1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

Victoria

[ Page 647 ]

The committee met in camera from 9:26 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.

The committee recessed from 10:22 a.m. to 10:28 a.m. and continued in open session.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

W. Hartley (Chair): I'm Bill Hartley. I'm the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and Chair of this committee, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries. Before having the other members of the committee introduce themselves, I'll just make a few remarks about the committee and the work it has been asked to do by the Legislative Assembly.

On July 23, 1998, the Legislative Assembly of B.C. authorized this committee "to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to an agrifood policy for the new millennium and beyond for British Columbia." We were to "consider the deliberations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's agrifood policy consultations and any other matters referred to the committee by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food."

In the mid-nineties, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food embarked on a process of renewing B.C.'s agrifood policy in anticipation of international and domestic regulatory changes, including free trade and the elimination of feed freight assistance. The agricultural sector was also faced with adapting to changing demands in its domestic and export markets.

In 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture and Food organized a series of consultations to assist in the development of a renewed agrifood policy. The ministry's consultations culminated in a discussion paper entitled "Choosing Our Future: Options for the Agri-food Industry." Copies of that document are available at the table. Agriculture commodity groups, non-commodity farm organizations and processors, retailers and restaurateurs were invited to participate in the ministry's consultation process. Representatives of municipal councils and regional districts also participated at every stage.

[1030]

The committee has also published a call for submissions in various daily newspapers throughout the province. The committee welcomes submissions from members of the public until December 2, 1999. In the coming weeks the committee will be holding public hearings like this one in Abbotsford, Pitt Meadows, Delta and Vancouver. Of course, we've been in Smithers, Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Vernon, Oliver, Creston, Victoria and Courtenay. These public hearings will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff. The transcripts will be available on the committee's web site.

In conjunction with the public hearings, the committee will be conducting focus group sessions to get more detailed public opinion on particular agrifood issues. At the end of the public hearings, the committee will prepare a report of its observations and recommendations, which will be tabled in the Legislature.

Now I'll ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. We'll start over here.

E. Conroy: I'm Ed Conroy, the MLA for Rossland-Trail in the West Kootenay.

E. Gillespie: I'm Evelyn Gillespie, the MLA for Comox Valley.

B. Goodacre: I'm Bill Goodacre, the MLA for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I live in Smithers, B.C.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): I'm Bill Barisoff, MLA for Okanagan-Boundary, and I'm the opposition critic for Agriculture.

J. van Dongen: I'm John van Dongen, MLA for Abbotsford.

W. Hartley (Chair): Also with us -- or will be with us -- are the Committee Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and the committee's researcher, Wynne MacAlpine. Joining us is consultant Paul Guiton and Hansard staff Marilyn Pollard and Pat Samson.

With that, I'll invite the first witness, who is Jennifer Dyson. Welcome, Jennifer.

J. Dyson: Hello again. Good morning, everyone. I'm here actually representing Judy Galey, who couldn't make it this morning. Judy Galey and her family operate Galey Bros. Farm, which is home to about 20,000 laying hens. They're involved in production and grading, and they have 300 acres of crops, which include potatoes, carrots, onions, squash, corn and strawberries. Some marketing is provided off the farm, but most product goes through the Saanich Peninsula growers association.

For B.C. agriculture, as Corky said, the issues are increasingly complex. They're also intertwined and have multiple implications. Since the inception of the ALR, B.C. has emphasized saving farmland instead of the development of a strong and viable agricultural economy. It is estimated that less than 10 percent of farmers in B.C. produce more than 90 percent of the food on less than 40 acres of agricultural land base.

On agricultural land, local government is one of six layers that impact farm businesses. Inconsistencies among bylaws and regulations throughout the province result in fragmented approaches by local government and further erosion of the right-to-farm legislation. Indirect local government costs, such as bylaw intervention and fragmentation of farm information, have huge impacts on competitive farm operations -- more than the direct cost of licensing fees and permits.

[ Page 648 ]

Continued U.S. expansion of primary agriculture has resulted in a price war of primary agriculture products. As an example, in the late seventies onions were about $9 for a 50-pound bag; today, with costs more than doubling, the landed price of U.S. onions on the B.C. lower mainland is $5 for 50 pounds. This price is below B.C. producers' cost of production. This price is also below the U.S. cost of production.

[1035]

Urban populations adjacent to farmlands outbid farmers, bringing in restrictive zoning and policies. Rapid growth and escalating land values threaten farming. The pattern in which farmland is converted to other use often discourages farmers from adopting sustainable practices. These impacts relate to agricultural land continuing to be removed from actual production because of current requirements for buffering, setbacks, zoning, wetlands and stream enhancement programs.

Washington State is planning to increase its production area in the year 2000 by 50,000 acres.

Investment by governments in some provinces has also helped to develop agriculture potential and a viable processing industry. B.C. producers continue to lose market share as competing areas top-grade -- that is, sell 20 percent of the best product to the fresh market and 80 percent to the processing market -- while B.C. must bottom-grade -- that is, 20 percent is to be disposed of as culls and 80 percent to the fresh market. Our loss of the processing industry is having a catastrophic effect on B.C.'s market share, as wholesalers and the public only want picture-perfect produce.

Current production in the interior and on Vancouver Island continues to decline as the cost of getting product to market and processing further squeezes the bottom line. B.C. closures of processing plants resulted in over 1,500 jobs lost.

The people of B.C. have decided that we, the farmer, must be all things to all people. Producers are recognized leaders in B.C., producing the highest quality of foods through integrated pest management and integrated crop management. We must provide that picture-perfect produce yet compete with subsidized imported product.

B.C. is a province that has, though numerous studies, proven to have the highest input costs in North America for land, water, taxes, fuel, labour and so on. Are B.C. producers rewarded for quality and safety? When we produce excellent quality, the rewards should be higher returns.

The reality is a global market, but the necessary link between consumers and producers is stretched to near breaking. The regulatory framework ensures the highest quality competing in a market flooded with lower-cost products which ultimately dominate the pricing. Public agencies responsible for the food industry are in danger of losing sight of why they are critical to supporting the continuance of food production.

The committee has heard extensively from the public as to its expectations of how much more we must do as farmers. B.C. producers are feeling the squeeze in the marketplace due to high input costs, increased regulation and increasing regulatory impediments. The agrifood policy must look at every means possible to support and revitalize the commercial industry. The public interest in a secure food supply is served only when the interests of the food producer and the public sector work together.

We need an agrifood policy. It is a fact that provincial and local governments often impede goals of government. We need a framework to approach these issues. The key public sector role is and will remain supporting food production through sharing the management of risk. Our B.C. agricultural industry has produced some of the first written policies on food safety for producers in North America. Our industry has responded to the public call for high standards for environmental sustainability in the world. Now we, the farmers, look to you, the government, to make a commitment to support and fund initiatives that will lead to strong and viable commercial industry. The public must support their farmers and local production as much as it supports the green-space value of the ALR. The public interest in a secure food supply for this province is served when we work together.

There are many other presenters that are coming here today: Lyle Price, who will be next; Judy Thompson; Ian Christison; some members of the Island Farmers Alliance. We're working together, and we need to get the issues forward. I'm also going to suggest that if there are questions with regard to the commercial vegetable industry, Lyle is also here to help answer some of those. Thank you.

[1040]

J. van Dongen: Maybe I should wait till Lyle gets up there, but if you can't answer it, Jennifer, then Lyle can comment on it. Are you aware of any work that's been done in terms of comparing both farm-gate and retail prices of vegetables, United States versus Canada? Certainly we're seeing more and more data surveys that are being done nationally -- for example, retail dairy prices, which are showing up at higher prices in a lot of U.S. cities than in Canadian cities. I wonder if either one of you can give us any feedback on that information. It became clear to me not too long ago that virtually all vegetables coming into B.C. and Canada are at dumping prices.

J. Dyson: John, I'm not aware of anything. I'm hoping that Lyle can help out with that.

E. Gillespie: Jennifer, could you just explain top-grading and bottom-grading again?

J. Dyson: Now, this is Judy's presentation, but I'm going to even refer some of that back to Lyle. I think I can under-

[ Page 649 ]

E. Gillespie: Okay. I'll save that question.

J. Dyson: Okay.

W. Hartley (Chair): I just have one question. You mentioned Washington State raising its production by 50,000 acres. Do you have some information on that?

J. Dyson: Yes, there is some information on that. There's also another study that was completed in Alberta. Alberta is raising their potato production by another 50,000 acres, as well, to deal solely with a processing market. There has been some data on that that I could get for you.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thank you. Well, thanks very much, then, Jennifer.

Next is Lyle Price from the B.C. Council of Marketing Boards.

L. Price: What I've got here is a carrot, a potato and an onion. I found out in this process that you can't write on carrots. However, basically the message on this -- it's on the front of the bag -- is what the wholesale farm-gate price is -- delivered to wholesale and, in some cases, delivered to retail -- and also what the price is when you buy it from the retail grocery store.

As you will see, there's a small difference in that price. If I remember rightly, it's just a little over 18 cents at the farm gate, prepared and packaged for sale; and when you run it through the till, it's now 91 cents. That's one of the big parts of the problem. That's on the front of the bag, and it's also on the specific vegetable products inside. I did use a non-toxic felt pen on that, so don't be afraid to eat those. Those are all local.

The other interesting thing was, of course, that I didn't have to buy the potatoes; I already had those. I was losing money on them anyway, so it really didn't matter -- to give them to you guys. But the other things, the carrots and the onions. . . . I actually had to go to three retail stores in order to find local carrots and onions, which I thought kind of spoke a message in itself.

However, as you reflect on that. . . . I hope you do eat those things, because they're all B.C. and they're all good quality -- at least I think they are. I take responsibility personally for the potatoes.

In the B.C. potato and vegetable industry, our largest industry risk at this point in time is the financial survival of the producers. The past decade has been characterized by depletion of liquid reserves, increased debt and decreased equity. This was brought about by B.C.'s proximity to the lowest-cost production areas in North America, namely Washington, Idaho and Alberta; the closure of processing plants in B.C.; consolidation of the retail trade, with buying offices moving to Alberta; free trade; loss of anti-dump on onions and the threat of loss of anti-dump on potatoes in the year 2000; and the cost of compliance with many federal statutes, at least six provincial ministries and the legislation of same, as well as numerous local government bylaws.

[1045]

Commodity prices remain low. Aggregate average prices of carrots, onions, cabbage, parsnips, cauliflower, rutabagas and potatoes actually decreased 3.78 percent in the nine-year period from '89 to '98. Now, that wasn't a statistical anomaly. I mean that '89 to '98 are just the years I had figures for. I didn't purposely manipulate that. I know you people in government would probably know what it's like to manipulate statistics, so I'm saying that that's an honest statistic.

J. van Dongen: What were the numbers that you had again, Lyle?

L. Price: It was 3.78 percent over the nine-year period from '89 to '98. Basically if I had given you our farm, the equipment to farm it and my house to live in five years ago, you would now be $170,000 in debt. That's assuming that you actually had the expertise to farm it; that you were a pretty good welder, fabricator and mechanic; and that you could live on $30,000 a year. That's the state of the vegetable industry.

With the age of the average producer approaching 50, intergenerational transfer or the ability to somehow retire is becoming a major concern.

The ALR locks land into agricultural production. The legislation is based on a philosophical, political policy decision based on personal opinion and emotion -- mostly by people who don't own any of it. Recent surveys indicate that 94 percent of the population of B.C. supports the ALR. Unfortunately, that endorsement does not extend as far as their buying habits. The ag land reserve stole asset value from the farmers of B.C., with the promise of policy to ensure viability in the marketplace so that inflation of land value need not be a factor in long-term profitability. A long succession of governments has totally ignored this promise.

Meanwhile, government compensation to other industries for lost economic opportunity is more a rule than an exception, even if it takes place on Crown land. Not that I'm arguing that, because I think that's reasonable. I just don't think it's reasonable the way agriculture is treated.

Further loss of field-based vegetable production will result in the loss of infrastructure, which will affect all agriculture. We will lose autonomy of choice on genetically modified food, food safety and food security. I'm sure this committee has heard lots about genetically modified. I don't know whether anybody has gone as far as saying that we have to retain local production in order to have a choice; I hope they have. Dependence on outside sources will lead to substantially higher prices, and if food shortages ever become a reality, we won't eat.

As a solution to help rectify the price and market access difficulties faced by agriculture, I suggest ag advisory committees with substantial input to all planning decisions. I think that's the only way this is going to work. If agriculture is going to be tied in to restrictive social zoning, then agriculture has to be somehow empowered to have some way of getting a

[ Page 650 ]

[1050]

We are long overdue for some kind of food policy. Farms have to be made more than simple open space, fish and wildlife habitat and cheap transportation corridors when the public interest requires a highway. It is time for a decision. Continued neglect will be very costly to B.C.'s future.

I was at a risk management meeting yesterday. It was the conclusion of the growers that were there from the vegetable industry in the lower mainland that what the government should concentrate on within the Ministry of Agriculture is exit planning. I mean, we've got to make some economic decisions rather than emotional decisions. There are guys out there that are depleting their equity base without using sound planning. I think that should be a priority, because there is no question about it: the industry is dying. It's collapsing; it's in a mess.

If anybody has questions, I'll take them.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): You talked about the homesite severance. That exists right now with the ALR, doesn't it?

L. Price: If I want to pay a $550 application fee and if I want to try and justify the fact that my house should come off that farm -- that it will not impact on the farm itself if I remove that house and that I then don't sell the house for a period of at least five years -- yes, I may be able to get it off, depending on when I built it.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Now, are you also suggesting that since 1972 there. . . ? Of course, there is no homesite severance. Basically we've gone through almost another generation -- not quite but almost. Are you suggesting, with the Agricultural Land Commission, that there be a set period of time when that would continue on again?

L. Price: Yeah. I would suggest that it should come into effect now and basically continue on forever. I don't think that's going to degrade agricultural land. I think a farmer has a right to at least get some inflationary benefit to his homesite. I mean, if you're going to take it away from the farm, hey, that's a social decision. We've decided to do that. We haven't taken it out of anything else, but we've taken it away from farms. But certainly the homesite severance, I think. . . . Nobody is going to build a house just to divide it off. It's just not going to happen. I mean, you can make a stipulation that it's got to have been there for ten years or whatever.

But I don't think, as a farmer, you should have to give your farm away, because farms are not selling. They are worth nothing -- zero -- because there's no return on investment. I mean, there is a small market for doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs that want to buy 20 acres and put a good-sized house on it. But if you've got a large tract of property, they're just not selling.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): A suggestion that was made -- it might have even been made by me -- throughout our hearings throughout the province was that we put the agricultural land reserve to a provincewide referendum. By the looks of your figures, 94 percent would support it.

L. Price: Absolutely.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But if 94 percent support it, then society should be obligated to look after the farmers on the land. I'm just wondering what you think of that concept.

L. Price: Personally, I don't think we should get that socialistic. But if we're going to have socialistic legislation governing the use of land that I own, then yeah. Why not pay for it? I mean, I think eventually maybe this farmland will actually be needed. For society's benefit, maybe it should be retained. But the thing that they haven't figured out is that at that point in time, you'll never get the infrastructure back in place to generate this industry. I mean, it's a three- or four-year process to even start to get that infrastructure into place.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Lyle, do you see any ways that we can enhance the Buy B.C. program, or whatever, to get consumers in British Columbia to buy local products?

L. Price: Absolutely not. You do an on-the-street interview, and everybody will support Buy B.C. But if you look at the biggest retail expansion, it's basically in the cheap big-box stores that don't support B.C. at all. So the public's already made their decision.

[1055]

L. Price: They buy by price. I mean, you can ask somebody with American produce in their basket. . . . A lot of times they don't know, because if you look at most of the retail stores now, it's always Canada/U.S. produce. I mean, they put that under the display. So God only knows where it came from. I don't think people are consciously going to pay more for things -- no.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Another area that's been brought to light is the fact that -- we're not all going to have organic foods, so some of it's going to be natural, or done with pesticides or whatever -- if there are pesticides that are disallowed in Canada, countries using those pesticides. . . . Those should be disallowed as imports also.

L. Price: What do you mean -- "if"? That is the case.

[ Page 651 ]

L. Price: Well, it's the case that there are pesticides allowed in the United States that aren't allowed in Canada. Certainly it's not the case that they're not allowed in, but then, you see, you're stepping on free trade rules.

You've got to understand that Canada is getting out of the ag subsidy business. I mean, B.C. is way out of it. Canada as a whole is out of it. The thing with ag subsidies is that ag subsidies. . . . The Americans will never get out of that business, and the Europeans will never get out of that business, because the cheapest way of ensuring that your population eats is through ag subsidies. If you're going to subsidize agriculture and throw in. . . . You've seen the Americans do it with their grain industry. Canada is prepared to let theirs go broke. You see the Americans do it with their fruit industry, with their vegetable industry. They will always throw enough money at that to ensure that they don't have to go anywhere else for domestic food supply.

So surpluses and low prices to the taxpayer are a good thing. The opposite of that, of course, is that your farmers are making a ton of money. Why? Because there are shortages. Now, is there a government in their right mind that is going to say: "We should have shortages -- people rioting in the streets and our farmers making a lot of money"? If you don't get paid subsidies, you have to make enough money to control risk management. That's getting to be more money all the time. If the government's going to pay a couple of bucks to keep you alive, you don't have to make that risk management money.

When I started farming, we used to gross about $40,000 a year, but we netted $20,000. Now you gross $400,000, and if you're really lucky, you break even. If you lose one crop, like we did in 1997, you just walked from $400,000. . . . Now, when you're working on a 2, 3 or 5 percent difference, it's 20 years to make that up. Whereas 25 years ago, it wasn't; you could make that up in a couple of years. Well, that's risk management.

The banks aren't real understanding. We're sitting here right now on a very low Canadian dollar, which is helping our industry, and we're sitting on reasonable interest rates. If there's a blip in this thing anywhere, this whole thing's going to collapse. Cloverdale is basically a done deal. The vegetable industry there. . . . I talked to the guys yesterday. There isn't anybody even ordering seed. Some people are in so deep, they have to try and keep going and hope it's going to get better, because they can't afford to walk.

But anybody that's basically paid for is just saying: "Hey, this isn't worth it." I know that with our particular farm, if we get average prices next year on our commodity. . . . I've been doing this for 30 years. Nobody gave me that place. I bought it; I paid for it. I borrowed half the down payment when I was 21 years old. It's not a lack of management out there. But the prices are so low that if we get an average price and an average crop, I'm probably $10,000 worse off next year than I am this year. And I'm pretty much out of reserves. The only thing is -- and the unfairness is -- that if I quit farming now, I'm going to be taxed at a higher rate, which means that whatever else I do, I will have to subsidize that increase in taxes out of my income to actually hang onto the place. It doesn't make any sense.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): So you're saying that if you make off-farm income -- and that has been brought to our attention -- you can't use that to offset your farm losses.

L. Price: No. Well, you can. But, I mean, why work to offset farm losses? You might as well just work and not have the losses. It's an emotional issue, and there are a lot of people that really like to farm. I'm a little older; I'm not that emotional about it anymore. I used to be when I was younger, and in the younger farmers you see it. They want to keep going and hope things will get better. The problem is that these guys in the vegetable industry are burying themselves deeper. That's where I think the Ministry of Agriculture should turn around and say: "Look, let's get some rationality into this. We'll send a few people. . . ." And it came out at the meeting yesterday -- to throw some financial management people in and try and convince these guys, before they lose all the equity in the place, to walk.

We've got farmers that have two daughters and a son. The son wants to farm. The parents have got to turn around and somehow try and buy out the two girls, who are off teaching or working for government or doing whatever, so this kid can keep going. But what happens to the guy that owned it? He needs some money out of it. To be fair to all his children, he has to equalize it amongst them. This thing's sitting in the ALR. It's not saleable and it's not dividable. That's a huge problem with the age that our industry's getting to be.

My kids are both in Alberta making real money. I would never encourage them to farm. They were smart enough to figure that out anyway. Our place is a vegetable farm. You get people saying: "Well, why didn't you grow something else?" I mean, we've seen cranberries go in the tank. We've seen ginseng go in the tank. Greenhouse tomatoes are going in the tank. What are you going to do? Anyway, I don't mind quitting. I just want a way to quit.

[1100]

L. Price: I think that referred to having a processing industry like we sort of used to have. If you have a processing industry, you've got a market for your off-grades.

