for local EDCs on how to analyse and develop studies that are undertaken on their behalf. These functions might be delivered by universities or community colleges. A program such as this, which would be widely publicized and should be widely publicized, would greatly assist these groups in protecting taxpayer and investor dollars as well as increasing the opportunities for projects' success.
.1615
Provincially we're seeing many positive growth signs in Saskatchewan. The agriculture-related manufacturing industry is near capacity. Value-added production and processing in the grain and livestock sector is moving ahead.
I mentioned earlier that the Elbow Economic Development Committee is in the discussions with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool regarding intensive hog operations. The pool is planning on entering into joint ventures with a number of community groups throughout the province. It has a goal of doubling or tripling hog production. They'll contribute half the capital costs, with the rest provided by local investors. Management expertise will be provided by the pool.
These types of initiatives, where small investors are partnered with large corporations who are well capitalized, I believe provide job spin-offs and a stable investment that strengthens rural areas.
I also mentioned a proposal for fish farming, and I think Mr. Hermanson has maybe heard a little bit about that too in the past. Ocean fish stocks, as you know, are declining. High market demand is available. We have clean water resources in Saskatchewan. This fledgling industry may provide another opportunity for some value-added production and joint venture partnerships.
On my final point, I'd like to make the comment that I recognize this is a federal committee mandated to look at the national scope of rural renewal. However, from my provincial viewpoint I have to emphasize to you the desperate condition of roads in my province. With all the positive rural development initiatives taking place in Saskatchewan, it's critical that the road infrastructure problem be tackled now.
The manufacturing industry is heavily weighted to a U.S. export program. The grain industry is moving to rail rationalization and increased semi-truck traffic. We're seeing increased tourist traffic from the American market.
Highways are a provincial responsibility. However, federal money has recently been directed through the infrastructure program as well as the western grain transition program. I'd encourage the committee and the federal government to continue to provide funding on a cost-shared basis with the Saskatchewan provincial government. I would rate this need as our highest priority at this time.
In summary, I recommend providing effective training opportunities to community leaders in areas of analysis and corporate governance.
Secondly, I'd ask you to encourage joint ventures between well-capitalized companies and local communities, with a particular emphasis on value-added opportunities in the agricultural and water-based renewable resource industries.
Thirdly, I'd ask you to consider improving the provincial highways infrastructure to support the growing manufacturing, agricultural, processing and tourism industries. I believe that rural Saskatchewan and Canada have much to contribute to this economy. Many positive steps are being taken.
Despite limited budgets, it will be through the cooperation of all levels of government and committees working together that we'll achieve the goal of rural renewal and stability.
I'd like to thank the committee again for the invitation to participate in this round table. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Lyle.
We'll go to questions and comments from the members. We'll go to Mr. Calder,Mr. Hermanson, and Mr. Reed.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.
I'd like everybody who has given a presentation here right now to think about one word before I go and talk about the possibility of a minister for rural affairs. The word is ``micropolitan'', because rural Canada right now has all the same components as urban Canada has, metropolitan Canada. We have base industries. We have one primary base industry, which is agriculture, and it's broken up into smaller industries, like the chicken industry, the cattle industry, the grain industry, whatever.
We have secondary industries along with this that are basically involved in manufacture of farm machinery, penning, and what not, for the base industry. We have support services that are in rural Canada for mechanics, wiring, anything along that line.
If micropolitan is dealt with fairly it would, in my opinion, be a very good tax generator for the government, which is what we're looking at.
.1620
I see problems right now. I see the age of farmers within the major base industry in rural Canada going up. I see the opportunities for the children coming off those farms not as great in rural Canada as they should be. Therefore, those children are going to the cities instead. Definitely, as was previously stated, there needs to be more infrastructure and the information highway.
Medical care is a problem, and also urban encroachment is a problem, because in January of next year, the first baby boomer will turn 50. There are 9.8 million baby boomers in Canada, and that will be 500,000 a year for the next 20 years, and then they'll turn 60. When I see them right now, they all want to get out of the city. If they're going to retire someplace they 're going to retire to rural Canada, and that becomes a major problem with our base industry, which is food production and agriculture.
Also, by the year 2025 we're going to have eight billion people on the face of this earth. So I see a base industry right now in rural Canada that has a lot of potential.