E. Gillespie: So for the 80 percent of Washington vegetable production, they've got a processing industry there.

L. Price: They've got a processing industry. In a lot of packing sheds I've been into in Washington, it's only the top 40 or 50 percent that actually goes to the retail trade. The rest just goes in a truck down to the processing plant; whereas our off-grades are cattle feed, and they're not worth hauling away, basically. That can be 30 percent of your market sometimes.

E. Gillespie: Okay.

L. Price: The reason we've lost our processing industry is out there; it's government.

J. van Dongen: To get back to the question. . . . In your presentation, Lyle, you talked about being close to the lowest cost of production. You talked about losing anti-dumping duties. What I hear you saying is that even if the U.S. products were being sold in Canada at a fair price, they'd still undercut our prices -- you know, whether the fair price was arrived at

[ Page 652 ]

L. Price: That's right. I mean, if we were somewhere around double what our wholesale prices are, yes, we can do it. But that's not competitive with what Alberta's going to be, and it's not competitive with the Americans.

J. van Dongen: And you don't see any way to improve on that ratio of retail to farm-gate price?

L. Price: Sure I do. Give us the hammer on planning. Then I can tell the guy at the Costco store: "Hey, you don't buy local, you don't build a store." That's where it goes, and I think that's reasonable.

E. Conroy: Just give me a rundown about the processing industry, the lack thereof and the reasons you see why.

L. Price: The processing industry has the same problems as most businesses in B.C., and it's a microcosm of the problems down on the farm. It's higher costs of operating in B.C. because of taxes, because of fuel, because of labour standards, because of workers compensation, because of an awful lot of rules and regulations that other people don't want to have. I'm not against these rules and regulations. They're socially laudable and they're wonderful. And I'd like to pay everybody that works on our farm $20 an hour. But if the guy across the border's paying $2 or $3, I'm not going to pay $20, because I'm at a competitive disadvantage to start with. They've got thousands of acres of flat land that the government's prepared to deliver water to and give them all kinds of incentives to farm -- pure and simple. That's not the reality here, so let's deal with the reality. . . . And it's not going to be the reality. Does that answer your question?

A Voice: Uh-huh.

L. Price: Good.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks, Lyle.

L. Price: Hey, it's a pleasure.

W. Hartley (Chair): Next we have Sonja and Wes Nienaber. Welcome.

[1105]

Over the past year you have heard many of the challenges facing farmers, especially as they relate to the business and marketing world. Today I would like to discuss one of the day-to-day operating challenges that farmers are forced to deal with. This topic is storm-water runoff within the jurisdiction of a municipality, especially as it relates to the designation of agricultural land reserve. While our understanding of this topic comes from our own experience over the past six years, our situation is not unique. This is a provincewide problem.

I'm going to give you a little background on our area, because I think it reflects the many pockets of farmland within municipalities in B.C. Our area has been farmed since the turn of the century. From 1942 to 1975, this valley was farmed by part of B.C.'s Colony Farm -- land that produced food crops for the province's penal system. It's not a large area. It's a total of 35 acres that's presently farmed, with a potential of ten more acres. There are seven landowners who own the majority of this area, and we lease to one commercial farmer -- Galey Bros. Farm. The agricultural value is very high -- potatoes of 18 tonnes per acre this year, which equals about 612 tonnes total, which would feed about 7,600 people. Last year, the crop value was at $240,000.

This cropland is situated at the outlet of a 454-hectare watershed, with a natural watercourse running through it and then leading to a larger watershed. This is where our issues and concerns come in. You look at the runoff from development from a 454-hectare watershed, and any development is put toward the lower valleys, and then it has to go out one outlet.

The management of storm-water runoff from development in most municipalities is not based on sound engineering principles, which should include calculations of the rates and volumes of the flows and the effects they have on the natural watercourse and the designated land use of the agricultural land reserve in our valleys. Instead, municipalities rely upon section 560 of the Municipal Act, which reads: "A district municipality has, and is deemed to have had since its incorporation, the right to (a) collect the water from any highway by means of drains or ditches, and (b) convey to and discharge the water in the most convenient natural waterway or watercourse." This language of this section is too open-ended and allows for many interpretations. There has been a decade of debates on what's a natural waterway and a natural watercourse, and it has become the farmer's worst nightmare.

Also under the Municipal Act is section 285, which states that there is a six-month statute of limitation in which to lay claim to any damages from works done within a municipality. So let's say a municipality puts a culvert in, and you don't know it's been put in, and it affects the flooding onto your property. You have six months to lay claim. Or if you notice they have put something in, and it's in the early spring. Six months later it's October, November. The effects of it might not show up until the winter. This is an inadequate amount of time.

[1110]

So what further compounds the storm-water runoff from development is the continual need for drainage maintenance.

[ Page 653 ]

This is where I have a lot of experience in this area. If you have a ditch or part of a natural course that's dried up during the summertime, and the canary grass takes hold, over several years more canary grass grows. Really, it limits the drainage you have.

So what time commitment does it take for the farmer to achieve some sort of drainage maintenance? We're talking just for day-to-day operating. The farmer becomes the facilitator and administrator between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- the water management branch and habitat protection -- the Department of Fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture, landowners in the area and the municipality. This is an extensive time process, which is not practical from a business perspective.

I would like to add in on this part that over the past six years, I must say, the Department of Fisheries and the Ministry of Agriculture have been very supportive in our area. That's probably something you haven't heard as far as the Department of Fisheries. They have really come forward to help us resolve some of the issues.

But the senior governments keep telling us they're downsizing, they're limited. They are starting the transition of off-loading more control to the municipal level, and I've got to tell you that this scares me to death. So the farmer then becomes the facilitator between the municipal engineering department, the municipal public works department and the environmental department, many of whom are operating on old technologies and are reluctant to be proactive because of the increasing regulations and restrictions they face. I have never seen so much bickering between departments within a municipality. So this becomes again something the farmer has to deal with, and it shouldn't be the farmer's problem.

Consequently, what's his next step? The farmer is then placed in the position of having to lobby municipal councillors in order to try and achieve action. That's a very long process. If you're lucky, this is just for drainage maintenance.

Let's look back at the bigger picture of storm-water and drainage maintenance. From a business perspective, the time frames in which to resolve flooding problems are unrealistic. Municipalities are slowly moving towards implementing integrated watershed management planning committees to study storm-water runoff and drainage maintenance. While the all-encompassing watershed plan -- the idea -- is not wrong, it is another process that becomes another time commitment for the farmer. These watershed processes can span over several years.

For our own experience, we sit on an integrated watershed management planning committee. There are 23 committee members. We have been meeting for almost three years. We have not come up with a recommendation yet. In that period the commercial farmer lost a crop value of $160,000 -- it was in September of '97 -- due partially to weather, but also a great deal had to do with the poorly and improperly maintained ditches.

Our valuable low-lying farmlands must continually deal with the effects of ongoing development and municipal storm-water runoff. Presently there is no safety net for the agricultural owner for poorly managed storm-water runoff from municipalities. Currently there are approximately 24 cases pending in B.C. courts that relate to agricultural lands and flooding caused by municipal drainage systems.

How is municipal litigation being funded? Through the taxpayer and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This is an enormous funding source. For farmers this usually means cashing in assets, as personal funding sources are often very limited. There's a great deal of anxiety in deciding whether to spend that money on litigation; it's high. How do you compete against that enormous funding source?

[1115]

But development continues. This dumping of that storm water onto agricultural land also continues. Again, the management of this unreasonable amount of water is not based on sound engineering. I think the farmers of B.C. deserve to know: how much longer will a municipal government be allowed to continue to ignore precedents set in our courts of law and continue to fight this problem? Engineering solutions are possible to resolve these problems and in a way that is a net gain for fisheries and for the environment. It is absolutely unrealistic to expect farmers to continue in litigation to resolve these problems that affect day-to-day operations. If the lands defined in the ALR are not supported under drainage infrastructure, we will lose our safe and secure food supply, municipality by municipality.

I have spent countless hours over the last six years dealing with these challenges. I have a friend of the family who, when I'm about to get really angry with this, says: "Now, Sonja, treat this like business. This is business." I constantly remind myself that farming is business. So let's look at it from a business perspective. I purchased land that is designated agricultural land reserve. I want to use my land for what is designated for: farming. Who services the needs of this land? The municipality. All municipalities claim they support the ALR. If the needs are not being met, where are the checks and balances? At this point, they're in litigation.

The final comment on this subject is on the human emotion and quality of life. I'm sure that over the past year you've seen a lot of different levels of human emotion in front of you. Having spent the last six years working with landowners in our area to help mitigate these problems, I have seen a wide range of emotions. With the high levels of frustration spanning over several years, people's emotions become resentful, hostile and argumentative. The longer the problem exists, the more unreasonable the people become, and this is where communication breaks down.

Especially when we can see an answer to the problem, this should not become an endurance contest between farmers and the municipality. As a society, we should be taking better care of these people who choose to be stewards of our agricultural lands and our safe and secure food supply for this province.

[ Page 654 ]

I have given you a handout today -- in that handout there is a copy of our society's brochure, which outlines our purposes -- and also a copy of what I went over today and some examples of photographs of existing storm-water runoff problems within municipalities. Also included in this package is a writ that has been recently served to a municipality. The particulars of that writ have been blacked out -- all the names, all the names of the places. It is not our objective to get support in this litigation; it is to get you to understand what the problem is. The writ is only seven pages long, and it clearly defines what the problems are within a municipality. I urge you to take that writ to several farmers within municipalities in B.C. and have them read it. My guess is that they will all say: "You know what? Fill my name into those blanks."

If there are any questions. . . .

[1120]

S. Nienaber: It was hard to do in ten minutes -- how to get it down to ten minutes.

J. van Dongen: You've done it extremely well, and I just want to endorse absolutely every word of what you say. I think it's a very, very serious problem. I've raised it before with the minister. I think that we need to be thinking about a right to drainage and a right to water for irrigation. I've said that while it may not be possible to make that an outright legal right, it needs to be a quasi-legal right, if you will. I think we need to look at it in those terms. I can't add anything to what you say; I don't have any questions. But I just want to let you and the committee know that this is a very, very serious matter that has to be dealt with. It's tied in with not only the infrastructure issues that you talked about very well but the whole ditch maintenance issue.

The only thing I would add is that good drainage is not just an absence of a big puddle on a field. Good drainage means that you've got two or three feet of soil that has air in the soil, in the spaces between the soil particles, rather than water. We've got lots of fields where you may not see a puddle, but you've got a useless piece of land because it's totally saturated and you can't get the water out of there. Thank you for a very good presentation.

E. Conroy: I just want to echo what John said and thank you for bringing a presentation like this to this committee, because though I've been at most of the hearings, I haven't heard one like yours before. I've also had the firsthand experience of witnessing a farm that was profoundly affected by drainage runoff from subdivisions. I've seen it, and I've seen the anguish that the people who happen to own that particular farm are going through. As you were giving your presentation. . . . I have a little spot in the back of my book where I kind of make notes of issues that I want to come back to, and I made a note that says: "Right to drain." I think we all hear you loud and clear. Thanks for bringing that to the attention of the committee.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Sonja, can you see any ways that this committee could make recommendations in the right-to-farm legislation that would enhance that legislation to create the ability for farmers to have a better reaction or not be under the gun in such a state as they are right now?

S. Nienaber: Maybe Ray Galey could come up and answer that question.

R. Galey: My name is Ray Galey from Galey Bros. Farm. My recommendation is that there should be a provincial ditch maintenance policy so that all the municipalities in the province have the same policy, so that you don't end up with one municipality saying, "No, we can't do this at certain times of the year," or: "This can't be done." I think the process is in the works now. But we need that type of thing so that everybody knows where they are, and the municipalities too -- from higher powers -- on what can be done and what cannot be done.

S. Nienaber: And some sort of checks and balances on whether it's working or not.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Ray, would you see that as something we could put into legislation to enhance the right to farm, to make it where municipalities were forced into that situation and couldn't take legal action? I can well appreciate the fact that when you're going it alone, compared to. . . . It's like the old adage of trying to fight city hall: it's difficult to do, and you're fighting with your own dollars, basically.

[1125]

S. Nienaber: Actually, it's more than just a culvert; it's also two manhole covers.

R. Galey: Two manhole covers, coming from probably 40 or 50 houses, just dumped. . . . I don't know. . . .

S. Nienaber: There's a picture of it in there, actually. It's one of our examples.

R. Galey: Is there? It's in there? This is what you run into.

[ Page 655 ]

E. Gillespie: I'd like to be able to share your presentation with municipal councils in the area that I represent. We may not have ALR directly within the municipal boundary, but it's immediately adjacent to the municipal boundary, and the issues are the same.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks very much.

S. Nienaber: Thank you.

W. Hartley (Chair): Next we have Moraia Grau López. Welcome, Moraia.

M. Grau López: Good morning, members of the standing committee. Thank you for giving me the chance to do this presentation. I'm here because I'm very concerned about the future of agriculture and food and the effect that genetically engineered crops may have on the environment. I am a biologist, and I have worked as a consultant and for the government, and I feel that I represent many of my biology colleagues who are also very concerned but don't have time to come to public hearings. I have also been a Greenpeace campaigner on the genetic engineering campaign in Europe, and I feel I need to raise awareness in Canada on this issue -- and especially in B.C., because this is where I live.

Genetically engineered crops cause health risks, environmental risks and ethical and social concerns that were not addressed before the crops were commercialized. One of the health risks that has been identified by doctors is the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes in genetically engineered food products. This has prompted the British Medical Association to recommend to the U.K. government, in a report published in May 1999, that their use be banned, as doctors acknowledge that the risk of micro-organisms developing antibiotic resistance is one of the major public health threats to be faced in the next century. I attached that report to the back of my presentation.

GE crops have been approved using the concept of substantial equivalence, which means that toxicological and biochemical tests are not required for their approval. Because the chemical composition of a GE organism is considered basically the same as its original counterpart when comparing the amounts of protein, carbohydrates, amino acids, fatty acids, etc., no toxicological testing is required. Therefore tests like the one conducted by Dr. Pusztai on the effects of GM potatoes on rats -- a memorandum of 21 independent scientists that reviewed Dr. Pusztai's results and data is also attached to the back of my presentation -- are not legally required and are not systematically conducted before a new genetically modified crop is introduced into the market. You have that memorandum. Many of you may know that Dr. Pusztai's results were disregarded, first of all, by the institute that he was working at. Now some people have published his results and reviewed his results. You have it at the back of the presentation.

[1130]

The environmental risks are another major concern. Genetically modified crops are living organisms that cross-pollinate with other crops and wild relatives, passing on viruses and their resistance to herbicides. This may cause the production of superweeds resistant to herbicides, and more chemicals will be needed to control the problems. Crops designated to kill insect pests can also kill beneficial insects, like insects that eat the insect pests or that play other important ecological roles, such as pollination of crops. For example, there have been several studies, and I give a few examples of them here.

One is on ladybirds that fed on aphids that had eaten GE potatoes. The ladybirds lived half as long and laid 38 percent fewer eggs. There is also the study of Losey from Cornell University on the monarch butterfly larvae fed with milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from GM corn. Forty-four percent of the monarch larvae died within 48 hours, whereas there were none that died from the control batch. In addition, the effect of Bt crops on insects and soil organisms is unknown. There have been no studies done on that. There's also concern about the accumulation of glyphosate, or Roundup, in groundwater.

The ecological problems caused by the introduction of genetically engineered organisms will be uncontrollable, because they'll just spread. We already have examples of industry and science being wrong in cases like DDT and mad cow disease. In the case of mad cow disease, it is now widely accepted in the scientific community that the disease resulted from feeding cows ground-up bone meal from sheep, something that cows would never naturally consume. Do we want more examples of these sorts of things before we want to apply precautions?

Genetically engineered organisms also pose ethical and social questions that have been brushed aside, such as the patenting of organisms and parts of living organisms. Do we want genetic material and living beings under patents? This is also a concern that has not been addressed, and the public has not taken part in a debate on this. The fact is that GE crops are unnecessary and largely unwanted. Polls have shown that given the choice, people would not choose to eat genetically engineered foods.

Despite the promotional message of the biotechnology companies that these crops are for the benefit of the environment and the undernourished people in developing countries, the great majority of GE crops are designed to increase the sales of the company's own brand of herbicides. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that the use of Roundup, from Monsanto, doubled in 1998 and that the pesticides used in corn increased 27 percent. The goal of these crops is to create profits for the biotechnology companies, not to solve world hunger or save the environment. World hunger is not a problem of not enough food but of the distribution of wealth. To better the environment, modern organic farming is the best choice.

I believe that we do not need GE crops. They are a risk to the environment and to human health. We in B.C. should ban them. We should promote B.C. agricultural products, such as

[ Page 656 ]

[1135]

B.C. should establish an agricultural policy that promotes the conversion to organic agriculture. Organic agriculture does not use synthetic chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or genetic engineering. Thus the pollution of air and water is reduced, and soil fertility is improved, as some studies have shown.

In Germany and the U.K., some water companies have begun to pay farmers to convert to organic farming, because it's cheaper than cleaning up the water polluted from industrial agricultural methods. Although most comparative studies show that organic farming crop yields are 10 to 40 percent lower than industrial systems, organic agriculture has not benefited from the same amounts of research, training and support as industrial agriculture. Therefore its potential is largely unrealized. Moreover, a recent study in the U.S. published in Nature shows that over ten years, the difference in yields between industrial and organically farmed corn was only 1 percent.

Organic agriculture offers many benefits compared to industrial agriculture in terms of human health, improved environment and local community development. The hidden costs of industrial agriculture are avoided. The risks associated with pesticide residues in food, especially for children and pregnant women, are turning more and more people towards organic products. According to a U.S. study, one in ten supermarket apples is supposed to have organophosphate insecticide residue that exceeds the permitted limit. The cumulative effects of pesticides are not considered when setting up those limits, nor is the effect of an adult dose of pesticide on children. The market for organic products is one of the fastest-growing at present. Mr. Michael Mockler, director of produce for Thrifty Foods, estimates that by 2010 half of their fresh produce will be organically grown -- an increase of approximately 10 percent per year. According to the Organic Products Information Service's market bulletin, the sales of natural foods -- which, as you probably know, are slightly different from certified organic foods -- have grown 250 percent from 1991 to 1996.

I don't have a lot of current data, but there was a study on consumption trends in Canada in 1996 that showed that health food stores increased their sales by 40 percent in five years, whereas regular supermarkets increased only 3.3 percent over the same period. The trend is not exclusive to North America. In the U.K. last February, the demand for organic produce in supermarkets increased 35 to 40 percent. And in Marks and Spencer's supermarket, organic sales doubled. Sales could have been higher if production had been increased to meet the demand. In Austria, 15 percent of all fruits and vegetables sold are organic, as well as 20 percent of the milk produced. In Sweden, even McDonald's uses organic milk and coffee in all its outlets and is trying to secure a supply of organic meat for its burgers.

Many EU governments have organic conversion schemes to support farmers changing to organic production methods, and some countries have very ambitious targets of farmland conversion. For example, Denmark aims to triple their organic production over the next five years. In the European Union as a whole, if present trends continue, land farmed organically could reach 30 percent in 2010.

[1140]

Modern organic farming methods are a viable and environmentally sustainable form of agriculture that deserves at least the same support the government has given to industrial agriculture until now. Research into new organic farming methods and training support for new farmers are badly needed. We should phase out pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics routinely fed to animals and set a long-term goal of conversion to organic agriculture in B.C.

Thank you. Any questions?

W. Hartley (Chair): Thank you, Moraia. Let's see if there are any questions from members.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Moraia, do you have any figures on the amount of organic food products that are consumed by people in British Columbia? What percentage is it? Is it 5 percent, 12 percent or 100 percent?

M. Grau López: I haven't had the time to do the research precisely in B.C. I feel like I have much better data on Europe than on British Columbia at this point. I didn't have very much time to do this research. I don't have an overall figure.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): What's the percentage in Europe?

M. Grau López: In total? It depends on the countries. For instance, like I said, organic fruits and vegetables in Austria are 15 percent. In Austria, there are no GMOs in any of the supermarkets at all, just because the supermarkets don't use them. It's not because of anything else. In the U.K., most of the big chain supermarkets do not have any GMOs in their products. The use of organic agriculture. . . . Overall, in Europe, I think the land in organic agriculture could be around 1 or 2 percent, whereas in places like Austria or Switzerland, it could be more like 10 percent. The trends are that this is going to increase dramatically in the next few years.

[ Page 657 ]

M. Grau López: The only thing I can tell you is that the supermarkets are the ones that are addressing the consumers' demand. The consumers are demanding GE-free products, and supermarkets are just trying desperately to get it. That's all I can say. Right now in Japan, they also have mandatory labelling for GMO foods. So they're also desperately looking for GE-free soy, particularly.

E. Conroy: Okay. Thanks very much.

J. van Dongen: Could you comment, then, Moraia, on the philosophy of the consumer in North America, particularly in British Columbia? Certainly, in my experience in the food industry, they are much less militant on these kind of issues, and they tend to buy on a price basis, regardless. I think that North America has certainly led the world in reducing the cost of food and the percentage of disposable income going to food. Some of that is the result of advanced research in biotechnology. In your experience, having lived in Europe and here, how would you compare the consumer here to that in Europe?

M. Grau López: Well, the one thing I can tell you is that consumers in Europe place a lot more value on food, I think. They have a culture that values traditional foods. They have all these different varieties of cheeses and wines and. . . . You know that.

[1145]

The problem with the chickens in Belgium that just happened last summer, dioxin-contaminated feed for chickens, is raising a lot of issues. Like, there is no mandatory labelling on feed for animals, for instance, and this is really unacceptable too, because farm animals are fed. . . . Well, we don't know what. So I don't know if I answered your question.

J. van Dongen: The feed example you used -- were you talking Europe or were you talking. . . ?

M. Grau López: In the European Union, yeah.

J. van Dongen: This isn't a scientific comment, but it's interesting to note that in Europe, where they have a greater emphasis on food quality and culture and, I presume, regulations, they have had, despite all of those things, some serious disease outbreaks and implications for the food supply. Would you have any comments, in your experience, on the food safety aspect and the integrity of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada? Do you have any comments on those two agencies, maybe more in general, in terms of their protection of the food supply for Canadians?

M. Grau López: Well, to me the refusal of the Canadian agency to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods is. . . . I can't understand it. It just seems to me like there is some kind of thing going on between biotechnology companies and the Canadian agency. I mean, that's the only thing that can explain it, because I have talked to some people from these agencies. They seem to say that it is so difficult to do this. I mean, why, you know? Yet I pointed out to them: "Well, if it is so difficult, how come the European Union, Japan and Australia have all put mandatory labelling of these foods in place now? I mean, if other people can do it, why can't you?"

The other day I even listened to the CBC, and a farmer was saying: "Well, we want to segregate these crops, because otherwise they're not going to be accepted for export."

J. van Dongen: Your comment on labelling certainly applies to the issue of consumer choice and the export thing, as you say. But part of my question was on food safety for Canadians. How do you feel about the integrity of those agencies from the point of view of maintaining food safety? Do you feel that foods in our Canadian food system are safe, as approved by those agencies?

M. Grau López: I don't feel they are safe. I'm very concerned about the amount of pesticides on food; I don't think there is a very good control on that. I don't have data at my fingertips, but I know that some pesticides like lindane have been used. There is no database over all of Canada of sales -- like of pesticide sales, for instance -- which there is in other countries. In the U.S. and other countries they have amounts of pesticide sales in the country; in Canada there is no such database.

W. Hartley (Chair): Okay, thanks very much. I appreciate it.

We have one more presenter before the lunch break; it's Peter Volk, chair of the Vancouver Island Chicken Growers Association. Welcome, Peter. You could introduce your. . . .

[1150]

I. Fatt: We're here on behalf of the Vancouver Island Chicken Growers Association. My name's Ian Fatt. Our family has been growing chickens on Vancouver Island for three generations. Peter Volk's family is extensively involved in the chicken industry and is probably one of the largest producers on Vancouver Island. Keith Fuller is a newcomer to Vancouver Island. He invested in the industry about five or seven years ago.

I should give you a quick overview of what the Island chicken industry is about. It has operated under the British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board since its inception in 1961. We have 26 commercial chicken farmers left on the Island today. We had 33 in 1995, and mainly because of the

[ Page 658 ]

Also a major player in the poultry industry is the feed company in Duncan. We account for 40 percent of their volume. They have 14 employees, and their business is also going to suffer with this loss of the industry on the Island. Also, the farms employ quite a few catchers, truckers, sawdust suppliers, etc., and provide a lot of jobs on the farm. That's the general overview of the size of the industry on the Island.

Peter, Keith is going to. . . .

[1155]

Recently, Lilydale -- the processor on the mainland that relocated, that took care of processing from the Island -- went to our British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board and stated that it was not reasonable. . . . They could no longer pay the expense of taking our product off the Island, could not afford to pay that premium. Even though the price in B.C. is a negotiated price, is f.o.b. the farm, they were no longer willing to take birds from the Island and wished to renegotiate the deal. The Island farmers, with this gun held to our head, agreed to the reduction or taking-away of our premium and to bear the freight costs of grain to the Island, the whole $23 a tonne.

In return we would allow quota to leave the Island. Until this point, quota had been -- and still is today -- locked on the Island to protect the processing plant that was here, to protect the Island industry. It's established as Island quota and has its own value, which is less than the lower mainland. As farmers on the Island, we have always protected that, because it maintains an industry on the Island. But in return, in order to keep the industry operating, we agreed we would allow quota to leave.

However, this concession was not enough to satisfy the processors at the time. They threatened to stop putting baby chicks on Vancouver Island, effective December 15, which means in effect that today, November 25, they will no longer be setting eggs to supply chicks to Vancouver Island, as it takes three weeks for those chicks to hatch and hence be delivering them to the Island. This would mean, mid-December at the latest, no chicks coming. The last birds, out of these 125,000 birds a week, would be grown on Vancouver Island, going to market at the end of December 1999.

After that the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board made a further concession that they would pay the ferry costs. Again, even though freight in B.C. is paid and negotiated on f.o.b. the farm, they agreed to this until June. By the end of June we were either to have our affairs wrapped up and sold quota and have no poultry industry on Vancouver Island, or the farmers would have to bear the full cost of not only the feed cost but the ferry cost, which would mean we would be at a disadvantage of 9.1 cents a kilo below our lower mainland farmers who operate under the same system. Needless to say, that is not an option. There will be no poultry on Vancouver Island -- period -- with the jobs, with the farms and with the effect on the rest of the agriculture that our loss would mean.

We all agree that the best answer to our problems is to establish a processing plant on Vancouver Island. This is being worked on. But our problem is that for the last two years and before, with the threats of loss of processing, with the threats of feed freight, with all of the external pressures on our industry, we have not had any period of stability in the last two years so that we could sit back as an industry or as a group or as a company and invite and interest a processing facility to come and study and plan and set up on Vancouver Island.

We have surveys that indicate that Vancouver Island is a place like no other -- that although North America as a whole has set a trend that they buy food for the lowest cost, there is a great deal of support on Vancouver Island for a healthy Vancouver Island-grown product. The Island supports that. We would like to be able to provide that product.

[1200]

Regional agriculture has a great deal of benefit. It spreads jobs, tax bases and income around the province. It may be economically cheaper to grow all of Canada's food supply on a few farms on the Prairies, but we don't feel that is in B.C.'s best interest, Vancouver Island's best interest.

We think that maybe even in B.C., for example, it may be economically better to grow it on a few farms on the Abbotsford aquifer. But again, for freshness and fresh Vancouver Island product and for the Island identity and the Island industry, we're not sure that it's the best option. Supply management, which we are part of, is meant to protect small family farms, the consumers and the province. In this case, we feel that agenda is being hijacked from the Island at the expense of the Island and the province.

P. Volk: The B.C. Marketing Board, with Ross Husdon as their chairman, and the Minister of Agriculture -- Mr. Evans -- are aware of our plight and are working on our behalf. This has to be dealt with immediately, as it starts with eggs going to the incubators today, November 25, 1999. These birds hatch and would be delivered to the Island on December 16, 1999.

We ask this committee to use its influence to help us continue to produce healthy chicken in a stable environment.

[ Page 659 ]

I'll just run through the rest of our handout here. We've provided some fact sheets on the chicken industry in British Columbia. There are some fact sheets, in particular, that deal with the chicken industry on Vancouver Island as it is today. We then have got a couple of examples of some worksheets that we've gone through with different people for starting a plant and what not. We have a sample of a letter that we've encouraged all our growers to send to their local MLAs and to Members of Parliament. On the last two pages we've sort of put some points together on why a poultry plant would be successful on Vancouver Island and why there should be one on Vancouver Island. We would gladly entertain any questions that any of you have.

E. Gillespie: I've been following this. I can't see how you can survive on Vancouver Island without a processing capability here. It just boggles my mind that you have to import the chicks and you have to bring the feed onto the Island. Then you export your grown product out. Then we bring back to Vancouver Island a finished processed product. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

P. Volk: I guess that's the point that we're making: it doesn't make sense to us either. As Keith pointed out, we would very much like to have our own processing facility on the Island. Unfortunately, in the environment that we've been in for the last couple of years, with all the rules changing every day or every other day, nobody has stepped up to the plate. We have not been able to put anything together ourselves.

E. Gillespie: Are you looking to developing a producers' co-op? Or how. . . ?

P. Volk: Maybe not a co-op as such, but something along those lines, yes, we are.

[1205]

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): I'm just wondering what rules are changing that have driven Lilydale off the Island. What do you think you're going to do better so that you can support the processing plant back on the Island?

P. Volk: First of all, I guess, Lilydale went off the Island because they claimed it wasn't viable to operate their plant over here. Lilydale is a large cooperative in western Canada, and they are going with the philosophy of big, big and bigger. They weren't catering to the local market, if you will. They did not recognize the Vancouver Island market as such. In their global approach, they weren't willing to put money back into an Island plant which, in effect, was in competition with the rest of their plants in western Canada.

A prime example would be that Vancouver Island is a great dumping ground for a lot of agricultural products. Lilydale could not combat any dumping by any of the other processors on Vancouver Island effectively, because they would be dumping back into their own area as well. Like, if they fought back. . . . If someone drops a low-priced or bargain trailer-load of product in your market, you can fight back by dropping a lower-priced container or whatever of a product in their market. But Lilydale was unable to do that, because they'd be dropping it back into their own market -- part of which they already had -- so it would have been very ineffective for them.

It's our feeling that a local plant dealing with the 725,000 people or so that live on Vancouver Island would have a great deal of support. We think that financially -- to go back to what Ms. Gillespie was saying about transporting the product back and forth off the Island -- we could supply a product at a very. . . . Our prices would not be outrageous; we would be able to fight in the marketplace for our share.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But effectively, Peter, you're not going to be able to stop the dumping of whoever was competing with Lilydale -- who was dumping the product onto Vancouver Island. You're not going to stop that aspect of it.

P. Volk: No, but we'd be in a better place to fight dumping, because if we dump back in their markets, we would not be hurting our own marketplace. It would be more effective than Lilydale's attempt at fighting dumping.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): What kind of stability are you looking for? The direction that you're looking for this committee to institute immediately, or whenever. . . . What are you looking at for this committee to do to stabilize the market on Vancouver Island?

P. Volk: I'll let Keith answer that.

K. Fuller: We'd like to have a confirmed chick supply and a confirmed market at a competitive price with the rest of B.C. returned to us. We're not asking for anything special. We have already indicated that we would drop our premium, which in effect would also help any processing plant that came to Vancouver Island. With the farmers absorbing that premium and the full cost of that feed arriving on Vancouver Island, a product processed at a plant on Vancouver Island is done so at the same cost as a product that is processed on the lower mainland and then has the advantage of that 8-cents-a-kilo cost that it takes that product to come from the mainland to the Island. That would be a definite advantage to any plant on the Island. They already have a built-in cushion of 8 cents a kilo.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Keith, I think you have to explain to me further as to how. . . . You're looking at a confirmed chick supply or a subsidy. Are you looking for this committee to ask the Minister of Agriculture to introduce a special subsidy for feed supply coming onto the Island?

K. Fuller: No, we're not asking for. . . . Today, the only loss that is hurting us is the increased ferry cost that is being held to our head in addition to all of the other costs that we have given up. What we are asking for is that ferry costs be part of the negotiated price that is paid to the producers in

[ Page 660 ]

[1210]

K. Fuller: Under the Chicken Marketing Board plan that would go until June, that would be picked up and spread amongst the whole grower organization in B.C. through their levies.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But the Chicken Marketing Board is your agency -- right? So that would be a decision. . . .

K. Fuller: It is, yes -- falling under the direction of the B.C. Marketing Board, which is a provincial government agency.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Okay.

K. Fuller: They can't do it without the help of the B.C. Marketing Board.

J. van Dongen: Basically, Keith, you're looking to the superboard, in terms of the mechanics of this thing, to extend the offer that the Chicken Marketing Board has made by another year and a half. Would that in effect give you the grace period you're looking for?

K. Fuller: Yes -- either to do that. . . . The superboard has said recently that the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board, to protect the Island, probably cannot take away the Island premium -- because there's a reason that it's there -- and cannot allow the free flow of quota. Those two items cannot be done without a consultation process with all of the industry stakeholders, of which we are included. I guess this is where the rub is today. Lilydale has said: "Okay, unless these things are done and we get the extra 3.1 cents, we will not place chicks on Vancouver Island." The rest of the industry. . . .

The ministry has been supportive, and the superboard has been supportive, but they're at loggerheads. We're sitting here in no man's land, as of today, probably with no eggs set, and we need support. We need a level period when we can establish our industry further -- or re-establish our industry -- on the Island.

J. van Dongen: Basically Lilydale is forcing the issue now. . .

K. Fuller: Exactly.

J. van Dongen: . . .in the face of discussions that aren't happening quickly enough.

Just one other question. How many chicken processors are there in British Columbia, and could you describe them briefly for me?

K. Fuller: There are three main companies that include up to six main processing plants. There's Pollon's group, which has three processing plants on the lower mainland and one in the interior. On a commercial basis they process roughly 50 percent of the B.C. industry. Sunrise Poultry group processes roughly 27 percent of the chicken in B.C. Both Sunrise and Pollon also pull roughly 10 percent each of the chicken off of Vancouver Island and have stated that they will continue to do so. Then Lilydale, with 23 percent, is also on the lower mainland. In addition to that, there are a couple of other, smaller processing plants, doing mainly specialty items but some chicken as well. Those are Wingtat in the Langley area and Farm Fed in Abbotsford. There are numerous smaller, individual processing plants doing specialty birds in the areas. That's the processing in B.C.

J. van Dongen: What has happened to the Lilydale plant that was shut down?

[1215]

E. Gillespie: Would part of your plan for the survival of the chicken industry on Vancouver Island be to hatch your own eggs here?

K. Fuller: Definitely.

E. Gillespie: So that would be viable?

K. Fuller: Yes, there would be no question. A hatchery background is actually my background. That definitely would be viable, and that is a moneymaker. In order to have a processing plant on the Island. . . . You have to have the hatchery along with the processing to gain income from the hatchery. But that definitely would be the case. That's feasible, viable and the easiest part of the whole operation.

One other thing I would just like to mention, because I don't think I emphasized it enough, is that the industry here is 40 percent of the top-shelf feed volume on the Island. They are an integral part of Island agriculture. They are working with us and are very involved and very concerned about our industry, because if they, by the end of January. . . . I was talking to the general manager last night. He's looking at ordering grain, or not, for January. The effect of our volume not going through the mill just totally alters the balance of the rest, whether it's large or small or specialty birds or total agriculture on the Island. It's a serious situation with them as well as with us.

B. Goodacre: On the economics question, you mentioned the money you're spending to bring feed over, which is a disadvantage. But on the other end of it, you're obviously selling the finished product here on the Island, of course. You're here. I didn't notice in here how much the retailers have to pay to bring chicken over from the Island that's already produced and already been through the processor.

K. Fuller: The industry cost to get product back to the Island from the lower mainland is roughly 8 cents a kilo. In

[ Page 661 ]

B. Goodacre: This being on the Island gives you an edge at that end. So on strict economics, given a level playing field, you can do it.

K. Fuller: Yes, if we have time to get there.

B. Goodacre: Okay -- thanks.

W. Hartley (Chair): Well, thanks very much.

K. Fuller: Thank you, gentlemen and ladies.

W. Hartley (Chair): That concludes the morning presentations. We'll resume after lunch, at 1 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 12:18 p.m. to 1:08 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

W. Hartley (Chair): I call the committee to order for the afternoon session and welcome Mr. John Wilcox.

J. Wilcox: Thank you very much. There are just a few errors in this initial sheet. What I'm going to do is try and deal very briefly with some themes that are addressed in the "Choosing Our Future" document. This material is the Hansard material regarding your meetings before the hearings started, so I want to try and refer to some of that. I'll just read what I have in this brief three pages here and then go from there. I hope we can have a discussion rather than me talking at people.

[1310]

My inherent duty speaks to full ecological economy. We must have real farm conservation and the repopulation of farms. This is not just some idle want but a classical human imperative. Sustenance lies in the renewal of farm-sharing family life, in the viability of whole-farm communities and in a return to the real wealth of the land, provided with local-grown food.

Farm owners now constitute a mere one-half of 1 percent of B.C.'s population. We must not make more farms disappear. The role each and every British Columbian now must play in the history all families share is one supporting community agriculture. This is not work done for a profit in money but work done for a profit in lives.

I've got a personal note to sort of let people understand a little bit about why I'm here and why I'm speaking. I've just turned 58 years of age, which is the average age of a Canadian farmer. A long time ago, upon graduation from agricultural school, I joined 15 other young people as a Canadian overseas volunteer. There began my reward in the real world of community agriculture. Almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to become North America's first volunteer agricultural technician with the group that soon became CUSO. The Peace Corps did not exist yet. I was sent, at the age of 19, to do rural development work in Ghandian village projects in India. The rewards of this experience of a lifetime were enormous, much more than any big money could buy.

This then set the stage for what followed. I'm discussing my recent involvement in agriculture. Recent voluntary community service has included many years in several non-government farm organization roles. I was a director of the district A Farmers Institutes for six years, which is the Vancouver Island and coast Farmers Institute -- the regional one; the director of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, representing the Farmers Institutes for three years; a founding member and organizing secretary of the Farmers Institutes, FARM Community Council of B.C. -- for four years; one of five founding members and the past director of the B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation -- for one year; and one of the founding members and the past director of the B.C. Agriculture Council -- for one year. I'm a current member of the Islands Farmers Institute and a volunteer consultant to the bylaw committee; a current member of the FARM Community Council of B.C. committee on land use and taxation; a certified biodynamic grower, a farm husband and father; and the operator of Duck Creek Farm on Saltspring Island.

I want to make a note here regarding the FARM Community Council. Please note that the FARM Community Council of B.C. is the constituted Farmers and Womens Institute Act voluntary, provincewide, confederated body of community agriculture for all of the citizens of B.C. Only later will FARM be making a written submission to your committee. This is in part due to the adverse impact recent budget cuts and the associated unannounced withdrawal of legislatively called-for public funding has had on the working relations of FARM.

For over 100 years the Farmers and Womens Institutes of B.C. have provided continuous, unstinting voluntary community service to the province. The act has always assured and seen that farm organizational funding is in place. FARM has asked its constituents to come forward and speak to our standing committee, either on behalf of each associated farm body or for the community as individual citizens, and to note that they're members of FARM.

FARM is made up of the provincial Farmers Institutes; the B.C. Womens Institutes; the B.C. Farm Women's Network; Certified Organic Associations of B.C.; and the Direct Farm Marketing Associations and the associated members, which are the Agricultural Fairs and Exhibitions Associations and the 4-H Provincial Council. FARM cannot present only one

[ Page 662 ]

[1315]

The first map is close to the scale the province has used to create the agricultural land reserve; it's the one that's got Vancouver Island written on it. That's at a scale of 1 to 63,000, as opposed to 1 to 50,000. This is the only mapping that was available to the Land Commission at the time they created the land reserve on Saltspring and the Gulf Islands. I'd like to ask if people would attempt to define or determine where the second map is on that first plan. This is the plan of a farm that is a considerably different scale, of course -- much detail shown. I'm trying to illustrate here the degree of sophistication or the degree of resolution that the Land Commission has at its disposal to make judgments about land use and management on farms. The third map. . . . I don't know if you can find where that farm is; it's not very obvious. It's actually at the very bottom of St. Mary's Lake, to the west of the lake. Can you see where it would be?

During a discussion of what should happen on the land, a planner once asked: "How does your property show up on our map?" And the answer was: "It doesn't show up on your map." So it's really hard for those people to make decisions. I'm not making criticisms here of the staff or the working level of people in the commission.

They also now have at their disposal other information, like the third map. This came out in 1987. Even that map gives you very little in terms of resolution with regard to what's happening on the property. Here's a coloured map of that same property. Even this map of our own, this farm plan, is lacking in details. This piece here that's all green is shown as Qualicum soil, for example -- one soil type -- on this larger-scale map, the later one for 1987. That's an incorrect bit of information. There's only a little bit of that soil right in one pocket. I know this from my own experience on the ground.