So if there is a minister for rural affairs I would like you to describe what you think this individual should be doing, be responsible for, bearing in mind that as a federal minister he is going to be interacting on a very great basis with the provinces. And should the provinces have a reflective minister within their government? I'll leave that open.
The Chairman: You'd better say ``he or she'' or you're going to be in trouble. You're sitting between two -
Mr. Calder: I said ``persons''.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): No, you said ``he''.
Mr. Calder: Then I apologize, and say ``she''.
Mrs Ur: He has a skirt on, Mr. Chair, today.
The Chairman: Because you're wearing a skirt today, Mr. Calder, I don't know what you're going to get away with.
Mr. Calder: There we go.
The Chairman: Okay. Who wishes to make a comment on that? Jack.
Mr. Wilkinson: In the area of responsibility, I think that even though there have been fairly significant attempts in the last few months to try to deal in a real way with this issue of rural Canada, because it very clearly crosses a lot of ministries, from fisheries... Just to start, there are about six or seven at minimum in which a lot of these issues cross through, from industry, trade, and through to natural resources - a host of them. And frankly there are not a lot of differences in what faces communities in mining towns and fishing towns. It's the same problems that create them in other parts of the farm community and the rural hinterland.
What we would see this advocate doing on behalf of rural Canada would to a great extent be an advocacy position, would be a full-time focus in the area of working inter-ministerially with it. We think the approach of saying that every cabinet minister tries to do things for rural Canada has not worked. That has been really the response of the Prime Minister to date. It is I think an impossible way to approach the problem. Everybody can't be a trade minister; everybody can't be in industry; everybody can't be a health minister, even though you have those effects in the ridings.
We're not talking of a huge ministry, because we think a lot of the resources, quite frankly, are within mainline ministries now, and a coordination strategy with the energy and the focus around a cabinet table is what we see as critical.
In terms of the question of would provincial match-ups be an important aspect in the future, my sense is more likely than not there would be a desire of provinces to do that in fact if a federal minister was created, because I think that this alliance of agriculture and rural affairs in many provinces is not working in the way people would like it to. It's how are we going to do this question, and who's the obvious person to do it? It's the agriculture minister, which is the obvious answer, but our sense is it is a very large issue.
And I think as deregulation continues down the road, it will be an increasingly difficult issue to deal with with positive results if a lot of focus and energy is not put behind it. There is a risk of the gap widening versus closing in our opinion. We see a host of cutbacks, a host of deregulations, which tend to not service low-density markets, which tends to be our members. And I think this has to be identified, dealt with up front, and we have to find ways to get around it. We think there are numerous ways and it varies by topic area.
.1625
The Chairman: Loretta.
Ms Smith: I'd just like to add to that. If you want to add just a very short job description for what a rural minister could be, it could be watchdog and spokesperson.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the presenters for their excellent presentations.
I notice from the presentations from the chicken industry that the emphasis is on the fact that because their industry was flourishing, there was spin-off job creation and it was an asset to rural Canada. I think that's a very important principle.
I've got to say I'm pretty skeptical that by implementing or initiating a new ministry called the ministry of rural affairs with a junior minister, like some of the other junior ministers we have in this cabinet, suddenly rural problems are going to be effectively addressed. I don't think that bears up under history.
I was very interested with Mr. Knutson's report and illustrations because I've experienced some of those exact same examples myself. In Saskatchewan we've got pretty good rural infrastructure because infrastructure is pretty easy for politicians to initiate. We've had rural power for years, ever since I was a baby; we've got a rural gas program and underground phones; and we're putting in underground power. There are rural water programs. Now the Internet is going to rural Saskatchewan, and that's great. I'm not criticising that one bit.
The problem is whether we have the tax base to support that infrastructure once we get it in place. That's where the problem has been. We see our roads deteriorating. Saskatchewan has to be the pothole king province of Canada. We see rail lines being abandoned. We see hospitals being closed, particularly in rural Canada. We see hockey rinks that are nice facilities but they're sitting empty half the winter and they used to be the hub of the rural community.
The ice rinks were promised to the communities by the NDP government because that was a good way to get votes. The hospitals were promised by the PCs because that was a good way to get votes. And suddenly we have these high taxes in rural Canada and too few taxpayers to maintain the infrastructure.
Obviously it's an aggressive economy. It's an effective chicken industry, an effective and growing hog industry and a grains industry that go into processing and providing jobs for farmers' daughters and sons. That's going to create the economic base that will maintain this infrastructure.
I see a minister of rural affairs as being another drain on the taxpayers trying to implement his little programs, like the last infrastructure program, where it was a drop in the bucket. Certainly it's needed, but it's not going to be the solution of generating that grassroots economic growth that's going to provide the tax base that will maintain rural infrastructure.
I would like to hear particularly from the CFA and Mr. Knutson as well, because he sits on an economic development committee.
I sat on an economic development committee for a while. We sat around the table and I had members of the committee sit there and ask where they could get a grant to start a new business. They hummed and hawed about whether they should get the grant from the federal government or the provincial government. Then somebody said such and such a business was closing down because with the GST and all the tax they just felt it wasn't worth maintaining a business in town and were going to try to operate their business out of their home.
We've got to start thinking. Here we are looking for grants to start new businesses when existing businesses are going broke because they can't afford the taxes they're paying. Let's look at how we can leave the money in the rural communities so that we can stimulate business and see new hog barns. We have a new hog barn in Beechy and we have the fish plant, as you mentioned.
I like your idea about combining solid large business with community-based economic projects, particularly in the agricultural end of things. I think that's the key.
I'd like to get comment from the CFA and from Mr. Knutson as to whether the focus of the federal government should be trying to maintain dollars in these communities rather than concocting some kind of program and ministry that are going to spend those dollars.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Knutson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, we were in much the same situation as you are, Mr. Hermanson, regarding sitting around as an EDC and focusing on grants. I think if one experience has taught us anything, it was that probably it was a mistake and that we shouldn't do that.
.1630
The businesses we were participating with were also focused in that regard. I mentioned some poor management on behalf of these businesses, and I think that's one of the dangers we kind of slipped into as much as anything.
There are large funds that are being directed to businesses still through various programs and many of them are federal government programs. I guess what I'm thinking of with regard to the road infrastructure, it's like building the base of your house or any business: you want a strong foundation. The situation with our roads now is part of that strong foundation. I'm encouraged by the infrastructure program that was put into place and has directed some funds towards that. I guess my level of encouragement is to see that there are jobs created through that program but also that it helps build up our base in the processing and manufacturing industry and tourism as well.
The Chairman: Okay, Jack.
Mr. Wilkinson: Unless I missed it, I don't see the word ``grant'' anywhere in our presentation, just to make a point perfectly clear.
Our sense is that very clearly the large-scale approach to rural development, generally speaking, has a lot of failures and a high-cost approach to job creation that we do not advocate from our point of view. We think it's community-based. It requires training. I think there's a difficult question right now as to what the federal government can do in the area of training. In many cases it is dearly needed and provinces are cutting back.
That was why we very clearly lobbied for the agriculture business venture program. It has come into existence and hopefully it will be successful. The sole objective was to in fact deal with some of the concerns raised here, such as how to change the probability of success for business launching in the agrifood industry, as an example. Our sense is as long as it's tagged as agrifood, all the programs or all the initiatives are mainline ministries. We think that's a problem.
We have ministries of education that are putting Internet connections into rural areas. We have health that is doing it and we have another community service that is doing it, which is not in many ways doing it inefficiently. But a coordinated strategy in our opinion can save money and/or deliver more services of higher quality to more municipalities. That is a critical step.
Not every province, quite frankly, has put the investment in, whether rightly or wrongly from a tax base, that Saskatchewan has. It has given some communities some great opportunities, as far as some short-line equipment manufacturing and others are concerned. Quite frankly, if the gas hadn't been there and the telecommunications, I think it's fairly safe to say neither would that business have been there that is employing people and the difference between a community that's growing and dying.
So it is a bit of a catch 22. What do you do first? Do you invest in the infrastructure and hope that the jobs will come if you do the training and the mid-level of support? Our sense is to some degree that has to be a strategy because we're not willing to write off rural Canada.
We think those services can be cheaper in the future. We're not talking of big grants to stimulate activity. To a great extent we're talking about what you are. The problem is as long as ministries are treated as stovepipes, there are many people who will fall around the cracks who don't qualify for the training and the advancement, and whatever. We think it doesn't have to be that way and can be coordinated a lot better through a ministry.