[1320]

What I've done is that I've given a copy. . . . The only copies there are left of this report from the auditor general. . . . John, you've seen this, I know, because you sat through the Public Accounts hearing on this. This document gives some very substantive criticisms of both the lack of funding that the government allows the commission to work with and a whole lot of needs that have to be met in terms of improving the role of the commission. I'm not sure that everyone has seen it; I know some of you have seen it. Those are the last eight copies that I could get from the auditor general's office; there is hardly anything left.

What has happened since he made his report five years ago is that they have not followed many of his recommendations. They've followed some, but they've been unable to do what they have to do. Their budget hasn't changed at all. But they have been taxed with the additional burden of becoming a forest land reserve at the same time -- a land reserve and a land use which is conventionally and traditionally known to be a conflicting land use, when it comes to agriculture and forestry competing for the same piece of ground. There are ways you can work together in harmony, but that's not usually what is going on.

There is a lot of difficulty in relation to the Land Commission. We heard some of it this morning. The Land Commission is supposed to be protecting our land for farming. There's no question of the purpose of the Land Commission. It was solely to protect land for food production and for farming and to sustain family farms.

I can speak with some degree of surety on this matter, because I've been in the Legislative Library down the corridor here for two days. I've gone through, drawn out and researched a considerable amount of material that was put before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture 22 years ago. Those documents that are sitting in there point directly to the fact that there is no question whatsoever with regard to what the purpose of the Land Commission was.

Now it has been eroded. We now have a situation where in 1995 the present administration changed the regulations surrounding the Land Commission, through a B.C. Assessment Authority regulation, to allow forestry, silviculture and industrial forest industry use of farmland. There is direct competition for the land base between the little farmer and the giant transnational forestry corporation. That's something that has kind of slipped through the cracks. There was quite a bit of an outcry here on the Island about that, but to a large extent it has passed by. We now have what was recommended by the B.C. Forest Service 22 years ago. We've got a real stiff competition for that land base by the forest industry.

I've included two items at the back in your package of information that I'll just refer to now. One describes a very sensible forestry attitude in relation to land use that was presented to the committee 22 years ago by the Canadian Institute of Forestry. I really think it's worth reading that. There's also a discussion of what's happening on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, where the forest industry, for use of hybrid poplar plantations, is in direct competition with the farm community for vast amounts of land. The amount that they want to take out. . . . One company wanted 40 square miles. You have to remember that it's class 3 or better, which means that the complex of land associated with that class has also been threatened as well. You can't have a farm with just class 4 and 5 land. I don't want to dwell on that, but I think it's very important to understand that in a prior time. . . . There's a tremendous wealth of very good information in relation to our shortcomings with regards to the land reserve.

We experience it daily. I've been creating a certified organic farm on Saltspring Island. I went there from an industrial agricultural setting years ago. This is the second farm I've tried to get going. I got this one going because I could bring the land base from where I grew up, on a six-generation farm, to here in British Columbia and purchase the land. Now, trying to start a farm from scratch is an awesome task. It made

[ Page 663 ]

[1325]

I won't dwell any further on the land reserve, except to say that I think the committee has a very, very important role to play in ensuring that there's a farm standard put in place for this province, that the baseline that exists with the Land Commission is respected in every municipality, that there is a rural zone exempted within municipalities for farms and that we get away from this difficulty of people having to respond, as we heard this morning, to these extremely stressful and expensive procedures that farm people face. The only thing a municipality should be able to do is improve on the land reserve's regimen for agriculture in order to encourage farming beyond how it's already encouraged by the Land Commission orders.

I've been at meetings for years and years now, constantly. This spring I came up with the realization that we can beat our gums all we want at meetings. But we're never going to get anywhere in this province until we look reality in the face and realize that there's one-half a percent of the population -- 20,000 farm people -- owning 75 percent of the private property in the province and producing maybe 15 percent of what we consume. That's about all they produce. I've managed to confirm that figure by working through the stacks over there in the library. What happened 22 years ago was that they came up with the understanding of how much land we'd have to have in cultivation to satisfy the 2.7 million people that existed in the province at that time. So if you work back from that -- you can't find this figure any other way -- you'll find that today, at the outside, we produce 15 to 20 percent of what we consume. The ministry itself says we only produce 10 percent of what we consume on Vancouver Island.

We're in a ridiculous situation. It doesn't matter how many Buy B.C. signs we put out there or what kind of money we spend doing that. Until we have something to buy, it's a waste of time. All it's doing is politically satisfying an agenda. There's no use doing it. We have to change that program and make it work and make people realize that they've got to support farmers to get the food in there that they can buy.

The thing I've come up with is that the big thing we have to do is repopulate the farmscape. That's what the title of this presentation is: "Repopulating B.C.'s Farmscape." We're not going to get anywhere unless we do that, unless we do it in a concerted way.

I mean, there are many advocates that would stand behind that recommendation. Foremost amongst them, I think, in this province is Bill Rees, the head of the school of community and regional planning at UBC. Bill gave a very excellent address. I haven't read the address he gave to the committee 22 years ago, but he gave a very excellent address to the twentieth anniversary gathering -- 1993 -- of the Land Commission. What he said at that time still holds. He's added to it. There's simply one little two-page thing in here that refers you to where we can see his information. We really need to take what he's saying to heart. I think what happens is that because he's a university professor and the head of a department and an academic, although he's renowned throughout the world and invited to speak everywhere -- he just got back from Paris -- we don't understand what he's saying, or else we don't pay any attention to it, or we don't have time to, or we can't. I don't know.

[1330]

We can hear what's going on in the industrial sector in agriculture today. The biggest players are taking it the hardest. The people who have decided to go a different route, like we did on our farm 35 years ago. . . . We're faced with difficulties too, but we're not going to buy it like the people from the chicken industry, who sat here this morning, are threatened with buying it. The kind of investment they're going to lose when the respect that they need is not there is far greater than what I'll lose. My farm's small enough that I can turn around and sell it for $600,000 tomorrow.

A person from California came up to buy a certified organic farm on Saltspring just this month. He paid $600,000 for six acres with a kind of a Victorian mansion on it. He knows what he's doing; he's a remnant of agriculture in the valley in California near Santa Barbara. When you look at an aerial photo of his property, it looks like a hole in a circuit board. All the rest of the thing is urban development. There are 12 acres of land employing 24 people. The gross income for the property annually is $800,000. Now, I don't know how many people they're feeding.

But John Jeavons, who was mentioned this morning, said you can feed seven people from an acre, using intensive agriculture -- intensive organic agriculture -- with people. We can't do that in B.C. because we're allowed one nuclear family per farm. I can't get people to help. I finally, after fighting for years, have got the Islands Trust -- our local version of a municipality -- to agree that we could have a second dwelling on the farm. I come from a farm with three dwellings on it. My aunt's farm had three dwellings on it. There was always room on the farm for the next generation; we don't have that here. We need to change that, and I think there are ways of doing it that make a lot of sense.

I'll move along. I'm not sure if I'm taking up too much time here. I don't want to miss a few points, one of which is

[ Page 664 ]

Now, I don't think farmers should get away without paying taxes; that's not what I'm trying to say here. If their land is classified residential for a second dwelling, for example, that makes the second dwelling ineligible to stay on the land. You can't do it. We need to revise what we do there. We need to encourage a second dwelling or two and a half dwellings on a farm. We need to zero-rate the good public land. Even the former commissioner of the Assessment Authority believed that zero-rating land that's held in the public good is a valid concept.

[1335]

We can say that a second home on a farm would be eligible for full taxation. Then if we applied a farm-owner grant instead of a homeowner grant, we could come up with people declaring what they were, instead of having assessors running around assessing people instead of farmland. We know what the farmland is; it's in the ALR. If it isn't in the ALR, they can still make a declaration of what use it's being put to, and then they can have a review by an agricultural advisory committee or a farm practices protection committee or whatever you have. With a farm-owner grant, we can save $3 million in assessment every year and put $1 million toward farm organizations. Then other moneys that would go to municipalities and regional districts and Islands Trust and so forth would also be coming forward to those levels of government if a farm-owner grant was in place -- the same as the homeowner grant moneys come forward.

That leads us into this business of stable funding for farm organizations. I'd like to mention that there's been some very devastating impacts of stable funding occur in other parts of the country. Recently I phoned people that I have been in communication with for five years in regards to the stable funding initiative that took place in Ontario. I've discussed stable funding. It's farm registration that's the problem; it's not stable funding. Stable funding can come from a farm-owner grant program. It can come directly today through the Farmers and Womens Institute Act. There's a section there that the minister could use right now to give farm organizational funding. There's no question of that.

The problem with doing it any other way is that you have to define people out of business. You've got to determine a simple level -- usually it's a monetary index; in Ontario it was $7,000 -- and then put a whole bunch of people off the list. What happened there? I've been told -- and I haven't been able to confirm this lately -- that of the hundred. . . . Say you had a hundred farmers. Twenty of them are the high producers, if you like -- the high rollers, the big industrial farmers. They're still there, of course. Of the other 80 farmers, 40 of them still exist, and 40 of them have fallen off the charts. Of the 40 that still exist, half of them have leased their land to the other high-producing 20. Those other 20, I've been told, continue to farm till the busted-down machinery they've got and the part-time job they have to take finishes them off, and they can't continue to farm anymore. About 60 percent of the land in Ontario is leased land. You know what happens to leased land on farms. I've seen it; that's what happened to our farm.

Now, we need to do a different thing. We need to encourage local economy agriculture in B.C. We need to really recognize and support the existing levels we've got, but also open the door. Instead of discriminating against the small farm, which we've done for the past 30 or 40 years -- at the behest of the federal government, mind you -- we have to open the door, stop discriminating against the small farm and recognize that everything in the farm community is a viable aspect of today's agriculture. I don't care if it's a doctor or a lawyer. I used to think: you know, I'm competing for this piece of junk machinery with a doctor. This $50 tractor cost $2,500. Well, I don't care about that anymore. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. We're all in this together; we can't do without each other. The more people we continue to remove from the farm community simply spell an end to the whole thing for all of us.

All I would like to do, I guess, in summing up is say that I would be glad to try and fill in any blanks. What I've provided by way of information is what we're trying to do on our own farm, which I call Farm Share. We're trying to offer a joint venture in agriculture to other people that would come and help us not just pay for the place but work the place. Try working 12 football fields of organics yourself. You can't do it.

[1340]

I mean, in 1946 we were importing 3 percent of what we need. By 1956 we were importing 26 percent. By 1978, when the standing committee was listening to people, they were reporting that we were importing 60 percent. Today the ministry tells us we're importing 90 percent. Are we going to just keep doing this until there's nothing left of farms? We've got to turn this around.

We've got to stop paying $50 million as a farm budget, which is half of what it was when the Land Commission was created. That's the smallest budget for agriculture in any state in the industrialized world. It's lower than Newfoundland's. This is ludicrous.

I've included a document here by John Ikerd of Missouri, "Small Farms Are 'Real' Farms." Associated with that, in the back there's this report which I think is one of the best things I've seen, the Food First document which was presented in

[ Page 665 ]

Then, in regards to the adverse aspects of the farm registration program, which we don't need to do in this province, we know what farms are. They're in the ALR. We simply have to recognize that. The business of a money index was there when we used the $1,600 index for agriculture for ten acres as the value of native hay that you could cut off a piece of ground. Then they arbitrarily moved it to $2,500. Basically it's because we've given up on the ALR as a viable thing. We're trying to revenue it in a municipal space. For what they call the hinterland in the Land Commission -- that's what they call agricultural land in the Land Commission; it isn't in the urban zone; it's called the hinterland -- it's being turned over to forestry.

There's an article here on the adverse impact of stable funding by Brewster Kneen that he wrote in "The Ram's Horn" back in '95. I wrote my own report. It's way too big to stick in here.

I think that's all I would say right now. I'd sure be glad if there were questions forthcoming. Thank you.

W. Hartley (Chair): Okay. Thank you. It's a very comprehensive presentation, Mr. Wilcox. Any questions?

J. van Dongen: Well, I don't want John to go away thinking that we don't have an interest. Certainly I wasn't going to say anything, John, because you and I go back a ways. We've talked about a lot of this stuff. But just to emphasize the point about the B.C. Assessment Authority, I think you've had a long history with the Assessment Authority. I'll just emphasize that point and will leave it at that.

J. Wilcox: Well, yes. Now, my problems with the B.C. Assessment Authority were never a matter of not paying taxes. I mean, I want to pay my taxes. A justifiable amount of taxes should be paid by everyone. It's your responsibility in the community. What B.C. Assessment does. . . . B.C. Assessment is the ultimate land arbiter in this province. There's no question of that at all. You can have the Land Commission; you can have the Islands Trust; you can have a municipality. You can have anybody you want -- Forest Service, forest industry. B.C. Assessment will allow land use to happen by way of regulation. It's their call.

[1345]

When Mr. Clark was the Minister of Finance, he unilaterally called for a review of the agricultural taxation system. He implemented a means by which farms began to be split for agriculture and residential uses -- same thing, ALR land -- and yet they were describing it as a use which could not occur on it. When they did this, it was for a revenue purpose.

However, there was a negative impact in terms of classification. As soon as you define ALR land as a residential piece of property -- the second dwelling on a farm, for example. . . . The only thing you're allowed on a farm by way of a second dwelling is a temporary unit, like a mobile trailer, for a family member. So when you define that as a residential development if the guy's not working 100 percent of the time on the farm, then it becomes a non-conforming use of ALR, and it can't stay there. The local authority will be really glad to be able to say: "This is the lever we can use to downzone this land further." And there are plenty of municipalities, particularly the Islands Trust, who like to downzone land. They use the ALR as a buffer zone. In the community plan, there's even a section that says that if you want to save land, downzone it. Green-zone it: put it into a heritage conservation category or put it in the ALR. This is what they use the ALR for. They don't use it for farming.

Now, we have to change that. We cannot have these theoretically residential-use classifications plastered onto land that we have deemed to be a public-interest landscape held at the expense of the farmer for the public good of the province, which prevents him from populating his farm with people who can help him afford it and work it.

That's what's happened to me. I fought it in court; I was in court eight times in five years. And I won. They were wrong. They've never said anything; they just haven't come back to hassle me yet again. They could come anytime. We're always living from day to day on our farm. We never know what's going to happen next, but we're there, and it's a family venture.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks very much, Mr. Wilcox.

Next is Jean Wallace. Please just go right ahead.

J. Wallace: Good afternoon. I'm Jean Wallace with the Stop Overhead Spraying Coalition. The coalition was formed a couple of years ago when groups and individuals came together to oppose the aerial spraying to control the gypsy moth.

What I'm going to talk about is specific to the gypsy moth, but I believe it has broader implications. To put it into context, I think it's important to realize that there's a blizzard of exotic organisms that reach North America every year. Some we will deem "foe" and some we will deem "friend," but there is a basic ecological law that any exotic introduction will have repercussions throughout the ecosystem. You can never merely do one thing.

In terms of the gypsy moth, I'm sure everyone would like to turn back the clock 130 years and make sure the scientist who imported the European gypsy moth to the east coast of North America didn't. But they escaped, and they've been spreading over the century. They are established in eastern North America, and they rear their little compound-eyed heads periodically on the west coast.

[1350]

[ Page 666 ]

The provincial government pointed to Health Canada's registration of the pesticide as its proof of safety, yet Health Canada has come under fire recently. Brian Emmett, Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, submitted his 1999 report last spring. It was highly critical of the federal government's failure to monitor for the effects of pesticides and failure to apply evenly -- or to apply -- the precautionary principle, which has been adopted into policy but is not necessarily applied. That is certainly true for British Columbia, where it is adopted into policy but not applied.

In October -- just a month ago -- 200 Health Canada scientists signed a memo to Allan Rock calling for tougher food safety tests. They pointed to the CFIA as one of the problems where they have a dual role that is often in conflict. One is that they are supporting trade, and on the other hand, they are looking at safety. These roles often conflict.

In 1998 the provincial Environmental Appeal Board disallowed the aerial spraying that was proposed for that year. After sifting through thousands of pages of documentation, they concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits. Our coalition supports their decision and urges the provincial government to implement safer alternatives that would include increased inspections and mass trapping.

There are a number of alternative measures, but those are two that have approval from the USDA Forest Service. The mass trapping is an approved eradication measure for small populations. The inspections are certainly used in the States very extensively, and they reduce introductions. You cannot eliminate introductions, but you can reduce them.

[1355]

Our newsletter talks a little bit. . . . In the centre of the newsletter, it puts the gypsy moth in a little historical perspective. It mentions that 80 percent of the introductions in the past 20 years have died out untreated. We've only had pheromone traps here on the west coast for the past 20 years. The first year they were put out, gypsy moths were trapped, though we know that about a hundred years ago -- I think it was 1920 -- egg masses from Asia were found on ships in port. So it's very likely that they have been introduced over the past hundred years but have died out. The CFIA has the position that the gypsy moth is a pest of minimal economic significance. It's important to keep that in perspective.

We also discuss this study where the Canadian Forest Service validated a model this past summer, looking at temperature and gypsy moth. There are three factors that influence gypsy moth establishing. One is temperature; the other two are food source and humidity or precipitation. We found that on Vancouver Island, most populations would collapse because of the unsuitable temperature. They need a cold winter and a hot summer. We also mentioned a Health Canada study. Dr. Azam Tayabali released the results of a study at a microbiology meeting in Chicago in May, where he recommended that farmers who use this pesticide protect their breathing. We also make reference to two studies that have come out in the past year in France. Some military scientists also recommended that farmers who use this pesticide protect their breathing and their skin. They found that it infected blood. We also mentioned two studies that were paid for by the province, looking at songbirds and non-target lepidoptera -- the moths and butterflies -- and the effect on endangered species. This short-term effect on lepidoptera is significant.

We also mention the alternatives. The mass trapping effort that was implemented in 1998 was evaluated by three experts in the field, and they said that the results were very promising. This was someone from the Canadian Forestry Service, a forest entomologist with the B.C. Forests ministry as well as someone from UVic.

Dr. Richard Ring, from the UVic biology department, went to a forestry meeting this year talking about the philosophy. For the past 60 years we have had a philosophy that pesticides can control nature, and we're moving away from that. Up until the 1930s, the research was much more diverse. We studied the insects, and we also studied parasitic insects and the like. We're moving that way again. The idea that you can control nature really is an antiquated and not successful philosophy.

[1400]

[ Page 667 ]

Our coalition has tons of information. We've given you two pages. If you want anything more, please contact me. If you're interested in full letters, I've quoted from letters. But if you want the full letter to put into context, I'm happy to provide you with that.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks, Jean.

Any questions from committee members?

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Jean, what impact. . . ? I guess part of the reason why it ended up being sprayed was the impact on the export trade from the Island, particularly to the U.S. Have you done any studies of what that impact would be?

J. Wallace: I haven't personally. I know that the industry has -- COFI and the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association. Certainly B.C. Landscape and Nursery. . . . Any product that is exported to the States needs a phyto-sanitary certificate anyway. So this doesn't impact them that way. It does impact them when they try to move out of a regulated area. If they want to move products from a regulated area to an unregulated area, it has to be inspected. So there can be delays while they wait for an inspector. I believe that the inspection fees were paid by a grant this year, but that wouldn't necessarily continue. Gypsy moth doesn't have much of an impact directly -- it is a trade issue -- on their products, because they do monitor their products.

In terms of forestry trade, we were told that very few. . . . What is inspected right now going into the States or out of the regulated area are logs with bark products. We export very few logs with bark. But there is the fear of a barrier. The American states are always happy to have a tool to use as a barrier. Certainly the fear is not unfounded. But gypsy moth would not establish in our forests; we know that. It's not a pest of softwood forests; it's a deciduous leaf eater.

W. Hartley (Chair): Okay. Well, thanks very much for your presentation.

Next we have Judy Thompson, chair of the Island Farmers Alliance.

[1405]

I'm not going to refer to that very much, but that was for your information.

I am, of course, Judy Thompson, and I am chair of the Island Farmers Alliance. What I have given you is basically my presentation, a copy of the report on the Vancouver Island Agricultural Survival Forum and our little brochure, which includes the Island logo which is also on my pin here. Anyway, thanks for adding this extra day; it was great. It allowed me to come, both as the chair of the alliance and as an individual grower, and to sort of update you on how the alliance is coming along and what we're up to next.