We're not talking about a big ministry with a lot of support staff. We're talking about an efficient relatively small ministry. It will only be junior if the government of the day treats it as a non-important issue. I can't imagine your party will treat it that way, nor in the next go-around, if there's a ministry appointed, that any party would treat it that way, because it's a serious problem.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed and then Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is one of two committees of this House that has been studying rural development, and I have the luxury of attending both. It's very interesting that the thread of concerns and challenges is so common. The other committee I was on travelled across Canada and we saw the same concerns. The critical telecommunication need, the access to capital, the future taxation potential, and the tools to do the job were the common threads.
.1635
I should add four more primary industries that also enter into that and are rural as well. They are forestry, mining, energy and the fishery. That has to do with the regulatory process. So much development, in my view, is stifled by a regulatory process that is put in motion by brains that are mostly urban. It has often been said, for instance, that forestry in northern Ontario is governed by those who live south of Highway 401. I think there's a certain amount of truth in that, because politics is often numbers. It's unfortunate, but it's an unfortunate truth.
I think we're missing the boat here in one respect. We haven't come to the conclusion yet, but I think we should, that without a vital rural Canada there is no urban Canada.
If you ask a 24-year-old kid on Bay Street, with his red suspenders, who has been described as never having read a book -
Mr. Wilkinson: Nor has he had a real job.
Mr. Reed: - dabbling in commodity futures down there on Monday morning, the fact is, if he's looking at corn futures out there somewhere, there had better be a bushel of corn. If he drove into town, he drove in a car that's made of steel that came from rural Canada, from petroleum that came from rural Canada and anything else you can happen to mention that had its roots in rural Canada. I say that because there has got to be, in my view, an added recognition by urban Canada.
If we are going, for instance, to come to sensible terms with cost recovery, where does the responsibility lie and how is it shared? With respect to supply management, when I'm walking down Augusta Avenue to Queen Street in Toronto, why should I pay five cents a pound more for my chicken? What's the reason for it?
Once again, for the regulatory process, I believe there's some validity in saying rural Canada should be made for rural Canada, in rural Canada, and not be made by urban Canada for urbanites who perceive rural Canada with a mixture of angst and myth very often, now that we're three or sometimes four generations away from the agrarian society.
When I hear you talk to Jack about the desirability of a separate ministry for rural development, I can't help but be very attracted to that. It seems to me to be a concept that, whether it ends up with a junior or senior minister, the basic function of that ministry is to become a champion for rural Canada to urban people, to carry that message and wake them up so that rural Canada can enjoy these benefits that really are due it in order to maintain urban Canada.
I'm sorry I got carried away.
The Chairman: Jack, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Wilkinson: I would just like to make a short comment.
I think it is time we got on the soapbox and talked about what has happened in the base industries over the last two or three years. It wasn't very many years ago when we were effectively written off as being of little utility to the country any more. The service sector, the manufacturer of the computer chip and a few others were going to solve the entire country's problems, if you listen to the people in the back room.
There has been phenomenal growth and there will continue to be. We're on the edge of continuing phenomenal growth in the agrifood sector, for sure. There's no doubt about it if we play our cards right.
The mining sector has exploded across the country over the last few years. We would be producing even more pulp and paper, dimensional lumber, the new strand boards, and the list goes on and on, if in fact we hadn't signed caps into the U.S., because they're not competitive to us any more.
We really do have a very successful time period with the potential explosion of aquaculture. We are seeing some stocks rebounding.
.1640
The doom and gloom of the big black hole of government expenditure a few years ago is now sort of turning into being the job creator and the stability and the backbone, in a country that desperately needs our foreign exchange and job creation.
Quite frankly, it's time to kick some people's butt, and sort of say that in return we need certain things, so this can continue in the future. It needs some support back.
We're just asking for a portion of our tax dollars back, for goodness' sake. We're not wanting people to print money on Bay Street to hand out to us. We'd just like to keep some of it and see it recirculated into the rural areas. So I'm absolutely in agreement with you.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Last week, I spent several hours at the UPA Convention in Quebec City, where I had the pleasure to meet some of you.
Quebec farm producers are very much worried, quite rightly I think, because of the new regulations which the Quebec Departments of Agriculture and Environment are about to impose on farmers.
Under the proposed regulations on manure spreading, farmers are required to leave a certain number of metres free of manure along the public road. When there is a public road for the upper range and another one for the lower range, practically only a few square metres are left for manure spreading. Farming is obviously unworkable in such cases.