The Island Farmers Alliance was formed with a mission to ensure the sustainability and growth of Island agriculture. We decided to do that by adopting the four goals from the "Island Agricultural Survival" report. That is the report that you've got there. It's quite complete. That survival forum was held in March of last year. By October we had been formed, so we are about one year old now.

The four main goals were: to unify Island agriculture. . . . Basically we knew that there was strength in unity, and since we were sure that our survival was in doubt, unity was very essential.

We needed to create an Island identity. We needed to find a way to identify our growers and their products. That is being done through our Island logo: the Fresh from the Island logo and our rooster. It's becoming nicely known, and we're ready now to have our growers use it.

The third goal was to create regulations that meet our Island's agriculture needs. We deal with all sorts of regulations, from municipal to provincial to federal. They were never designed for the Island, and they don't reflect Island needs.

The fourth goal was to find effective ways to improve agriculture's input costs and resources. We don't have enough farmers. They need to change or improve their skills. We need access to research and technology, and we have to find a way to pool our resources and find cheaper ways of doing things.

Goals 1 and 2 are well on their way. All of our Island commodities and regions are represented in the IFA, and individual membership is coming along very well. Our logo, of course, has been launched, and it's becoming well known. As I said, this month we issued our latest newsletter, "FarmSpeak," and in it is the application for our growers to use our logo. So soon you'll be starting to see it in the stores. Like I said, it's a very good start for an organization that is in fact only one year old.

Now it's time to go on with goals 3 and 4 and address regulations, input costs and resources. The question was: where do you start first? It's a big item. Fortunately, the Island had the good fortune to host the Premier's summit this year. This allowed us to get together and prioritize our wish list. The IFA was a vital component of the two pre-summit workshops that were held, one in Courtenay and one in Duncan. We helped organize the events. We were there to participate, but as the alliance, we were there to listen, because this was going to be our workplan as well. It was a perfect opportunity to hear firsthand what agriculture themselves felt they needed most.

By the way, we went there with the message: don't ask for the impossible; ask for something that can actually be

[ Page 668 ]

[1410]

We have found, from talking to farmers, that the regulations differ each year. They differ by community, and they can even differ by farmer. Of course, with that kind of circumstance it's almost impossible to meet the regulations, because you just can't hit a moving target. Like I said, this was their first priority, because it's basically something that they need next spring. They don't need it a year from now; they need it now.

Request No. 2 was to establish an education and training centre for farming, food production and value-added. We were in Courtenay, so, quite naturally, the Oyster River farm was a concern. We knew that there were going to be changes there, and we felt that since the Oyster River farm was a UBC entity with an educational component already, it was a very logical fit. You will find that education and training is a theme that runs through the requests from both of these workshops.

Request No. 3 was to encourage growth in agriculture by supporting our agriculture organizations. Of course, this would include the IFA and enable us to educate consumers and retailers so that they understand why agriculture is important to Vancouver Island. Sustainable funding is, of course, one of the ways in which you might do this.

Establish an agriculture industry trust fund for Island agriculture that will support market and product development. We know there are new markets out there, and we know there are new products out there. We just need a way to pursue them together and then find them and use them.

Conduct a feasibility study on the establishment of a community co-op meat processing facility. I'm sure you all know that the Island is in very real danger of losing all of its meat-processing capability. The community co-op approach seems a way in which we might start to get a small beginning that would in fact grow. Like I said, as you can see, what agriculture really requested was help to learn and to grow.

The Duncan workshop. Another request No. 1 was to broaden the mandate of the Island Farmers Alliance so it could facilitate the creation of a foundation. Again, we're talking about education, and we're talking about the ability of agriculture to learn from each other, to find ways to access new land and new farmers, to link unused land to farmers who will actually use it, to educate new farmers using partnerships or apprenticeships, and basically to find new technology and then teach it.

Create an agriculture database was request No. 2. Inventory our land, crops, equipment and services. Provide regional information about producers, processing, distributing, buyers and regulations. Create a web site for our farmers with marketing capability. Basically what that means is that we want to learn from each other, and we need the means to do so.

Establish a facility and a land base to conduct research and development on primary and value-added production, processing and distribution. One of the aspects of the Duncan workshop was a speech by a gentleman from India who had created a central processing facility. It worked there. I guess our growers felt that it was a way that we might look to, to basically provide a centre of research and development and then perhaps a centre of processing for all of Island agriculture.

To revisit the original mandate of the marketing boards to ensure that they meet the needs of Island farmers. I'm a chicken farmer, as many of you may know. I have to tell you, my marketing board and the B.C. Marketing Board are not meeting my needs. Quite bluntly, today Lilydale will stop setting chicks for Vancouver Island. I put my flock in on Tuesday -- two days ago. It could be my last one.

[1415]

Create a government and industry link -- an intergovernmental and industry link -- through which we can each learn current issues and review and rationalize regulations. This was, in a sense, sort of offered. Corky Evans has offered to meet and to facilitate our meeting with municipal, federal and provincial organizations that affect agriculture, so that we can know what the problems are before they become big and address them while the solutions are within our means. Of course, I'm giving you one item, which is our immediate need to have an Island-based meat inspection system. That's going to be very important if meat production is to continue on Vancouver Island, because meat production is becoming more on-farm than it used to be. The ability to have an Island-based meat inspection system is what is going to allow that to continue to grow.

About half the people who attended these workshops were IFA members -- not all of them -- but all of them were telling us that the IFA had made a good start, but that the job was far from complete. We need to try to fill each one of these requests. The operative word, of course, is "we." The IFA will facilitate the process if needed, when needed. Each government level has a job to do too, and together we can fill agriculture's wish list.

Now the question is: why would we want to fill agriculture's wish list? The first reason is food security for the Island. We cannot and should not rely on others to produce our food. It's not safe, and it's not fair. Our population grows, and already some do not have enough to eat. The very least we can do is raise our own food and not take what is already in short supply. If others grow our food, they will reap the benefits that come from doing so, not us. If we lose the skills,

[ Page 669 ]

The Island has lost many jobs related to fishing and forestry, and agriculture can help replace some of those jobs. It may not be a full-time job, but it could indeed be a part-time job. Direct farm marketing is a very good industry on Vancouver Island. People who have lost their jobs are going to have to feed themselves. If they can get into agriculture and even partway produce some of their own food and some for their neighbours, that can give them a reason to maybe build in the communities they're already in. They might lose their jobs or have to go to a part-time job, but maybe they could stay in their homes and find another way or at least part of another way to meet their needs.

We have 3,000 Island farmers bringing jobs to an additional 8,000 people who are directly or indirectly employed in the local agriculture industry. Local farmers bring in revenues of approximately $146 million to their communities. We do this even though only 10 percent of the food consumed on the Island is grown and produced here. In other words, just imagine the potential that we have that could benefit our agriculture and the communities in which it lives. It is a tremendous opportunity.

I don't think the opportunity is going to last forever though, because anything you don't do, quite bluntly, somebody else will. Once they get a foothold, you could continue to lose even more agriculture, and I don't believe that's in the best interests of the community or of the province. You can't have a strong province unless you also have healthy communities, and agriculture is a vital component of those healthy communities. I think we've lost as much of agriculture as we can afford to do, and it's time that we rebuilt agriculture. Indeed, that has to start with its support, more farmers and the support of the communities, consumers and everyone else who purchases and eats food.

[1420]

There have been some other presentations today that are of great concern to the alliance, and I might list a couple. I don't know if they've been or if they're yet to be.

Ian Christison is the vice-chair of the Island Farmers Alliance. Ian is an egg producer and a vegetable grower. Island egg producers are more than capable of meeting the entire Island demand for eggs and then some, but the marketing policy at present is to give them an inadequate allocation and then bring in product from the mainland for Island consumption.

Lyle Price is an IFA director, and he's also chair of the Vegetable Marketing Commission. He also runs the Port Potato Co. Recent changes to the WCB classifications have resulted in our vegetable producers finding that their WCB rate just doubled. This was done without adequate consultation and at a time when the agricultural section of the WCB has about a $2 million reserve -- quite inappropriate, we believe.

Lyle also heads our IFA initiative to have agriculture advisory boards added to each municipality. We feel that this is appropriate, since we now hold ALR land that is being held for the public good. If they have a say in what we do with our land, then we should have a say in what rules and regulations they are putting in place that have a direct impact on our land. We, as the IFA, are prepared to facilitate and find the people -- not necessarily be the people, but find the people -- who will provide advisory groups to our municipalities here on Vancouver Island.

David Craven is another IFA director. Now, you're about to look at the possibility of losing the chicken industry. Well, David's a hog producer, and you've already lost the hog producing industry. So don't think it can't happen, because it already has. David and a group of fellow hog producers are attempting to re-establish a hog industry on the Island. The only hog processing plant on the Island brings in product from Alberta. They can do it cheaper. "Cheap" seems to be the operative word these days, but it's going to have a terrible cost if we're not careful.

One of the things that David and his group need is a workable meat inspection system on the Island. So one of the things that the IFA is going to have to work for -- and one of the things that you really need to look into -- is a way to create a workable meat inspection system for Vancouver Island.

Peter Volk -- I understand, from listening previously, that he's been. Well, Peter is the chairperson of the Vancouver Island Chicken Growers Association, and he represents all of our Island growers. I assume he has updated you on the way things are going for the chicken industry. The stand of the Island Farmers Alliance is that we need a system put in place that will allow the Island to start chicks, supply the producers on the Island and have birds processed on the Island for Island consumption.

For your information, since I'm chair of the alliance and a chicken producer, I've backed off from this. I have been a resource only to the Island Farmers Alliance with regard to the chicken industry. Our other directors have taken on the job of doing a fact-finding mission and creating this position. As growers, we were concerned that we need a plant. We need a plant. But someone who wasn't in our industry had a look at it and said: "You need more than that. You need the ability to have breeder growers. You need a hatchery, you need growers, and you need a processor." So they looked at the whole thing while we looked at the immediate.

Anyway, I thank you, and I will answer any questions you happen to have.

W. Hartley (Chair): Okay. We have time for a couple of questions. We're running a little late.

J. Thompson: Yeah, I know.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Judy, the people that belong to the Chicken Marketing Board were here earlier also, and I imagine that you belong. It's probably a grower-run organiza-

[ Page 670 ]

[1425]

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But, Judy, who should do the reminding? The organization basically belongs to you, one of the growers.

J. Thompson: Oh, we're doing our bit.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): So what are you asking this committee to do in the form of reminding or whatever else? I just have a hard time bringing the two together. It's your organization.

J. Thompson: Yeah, it is my organization; it's true. But there is also the supervisory board, which is a government organization, and it has some capacity to influence what is happening here. Now, to some extent they have stepped in. I think their intention is good. But the bottom line. . . . And they have said there should be consultation before any of these things happen, before quota flows or before the penny goes -- though I believe they approve the payment of the transportation ferry costs; they left that one in. But that had the knee-jerk reaction of having Lilydale say: "We're not placing chicks." Now our marketing board says: "Well, if the supervisory board is going to alter what we've done, then it's their job" -- and it goes on.

We're left in the middle as growers, in the middle of a fight between Lilydale, our marketing board and the supervisory board at the moment. It's an inappropriate place for us to be put. The bottom line is that if there are no chicks, there is no production. And if there's no production for very long, our growers will sell, because they'll be scared to death to do anything else.

I guess what people need to say is that we want the industry here. Give them some time to find it out, sort it out. Time is what is most needed at the moment.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks, Judy. I think the committee has heard the message today on wanting to underline the urgency of that matter.

J. Thompson: I would have thought you would.

Thank you.

W. Hartley (Chair): Next we have John Rowling from the Campaign for Real Ale Society. Welcome, John. Just go right ahead there.

J. Rowling: Good afternoon. My name is John Rowling, and I'm representing the Campaign for Real Ale Society of British Columbia. My current occupation is that of chairman of the Great Canadian Beer Festival Society. I'm going to use the acronym CAMRA, which comes from the first part of the word "campaign" and the initials for "real ale." CAMRA-BC is a consumer advocacy group dedicated to the promotion of craft beers. CAMRA campaigns on many issues related to beer, but today is focusing on food safety and industry sustainability in British Columbia.

[1430]

For beer, then, four ingredients are needed: water, malt -- which may be barley or wheat -- hops and yeast. Traditionally, no other ingredients are used. In Germany in 1516, the German purity law or Reinheitsgebot was passed, prohibiting any other substances to be used. Other countries, such as Norway and Greece, have followed with similar laws.

In the brewing industry in British Columbia today, there are two types of breweries: craft breweries that adhere to the German model and use high-quality but expensive ingredients; other breweries use cheaper fermentable adjuncts, such as rice, pasta flour and corn syrup, and also add heading agents, preservatives and food colouring. The craft breweries tend not to filter their beer, whereas the others do so, thereby removing much of the body and flavour of the beer. CAMRA supports the beers brewed by British Columbia's craft breweries and brewpubs but does not approve of the other breweries' products.

Under the food safety heading, CAMRA's concerns lie in the area of what is used to make beer. CAMRA has two proposals. The first is that in British Columbia there must be a listing of ingredients on beer packaging so that consumers can make an informed choice. The second proposal is that the use of genetically altered yeasts be banned in the British Columbia brewing industry.

Addressing the first proposal regarding the listing of ingredients on the packaging of beer, manufacturers are required by the federal Food and Drugs Act to list ingredients of food products. Beer and other alcoholic products are exempt. This is apparently the result of lobbying, wherein it was argued that the process of fermentation -- or, in the case of liquor, the distillation process -- so changed the original ingredients that it was irrelevant to list them.

CAMRA rejects this argument. Consumers must be able to make an informed choice. Regulations must err on the side of safety. For example, if an individual has a wheat allergy, it stands to reason that they should know which beers are made

[ Page 671 ]

Turning to the second proposal, CAMRA-BC proposes that the government of British Columbia should take an active role in preventing the use of genetically altered yeasts in breweries in this province. As part of the handout, I have attached a technical discussion on research and genetically altered yeasts. I'm not going to discuss that, because it's not my field. CAMRA-BC believes that there has not been enough research done on the issue of genetically altered yeasts to allow the population of British Columbia to be used as guinea pigs. CAMRA-BC proposed that the use of genetically altered yeasts be banned in the British Columbia brewing industry.

Finally, in the area of industry sustainability, CAMRA has one proposal today. That proposal is that British Columbia adopt a more equitable tax regime for the beer industry. We believe that the present tax system is unfair to smaller breweries and is particularly unfair to those that are most concerned about the quality of their product. The brewing industry is very strongly subject to economies of scale -- the more volume produced, the cheaper the cost. These economies of scale exert a constant pressure on breweries to increase production, to decrease variety of brands or to consolidate with other breweries. The current tax regime only increases that pressure.

[1435]

We at CAMRA want to see a more equitable tax system. We endorse the position of the Craft Brewers Association of British Columbia for a uniform tax rate of 80 percent of current levels for the first 15,000 hectolitres produced, 85 percent of current levels on the next 20,000 hectolitres and 90 percent of current levels on further production, to a maximum of 75,000 hectolitres. Above that level, all production would be taxed at the current rate. To give you an idea of what those figures mean, it is estimated that Molson and Labatt together produce more than two million hectolitres per year in British Columbia. Vancouver Island Brewing produces about 21,000 hectolitres, and Lighthouse Brewing, a new brewery in Victoria, produced about 1,600 hectolitres in its first year.

We believe that this proposal would encourage the startup of small breweries and brewpubs. It would help small brewers to survive and increase local employment. It would increase revenue from tourism. The success of the Great Canadian Beer Festival and its economic impact on Victoria provides clear evidence of the benefits that flow from targeting this sector of the tourist market. Just this week it was announced that there will be an "ale trail" in Victoria for tourists wishing to tour the local brewpubs and microbreweries. It will enhance the current Buy B.C. program, and it will level the playing field for the British Columbia brewing industry.

Microbreweries and brewpubs compete against the enormous economies of scale afforded the major breweries and the often predatory price and distribution practices of these companies, so we feel that it is only fair to offer them some assistance. Other provinces have already taken action. Alberta's tax is 50 cents per litre for the first 50,000 hectolitres, which works out to about a dollar per six-pack. We feel that the government should act now. If the province does not adopt a more equitable tax regime for the brewing industry, jobs and investment will leave our province. That will leave only a few multinational operations producing a limited variety of unexceptional but low-cost beer, and we don't want to see that as the vision for the twenty-first century in B.C.

I'd like to add a postscript. The growth of the craft beer and brewpub industry in British Columbia has given rise to many offshoot businesses. Companies such as Specific Mechanical Systems Ltd. in Victoria and Newlands Systems Inc. in Abbotsford build small brewing systems for clients worldwide. The permanent staff at Specific Mechanical Systems is about 50 employees and occasionally peaks at over 120. Newlands is very similar. In a different area, more relevant to this committee, Gambrinus Malting Corp. in Armstrong supplies specialty malts to breweries and brewpubs across Canada and throughout the United States. There are many other aspects of the offshoot businesses, too numerous to mention, but they're all because of the craft beer and brewpub industry in this province. CAMRA wants the government to support that.

[1440]

Next is George Aylard, president of the Island Farms Dairies Cooperative Association.

G. Aylard: My name is George Aylard. I'm here today as president of Island Farms Dairies Co-op Association and as representative of our 56 shipping members. I started dairy farming in 1957. The farm is now being operated by my son, who is a third-generation farmer on the land.

A good deal of my presentation will cover the same problems and concerns that the other 30 dairy producers face on Vancouver Island. The 86 milk producers on Vancouver Island market in excess of 200,000 litres of milk per day. Their income represents one-third of the total farm receipts of all Vancouver Island agricultural producers. The Vancouver Island dairy industry is an important part of the Island economy. Annual milk sales represent about $40 million, with approximately an additional $5 million in livestock sales. Using an accepted economic multiplier factor of seven, this represents over $300 million that the dairy industry on Vancouver Island contributes to the economy. At an average per-capita income of $50,000, this represents 6,000 jobs.

[ Page 672 ]

One problem is the availability of farmland. The opportunity for the present-day dairyman to expand is limited by the land base available both for forage production and for manure disposal. The first hurdle is the cost of land. Since I started dairying, I have seen land prices increase about 15 times in 40 years. You may say that is a good investment. However, to buy land you need cash flow to finance the purchase. The farm-gate price of milk has only increased between four and five times in that same period. It is now more economical to buy forage than to finance land to grow it. The limiting factors to herd size and economic viability are forage production and the availability of land for manure disposal. In areas like Vancouver Island, land-banking may be necessary to maintain an economic nucleus of dairy farms.

A prediction for growth on Vancouver Island is that the population of 700,000 people will double in the next 30 to 40 years. It will be vital to have a local supply of fresh dairy products available, produced on the Island, to meet this demand. The policy of Island Farms Dairies is to service customer needs and encourage local grocery outlets to handle Island-produced products. The problem at the producer level is to maintain a critical mass of dairy farmers to provide milk for the Island processing plants.

We have seen a decline in the broiler industry on the Island. You may ask: "How does this affect dairy farmers?" As poultry production leaves the Island, the number of manufactured-feed users also declines. This raises the question of how long the owners of the one feed mill that services Island farmers will be able to continue in business.

[1445]

There are many trade-friendly opportunities that could be instituted and would be considered green by the World Trade Organization. The ALDA program is one. The Agricultural Land Development Act encouraged improvements of farms by maintaining a low interest rate on borrowed capital. Funding is needed for forage variety trials to identify the most productive crops available.

We need more resource people in the Agriculture ministry to provide extension services to the primary producers. Farmers can well remember the commitment that was made by the government when the agricultural land reserve act was introduced. The trade-off for freezing any residential development on farmland was to have an economic return to producers that was fair and adequate, comparable to the rest of society. Income assurance programs are history, and the funding for research and extension is limited and shrinking. In short, our view is that the Agriculture ministry has lost its focus as it relates to primary agricultural development.

Now a word about supply management as it relates to milk production. The definition of supply management is to provide an adequate but not excessive supply of fresh dairy products to the consumer. This method of marketing stabilizes both supply and price and eliminates wide price fluctuations. There are no costs for the government to bear in a supply-managed commodity. Comparing this program to the U.S. milk market, where farm-gate milk prices have varied 25 to 30 percent during recent years, our pricing system is very stable. Stable prices make production planning much simpler.

We do not need milk cow buyout programs as in the U.S. We do not need government price-support programs as in the U.S. We do not need export enhancement programs to get rid of surplus product as in the U.S. Finally, the emotional stress on the farm family is reduced, because financial returns are more predictable. So we urge you to try to understand and appreciate the supply-managed system we have in Canada.

In conclusion, we throw out the challenge to government as well as opposition members to look at the contract the government of the day made, on behalf of the people in B.C., with the farming community when our land was frozen. In the farmers' view, the cutbacks and policy changes that have taken place have meant that the government has reneged on the deal. As producers, we were assured that we would have economic vitality in agriculture and be assured of a decent return for our efforts. We are losing 5 percent of our dairymen a year in this province; this does not bode well for the future of farmers or consumers.

E. Conroy: George, what do you think would be the state of the dairy industry on Vancouver Island ten years from now if nothing is done?

G. Aylard: I think there'll still be a dairy industry on Vancouver Island, but it'll be a smaller industry. We've got quota leaving the Island. I think the biggest thing is to try and set an atmosphere so that we've got young people coming into the industry, so they've got some hope for the future.

E. Conroy: So quota that becomes available on the Island can be sold off the Island?

G. Aylard: Anywhere in the province, yes.

E. Conroy: Okay. And the 5 percent loss per year that you mentioned, in the number of dairy farmers -- is that due to people simply getting out? Or is that. . . ? I know that in other jurisdictions it seems like the farms are getting bigger, and there are fewer people involved.

G. Aylard: I think that's correct. We're not shipping less milk, necessarily. But there are fewer people involved in the industry, and I think that weakens the industry. We don't have the broad base of producers that we once used to have.

E. Conroy: Thank you.

[ Page 673 ]

[1450]

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But you did mention that with the impact that the chicken farmers would have on the feed supply companies, that impact. . . . You know, if they start moving off the Island also, will that impact the dairy farmers?

G. Aylard: Certainly. I mean, there's mainland-processed feed coming onto the Island now. But I suggest to you that this price is competitive only because we have a feed manufacturing plant on the Island. Without that we're at their mercy, really, to some extent. I mean, there's still competition. When we started the business, there used to be three feed manufacturing plants on the Island, and it's down to one now.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): The other question I have, George, has to do with 1972, when the ALR was introduced, and the commitment by government was to basically support the farmers. I was there at the time and involved with my parents, so I know what happened. Could you elaborate on what took place in the dairy industry also?

G. Aylard: There was a farm income insurance plan that came in basically to offset the lower returns that farmers were getting at that time. It was about the same time that we had a very high inflation rate. Do you remember? Oil prices went up. Our costs went up, and our returns were minimal. The insurance program picked up the slack for a few years, and then things changed. They adjusted the formula somewhat, and a lot of people got out of the income insurance program in dairy. Of course, basically the program collapsed as far as dairy is concerned. What it did was get us over that hurdle in the early seventies, when the inflation rate was skyrocketing and our costs got way out of line.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Now, with a supply-managed commodity. . . . I'm just wondering how that farm income insurance affected. . . . Because dairy was in the supply-management end of it, I'm just wondering what kind of draw, over the years, was ever taken out of the FII.

G. Aylard: I think it was a fairly big draw for a few years. You see, the formula is based on a ten-year average. If you've got a rapid increase in the escalation of costs, it takes a while for that formula to catch up. If your costs go up drastically over a short span of time, that formula isn't as effective as it is in the long term.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): So do you think that program should be instituted again?

G. Aylard: I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the present stabilization programs and whether they would work in dairy. I think there are probably some better programs, as far as dairy is concerned, to put in place. I'm not sure that that program would be a green program under world trade organizations, either, so there's some risk there. But there are other programs that could be put in place, I'm sure, that would be trade-friendly.

[1455]

Next is Paul Haynes of the organic fertilizer industry.

P. Haynes: My name is Paul Haynes. In recognizing the Chair, the Deputy Chair, hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address the select standing committee. Two unofficial comments I'd like to make. . . . Firstly, the title of my presentation should be "Health for the Agricultural Industry." Secondly, I'm going to read this, so that I don't leave anything out. If I went freestyle, we'd be here until happy hour. At the same time, I sometimes find it difficult to keep my enthusiasm under control.

I am very impressed with the intent, approach, vision and mission to accomplish the goals as set out in the briefing paper booklet, the green one. You allow yourselves to stand up to careful scrutiny on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Prologue. At present, some of the public and all of the growers of fruit, vegetables, flowers, etc., have been brainwashed about fertilizers and pesticides. For instance, pour or spray it on over and over, and things will grow, and pests will die. Over time the soil has become drenched with chemicals, depleting the soil of essential growth minerals, trace elements, hormones and good bacteria. It has become essentially infertile. Some think that by adding more and more chemical fertilizer, we'll fix the soil, but they are so wrong.

The products grown lack proper nutrition, size, colour and stability, etc. Pesticides have become harmful to either the produce or the producer or both. In fact, they are proven even harmful to the operators of the spray equipment. Wind-carried spray and the need to wash everything, including the produce, has become an unnecessary nuisance and expense.

What do growers of natural and certified organic produce use to fertilize their produce? They put on, when and where available, traditional compost, mulch and manure, etc. But the growers rely basically on the theory that their soil has not been treated with chemical poisons and has essentially a natural element composition. In the old days, crops were rotated to compensate, but in these days of specialization, that practice has become inconvenient or costly. They now rely on chemical fertilizers.

To ensure that their soil is always at maximum nutrient levels, they need an organic fertilizer, supplement or conditioner, one without any chemical support and one that is going to replenish or boost the soil with natural minerals, trace elements, enzymes and hormones, etc., at a supportive price. This may in fact become a new cost item if they don't have enough manure, etc., but it is vital to maintaining a natural or organic production process. See the subsidy referred to later.

[1500]

[ Page 674 ]

Now there are two products available that can benefit all aspects of agricultural and horticultural products. Product No. 1 was developed and produced 20 or so years ago, but because it was before its time, the company shut down. But it can be revived easily and quickly. This product combines enriched kelp, originally imported from Norway, with bark in a granulated formula. It has been researched and tested with successful, well-documented results. It contains most of the vital elements that support vibrant growth, even in sandy, desert-like conditions. It is totally natural and biodegradable.

For the interest and benefit of the Ministry of Fisheries, in B.C. we have more than 2,200 nautical miles of ocean shoreline with a lot of harvestable kelp and mineral-rich, sea-grown vegetation. For the interest of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, we have a human resource that could develop employment by harvesting the sea-grown vegetation. For the interest of the Ministry of Forests, the tree bark can be supplied by more than 370 mills throughout B.C., giving added value to what would normally be waste and glut. Four ministries, including Agriculture, could share and benefit from this one product alone, which is derived from renewable resources.

Product No. 2. There is an area in the interior of B.C. that was created by volcanic activity in the Permian period some 230 million years ago. It is composed of natural volcanic material rich in minerals, trace elements, enzymes and plant hormones. This material uniquely stimulates plant growth and holds nitrogen and phosphates, making them available to the plants without being leached out by rain. This material has been known in the past by various names. But the companies did not remain active because of lack of capital or bad management or both. The organic and chemicals industry today would have helped them survive and maybe thrive, but timing is everything.

There are three or more claims involved in this area currently held by a local company, and it is paramount that this time it has the right blend of capital and expertise to assist the agriculture and horticultural industries generally and the natural and certified organic industry specifically. This time, the timing is right.

Let's look at the features. First, natural volcanic material is a rich source of 32 essential minerals and trace elements with enzymes and hormones. Next, trace elements support enzymes. Next, enzymes support healthy plant growth. Next, the material has the highest paramagnetic reading ever seen by Dr. Philip Callahan, research scientist and naturalist.

Now let's look at the benefits. First, it replaces essential minerals to nutrient-depleted, chemically-saturated soil. Next, deeper, fuller and stronger root systems. Next, earlier and more complete seed germination. Next, greater crop yield because of earlier planting and germination and a longer harvest season. Next, higher nutritional values and better flavour, colour and size. Next, increased and stronger plant and flower growth with sustained freshness. Next, it lowers the acidity, helping change acid to alkaline pH balance and soil to 7.3. Next, it reduces or eliminates use of pesticides as growth becomes richly pest- and slug-resistant. Next, particles of this material attract and hold water, thus increasing the plant's ability to hold moisture in the root system, which reduces watering requirements. Next, increased resistance to cold, frost and drought. Next, elements last two to three years in the soil with reduced nitrogen and phosphorus requirements, as these elements are sustained in the soil at root level much longer. And lastly, material energizes water and improves pH balance. Nutraceuticals or functional foods -- for example, ginseng and echinacea -- as well as hemp production can also benefit greatly from the use of products 1 and 2.

Now I'm going to make reference to addressing the vision and goals 1, 2 and 3 in the briefing-paper booklet, "Choosing Our Future: Options for the Agri-Food Industry." At this point I want to tie in our mission and our goals, as company product 1 and company product 2 relate to the agrifood industry's three goals.

Goal 1: "To reach full productive capacity of our agricultural land." We can help B.C., as a leader in North America, to establish environmental standards to protect air, soil and water, fish and wildlife without having an increasingly negative impact on the competitive position of the industry. I've outlined how natural organic soil supplements improve the standards for soil and water by replacing the destructive and poisonous chemicals. With growth boosters and without the use of destructive chemicals and pesticides, we can make an equally strong case for reaching productive capacity. New and stringent regulations regarding pesticides can be accomplished by the replacement use of the volcanic mineral supplement that now serves double duty. Farms next to urban development may have an odour problem. This, believe it or not, can be reduced quite effectively by the application of the volcanic material on manure. Then you have a powerful organic fertilizer. We cannot fix the farm noise problem yet.

[1505]

"Funding for industry organizations," page 13. The current policy of no role in ensuring funding for farm or agrifood organizations can be adjusted. Also, the question asked regarding funding. . . . See subsidy referred to later.

"Increasing access to venture capital," page 14. Access to capital is not always an easy exercise. For our industry, we're going the equity route for capital. Companies within the industry should shoulder the lack of capital for farmers and processors for innovations in both crops and processing. In our case, we already have the innovations to share new products or new applications. Progressive industry survives on innovation and entrepreneurship. We can share in getting the word out. Maybe curtailment of programs can be turned around by our new approach to funding which will reverse your current policy of no capital funds available.

Also, to answer your question regarding assistance, the respective industries have the onus to develop new products

[ Page 675 ]

"Information and support services," page 14. The need in the industry for information on everything from pest control to international trade agreements to technological advances should be encouraged and forthcoming from the industry via requests from the ministry for same. The dissatisfaction of the organic producers with the level of support provided to their part of the industry can and will be overcome by, for instance, our announcements and material awareness programs. The organic supply industry can be encouraged by the ministry to provide the level of support requested. In fact, it's in their own best interest to do so. Member and grower mailing lists should be made available either individually or through organic group associations and even the ministry. Your current policy can be changed with support and encouragement from the industry itself.

The question. Yes, it's important for government and industry to continue to provide information and research to farmers. Yes, industry can undertake this function, and if we as a corporation have to lead the way, then we will. Part of our program is to get our information out to all growers.

"Increasing government support," page 15. The government must listen to the industry and move to the Canadian average of funding for agrifood and establish priorities that focus on support services. They can and should assist in developing a self-sustaining industry. The government most definitely should create a special development fund for agricultural infrastructure, matching other resource industries. Then you can change your current policy to provide assistance that more closely relates to the industry's contribution to gross domestic product. The question asked? Yes. As above, in financing, refer to the subsidies section following.

Goal 3: "To make the value of the food we produce equal to the value of the food we consume." Excerpts from the opening statement say that by enhancing the productivity of our agrifood resource base, and if we can increase our exports through innovation and promotion, we will lower our costs by reducing imports and increasing domestic production and conservation. Our province, through its agrifood industry, has the potential to be a net exporter rather than a net importer of agricultural products. More to follow on this.

The government, by not considering all the implications for the agrifood industry before making policies, caused a serious lack of information-sharing on farm issues -- food production issues which adversely affect the competing interests of the various groups. The current policy must be revised to allow dialogue at all levels. Our industry can participate and assist.

"Direct marketing" -- co-op marketing, etc., views to follow.

"Government policy of Buy B.C.," page 17, says: ". . .rebuilding the wholesale market in B.C. by creating an incentive for wholesalers to include a line of B.C. foods. . . ." Our organic industry could set a precedent among many in making this even more viable than at present. If we can assist in creating produce that is superior and within a sound pricing structure, then we will have an image and pride starting at the growing level which will create a powerful voice at the wholesaler level and on to the retail level. Buy B.C. is a must and can be very effective. See the note re B.C. Hot House.

[1510]

Point 1: ". . .industry will need to grow. . .to meet current domestic demand. . .to take advantage of export opportunities and to support a value-added industry."

Next point: currently, 90 percent of demand is met through imports.

Next: ". . .increasing demand for. . .no-pesticide-residue vegetables. . . ." This is an area with great potential, and we are leaders in production of food with few chemical additives.

Next: ". . .reduce pesticide use by 50 percent." Greenhouses lead the way. Market advantages despite cost-of-production disadvantage.

Next: expanding demand for nutraceuticals referred to earlier.

Next: organic or natural foods marketed only by individual businesses as a result of no current policy.

Question: "How can we enhance and build support for B.C.'s expanding organic and natural food sector? Would it be useful. . .to develop a labelling system that would identify products that are of high quality and/or low chemical residue -- a B.C. 'stamp of approval'?" Question? Yes. Answer: Yes, yes, yes. We as developers of the industry can help with product -- as previously outlined -- and information and consultations.

Your conclusion: "Clearly British Columbia's agrifood industry has done a remarkable job of adapting to the dramatic changes in the way food is produced, processed and distributed in our province and in the global economy. However. . .the industry needs widely based public support for and [better] understanding of the needs of the industry."

"Appendix 1: Statement of Principles," page 20. It can now be demonstrated that the industry I speak on behalf of can relate to items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of your draft principles.

"Appendix 2: Other Agrifood Initiatives." Major initiatives being addressed that relate are "a review of regulated products marketing and supply management," and "work on the processing sector, including research and an examination of processing on ALR lands."

Let me go back to the beginning of the options, etc. In the briefing-paper booklet -- under the heading "Challenges to the Industry" -- key words are: primary producers creating new opportunities in the increasingly important natural food sector.

First: ". . .concerns about human health and safe food."

Next: "we need to increase public awareness."

Next: redefine relationships among consumers and producers of agrifood products.

We, as a new and developing industry, want to participate and help in assisting government procedures and policy reviews.

[ Page 676 ]

Next point: federal research grants are being sought after.

Next, we must work with grower associations in the processing of information to the individual growers and farms.

Next, a marketing strategy for organic farmers could, for instance, at the top, be modelled after the successful B.C. Hot House formula. That is, they have 54 growers, following strict growing guidelines, supplying one overall warehouse from which the product is supplied. The next level could be co-ops for product distribution. Finally, we need the direct marketing of neighbourhood farmers' markets for the small custom-blend growers.

Now the subsidy. Both product 1 and 2 have tremendous export potential, with product 2, the volcanic material, being in demand already in the United States. Both products can also be utilized in the human health formula -- kelp for nutrition and the radionic transfer of energy from the volcanic material through water.

Bulk exports could supply a return to the province by way of a special levy or fund, and this could be used to assist organic growers to overcome the added cost of natural fertilizer. They still benefit from the increase in more vibrant produce by using these organic materials. The growers of regular produce do not need a subsidy, as the organic supplements replace the cost of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, they do gain the benefits of increased production and better quality, so this is a win-win situation.

Summary. I am now referring to my association with the organic industry as "we," as I now feel very much involved after consulting in it for over a year. We have the products, the research, the test results and the backup expertise to make things grow and grow better for B.C.'s growing and farming community. The Ministry of Agriculture should benefit greatly from all the input received by this Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I do not envy you your task of formulating a report with all the vast material. Good luck.

[1515]

W. Hartley (Chair): Thank you.

E. Conroy: Paul, what's paramagnetic reading?

P. Haynes: I was hoping you would ask. There are several variations on the interpretation of paramagnetic, but it's one of the three magnetic forces in earth. Paramagnetic is a low-energy transfer of energy in the root system, in the volcanic material. I'll just read what we've made up in this little brochure. I won't quote the doctor on what his explanation is, because it's very technical.

"Paramagnetism is the alignment of a force field in one direction by substance in a magnetic field. The effect of this paramagnetic directional alignment is to facilitate a plant's access to and transport of minerals through its root system. This leads to faster growth, deeper, more efficient roots and a higher plant yield." The material, of course, is very highly paramagnetic and "in the presence of plants affects them directly and can be made available to them efficiently by affecting the irrigation of water delivered to the plant. The paramagnetic effect remains active in the soil and water indefinitely."

Now, that's in the soil if it's applied to the soil. Again, it's a supplement or a conditioner. The effect it has on water is that it changes the chemical balance of water from acidic to alkaline, up to a 7.3 again. A healthy body is and should be alkaline. An acidic body attracts disease.

What is happening here -- I didn't fill this, because I'd probably spill it -- is that this has a false bottom, and it's filled with a paramagnetic material comprising about 90 percent of the material. So what happens is that, even through glass, it'll transfer that energy through to the water. It makes the water softer; it changes the conditioning of the water. It purifies the water if you're travelling. It changes a cheap wine flavour, for instance, into a quality wine flavour, amazingly enough. You can treat your orange juice, coffee -- anything you put in the mug. Or you can use this pen. It looks like a pen, but it's blank. Again, it's got material in it. If you stir it for 15 seconds, get a vortex and let it sit for ten seconds, it has a radionic transfer of energy from the material of the pen into whatever is in the cup or the glass. So this affects water.

You can also, for instance, put a rock of this material into a watering can and water your plants indefinitely -- just keeping the rock on the bottom of the watering can. It constantly gives off energy. The nice thing about this is that it cuts down the cost of fertilizer or whatever you're using, because the effect stays in the soil two to three years. Any farmers or growers that are now having to replace their fertilizers every year or sometimes more than once a year don't have to do that anymore. Their costs are cut down tremendously -- plus the additional benefits that they're getting from the material. The growth of flowers and vegetables is well documented; I could keep you here until happy hour. It's incredible.

I was hoping you were going to ask me about this. Acres USA magazine or newspaper is the voice of the American agricultural and horticultural industry. We are fortunate in getting it in Canada. It should be a voice box for information here. Usually, every article contains something on organic. It's got everything to do with the growing agricultural market in the States -- this one, for instance: "The True Meaning of 'Organic.' " "Beating the Odds in 'Cancer Valley.' " I should have this one picked out; it's got two very, very key articles in it. Here it is, "Soil Fertility and Fertilization" -- a fantastic article by a master consultant. Right next door to that article is "The True Meaning of 'Organic.' " These are powerful pieces of news coming every month from Acres magazine in the States.

I'd like to make reference briefly. . . . I'm glad you asked about the chickens. I think that the British Columbia Agriculture Council has done a fantastic job here. I think big banners like this should be put on, say, store windows of those that are not only supplying organic produce but are happy and progressive in their promotion of B.C.'s products -- like B.C. Hot

[ Page 677 ]

By the way, they use woodchips, not earth. It's all hydroponic. They use woodchips in combination with wool. We could supply. . . . We're going to approach them on the basis of doing a test on using our material not only for their water but also maybe as a supplement in the material in the rock wool. As you can see, the benefits that we have could maybe increase the growth pattern of their produce. You never know. We could maybe make the tomatoes even redder. It's hard to say.

I want to thank you. I'm open for questions.

[1520]

P. Haynes: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

W. Hartley (Chair): Next is Lorne Tomalty. Welcome, Lorne.

L. Tomalty: My name is Lorne Tomalty. I live on the Malahat, which is 17 miles north of here, and I have a vineyard. I would like to thank you very much for allowing me to come here today and give you some of my views and thoughts on agriculture. I'm representing no one but myself but would hope that I would gather people who would support my thinking in the future.

I came to British Columbia on a short stint in 1943 from Ottawa, where I was raised, to Gordon Head to be an officer in the Canadian army. When the war ended -- I guess from those three months out here -- I came back, went to UBC and have lived here in British Columbia ever since. I was going to mention what I did, but maybe you might ask me that.

In the 50 years that I have lived here, I've heard about forests, logs, big logs, fishing and lumber, but I can't recall people talking about agriculture very much. Someone might have said: "Oh yes, Okanagan apples." But that's about what I heard on agriculture. Although B.C. only has 3 percent of arable land for farming, one would think that agriculture didn't exist. I believe this is reflected in governments, regardless of party, giving agriculture short shrift in the planning, development and treatment of the agricultural function as a viable industry in British Columbia -- that is, compared to other activities in British Columbia.