I guess you probably have the same situation in Saint Ludger or in other regions.
My comments will mostly bear on Quebec's rural development, since I assume the situation must be different in Western Canada, where we can find mostly field crops.
In Quebec, hog farming has been developing very intensely in the last few years. Again yesterday, I heard in the news that a rural municipality intended to hold a referendum on that issue. It is no joke. A referendum is going to be held in order to know if the building of a mega hog house - they use long words to frighten the urban people - should be authorized or not. In that hog house, 7,000 to 8,000 pigs would be kept at the same time. That hog farmer would breed around 15,000 pigs per year. We are now being compelled to hold referendums to know if hog farmers can be authorized to practice their trade on their own farms. It is becoming very serious.
You have on the one hand the environment and on the other hand the farmer on whom a close eye is kept in case his farm would produce noise, bad smells or dust, or, of course, in case it would pollute the streams. Because of that, some rural areas are being deserted.
Earlier, you talked about chicken farming. I was quite amazed to hear that during the last ten years, there was an increase of 25% in the number of chicken farmers, and of 45% in the production of processed chicken. That's wonderful.
I closed my eyes while listening to you earlier. In my area, there used to be a large chicken farm, but its quota was sold to someone from outside our region. There was also a hatching-egg farm, but the chickenhouse burnt down and it was never rebuilt. In both cases, our region lost those productions. This is a sad story, but I told it to you so that you can see where I want to get to.
The situation will become more and more difficult because the farms are being deserted and there are no further actions being taken. Within our town councils, it is no longer our fellow citizens who are there. Those are guys from the city who bought small pieces of land to enjoy at the same time the blessings of the country and those of a small town.
.1645
They would like to eat ham, without having to face the smell of pigs, or even better, without having to kill them. That's impossible.
There is another issue about which I would like to know your opinion. It concerns the setting up of processing plants in order to produce value added goods. For example, we would not build a paper mill on the Montreal Island or in downtown Toronto. We would not carry logs to Montreal in order to make paper there. Paper mills are built, whenever possible, close to rivers and forests.
I am thinking, for instance, of the Gaspé peninsula, where milk is produced, then carried far away to be processed and finally brought back to be sold as butter or bottled milk. The Gaspesians are industrious people. We were talking of a minister of rural development. Those are specific issues on which we could agree.
In Quebec, the farmers are worried because the Minister of Environment will crack down harder on them. The minister is hearing complaints from people who find that some farmers, very few of them frankly, are acting like outlaws and are careless. It's the whole farm community that picks up the pieces.
The minister cannot pass a legislation for the minority of those who exaggerate or abuse. The law must apply to anybody. I delivered that to you in a jumble, Mr. Chairman, and I would like that some of you tell me what they think of that.
I would also like to have the opinion of the people from Ducks Unlimited. I know that you are making imposing efforts in Quebec. When I read your magazine, I see that you are also making some efforts to publish your documents in French. That is much to your credit, because a few years ago, that used to be an issue in my region. Everything was being sent to us in English only, and several of my constituents refused to support your fund raising campaign, because they had the impression that you were not respecting our culture and language.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chrétien.
Just before we go to comments, I'd like to make a point of clarification, Mr. Chrétien. A number of the issues you raised in reference to the environment minister are strictly in provincial jurisdiction. Some of the witnesses may wish to comment, but those are provincial areas of concern and jurisdiction.
Ken.
Mr. Huttema: I would like to ask for your permission to be excused. I was just reminded you have a bus strike on in the city, and I have a plane to catch at six o'clock. I'd better not wait too long and take my chances on that.
The Chairman: Yes. Go ahead, and thanks again for coming and for your contributions.
Mr. Huttema: Thank you for having us. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: Mr. Poole.
Mr. Poole: Recognizing, as you've pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that some things, particularly with respect to setbacks and those sorts of things, are in most cases a provincial responsibility, I'd make one brief comment.
It strikes me that in many of those cases we have effectively, as a society, taken the easy way out. We establish a buffer zone along a stream, in terms of width of buffer strip, without consideration for soil type, length or steepness of slope, rainfall amounts and intensities in that region and some of those kinds of things.
It seems to me that if our concern is maintaining the purity of the stream, that's what the regulations should be based on, if we need them. They should be based on some sort of measurement and penalty, if need be, when the purity of the stream is downgraded. I don't know that we can do that on the basis of uniform riparian buffer zone widths in many instances.
.1650
That's just a personal observation, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that it's outside the scope of this committee.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments from any of the witnesses? Jack.
Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate that many of these are - and that's what makes it very difficult - within provincial jurisdiction, but there still is a role that everybody can play, and that's the concept of the champion of agriculture and the agrifood industry. Things do not come in cellophane packages when it comes to some of these issues, and I think it's important for a rural caucus, for agriculture committees, and for others to try whenever they possibly can to identify that there's a cost-benefit ratio for these things.
If we're going to have agriculture and if we're going to have jobs - and very clearly that is a fundamental desire by the people around this table - then as long as we're doing a reasonably good job in dealing with the environmental concerns in those areas, there are going to be some very fundamental questions that have to be dealt with, such as zoning. There's going to be a host of other areas in which municipal, provincial, and federal - and there is some responsibility federally when it gets into streams, other cold water sources, and what not - governments will have sensible people dealing with the question and looking for solutions rather than shutting down agriculture production. That is not the solution in this respect. There will be a big price tag if we take that route.
The Chairman: I'm going to go to a brief question from Mr. Hoeppner. He has to leave in a very short time. We'll then hear from Mr. Easter and Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's really my day today. First of all, the chairman gives me a special privilege to ask a little question.
The Chairman: You said it would be a good one and a favourable one. You also said you'd vote Liberal in the next election, so...
Mr. Hoeppner: Well, maybe.
The Chairman: Use your time wisely.
Mr. Hoeppner: The other thing is that Mr. Poole is here representing Ducks Unlimited. I will tell you that you have a mission here today. You have to talk some common sense into this Liberal government. Their philosophy is so far out. Do you know what they're trying to do to me, Mr. Poole? They're going to make me register my Ducks Unlimited Daisy red ryder air rifle, and they're going to make me take that dangerous ammunition, put it in a separate cupboard, and lock it up. You have to convince them that they have to have more common sense than that. If they can do that, we can change the country, Mr. Poole.
The Chairman: Jake, are you done yet? Mr. Poole, do you wish to comment? I think Jake's done. If not, I'm going to say he is.
Mr. Poole: I suspect that given the mandate of this committee, Mr. Hoeppner, that probably applies only if you use that to get food for yourself.
Mr. Hoeppner: I use it just for target practice, but you've given me a good idea. You've helped me already. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, you can go to your other meeting now. Thank you.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Hoeppner: I leave for a minute, and he gets into trouble. Merry Christmas to all of you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Wayne, go ahead.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that Julian, in part, said that there's no question that almost all of the wealth-generating industries are in rural Canada: mining, forestry, agriculture, and fisheries. It seems to me that if we're going to develop the rural industry - all of it, not specifically agriculture - to the extent that it's the economic generator that we must have, we have to work on two fronts: the international front, which is increasingly important, and the domestic front.
On the international front, we have the WTO coming up in 1999. Also on the international front, as we discussed yesterday, we have to ensure that our producers - and I'm not just talking about agriculture, but also about mining and fishing - have the same tools to compete as do our American counterparts. One of the big problem areas there, we'll admit, is cost recovery.
On the domestic front, we do need some kind of policy development to utilize these new tools that are available, new technologies. Where I am in Prince Edward Island at one time we were at a disadvantage because you had hardcore transportation over roads, rail and water. But now you can do the same thing in Prince Edward Island with the new technologies, where crime is less, the environment is better, and you don't have to drive an hour and a half to work. You can do the same things you can do right outside Toronto.
I have three questions really, Mr. Chairman, and I'll ask them all at once.
On the international front, what can and should we be doing relative to supply management, now that we've won the NAFTA panel, for the next WTO?
Secondly, again in the international level, what checks and balances need to be in place to ensure that our producers - regardless of the industry - are no more disadvantaged than our international competitors?
Third, related to development policies domestically within the country, what kind of agency or program do we need in place there? If I look at P.E.I. again, ACOA has been very beneficial to us in the aquaculture, the fisheries, and the agriculture industries through the primary resource cooperative agreements. We've developed the better feeding programs through use of silages. It's an endless list that goes on. I've found those very beneficial. Do we need to be strengthening the regional development agencies, establishing new ones in terms of ensuring that the system and one-stop shop is there for people in rural areas...
[Technical difficulties - Editor]