I think this is shown in the government allocations of funding in the respective budgets over the last 50 years. In the 1999 budget presented by government, does anyone recall how much was spent to give the agricultural function its place in our society? I won't allow you to answer that; I'll tell you. One-quarter of 1 percent of the $20 billion budget went into agriculture. I have figures here going back 50 years, and this is the lowest it's ever been. The highest was 1.1 percent in '79-80. It has varied from 0.6 percent, 0.8 percent and 0.9 percent. So clearly, in my view, people -- those living in and outside of British Columbia -- think of British Columbia as a big forest and fishing organization. They're not looking at agriculture, as I see it. They see Manitoba and Saskatchewan as agricultural but not us.

[1525]

Now I'll say what I did. I was in government 35 years and ended up representing and reporting to Treasury Board and cabinet. There were two people -- the Deputy Minister of Finance, who looked after money, and me, who looked after people and everything else. I've had an awful lot of experience in government and how money is. . . . I heard an awful lot of people coming to meetings like this, asking for money as if this was the only answer.

However, in this particular case, there have been reductions all through government because of our recent economy in the last few years. But, in my view, we do have to give agriculture its fair share.

I suggest ways to encourage our people to enter into this agriculture industry and also to keep people from leaving the industry -- a simple example: the gentleman two before me, representing the dairy industry. Say a farmer reaching his age of retirement. . . . The rest of us worked non-farming, and we have some type of a pension plan. But talk to farmers; their pension plan is really their farm. So what does he do? Does he give it to the son? Or does he say to the son: "I would like you to buy it." I don't know of many sons that have the money to buy a multi-thousand-dollar farm. Either the old man and the old lady are in the back in another shed or another house, living on the farm for nothing, or the farmer sells his farm.

Another example is people wanting to get into the farming business. Where can they get the thousands of dollars to purchase a farm or to qualify for a mortgage? I would suggest that your committee look at this general problem. One idea is to form some type of agricultural land bank, where a farmer who's retiring could indicate this to the bank and get a fair price for his farm, therefore allowing him to retire in grace. Then the bank would allow that land to be put up for sale at payable prices and interest rates for people entering into the business.

Another idea would be to have a venture capital type of thing, and you don't have to be a farmer for that. A person who's making a fairly good income could buy a $25,000 block. The key to this would be that government -- i.e., maybe federal included -- would have an income exemption thing.

[ Page 678 ]

[1530]

Other people have mentioned organic farming; this is a big area. We have to get up some type of regulations. I don't think the Agriculture ministry has the manpower to do things like this.

For a policy on genetically altered foods, we have to have a research division. When I was looking through my report, the Department of Agriculture had a research division in 1949 and 1950. For myself, when I started this grape and vineyard business. . . . The gentleman before said that his product could help cheap wine. I don't make cheap wine; I make maybe not too hot a wine, but it's sure as hell not cheap.

There was one person in this whole government, Mr. Vielvoye, who was representing the vineyard and grape industry in British Columbia. This is a hell of a big industry -- several multimillion dollars. And what happened last year? He was transferred out of that function. Some guy -- and it's part-time -- will present us with information on grapes or vineyard growing. I think what you're seeing and I'm trying to say is: look, I know every person in government wants money, but seriously look at increasing agriculture's funding in relationship to its function and the number of people involved in it.

I want to thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thank you. Any questions from committee members?

E. Conroy: I want to say, Lorne, that we've got that message from other folks. I want to thank you for delivering it to us again in the manner you did, because you kind of highlighted it once more. I want to let you know that the message is getting across to the committee now.

L. Tomalty: I didn't want to be dull.

E. Conroy: No, that's fine. You weren't. The expensive wine perked it right up.

L. Tomalty: Thanks very much.

W. Hartley (Chair): Next is Ian Christison on B.C. egg marketing.

[1535]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and committee, for allowing me to make a short presentation this afternoon. I'll try to be as brief and succinct as I can. My name is Ian Christison. I am here today as a concerned farmer. I have an egg production unit in Cobble Hill on the Island here; as well, a partner and I have an egg production unit and grading station in Terrace in northern B.C.

It's fair to say that I'm in favour of and support regionalization, which is not quite a concept that the B.C. Egg Marketing Board has in mind. I'd like to voice my concern on the way the marketing boards regulate eggs. Although I support regulated marketing and supply management as a concept, I am finding it increasingly difficult to support the systems in place and the way they are being administered.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

When instigated, the concept of the marketing boards was to control the flow of eggs to market and to stabilize the price to producers. With stable pricing, the farmers would be protected from vertical integration. Implicit in the legislation was a responsibility to protect the interests of consumers hand in hand with the farmers. They were given powers to provide for the promotion, control and regulation of the production, transportation, packing, storing and marketing of eggs, including the prohibition of all of the same.

They seem to have taken to heart the prohibition concept concerning the eggs, but the promotion is reserved for the value of quotas. In 1972, when we joined the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, egg production in B.C. was 57 million dozen annually. That's what our provincial quota was set at. In 1998 the annual production was just slightly over 52 million dozen. During the same time, the price of quota has risen from $2.50 a bird to anywhere from $80 to $85 a bird. You'd have a hard time. . . . You can't find it at $80, and so far you haven't been able to find it at $85 either.

When the B.C. Egg Marketing Board was created, many of the farmers were producer-vendors and understood the system from the chick to the consumer -- right from start to finish. Now we have one grading station on the lower mainland controlling 85 percent of the eggs produced in B.C., without owning one single chicken or layer. They are now unfamiliar with problems at the production end; conversely, the majority of producers are completely disconnected from the grading and the consumers. Management decisions of the producers are no longer influenced by the marketplace.

The marketplace was the final arbiter of the size and quality of the eggs produced. Farmers now produce size and quality at their convenience. The grading station can ship any product not required to the breaking plant. The producer receives his average price, the grading station receives its costs for handling, and the consumer picks up the difference. The problem with this is not only the fact that consumers are paying a lot for it but that the levy the board charges is tacked onto the table price of eggs -- the eggs that are sold to the stores. The money is then used to subsidize the eggs going to the breakers. We've gotten to a point now where we can't

[ Page 679 ]

[1540]

For the industry to survive, the producers must be responsible for producing the kind and quality of eggs required for the table market, and the grading stations must be responsible for marketing all of that product. The two must work together and be responsible and responsive to each other. Ultimately, we will be forced to compete in a global market. If we do not run our industry in an accountable fashion, we will not have the support of the consumers when we really need it.

As the tariffs come down and we encounter more price pressures from imports, the less power boards will have to ensure that producers receive adequate returns. With the market share controlled by one grader, it will be able to dictate to the boards what they're going to pay for eggs. This brings us full circle to the situation we were in before the board was formed, but now we have all their regulations and restrictions to contend with. The reason the board came in was because of low prices. The farmers were in debt to the feed companies, the hatcheries and the suppliers. It is almost exactly the same thing today. Farmers are going to the feed companies and borrowing money from them to finance their farms, mainly for the purchase of quota. Because of board policies, they are discouraging grading stations outside the Fraser Valley area. As these areas grow, they cannot supply locally produced product to the market. It must be transported from the Fraser Valley for free and at the grading station's expense.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Rather than allocate production to areas of need, the solution from the board is to buy quota. At our Terrace farm, we requested production from the board. We supplied them basically with three options. They could allow us a permit to produce the eggs ourselves -- issue us a permit; they could encourage another producer to move up to that area, which is what we would prefer; or they could supply us with the product f.o.b. our farm -- f.o.b. the grading station in Terrace. They chose to direct their shipper to us, who was 800 miles away, and we would have to pick up the freight to move those eggs from Salmon Arm, which is where the person was, to Terrace. The problem is that our competition in the Fraser Valley has their eggs landed at their door at producer price. It is cheaper for us to buy eggs from Manitoba or the United States than to buy eggs from B.C.

We have based our market on a quality product which we produce at our farm in the north. We are within the city limits of Terrace, and consumers think nothing of showing up at our door and telling us what they think of our product. The problem is that we have no control over the quality of the product -- of those eggs -- that we bring in. We have had major problems with some of the eggs we have purchased. We believe that the consumers of this province deserve better than that. The quality of those eggs has ranged anywhere from absolutely excellent to rotten. The question we pose here is: at what point in time do we have to purchase these eggs? Or can we put the production in ourselves, I guess, is the point.

With policies like these, the B.C. Egg Marketing Board is tying the hands of grading stations and preventing them from growing or supplying local product to local markets. The trend as we see it is towards more support of local production and away from central buying. With Safeway threatening to source all of the eggs for their interior stores from Alberta, the board has put us in a position of not being able to respond to this intrusion because we have no product. While a majority of production is based in the Fraser Valley, the B.C. Egg Marketing Board is supposed to represent the entire province of B.C.

[1545]

Marketing boards, because of their legislative existence, have been a sore spot for many consumer groups. We must not forget that marketing boards have been created by permissive legislation and are in place at the whim of the consumer. Your committee is here today to try to find ways for government to direct policy to ensure the survival of agriculture. I find it unconscionable that none of the regional associations or the B.C. Egg Marketing Board have made a submission to you on behalf of the egg industry -- as far as I know, anyway.

The recommendation to this committee would be that the government conduct an audit of the performance of marketing boards. Are they meeting the needs of everybody in the chain in ensuring that the long-term viability of all segments of the industry are represented?

Another recommendation I would like to make, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is a publication out called "Value Chains as a Strategy." Value chains are a connection between the producers, the wholesalers, the processors and everybody -- right as far through the chain as you can possibly make. I think it's something that the committee should look at and review and see if it can be incorporated in as policy for the government. I have a copy here that you could probably have, but I'm sure the ministry has copies of it.

Another report that is out is called "A Time to Act." It's a publication by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Commission on Small Farms. They've done a fairly intensive review of small agriculture in the U.S. Now, small agriculture

[ Page 680 ]

With that, I would like to thank you very much for listening. If you have any questions. . . .

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Ian, you mentioned that in 1972 there were 57 million dozen annually. When it dropped to 52 million dozen, what happened to that quota? Where has it gone to?

I. Christison: It disappeared. The actual bird numbers that we had in quota in this province disappeared. I went from just about 20,400 layers down to 16,400 layers. I lost 4,000 layers in that period of time.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): But can you explain to me how that just disappears?

I. Christison: It just disappears; you lose it. The allocation to the province from the national agency is gone. It's reduced.

[1550]

I. Christison: Yes, from the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Who makes that decision?

I. Christison: The board of directors of CEMA.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Do we have representatives in British Columbia that would be on there?

I. Christison: Yes, we do.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Why would we allow that to happen?

I. Christison: Because there are too many eggs in the country. The way it works is if there are too many eggs produced in the country, the allocations to the individual provinces are dropped. When there's a decrease in quota, it's pro rata. So if they deem that there are 1.5 percent or 1 percent too many eggs in the country, every province gets a 1 percent decrease in its allocation.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Okay. Let me ask this question, then: are 52 million dozen eggs supplying the market of British Columbia today?

I. Christison: No.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Then why wouldn't the allocation go back up again?

I. Christison: Because the board has not asked for it. I would say that as a single province, it's extremely difficult to convince the board of directors at CEMA, who are the other ten provinces -- or 11 now, as the case may be -- that you need more production. They look at it and say: "Well, if he gets it, I want it." They just cannot get anywhere. So what they did is institute a program called the national quota exchange program, where if a province was participating -- a producer in that province wanted to sell quota -- then B.C. could buy that quota from the other province.

The only problem with that is that concept is not included in the federal-provincial agreement. There is nothing in there allowing that sort of thing to happen, but they go ahead and do it anyway, because it's easy. There are criteria in the agreement that specify when and how you get justification for an increase in allocation, but you can't get anybody to listen to you.

B. Goodacre: Ian, I come from Smithers. I used to work in a grocery store, and I sold lots of your Terrace eggs -- hundreds and thousands of them.

I. Christison: Thank you. They're pretty good, eh?

B. Goodacre: The ones that we knew were from Terrace, I suppose, were.

I. Christison: At that time, there could have been some coming in from Manitoba as well.

B. Goodacre: Listening to this discussion on the quota. . . . I mean, I was shocked to look at that number moving down, over a 20-year or a 30-year period, from 57 to 52 million dozen. When you were giving your explanation, you suggested that when there's more production out there, then everybody takes a hit. You've got me wondering now: is every egg sold in Canada sold by somebody holding quota within the limits of their quota? Is that how. . . ?

I. Christison: That's how it's supposed to be, yeah.

B. Goodacre: So where does this extra production come from?

I. Christison: What has happened over the years. . . . Since CEMA was formed, people have put a lot of money into their facilities. You've got better birds that are producing more eggs than there were ten years ago. There's all kinds of different technology that's been included or implemented in the egg industry over the last 25 years, which has led to an increase in production.

B. Goodacre: So the quota was attached to the number of layers, not the amount of eggs produced?

I. Christison: No, the quota was actually in dozens per bird. The provincial marketing board converted that to birds for simplicity. It was easier for them to go out and count the chickens than it was to count the eggs. So they just said: "Well, here you are. You can have 10,000 birds." What happened was that instead of producing 20 dozen out of those birds, all of a sudden you're producing 22, 23, 24 and 24-1/2. We weren't selling them; we weren't doing anything to market that product.

[ Page 681 ]

I. Christison: Absolutely.

B. Goodacre: And yet the consumption of eggs has easily doubled since that time.

I. Christison: Oh no. When CEMA came in, the per-capita consumption of eggs was around 19-1/2 dozen per person. It hit a low of 14-1/2. I think we're at just over 15 now.

B. Goodacre: So that hasn't. . . . Okay. Well, thank you very much.

[1555]

W. Hartley (Chair): Thanks, Ian.

Next is David Wiebe from the Islands Organic Growers Association.

B. Hughes: It's not actually David Wiebe. I'm Brian Hughes, and I'm doing it for David, who is in Ontario today.

W. Hartley (Chair): Okay. If you could introduce yourself. . . .

B. Hughes: I'm Brian Hughes, ladies and gentlemen. I'm an organic farmer. I have a farm up in Deep Cove. I've been farming organically there for 14 years. I'm a member of the Islands Organic Producers Association. I'm actually the co-chair, and have been for a number of years. I've been on the board of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. I'm also a director of the Island Farmers Alliance with Ian, who just left. Today I'm appearing for the Islands Organic Producers Association, which is the body that certifies basically the whole of Vancouver Island, up as far as just south of Courtenay, and all of the Gulf Islands, up as far as Hornby. There's another society in the Courtenay area that does that area.

I'm starting on page 5 here. I'll just give you a brief outline of what it means to be certified organic. Many growers are organic, but what is meant by that claim is so uncertain that the term is meaningless unless the purchaser knows and trusts the grower personally and knows the growing methods used. Organic certification is a system that works to assure purchasers that certified organic food is actually being grown according to published high standards. IOPA is the Islands Organic Producers Association, a registered society in B.C. established in 1990. Its functions include developing and implementing regional standards -- as members of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. -- for organic food production and operating an application and verification process whereby member applicants who meet the standard can be certified to be organic. It functions within a provincial legislative framework to assure organic standards.

Our standards were developed by organic growers themselves in 1989, consulting with standards developed by other groups in B.C., Canada, the U.S.A. and internationally and by following the standards and requirements of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements -- IFOAM, for short. IFOAM's annual meeting is actually being held here in the year 2002.

IOPA has participated with other provincial certifying and organic associations in B.C. and across Canada. We are a member agency of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. -- COABC -- and meet and exceed the government-mandated standards for organic production in B.C. We participate actively in the operation of COABC. We would also like to see that if there are any new organic certification groups coming into the province, the minimum standard be the COABC standard published by the government.

[1600]

Then the inspector will examine the farm records to evaluate the audit trail, which should be a complete record: what is grown in each area each year, both crops for harvest and sale and crops grown for soil improvement and fertility conservation; tillage and cultural practices; weed, pest and disease control problems and measures; amendments and fertilizer applied to soil or crops; ingredient amounts and methods used to compost both off-farm inputs and wastes being recycled from the farm; harvesting records; handling records; and sales records.

Growers are required to maintain and submit annually crop rotation plans and detailed records of inputs brought onto the farm -- including feed, plants, seeds, fertilizers and amendments, medical supplies, cleansers and sanitizers, and packaging materials -- and to record where, when and how much and why they are used. The audit trail should be sufficiently complete, detailed and accurate to allow IOPA to trace exactly how, when and where each crop was grown on a certified organic farm. Genetically modified organisms are specifically prohibited under our organic production requirements. IOPA also supports the banning of these substances in non-organic production.

The inspector, also called a verification officer, writes a detailed farm inspection report stating what was found, noting any concerns or questions and often making recommendations to the grower and the certification committee. The inspector makes a judgment about whether the farm meets or exceeds all the standards or fails to meet the standards in some particular way.

Finally, based upon the application and the inspection report, IOPA's certification committee, made up of at least half

[ Page 682 ]

There are some obstacles at the municipal level for growers on non-ALR land. Zoning and setback regulations about siting of greenhouses and other farm structures can make farm production difficult or impossible, especially on relatively small properties. High levels of taxation and high rates for water use are additional disincentives or hurdles that are difficult to clear. The biggest obstacles to organic food production in B.C. are the regulated markets, which do not, don't want to and cannot handle organic eggs, chicken, vegetables and so on.

This is because organic producers are generally smaller operations, working to expand according to the public demand. Marketing restrictions would limit this expansion and would not be responsive to the public interest. Moreover, there are important differences between organic and non-organic production, which would be higher quality in the food and in the land. Certified organic farms generally have a diversity of crops, so they don't fit the commodity mode.

Organic growers are very active in local communities. We are what large farmers and agribusinesses like to represent themselves as: neighbourhood farms in our communities and for our communities. We add greatly to the value and diversity of life, choice and richness in our communities, as well as producing good food locally in an ecologically and economically sustainable way.

[1605]

The agricultural land reserve will be threatened as more of the land will not qualify for farm status, and there will be more pressure to remove land from the ALR. Raising the farm tax threshold but including money invested in a farming operation -- as had been proposed -- will simply result in a transfer of income and benefits from small operations to factory or traditional farming operations. Organic farms rely on management inputs -- the labour, skill and knowledge of the grower -- rather than large amounts of material inputs and high capitalization favoured by conventional farms. Our communities and our environment will both suffer.

There has been an increase in the number of farms in B.C., and most of this increase has come from young farmers, most of whom farm organically. This is a good trend and should be encouraged.

Organic producers offer high-quality products through farm markets, farm-stand sales, box programs and wholesales to both restaurants and grocers. The B.C. government must decide to continue to support B.C.-grown products over those shipped from down south.

Small farms are most productive, measuring food produced per unit area. Generally, the smaller the farm, the more productive it is. It makes no sense whatever to penalize our most productive farmers because of a perception that a few people are taking unfair or unwarranted advantage of the benefits of farm status. A recent USDA study shows that small farms are dramatically more productive than big farms. They employ more people and have a beneficial impact on the community. The previous speaker just referred to that same study, of which I have a copy.

The organic industry is small but will grow to occupy an important role in the B.C. agricultural economy. We need to be able to feed ourselves with high-quality food. Our health and security depend on our ability to produce and consume fresh, local, high-quality food. Just a few years ago, it was impossible to find certified organic produce in ordinary food markets and stores. Now growers are able to market to supermarkets, and there are growing numbers of markets that feature -- sometimes exclusively -- certified organic food. Demand for organic food is growing between 25 percent and 30 percent per year.

Organic farms -- especially certified organic farms -- should be encouraged and supported, because they are models of success and correct environmental priorities. Organic certification agencies place a top priority on good soil tilth and uncontaminated ground and surface water by prohibiting their members from using chemical fertilizers and pesticides and requiring each farmer to use soil-building strategies to maintain fertility and sustain productivity in environmentally good and economically sound ways. Sadly, the rest of agriculture is unconstrained by the prohibition of chemical pesticides and soluble fertilizers, resulting in statistics showing a steady decline in soil tilth and water quality.

IOPA growers are recognized by their customers for correct priorities with increasing appreciation. We hope that certified organic growers will be recognized by the select standing committee for the services they perform and that agricultural minds will integrate soil and water priorities across the landscape to reduce agricultural reliance on poisons and reverse the trend in soil and water quality. We urge you to keep in mind the connection between healthy, nutritious food and a healthy citizenry and to encourage your government to invest some of the vast quantities of money presently spent on sickness in helping organic farmers grow more nutritious food to promote health.

[1610]

Next is Susan Peach from the Mid-Island Natural Growers and the Nanaimo FoodShare Network.

S. Peach: Good afternoon. I'm going to try and be brief, because I know you've had a busy day and because I have my birthday party to get to.

A Voice: Well, happy birthday.

[ Page 683 ]

Today I'm speaking on behalf of two groups. I'm representing the Nanaimo FoodShare Network, of which I'm the coordinator, and also the Mid-Island Natural Growers, or MING, a non-profit growers' group of which I'm the chair. Owing to time restraints, I'll be able to present only a few of the many points I would like to cover, but I hope to give you a general idea of where these two groups stand on what we consider to be some of the most important issues.

As a growers' group, MING members have many concerns regarding sustainable agriculture. We're also very much concerned about the sustainability of farmers, and I think most of our concerns can be placed under this heading. There is not a farmer among us who does not, out of necessity, hold at least one other job off the farm or who is not dependent on a pension or other form of income to make ends meet. Many of us would like to engage in farming as a full-time occupation -- and here on the coast, this is entirely possible -- but we find that the price we are able to obtain for our produce often does not permit us to earn even minimum wage.

Most farmers among us consider ourselves members of the working poor, so we can all sympathize with those on restricted incomes who often cannot afford to pay the true cost of food and who are forced to purchase subsidized imported food from large chain stores and box stores. Many farmers in Nanaimo are starting to feel as though we are being pitted against consumers who do not understand why, if our produce is locally grown and is not sprayed with expensive chemicals, it is more and not less expensive than imported non-organic produce.

I won't pretend that there are any simple solutions to the apparent contradiction between living wages for small-scale farmers and affordable food for consumers, but I do think this is an issue that demands some careful consideration and some ingenuity in developing possible solutions. In fact, this situation is a prime example of why there needs to be interministerial involvement in the development of an agrifood policy. The root of the problem lies at the societal level. Citizens who cannot find meaningful, well-paying employment are not in a position to engage in a discussion of the true value of their food.

The main point I want to drive home -- and it takes many forms -- is that farming is not appreciated and valued as the skilled profession that it is. Therefore farmers, especially small-scale farmers -- here I'm talking very small scale, as in one to ten acres -- are finding it more and more difficult to justify their involvement in what is quickly becoming little more than a labour of love. A great many policy recommendations for how to support local, small-scale agriculture have been suggested by MING members, and some of these follow. I won't have time to elaborate on each one individually, but I'll quickly comment on them. Perhaps the committee members might wish to question or make comments during question time.

Small-scale farmers often cannot afford to hire employees. We need a provincial program similar to the EI job creation partnership program, which pays top-up wages for people on government assistance to work in local agriculture and agriculture projects. We need more small farms and more farmers to ensure a sustainable local food supply. More young people need to be encouraged to enter the farming profession, through education and exposure. We also need to work with farmers and growers' groups to develop programs such as Linking Land and Future Farmers, which provide land to landless farmers.

The ALR is a good idea, but often the land is not being used for agricultural purposes. We suggest that perhaps ALR land that's being held for speculative purposes could be subject to a surtax, which could help fund programs to support and encourage local agriculture. Growers need assistance in educating the public about our local food supply systems and about the importance of buying local produce. Capitalize on the knowledge and experience that already exists in the farming community to create a public education campaign similar to Participaction.

Small farmers need access to startup funding in order to create a better market for their products. Examples are farmers' markets, cooperatively owned processing facilities and support for farmers in the transition to organic certification. Farmers are not just asking for financial support. Acknowledgment of the value of our work and of our government's commitment to support local agriculture through such initiatives as a Buy B.C. policy for all government agencies are also important.

Organic growers are also very concerned about genetic engineering of our food supply and the possible contamination of our crops and our seed supplies. We need assurances that the government will protect us from this hazard and the financial implications it could have for us if certified farms lose their certification status.

Allow farmers to share the work by allowing multifamily farms. We believe it is possible to allow for the development of multifamily farms while still protecting against subdivisions and high-density housing on good agricultural land.

[1615]

The last point came from a message that I received by e-mail last night, and I felt it was important to include. Establish a committee similar to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposal for an advisory committee on small farms. The purposes of the committee are to gather and analyze information regarding small U.S. farms and ranches within the United States and its territories and recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture actions to enhance their viability and economic livelihood. I've attached further information on that proposal.

I'll move on now to Nanaimo FoodShare Network. FoodShare is a non-profit organization which serves as a hub for most of the groups dealing with food-related issues in our city, from food banks to community gardens to professional farmers. FoodShare also develops and coordinates food-related projects and is currently moving toward food policy development for the city of Nanaimo.

We are a member of the B.C. Food Systems Network, which has adopted the following definition of food security: everyone has access to adequate, appropriate and personally acceptable food in a way that does not damage self-respect; people are able to earn a living wage by growing, producing,

[ Page 684 ]

FoodShare's concerns are centred mainly around the issues of equitable access to food, reducing hunger in our community and fostering a system of local food security. Therefore we believe that the focus of our food system should be on healthy communities and healthy people, rather than on economic performance in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Agrifood policy must reflect the needs, capacities and strengths of B.C.'s communities, with a focus on feeding ourselves first and trading only in surplus. FoodShare has identified the following issues which could be addressed through agrifood policy. We have presented the problem first, then one or more possible solutions for consideration when developing policy.

No. 1. Many people today, especially young people, are unaware of the source of their food or the impacts of the various ways in which they do or don't interact with their personal food chain -- that is, the chain of supply which they choose to support through their food choices. We need to put agriculture and food on the school curriculum. The knowledge associated with these topics is no less important than the study of plant life from a biological perspective. Young people need to reclaim the lost knowledge around growing and preserving their own food.

No. 2. The connection between healthy food and healthy people is still widely unrecognized or unacknowledged. Especially for those living on limited incomes, access to high-quality, nutritious food is essential in achieving and maintaining good health. Although FoodShare has not done a cost-benefit analysis, we suggest that the health benefits derived from providing a nutritious food basket to low-income families and individuals would far outweigh the costs of such a program. Perhaps the government could look into studying the potential for improved health and therefore savings on government-sponsored medical costs by providing a nutritious food basket to people on low incomes. This policy also has the potential to support local agriculture and food production if the basket is comprised of fresh producer and/or locally produced foods for which local producers are contracted.

No. 3. People need to be encouraged to consume a healthy diet and to make healthy food choices. People need to learn the difference between real food and processed food products. Apples and spinach should not be placed under the same general category of food as Cheezies and Oreos. Revenue raised from a junk food tax could be used to fund programs and projects which support local food security.

No. 4. Many people who are currently accessing food banks and other handout-type programs would much rather be providing for themselves but lack the skills, training or knowledge to succeed. Support for community-based projects, which encourages self-sufficiency and increased self-confidence among participants, is crucial. Community gardens, community kitchens, school garden projects, food production food banks, gleaning projects, garden training projects, and consumer and worker food co-ops all deserve this support.

No. 5. Too many people are going hungry in our community. Even worse, we are no longer food self-sufficient, as we were only a generation or two ago. We are extremely vulnerable because of this, and we need to increase our local food production. A policy of edible landscaping on public lands could be instituted. Public education campaigns would need to be launched in order to make people aware of the availability of this food source, and this policy could also be encouraged at the municipal level.

[1620]

Finally, make unused provincially held lands available for growing food, and encourage municipalities to do the same. There is so much land currently sitting idle, and while not all of it is prime agricultural land, this is not to say that it is not capable of producing food. This would provide an opportunity for people who wish to grow food but lack important resources such as land and would be a logical next step after promoting the growing of food as a viable career option to young people. These are just a few examples of important issues which FoodShare feels need to be addressed not just in our community but across the province.

Time limits prevent me from speaking further, but in closing, I would like to stress that all agrifood policy must be framed around the following questions: who benefits from this policy? Is it the consumers, large industrial food producers, transnational chain stores or small-scale local family farms? At what cost will this policy be implemented? For example, will our environment be protected and enhanced, or will it be destroyed? Will the people of our province pay a price in terms of their health? Will our freedom of choice be removed, as is currently the case with unlabelled GE foods in our stores? Who or what will bear the costs of this policy? Will it be the poor? Will it be the environment, the government or large corporations?

I'd just like to thank you for allowing me and the many groups and individuals who have presented their views this important opportunity to contribute to the development of an agrifood policy in British Columbia.

W. Hartley (Chair): Thank you, Susan. Any questions from the committee? Okay. That was straightforward and well presented.

David Stott, from the Capital Families Association.

D. Stott: Good afternoon. Thanks very much for inviting me to speak here. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure if I should come here or not. I was thinking: oh, this is just like another one of those royal commissions where people listen and nod their heads and fall asleep. That's all very nice, but nothing gets acted upon. However, I was prevailed upon by some friends of mine, actually, people with concerns with respect to food and agriculture, to come and make a presentation today. So I hope that I was wrong; I expect that they were probably right.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Capital Families Association, particularly with respect to the food situation in the

[ Page 685 ]

Since 1997 we've developed three projects in the Western Communities -- first, in '97, what's now called the Colwood organic garden training project, enabling people on social assistance to grow their own food as well as grow food for the food bank and teaching them skills in food production. This project was modelled after a similar project that I and another person started in Victoria in 1996, which is now operated by LifeCycles, called the Victoria garden training project. That's one of our projects.

Another one is the Langford community garden, which is a two-acre community garden located in the southern part of the district of Langford. It was actually sponsored or encouraged by the mayor of Langford when he saw the Western Communities garden training project in Colwood and allotted two acres of municipal land for that purpose. That project was developed in 1998 with the assistance of Youth Services Canada and the district of Langford. This year the Sooke organic garden training project was developed along lines similar to the Colwood and Victoria garden training projects, and we had about 20 people in that project this year. Again, for people on assistance, growing their own food and growing food for the food bank is a way for people to not only grow their own food but really to feel much better about themselves and go on to work in horticulture or other fields.

[1625]

I was an organic grower in the Western Communities from 1987 to 1992. At that time I and most local, so-called small growers were struggling to make ends meet without any real support in any form from government. Today, as I see it, the situation hasn't really changed. Most small-scale organic growers are still struggling, as has been mentioned by previous speakers -- lucky to make $10,000 a year after expenses. In fact, that seems to be a sort of benchmark for me and a number of other growers; if you can make it to ten grand, you're doing all right, eh? There's still no real support in sight from government, despite the fact that the organic food industry, as was mentioned previously -- I believe Brian Hughes mentioned this -- has been growing at a rate of 20 percent to 25 percent per year throughout the 1990s, one of the strongest growth sectors in North American agriculture.

Now, it's often sort of alleged that these small organic operations are basically inefficient and therefore not viable. However, the question could also be put: are they up against a megalithic food system that rewards the largest producers to the detriment of others? In fact, as was pointed out -- again, I believe Brian pointed this out a few moments ago -- in a 1998 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, small-scale agriculture is more productive than large-scale agriculture, employs more people and is of much more benefit to rural communities.

What about consumers? Anyone travelling the aisles of the supermarket today will see the offerings of food from almost every part of the earth, a sign of apparent bounty. Underneath this, however, is also a sign of the increasing monopolization of the global food industry by extremely large agrifood corporations; I probably don't have to tell you that, but I think it does need to be mentioned. If you have the misfortune of being a lower-income person -- I work with these people every day in my work, and an increasing proportion of families are falling into this category -- you will, more often than not, find yourself not able to buy most of this food. Why? Because you are spending from 50 percent to 80 percent of your monthly income on rent. This a current reality for many people in the Western Communities and elsewhere. Unable to grow food for themselves, people on limited income frequently eat cheap, unnutritious food or not much food at all and frequently get sick as a result. That is the reality for many of the people I work with. I've seen and heard about this almost every day in our garden projects, at the food banks and elsewhere. And if you haven't experienced it, you don't know what it's like.

This situation, together with the plight of the producers -- whether it is the small organic grower in the Western Communities or my conventional grower and farmer father-in-law on a 1,200-acre farm in Saskatchewan -- says to me that our food system is not benefiting many of the people it was intended to benefit. These people include many producers and many consumers, including the one out of five children who suffer from child poverty, as we found out today. It's one out of five; ten years ago it was one out of seven.

[1630]

The importance of supporting an innovative local food production system, whether small producers, community gardeners or back-yard gardeners, cannot be overemphasized. I think that sometimes we forget the importance of community gardeners and back-yard gardeners in the food system. Every year, with the efforts of our organization and others such as LifeCycles, CEDCO Victoria and Linking Land and Future Farmers, which was also mentioned, hundreds of people are learning new or -- in some cases, perhaps more importantly -- relearning old methods of growing food for themselves and others. Despite the economic constraints against them, these people can form the basis for a sustainable food future in this part of the world. With some encouragement and trust in their creativity, these people can produce significant -- and I mean significant -- amounts of food without threatening the

[ Page 686 ]

I didn't mention this previously in my statements, but in fact, at the moment we're in the process of establishing what is tentatively termed the Western Communities Food Network, which will bring together growers, consumers, people who are using the food bank and marketers. We've got several of the major food marketers coming as well. We're meeting next week to look at how we can support each other in the region to grow more food for ourselves and make certain that everyone gets adequate food for themselves.

How do we support a truly flourishing local food production system? People are very actively looking for local solutions outside of government channels. However, there is a difference between surviving and flourishing. At present the ministry has the B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation, which is mandated to support the agriculture industry in B.C. While the foundation's aims may be laudable, in fact the vast majority of its funding -- as far as I can tell; I don't claim to be an expert on it, but from the literature I've read -- goes towards assisting specific crop initiatives of B.C. agribusiness-related organizations rather than initiatives aimed at the support or education of small-scale growers or persons wishing to become small-scale growers or horticulturists.

While there is much talk of sustainability in agriculture, there are no funding sources, either in the form of grants or loans, available to either educate or assist growers or persons interested in becoming growers in developing sustainable organic practices in the field. This is a matter of major concern in light of increasing signs from the United Nations, the Worldwatch Institute and other reliable sources that the global food production system, as we see it now, is not sustainable in the long term. We may be riding a dead horse if we keep riding this horse.

Can the B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation and other support programs be broadened in their mandates and practices in order to truly support sustainable local solutions, or should government be considering more innovative solutions? I cannot answer that question for you. However, I suggest that there is a need and a place for a fund which would be put in place to encourage local initiatives by growers, citizens' groups or non-profit groups to develop small-scale initiatives designed to meet local needs. This could be under the mandate of the Investment Agriculture Foundation, or it could be a separate entity. From my understanding -- and I believe you had a previous presentation about a week ago by Dave Friend from CEDCO with respect to concerns about the Investment Agriculture Foundation -- it should be representative of small growers if the ministry is seriously interested in supporting them.

[1635]

There is, as well, a need to explore what kinds of financial support new small-scale growers need to create viable operations. I think that's very important. As a small-scale grower, I certainly found that was true. It is worth noting that in the 1950s, at a time when the province was producing more food for itself, the Ministry of Agriculture was one of the largest in the province. It's been diminishing in size ever since, while the Ministry of Health has been increasing. Is there a connection here? If you believe that healthy food is an important ingredient in creating healthy people, there just might be.

It is, however, not too late to turn this trend around. The benefits of encouraging local programs of the nature outlined above would be their impact not only on local food production but also on human and societal health. The benefits of small-scale, sustainable agriculture and food growing are there for all to see and experience. I've seen this both in my experience as a grower and with gardening projects I have been coordinating since 1986. I've seen it in other projects as well. People feel better about themselves when they grow their own food and food for their community, and society is better and more self-sustaining for the experience.

E. Conroy: Dave, on a personal level, I guess you could say I'm more into mainstream agriculture than what you're talking about. I guess you're more tied into the network than I am, but certainly we've heard -- and it's something I have to confess I wasn't aware of. . . . The amount of community gardens and the things related to community gardens that people in all the communities we've been in have talked about was something that I certainly wasn't expecting to hear. I want to let you know that we're certainly hearing about that. I think one of the things that our committee is probably going to struggle with -- and you kept referring to it -- is small-scale growers. That is, what is a small-scale grower, and how do we deal with it and all of that kind of stuff? Anyway, we've heard it, and I want to say thanks.

D. Stott: Should I leave copies of the presentation here?

W. Hartley (Chair): Please, yeah.

The final presenter is Don Gedlaman, from the B.C. Association of Agricultural Fairs and Exhibitions. Welcome.

D. Gedlaman: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for allowing me to be here on behalf of our 57 fairs in British Columbia. I'm not going to bore you by reading the very brief brief that I've brought with me. I will point out that it's facts that my board of directors felt were important for you to know, but I would like to dwell a little bit on the role that we play.

[1640]

[ Page 687 ]

I believe there are several things that need to be looked at. I'll speak now as a former producer. I ranched; I've raised potatoes. I've been involved in farming. I don't believe that subsidies are ever an answer, but I do believe that a very comprehensive insurance program -- which would cover everything from a price too low to cover the cost of production to natural disasters -- should be in place, and I believe that the agricultural producers should share in the cost of that. I believe that our government could share in the cost of that in the case of natural disasters, while I'm a firm believer in sharing of costs and in a producer being responsible.

Just a couple of other ideas that I'd like to throw at you. I think the forest industry and our farmers and livestock producers could and should work a lot more closely together. There's a great deal of land there that could be shared and used and that could be much more productive at a very reasonable cost. One of the major drawbacks to our farmers and our agricultural people today is the cost of our land and the cost of maintaining it. Well, we have a lot of acres in the province of British Columbia ready for use. You might want to take that a step further and take a look at the retraining of the forestry workers who I've seen on the sides of the roads putting in little willow sticks. I've seen them raking gravel in the bottom of a creek bed. I don't consider this viable, usable training. It's a form of subsidy for people who have lost their jobs. Why could they not be trained and put into an agricultural pool? Why could they not bring some of our land that's marginal into production? Maybe the provincial government needs to own some of this land and rent it out to the new young farmers, with an option to purchase once they've proved that they're fit and are able, capable, willing and want to be farmers.

I guess the only thing I would like to add. . . . I would like to say once again that we in British Columbia Fairs are ready, willing, anxious and, I believe, have the network in place to play an important part in the future of agriculture in British Columbia. We would like to be on the cutting edge of it, and we hope that you will help us have that opportunity. Thank you for having me.

[1645]

D. Gedlaman: Are there any questions?

W. Hartley (Chair): Let's see. Maybe there are. Any questions from committee members?

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): I'd just like to comment, Don, that I have the Rock Creek fall fair in my constituency, and I think that it is probably the most successful event in the entire constituency. It draws the most people. You're 100 percent right in what it brings to light in just agriculture itself. You go up there thinking that it's going to be all agricultural people, and you find that. . . . In the Okanagan you get people from Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon, Grand Forks and over into Ed's area, Nelson and Trail. It's just extremely successful. I would advocate on my behalf and, I'm sure, on the committee's behalf that. . . . Anything we can do to continue that promotion would be something that I would advocate as probably one of the best sellers of agriculture you can have. I know that the products that are sold there by individuals are just unbelievable.

D. Gedlaman: Well, I appreciate what you're saying. I would comment on Rock Creek. It's quite interesting to find a wide spot on the highway -- if you'll pardon me saying so -- and about 100 people and to walk into the grounds and find 12,000 to 15,000 people there. I've been to the fair several times. You're quite right. For the size of the place, it's probably the best fair in British Columbia.

One of the things it is lacking -- it's your fair -- as at most of the fairs, is our ability to get the technology out. We simply don't have the funding. Nor can a small community afford to pay us enough dues and fees to pass all of that message along. That's where I think we could fit in a lot better -- in passing all of the newer things along and doing training programs. That can go as far as we, the government and B.C. Fairs in a partnership, can think.

B. Barisoff (Deputy Chair): Could you elaborate on that a little bit? What kind of things would be brought there that. . . ?

D. Gedlaman: Well, we put on training sessions. We teach people how to, first of all, show a product in the best possible way. We show them how to do it cheaply and with an agricultural message. One of the things that we look for is a very brief message. You know, people will remember maybe this many words if they're not too long, but they won't remember this much if you throw it at them all at once. So we try to do one-liners; we call them "Did you know. . . ?" We have training sessions for the board of directors on what their duties are. We put on training sessions on how to run a successful fair from the financial point of view.

We want our fairs to reach the point that they need no subsidies at all. They currently do get a small grant, administered through us, from the province. We would like to eliminate that and go into partnerships and have every fair and our own association earn our money. Those are the types of things I meant.

W. Hartley (Chair): Well, I appreciate you being here. We all enjoy our local fairs. Thanks.

I believe that concludes the submissions for the day. I thank everyone who presented and came to listen. We'll adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 4:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada