HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Resources to order, and I would like to welcome the members of the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board. We have with us Mr. Mark Davies, Chairman, he is in the centre; Mr. David Young, Vice-Chairman; and Ms. Sonya Lorette, General Manager - I hope I pronounced that right, Sonya - of the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board. For your convenience, I think we will go around the table and introduce ourselves, starting with the honourable member for Kings North.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We may have more members joining us. There is no one here, as yet, from the NDP caucus. Without further ado, who would like to kick off? Okay, Mark, you are going to start things off. As usual we will hear the presentation - are any of the others planning to speak as well?
MR. MARK DAVIES: What I will do, Mr. Chairman, is I will go through the presentation and anything my colleagues would like to add during that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: If they want to jump in, they can.
MR. DAVIES: Yes. And I would invite questions any time during the presentation.
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you for that.
MR. DAVIES: Once again, thanks for this opportunity this morning. I think the easiest thing for me to do will probably - as we tried to make it as short and concise as possible, I don't think I could it shorten it any more - be just to read through it. So bear with me, and that will be the easiest for everybody, I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed, please.
MR. DAVIES: The Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board became a legal entity in November 1972, and became a member of the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency by joining the national supply management plan the following year. At that time there were 16 quota holders, raising approximately 1 million live kilograms. Today we have 24 quota holders that raise nearly 5 million kilograms. The Nova Scotia board is one of eight provincial turkey boards in Canada that operates under the orderly marketing system. The above indicates the growth that Nova Scotia has enjoyed over the years. During this time, producers expanded their facilities and added new barns, which represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment. Below, for your information, is 2002 provincial turkey statistics. I won't go through those, those are there for you to peruse at your leisure.
A short history. Until January 1998, Nova Scotia had two federal turkey processors, Maple Leaf Poultry and the ACA Co-Operative Limited. In 1994, Maple Leaf Poultry removed all their freezers from their processing facility, thus causing an influx of fresh product destined for the retail shelves. This action created a challenge for both processors, as they realized they had more product than they had a market for in fresh form. This challenge continued into the following year, and by 1996 both processors requested a 20 per cent reduction in the issuance of licences as they could not market all of the turkey in fresh form. At the same time, Maple Leaf Poultry advised that if any of their growers grew an excess of what their requirements were, they would not accept the product.
The producers requested the board explore avenues which would enable them to raise 100 per cent of their provincial allocation. So in December 1996, the board executive met with representatives from a Quebec processor known as Flamingo, to determine whether they could process 1.2 million kilograms, 26.3 per cent of our province's allocation. They agreed to do so, but at a reduced live pay price to the producer. Quebec paid producers their live pay price minus 5 cents.
Although the product was flowing through the system, the Quebec situation created financial stress on all producers, because the levy payable to the board was increased by 3 cents to finance a stabilization program to be paid to those shipping out of the province. This program remained in place until January 1998. It was at this time that the funds remaining in the program were paid back to the producers based on their net kilograms of turkey paid for by the processors, and the levy payable to the board was reduced by 3 cents.
Nova Scotia producers were then faced with another challenge because in August 1997, Maple Leaf Poultry announced that, effective the beginning of 1998, they would no longer process any turkey. This left all of Nova Scotia quota holders in a predicament as ACA at the time only processed 28 per cent of the kilograms raised in the province. From January 1, 1998, until April 30, 1998, Nova Scotia turkey quota holders leased 558,199 live kilograms in licences to other Canadian turkey marketing agency members - that would be other provinces - and from May 1, 1998, until April 30, 1999, they leased 660,138 kilograms also to other provinces.
In January 1998, the board and ACA agreed to reduce the Nova Scotia live pay price to equal that of Quebec, and the reason for doing that is that's their benchmark or our main competition in this area. So that was a 3.6-cent adjustment for Nova Scotia's grading program. Those shipping to Quebec received Quebec's live pay price which, as mentioned before, was lower.
Because the price paid to producers intra and interprovincially was the same, there was no need for an increase in producer levy payable to the board, nor was there a stabilization program in place. This arrangement was yet another blow to producers because the agreed-upon arrangement cost each producer 3.9 cents a kilogram. However, it was with the understanding that if ACA made a profit beyond their direct costs, they would share it 50/50 with the board. For that year only ACA did realize a profit and the board received a cheque in the amount of $23,554, and that is, as mentioned, the only time that has happened, mostly because of market conditions across Canada, and more so in this area.
Although the producers had relinquished a great deal with respect to price, they remained optimistic because ACA was certain that before long they would be in a position to process 100 per cent of Nova Scotia's allocation. Prior to the adjustment, Nova Scotia producers received 7.5 cents over the Quebec price paid for Grade A birds. In March 2000, ACA advised that their market requirement would be 3.2 million live, therefore 1.4 million live would have to be processed in Quebec. With a further reduction in live pay price to producers - as noted there, Quebec minus 9 cents at this point - this left the board with an additional challenge which was how do we finance this venture? So a stabilization program was put in place at the expense of the producers themselves.
Producers were advised that the levy was going to increase by 3 cents to finance the flow of product to Flamingo, the Quebec processor, but optimism remained because it was our understanding that ACA would soon process 100 per cent of the production. The global quota for the next control period was reduced from 131 million eviscerated, to 126 million eviscerated, due in large part to high national storage stocks. Nova Scotia's portion of that global was 4,491,702 live kilograms which represented an automatic reduction in Nova Scotia's allocation of 211,784 kilograms. ACA approached the board and advised that although the global was reduced, they needed a further reduction. Their market requirement for the control period was 2.5 million kilograms, a reduction of 700,000 live kilograms from
the previous year. Kilograms destined for the Quebec market totalled almost 2 million live kilograms or 44 per cent.
Pressure continues for the Nova Scotia turkey quota holders as they cannot afford to contribute to the stabilization program. For example, over a three-year period the stabilization program at 3 cents has cost a $200,000 quota holder $18,000. I will comment further on that situation when I'm done the presentation as to our main reason for being here today. Many meetings have been held in an attempt to resolve the dilemma, but to date a solution has not been found. The stabilization program ceased May 3rd, just this past week, which was the end of our quota year. As a result, producers shipping to Quebec will receive a lesser live pay price than those shipping within Nova Scotia.
As far as an industry plan, last year the board's executive approached the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries requesting assistance for producers, but we were told that because of signed government agreements they were unable to provide financial aid.
Some of the current challenges. Nova Scotia turkey producers are faced with the challenge of having their product marketed by local processors, as the retailers have in place major distribution centres whereby turkey is sourced through a broker outside of Nova Scotia and shipped into these major centres. As a result, Nova Scotia only produces 60 per cent of what the province actually consumes. Government can assume responsibility for this as government has permitted mergers to occur without taking into consideration the ramifications to the food bearer sectors of our economy.
Producers in Nova Scotia are at a competitive disadvantage with respect to feed, which is our highest input cost, as we do not have a constant competitive water shipment system from Halifax. The government is well aware that domestic shipping does not offer rates which would ensure full capacity and utilization of the Halifax grain elevator. We need access to offshore grains. Without reducing our input costs, producers in Nova Scotia will decline. Further to this, we find it challenging to compete with others on the Canadian market due in part to their access to cheaper grains, export capabilities through futuristic processor technology and equipment that is needed to do so. It is important that the fundamentals of our system are upheld and investors of our industry are not disadvantaged. The longevity of the Nova Scotia turkey industry demands that we have long-term, consistent government support and defence for our supply-managed commodity.
Regarding agriculture in general, we are disappointed in what appears to be a lack of government involvement. We are continually faced with lack of resources and the application of user fees. The provincial government must continue to impress upon the federal government that research dollars are required for poultry if we expect to compete in the world markets.
[9:15 a.m.]
I will now touch on something that you may or may not be aware of, it's called the Harbinson report that has come out of the WTO talks and as you will see, and we can go into it in more detail, it's extremely damaging to all sectors of agriculture in the country. The Harbinson report was put together by Stu Harbinson, Chairman of the WTO on Agriculture, and he prepared a paper, entitled Negotiations on Agriculture, which was fundamentally flawed and perpetuates inequities of the Uruguay Round. It would have been detrimental to all of Canadian agriculture. The deadline date for implementation was March 31, 2003, however, it was denounced by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and rejected by the supply-managed groups, referred to as the SM-5, which are the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency and the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
In Nova Scotia, the effects of this paper based on 2001 statistics, which are the latest statistics we have, it will eliminate 490 supply-managed producers; almost 1,000 on-farm jobs, which would have been lost, and almost double that, 1,800 jobs, off-farm; the industry would have lost almost $56 million in beef business; and $177 million would be lost in farm cash receipts. That is just the supply-managed sector, but as they provide a lot of the infrastructure for a lot of agriculture and a lot of farms in the area are multi-faceted, they might have a supply-managed commodity as well as a non-supply-managed commodity. In that context, they may not be able to support their entire farm operation, if say 30 per cent to 50 per cent to 60 per cent was lost.
On May 1, 2003, a delegation of producers and industry met with various MPs in Ottawa to emphasize the importance of not using this Harbinson paper as a starting point for the development of a second paper for further discussions at WTO. We encouraged government to review its strategy to protect the future of the poultry and dairy industries, along with all allied businesses that support and benefit from our industry. We need a paper to go forward that encompasses the three pillars of supply management. For example, protection for supply-managed commodities and industry that ensure effective border measures, and the ability for farmers to negotiate fair prices. If these measures are not taken, the rural economy, from coast to coast, will feel the effects as family-owned and farm-related businesses will be out of business.
We have provided you with a copy of the Harbinson paper and a letter to the federal Agricultural Minister, Lyle Vanclief, stressing the group's concerns. We need your help in getting the message out to our government that the Harbinson paper must not be used as a benchmark when developing further agricultural papers for World Trade Organization discussions and negotiations.
Domestically, as you may be aware, there's a paper that is almost finalized, called the Agricultural Policy Framework, that will outline the future of our agricultural network. The APF does not formally recognize supply management as an effective risk-management system because it is not specifically stated in the APF. This has become a huge concern to the SM-5, the unwillingness of the federal government to recognize that. I guess the fear is, do they know something we don't, when it relates to WTO talks? How strong are they behind us in supporting it?
As you can readily see, the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board requires your support in the areas of concern as noted, and to reaffirm to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Premier, the importance of protecting producers, industry and consumers in the Province of Nova Scotia. Again, we thank you for the time you have given us today, and encourage you to contact us, any member of the board or of the SM-5, if you have any questions or concerns.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to mention, first of all, we were joined by David Hendsbee, the member for Preston, and to my left, I think you already know Mora Stevens, the clerk for the committee. David, Sonya, is there anything you would like to add before we proceed with some questions?
MS. SONYA LORETTE: No, I don't think so, not from my perspective. I think that Mark, in the report, has covered it.
MR. DAVID YOUNG: Nothing from myself at this particular time, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Feel free to jump in at any time. We will proceed with some questioning. Mark, would you like to start it off?
MR. MARK PARENT: Mark, I have quite a few questions, but I am just going to start with one now and then come back. Could you just explain to me a little bit more - I was looking at trying to make my way through the Harbinson report, figuring out what Bj=Bj-1-c+Bj-1 with j = 1, what all that means. If you put it in simple language, what is the threat that we need to be aware of and to help mitigate?
MR. DAVIES: I should have mentioned that this paper is quite involved and nobody expects anybody to really understand the intricacies of it. Basically, as mentioned in our presentation, one of the things that supply management groups depend on is tariff-rate quotas, basically a border control but as we manage within our domestic supply.
MR. PARENT: So that others who don't manage can't flood our market?
MR. DAVIES: Right. You run into developing countries, which have huge multinational agencies within the country, but the country itself is a developing country. For instance, Bolivia, with chicken, which is a prime example they're using now, even with a huge tariff or a quota that's in place now, would be able to grow, transport, ship it and land it here a lot cheaper than we could grow it in our own backyard, because they don't have the labour codes and that sort of thing. Now, that's it very much in a nutshell. Basically, the good news on this paper is not one country in the WTO supports this; nobody thinks this is a good thing.
It was thought that Mr. Harbinson did this paper as the talks were basically stalled between countries. Nobody seemed to be getting anywhere on negotiations, so it almost seemed to be stirring the pot. Our fear is that the United States and in the EU, the Economic Union, which are basically the two big powers in agriculture anyway and I'm sure in other areas, will have a bilateral agreement which may leave things out.
As mentioned, they missed the March 31st deadline. They're going to have a few mini-ministerial meetings and then in Cancun September 11th to 14th - excuse me the mini-ministerial meeting is in June - is more just on the political front. Not a lot of negotiations take place, but they're afraid that agriculture may be rushed along. They don't want to be seen as missing another deadline.
As to the actual content of the paper basically, Canada, as in a lot of things, in WTO played by the rules - a lot of the other countries sort of used them as guidelines and not rules. We would be cutting or giving up more border controls, whereas other countries didn't come down to the benchmark level, the same starting point. So it tried to bridge the gap between what the Europeans wanted and what the United States wanted. One had tariffs that were way too high - Europe, because of their farm structure and the U.S. with their extraordinary farm bill which is $180 billion.
You may or may not be aware they had a number of things - blue box, green box, amber box - things that were allowed to enter the country at what tariff rates. Canada stuck to those guidelines whereas other countries were making up, I guess, unrealistic rules. As an example, Australia said any chicken imported into the country had to be cooked at 170 for 8 hours - those aren't the exact figures, but it was that ridiculous.
MR. PARENT: To get around the . . .
MR. DAVIES: To get around it, whereas our government federally, in my opinion, hid behind that as an excuse not to support the farmer. They said, we're not allowed to do that, instead of looking for an avenue around it as the U.S. and the EU did, as Australia, New Zealand and some of the developing countries. Right now, Canada has a position that SM-5 supply management is a fair trade marketing tool. It's not something we're asking to be protected, that distorts world trade and doesn't distort exports.
For instance in turkey and chicken, the exports based on the Harbinson paper, we would just be flooded, whereas other countries, because of their rules and the way they're set now, wouldn't be. They're already protected up here, whereas we lowered ours to meet with what's called the 5 per cent access, which we allowed 5 per cent of our domestic in.
MR. PARENT: You touched upon the States and the farm bill and the frustration I have representing a farm area in Nova Scotia is the rhetoric that the Americans give to free trade and yet in agriculture in particular, the actions are totally opposite to what the rhetoric is and it makes it very difficult for our farmers to compete in any fair way.
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
MR. PARENT: I think our farmers on a level playing field can compete and do well against anyone in the world, but it has got to be a level playing field and I agree with you. Have you heard anything, I might ask to sort of follow up and then I will stop dominating, in response to your letter to Vanclief and Pettigrew that you included in here, have you had any response yet?
MR. DAVIES: That just went out May 1st and I haven't been talking to the office, unless Sonya has, but I don't think we've had a response back yet. I was part of the lobby day in Ottawa, we haven't heard the results of that yet, but everybody tended to think it was a very positive thing. It was an all-party lobby to get support behind this.
MR. PARENT: I want to come back and ask about backyard flocks because we've had the problem with chickens, but I will come back to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification before we move on, I see on these charts at the front, I'm just curious, the amount of turkey consumed in the province is 3.3 million kilograms and then the live weight of production is 4.6 million kilograms but what would be the dressed weight of production?
MR. DAVIES: Oh, eviscerated, it's roughly a conversion factor of 80 per cent. So it would be about 3.2 to 3.5 million kilograms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: David Hendsbee, you're next, please.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: This is a very interesting topic. I have a series of questions so I won't monopolize all the time, but I see there are 24 producers in the province, but it doesn't say exactly where they're at. I assume most of them are probably in the Valley area or the Kings County region primarily?
MR. DAVIES: You're correct. I would say 85 per cent are in the Valley. We have a few on the shore where Dave is from, the South Shore area, in Antigonish, and that's pretty much it.
MR. HENDSBEE: It would be nice if you could supply a list of the 24 producers. We have the producers, but I would just like to have the township of where they're located just for simplicity.
MR. DAVIES: Sure, that's no problem.
MR. HENDSBEE: In regard to the demand for product, you have this quota system and everything else. You were saying this stuff is sent to Quebec. Is it 40 per cent of your market, or 44 per cent of your market, that goes to Quebec, but now the problem is with the stabilization program finished and stuff that you're getting a lesser price for your product in Quebec than you are for your local supply. Is it necessary you have to ship to Quebec? Do you have contractual obligations that you must fulfill or can that product stay and remain here in Atlantic Canada or Nova Scotia to meet the demands here?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, I'm glad you brought that up. That is basically the crux of our problem right now. You got into a little detail here, but basically right now, the local processor, ACA, cannot process because, I guess, of the stagnant market across Canada and the higher input costs here. They just can't process all of it. Right now it has fluctuated in the last two or three years from about 55 per cent up to about 70 per cent, but it has usually fallen out around 60 per cent as an average, 60 per cent to 64 per cent. The reason, the price cut is basically based on what the shipping cost is up to Quebec of that processor.
To put things in context, the one processor in Quebec, Flamingo, they do approximately 25 million kilograms, or 28 million kilograms, a year, the one plant. Our whole province only does 4.5 million kilograms. Basically what we're sending them is 10 per cent of what goes through their plant which we feel is an important part. I mean they wouldn't be down here getting the product if they didn't want it. Unfortunately, in our opinion, they're not willing to pay what it's worth.
I know a lot of people say this no matter what region they're from, that they grow the best, that they have the highest grade. We were the first province to put in a pay-for-grade system in which the producer himself, anything below a Grade A bird, he gets 18 cents less a kilogram and that's a large differential between Grade A and utility bird. We can actually prove on paper that ours are the best in the country. Other provinces have the grading in place at a plant, but they don't pay based on it. So the producer could send in a flock that only has 50 per cent Grade A and he will still get paid that Grade A price for the whole flock.
[9:30 a.m.]
The reason being is that in a lot of provinces, the producers still have a little more power than we do here because they have a number of companies, such as in Ontario where there are four or five big processors, and Quebec where they have closer markets, where we are sort of limited down here with the one processor. They've done a good job, they've more than doubled what they've taken on as a processor. As stated in the paper, they only did about 27 per cent, 28 per cent and now they're up over 50 per cent, hoping to take 100 per cent. They were very optimistic about two and a half years in doing so. Then the national market was basically flooded with oversupply mainly from Ontario and Quebec.
Quebec is the second-largest producer of turkey in Canada, but per capita consumption they're the lowest. Nova Scotia is one of the smallest producers, but our per capita is the highest of anybody in Canada. In fact, there's a generic marketing program out there now called Turkey Tuesdays. They're trying to reach the level that Nova Scotia is already at.
MR. HENDSBEE: With regard to the production cycle, are there hatcheries in Nova Scotia where you get your turkey livestock from or do you get it in from chicks? Where do they come in from? Or are they self produced here in the province? Also, I'd like to know the production gestation period from chick to slaughterhouse? Does it depend on the size of the bird? Is it a small hen or a little tom, or a big tom, whatever the case may be?
MR. DAVIES: No, there are no hatcheries in the Atlantic Provinces. The closest hatchery is in Quebec. There are a couple in Ontario and actually, some birds are now coming from the States, believe it or not. One of the companies in Ontario is being used as a broker, sourcing them from the States. There's a lot of trading back and forth in the poultry industry of chicks and eggs, but the price of a turkey poult is roughly $1, $1.55, whereas a chicken is about 52 or 53 cents. I'm not a chicken producer, Dave is, so it's the high mortality during hatch, or the low hatchability I guess is the proper term, why the price is higher. That's one of the reasons why there isn't a hatchery in Nova Scotia. There's just not the volume.
MR. HENDSBEE: What was the terminology you used for a young turkey?
MR. DAVIES: A poult.
MR. HENDSBEE: How do you spell that?
MR. DAVIES: P-o-u-l-t.
To answer your question, our gestation or growing period can range anywhere from 10 weeks to a maximum of about 13 to 14 weeks. Our birds are extremely light compared to the rest of the industry.
MR. HENDSBEE: My last question at the present time would be with regard to the free-range or organic - where people have them in the backyard - turkeys, I have some in the Porters Lake area and Lake Echo.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: I didn't know you raised turkeys.
MR. HENDSBEE: Not me personally, but I have residents that do. How much of an influence is that on the local markets with regard to quality of product and everything else like that, or is that just a homegrown local supply that you get at the farm markets or something?
MR. DAVIES: As Mark alluded to earlier, your same question, there were two things on our agenda basically on every meeting, and that was the current stabilization and production problem and free-range. We had about two or two and a half years of quite vigorous involvement in trying to establish a proper free-range system. Free-range is separate from organic. The public can't separate a lot of that, they think they are the same. Free-range just means access to fresh air and whatnot.
There are a couple of individuals who kept taking the board to task they he should be allowed to grow it, he wasn't under the guidelines we have to adhere to as a board, but as you know, being a board and Order in Council, the regulations are there. We have to follow them. He is under them. A turkey is a turkey is basically what it comes down to. We've had two court cases with him - I've lost track - and we've won all them. The decisions have been upheld. Unfortunately, there's a small group of people out there who are doing the right thing - 25 and under, you're allowed to grow on your property, no problem, that's considered for personal consumption. When you get up above that, 100 to 200, you know, where it's going to be more, you fall under our guise. We have tried to establish a program that's not - well, it's not as strict as what our producers have to adhere to, you know, there's a little leeway there, it just has to be killed in a provincial abattoir or a federal abattoir.
MS. LORETTE: Further to what Mark is saying, just to give you a bit more of a background, when this program started, the free-range, as Mark said, there were a lot of hurdles that had to be crossed and we had to deal with our council, the Natural Products Marketing Council, and the board was mandated to act contrary to our regulations. So because of that it caused conflict at our level because the board was doing something that they were not supposed to be doing. So to compromise, the quota holders, these two gentlemen being each one, gave up 50,000 kilograms in licence and we set it aside for the Province of Nova Scotia so that individuals who wanted to raise a free-range bird in excess
of 25 could do so by a special licence from our board provided, of course, all criteria were followed and that inspections would be done of their farms.
So here we are approximately three years later into the program and things are running smoothly. The board office itself does have direct contact with these licence holders, and I am an inspector and I do go out and inspect these facilities. We have been able to develop a good rapport with licence holders in Nova Scotia, but emphasis is put on the fact that it's by special licence. There is a certain time of the year that they are allowed to grow them and there are people out there who want this product and the quota holder at the present time is not raising that type of bird. So the program has evolved and it's working nicely, but when it reaches 50,000 it's cut off.
MR. HENDSBEE: My last question . . .
MR. YOUNG: If I could just add to some of the comments made thus far regarding free-range/organic and some of our regulations. Every individual in the Province of Nova Scotia is entitled to raise - I should restate that - every property is allowed to have 25 turkeys on their property for personal consumption. Once it goes past the personal consumption and becomes a saleable product, it falls under our jurisdiction even if you have 25 turkeys, and if you do not have the proper paperwork I believe we would have the ability to prosecute those individuals. It was only intended to have 25 turkeys on your property for personal consumption.
Secondly, you had mentioned about free-range/organic. Our chairman has mentioned that there is a distinction between the two. Organic, if you go organic, it is even more in-depth than some of the regulations that we have in effect regarding free-range and there's a whole accreditation process that those individuals would have to go through to meet those particular standards which are even more stringent than some of the regulations that we have. We, at the present time, are only dealing with free-range, which is a bird that's grown without certain meat and fish byproducts, et cetera, it has to be whole grains, natural and all the rest of it. The poults have to be reared in a certain fashion prior to the individual getting them, and as long as individuals in the Province of Nova Scotia who want to participate in that program follow the proper procedures, we have no problem with it and we work with them, and over the past year or so we've built up a very good rapport with any individual who has come forward and wanted to do things according to the rules and regulations.
MR. HENDSBEE: My last question is . . .
MR. PARENT: Could I follow through on that?
MR. HENDSBEE: Sure.
MR. PARENT: I would like your response to, most of the talk has been about the numbers and how that affects the economics of it, my concern is with the disease and the control of disease particularly - and it can even happen with 25 or less, particularly when you have the geographic concentration that we have, and this is what happened with the chickens in the riding of Kings South and the effect is - so just before we leave that topic, if I could ask . . .
MR. DAVIES: That's a great point, Mark. Twofold, the disease to the bird itself and the financial implications it would have on a producer, as can happen in chickens. Our concern, also, with what we term the backyard flocks of those not adhering to the rules, it isn't a control thing per se on our end of things, it's our responsibility. If someone grows one of these things claiming that it is free of this and free of that and someone with an allergy or something eats it, we're pretty sure what would show up in the paper is young boy ill from turkey. I don't think they would say young boy ill from turkey grown contrary to orders of the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board in backyard, to be quite blunt.
As stated here, it's an industry that financially has tentacles out everywhere. It has a lot of integration with other agriculture. If the turkey or the chicken industry were to be hurt or have something detrimental happen to them because of something like this, the infrastructure of feed wouldn't be able to then service hogs or dairy, and right down the line. The mills aren't specific, like here's a poultry mill, here's a dairy mill. They need all the tonnage to support everything. If dairy went, poultry wouldn't be here or it would be here at such a cost there would be very few here.
That's a little more far-reaching than your question, but it's twofold. It's our responsibility to the public to make sure what is grown is what is said. That was our main concern. We had one or two individuals, basically, that just - in our opinion - were trying to break the system to obtain free quota through the back door. That's basically what it was. He had the resources, being a lawyer himself, to continually take us to court. That's the reason for that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dave, you wanted to add something.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the disease aspect of backyard flocks, et cetera, they do carry a potential to seriously hamper and infect the general agricultural community. Fortunately, all producers, all commercial producers, be it turkey or chicken or eggs, that have operations that are working on a large commercial basis, such as ourselves, have to adhere to a self-imposed bio-security program. We try to endeavour to minimize any possibility of those contaminants, getting into our barns and affecting it. Quite frankly, if I am in that situation where I have a backyard flock next door and it contaminates me, you are well aware of what happens, the hundreds of thousands of dollars on just one flock alone that can be lost, outside of the fact of all the other spinoff jobs and financial commitments that a producer may have.
There's a large amount of money on an individual basis that is held at ransom by some of this, but if a producer is doing his job and practising proper bio-security in not allowing individuals on the farm, maintaining good bio-security, that is not a major issue. It still has a possibility, because I go to the same place that those individuals buy their feed. I do business there as well. There's always that possibility.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to you, Dave. You had a further question.
MR. HENDSBEE: Yes, I have a few questions in regard to the virile or domestic-gone-wild turkeys.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you have a few questions, we will give you one more and then we can come back to you.
MR. HENDSBEE: My question would be in regard to not just possible contamination, but what comments would you have about the wildlife association trying to reintroduce the wild turkey game back into the forests and the grazing lands of this province? Would that have any impact on your market? The other kind of associated question was with the contamination possibilities, are there any concerns with the West Nile virus, in regard to the poultry farms? I heard that in some places they're using chickens as bait for particular mosquitos, trying to find out if they're going to come across borders, and instead of trying to find blue jays and crows and ravens, they were using chicken as the bait to see if they would be affecting the areas.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. DAVIES: As far as introducing the wild turkey, we touched briefly on this last year. We were sent a submission, I guess, and asked to comment on it. I did an interview or two with the media. A direct relation as far as disease and that, we, of course, have a concern. There is nothing to prove or disprove it, the reason being, our concern is why they would want to introduce something that has never been nor is native to this area. That's a huge concern. Secondly, for crop farmers, where these wild turkeys feed is on the perimeter of fields. When do people hunt, they hunt early morning. When do farmers seed and plow and spray, early morning. That's when there's no wind. There is more of a danger of, to be quite blunt, someone being shot or hurt. It's basically being introduced as a game bird, a hunt, not a food stuff per se.
We're a little dismayed that it's nothing that was looked at on its merit until, as I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong - Mark, you might know more about this - the American association said, we will pay for everything. Then Natural Resources said, oh, that sounds like a good idea. I don't know about you, but that just doesn't flow with me.
MR. PARENT: It's my understanding that now Natural Resources is not supporting that in part because of the effect on the pheasant population, which is indigenous to the province. So we're hoping that solved that problem.
MR. DAVIES: If that's the case, then great. I had not heard that. Like I said, there's no direct relation, we don't have a study that says it causes this, it causes this. In Ontario they have quite an intensive one, and they've said that there have been no problems, but why introduce a potential problem? Based both on safety and biology . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: What are the West Nile virus possible impacts to industry?
MR. DAVIES: That, I wouldn't have the expertise to comment on. Nothing that we've been made aware of from any of our vets or anything like that. I am sure if it was, we would get something. I will get Sonya to check on that with our local vet, and see if CFIA, I guess, would be the ones . . .
MR. YOUNG: Just to reiterate what Mr. Davies has said regarding the wild turkey introduction program, it just baffles me that it would even be contemplated in an age of eco-sensitivity in the western hemisphere, that we would introduce a non-native species to an area that never had it, just for the sake of some hunting or sport hunting. I am not opposed to hunting. My brother is a very active individual in hunting and outdoor activities. But it just does not make sense. I personally do not want to have that situation arise around my farm, that I could potentially have wild turkeys running around my particular farm.
The margin that I work on as a turkey producer, and I have to laugh, there is no margin . . .
MR. DAVIES: I was going to say, do you know something I don't? (Laughter)
MR. YOUNG: There is no margin. I could not afford to go out and fence my property high enough or enough to keep a proper bio-security area around it. I am very pleased to hear that Natural Resources is not going to support it.
MR. PARENT: Don't take that as the official word . . .
MR. YOUNG: I hope that is the position. I hope through you, as members of the House, that you can sort of push that along as one thing that should not be looked at. I apologize, I have a bit of a cold, hopefully it's not SARS. I am gradually recovering. You people are in the position of authority, we look to you for your good wisdom, not to allow things such as that to take place.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. Mr. MacKinnon, are you representing both Opposition Parties today? (Laughter) You are our official Opposition member here today. (Interruptions)
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: I do not represent the left. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps they are free-ranging today and are not with us. Go ahead, Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on that last comment, the cost of production, looking at the charts here it would appear to me that the cost of production for Nova Scotia turkey farmers is the highest in the country next to Saskatchewan. Am I correct on that?
MR. DAVIES: And that's a bit of a misnomer, because it doesn't take into account your other huge input costs, such as fuel and things like that where theirs is cheap because of their geography.
MR. MACKINNON: So what you're suggesting is Nova Scotia would be the highest?
MR. DAVIES: By far. And B.C. is close because they're in the same geographic extreme. They have the mountains which separate them as far as - if feed is your highest input costs and that's the reason why we are where we are. If we had access to offshore grains, I would almost contend we would almost be the cheapest.
MR. MACKINNON: I noticed the revenues for the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers' Marketing Board, the anticipated budget for this year is going to be down quite substantially from the previous year, from $343,800 to $206,500. That's a rather significant drop in revenues.
MR. DAVIES: Do you want to comment on that one?
MS. LORETTE: Yes. During this past year, Mark spoke on what we had in place, being a stabilization program and that as of last week, it has ceased. That was because the levy set by the board for the report that you're looking at was at 6.75 cents per kilogram, a portion of which was being given back to those people shipping to Quebec. Because it's not a sustainable program, the producers collectively filled out surveys and the bulk or the majority of the producers indicated that they could no longer afford to support that program so therefore the levy has been reduced for this year to 3.75 cents, which directly affects the revenue that we would receive.
MR. MACKINNON: I notice on Page 5 of your presentation, you indicate, "Regarding agriculture in general, we are disappointed in what appears to be a lack of government involvement. We are continually faced with lack of resources and the application of user fees." Would you be kind enough to give us more detail on what that statement refers to?
MR. DAVIES: Sure, I guess that's a good segue. If I could just take a moment, I guess the gist of our presentation and reason for being here today is that as a supply-managed group, I think there is a perception out there that there is a guaranteed set price, that it's a bunch of rich farmers. Basically, it's a market responsive tool of self-management. We attempt to get out of the marketplace what the product is worth and what the market will bear. All supply management does is basically prevent you from imploding. If I may, I call it the video store syndrome. When the video stores first came about there was one guy in town, you rented his videos for $5, he made a living. Now you know there's one, every two buildings, take three videos, take them for a week, here's a bag of popcorn, nobody is making any money.
We have tried to avoid that in supply management, that's a very elementary way of looking at it but it's not shutting out - anybody can obtain a quota or purchase. It happens all the time within the industry, new people, we've had six or seven new entrants in the last couple of years. They have purchased quota, they've purchased farms, they've built barns, two or three have actually built barns that were not in the commodity before and a couple were not even in a related commodity which is considered chicken.
When we have certain outside variables, which would be a concentration of retail which is one of our biggest obstacles at the present time, especially in this area where we only have the two, they also own the brokers. Our avenues are limited as to where we can, I guess, market or sell our product.
MR. HENDSBEE: Did you say two were the Atlantic Superstore and Sobeys?
MR. DAVIES: Yes. And Co-op being such a small player isn't enough to influence either one of them when it comes to price.
MR. MACKINNON: For clarification, would you be kind enough to clarify what you mean by lack of government involvement and lack of resources and application of user fees?
MR. DAVIES: Yes. Based on my preamble of self-managing, in the past some producers have relayed to us that we almost feel punished because we are a supply-managed industry, because we have looked after ourselves for approximately 30 years, not looking for any government money, not looking for a handout, never receiving any, whereas other commodities have in the past. It's not our intention today, we're not here asking for money, but we have in the past asked for not so much a handout, but for forgivable loans or no-
interest loans to help with freezing or establish a program, that sort of thing. So it seems the government seems to have a hands-off approach, because we are a supply-managed commodity that is perceived as a guarantee; because if you're supply managed you can ride out any storm and maybe the problems aren't as volatile as they may be.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, maybe we will fast forward just to clarify the last point.
MR. YOUNG: If I might, Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. YOUNG: You made mention of user fees, et cetera, that is mentioned in here. I guess it boils down to government rules and regulations. Some of them pertain to the Department of Environment and Labour. If I have a farm pond and I wish to use that farm pond in my clean-out process, if I pump more than 20,000 litres of water a day, I have to run to the government and get a permit out of my own dugout in order to utilize that resource that I went and took money out of my pocket to dig the hole to capture the water because water is deemed a resource of the Province of Nova Scotia and the people of Nova Scotia. So, therefore I have to go and get a user fee which is, I think, $250 or something like that. So sometimes I turn a blind eye. Those are things that weren't there before.
Labour codes and standards, those affect me even though I may be a sole proprietor of a farm, whereas before they didn't. There is a multitude of different aspects, rules and regulations, labour codes, environment and so on that have come about through the past six to eight years that have drastically impacted my operation, how I look at my operation, and are continuing to develop. So those are all added costs and in a very marginalized industry such as turkey, it's hard to deal with. As a producer, when I have to put a nutrient management plan, when I have to do an environmental plan, when I have to do what I have to do, there's only one doer, that's me, as the doer, but I also have to look after my farm operation. I also have to become educated in all the others, workers' compensation, everything, I have to know it all and yet I have to try to farm. So those are all costs that are . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Maybe if I could just capsulize . . .
MR. YOUNG: Sorry, I don't mean to ramble on, but I get very excited at times.
MR. MACKINNON: No, no, that's very important. (Interruption) Just one short snapper, I know others have questions. Essentially what I hear you're saying is that you have more user fees today than you did four or five years ago and you have more red tape than you had four or five years ago, correct?
MR. YOUNG: Yes. We also have less government involvement . . .
MR. MACKINNON: In terms of helping supply management . . .
MR. YOUNG: In terms of assistance programs as opposed to other industries even in the agricultural sector and in other sectors.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Part of that would stem out of the restructuring, I guess, when the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries became one. I mean we basically lost . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Because you folks were perceived to be self-sustaining, they say, well, we don't have to bother with them, let's just cater to the ones that have been on our doorstep every day?
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that a fair analysis?
MR. DAVIES: Yes. We now have the ADI set up in lieu of - to provide the services that used to be provided by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Maybe we will come back to that after.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, you said at the beginning there are six to eight years, and now you're talking four to five years, and the red tape and so on . . .
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, it's been gradually growing since six or eight. (Interruptions) I don't have hard and fast actual dates to come here and say . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It didn't just evolve in the last four years
MR. YOUNG: No, it has been an ongoing transition from (Interruption) In other words, it hasn't gotten any easier in the past . . .
MR. DAVIES: Mr. Chairman, I think, just for clarification, one of the main things is when the two departments were amalgamated and we lost some grassroots programs, where you actually had some representatives in the Kentville area or whatnot, and then ADI was born of that, all of a sudden there became a huge community of consultants, things that cost hundreds and thousands of dollars that used to be free or at little fee, like getting a building in an area. I know a producer personally, he has a building that he wanted to put up on his land, these figures are very general, but I think it would cost $2,000 or $3,000, and
now it costs $10,000 to $12,000, because you have to have it approved by an engineer who is now a consultant. Those are just things that you hear about day to day. If he wants to build the exact same barn right next to it, not change one thing, he has to pay that $10,000 again. They just can't say, yes, we've just approved that barn last year, maybe for $500 . . .
That's all agriculture, that example, it just eats away. As I mentioned before, supply management - and this is a perfect example - we're supposed to be able to regain the added costs out of the market, and that is the problem with a lot of agriculture, we just aren't. It's being downloaded to the farmer, and that's where it stops. I have told people again and again, some of the farmers are guilty of this, we provide cheap food, we do this, people are getting cheap food. I ask them where they shop, I shop in the same Sobeys and the same Superstore, they're paying probably what the food is worth, except that retail from wholesale is enormous. I am sure you've heard this before from other commodities, not just agriculture. That's where one of the biggest problems lies.
The price you pay in the store is a fair price. The farmer and everybody seeing those fact sheets, where on a plate of food it's 12 cents to the farmer but it's sold for $7; it's that sort of story. Not looking for more than our fair share but when you have a bio-security program and a HASAP program and an environmental program, and each of these is $1,000 and $1,200 and $1,500, you can't get anything out of the market. Feed price goes up, as it has, basically, over the last five years, steadily, and that's a world market, but our price in Nova Scotia has actually dropped. Every time the feed goes up $5, that's 1 cent a kilogram. On my farm, which is a mid-size farm, it's $3,000. It's gone up $40.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Production has remained the same, essentially.
MR. DAVIES: Very little movement, about 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very little movement in production and yet the nationwide production has dropped considerably over the past year.
MR. DAVIES: In our particular industry, trying to correct . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Production is down 4 million kilograms Canada-wide.
MS. LORETTE: Mr. Chairman, just to sum this up, I think it's important that the message get out there or the thought be in the back of each of your minds when decisions are being made with respect to environment; as the government continues to focus on changes and betterment for our province, that you think of what the repercussions are going to be to the agricultural industry in Nova Scotia because of costs being incurred on their bottom line. If they're not here, you're not going to have the spinoff industries in the province either.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, just a question. When you receive your poults, are they male or female, or is it mixed?
MR. DAVIES: They're sexed, but most here are female. You have the option of getting male, but our market, as we should state, part of our challenge in the province, what's killed within the province, is attempting to be 100 per cent fresh, therefore the producer then becomes the storage. You don't have a set day where the birds will go out. They may say they're going out at 11 weeks, but they stayed 14 and 15 which then poses problems because then the birds are too big for what the retailer wants.
One of the retailers, being Sobeys, as a board and as a processor, ACA has worked extremely close with them and we seem to be melding good together marketing. They tend to support us very well, they're not going to pay more than - the dollar is what eventually makes the ultimate decision but they will pay us this much more because they know the quality of the product is there. But, they generally want a hen bird, fresh, small and our fear now is that they're looking for an extremely small bird, which is basically a large chicken. Because of the input cost of the price of the poult, it would just be - this is off the top of my head - you would probably need 60 to 70 cents a bird more, which is about 10 cents a kilogram. They're not going to pay that.
MR. DOOKS: So, an average farm has about 100,000-some birds a year? How many birds of an average size, mid-size farm?
MR. DAVIES: About 60,000 birds for a mid-size farm probably per year. Again, it depends on the kilograms. Years ago, for example, I put nine barns in a year, I put about 8,000 birds in, six or seven years ago I put 55 to 56 and got the same weight at the end. So, it's simple math. When you say your bird cost, let's round it off to $10,000, it was $15,000, now it's about $18,000 or $19,000 to grow the same weight.
MR. DOOKS: I'm a little confused, can you clarify it for me please? It's different than chicken farmers, because usually they bring their young in, they're harvested so it automatically goes four or five times a year.
MR. DAVIES: Very structured, yes.
MR. DOOKS: Structured, yes, bang, bang, bang. But, you folks are different from that? You gear to the season - Christmas . . .
MR. DAVIES: Chicken is - they've enjoyed growth over the last few years and quite substantial growth. Chicken is everywhere, pretty much. It seems to be the food that the fast food people have really focused on. They've had their problems, their ups and downs as every industry has price-wise and whatnot. But they are very structured because there is such
a large demand for it. This past year was the largest stocks they had in awhile, I think, and it was a problem. They're working through that, same as we did.
MR. YOUNG: If I might, I happen to be a dual producer. On my particular farm, I raise about 750,000 kilos of chicken per year. It's an eight-week rolling cycle - every eight weeks you get a flock in, flock out. So, that's a continuous cycle, and after every 16 weeks in the chicken industry you have to balance. You cannot be over or you get penalized and if you're under, that's a self-imposed penalty.
Within the turkey industry, we have a calendar year that runs from May 1st until April of the subsequent year. It's not a calendar year. Basically a producer within that time period can raise up to three flocks, some depending on age and size, can raise four flocks per year, depending on what the processor wants. It's an ongoing flow of product to the market. Sometimes during festive occasions, the product is required more by the processor so they will bump their production for that particular period of time.
MR. DOOKS: Reading this, it takes a lot of work to grow a turkey - the bedding, the water, you have to monitor it pretty closely, according to the facts here. How many employees would a farm of 60,000 to 100,000 birds employ?
MR. YOUNG: One.
MR. DOOKS: One?
MR. DAVIES: Should or do?
MR. DOOKS: What is the norm?
MR. DAVIES: No, that's a good question. If things were like they were in the heyday of the turkey industry, which I would say would be the 1980s - the heyday of a lot of things, of course, more money than brains in a lot of places, I think - my operation, which is mid-size, as a family operation, me and my father and I had a full-time hired man. Now, it's me and a neighbour that helps me out, things like this. It's gotten to that point and it's become more the owner is the operator and it is a full-time job. You're on call 24 hours a day. I respectfully shut my cell phone off here now and I hope there's not a message when I'm done. You're not running the way you should be. It's like the guy that has a hardware store and had three employees and Home Depot has moved in next door and he's working all the shifts and loading the dock.
MR. DOOKS: One quick question on something I'm curious about.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one second. I think David would like to follow up on that.
MR. DOOKS: Okay, I'm sorry.
MR. YOUNG: Just to follow up on some of the comments so that you can fully appreciate the complexity. You know it may sound simple, we throw birds in a barn, we raise them, ship them out and we do that continually over and over again. Our major problem, as far as we're concerned as an agricultural commodity, as an agricultural sector, is lack of competition in the marketplace. We used to have two processors in the province that competed for product at my level. At that time they had four, five or six retailers fighting for that product. Now we've got two and, as was mentioned earlier, we have Co-op. We have lack of competition. Therefore, the provincial government - I won't pinpoint any particular government - but governments in general have allowed consolidation of sectors in the industry. It doesn't matter if it's the food system, whatever, there's consolidation that's allowed and that has restricted the ability of competition that I do not have the flexibility.
I'm one of those who has to ship to Quebec and take 9 cents less and I wonder every day whether or not I'm doing a valid thing of even placing turkeys in my facilities. Thank God I have another commodity that I can fall back on, but none of you are going to take from your pension to pay for your salary today and that's basically what I'm doing. I'm stealing from one to pay the other to keep it going, hopeful that I will be able to see some glimmer of hope at the end of the day. So we've lost a lack of competition at my direct individual that I sell to and that individual has lost lack of competition where he goes to. So the whole chain has become more consolidated and, therefore, pressure is always placed on the bottom rung of the ladder and we in the turkey industry are in very, very dire straits.
As was indicated in our presentation, we made representation to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries last year looking for some assistance. I guess as a government, as the Province of Nova Scotia, we have to wonder, do we allow the mortgages of these farms? Which is worse - try to help us out to get us through a period of time until we can come up with some plans of action, or do we allow those farms that have farm mortgages with the Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board go under? I guess it's a balancing act. Which is going to cost the province more?
I'm always optimistic, too, and I don't want to sound like I'm on my soapbox, but we do have an opportunity as indicated in our report. We only produce 60 per cent of our consumption in the province. There's another 40 per cent that potentially we could develop into a larger market, a larger business. It's just a matter of that competition thing again, trying to get somebody else involved to get things moving, you know. So that creates more jobs, more economic wealth and growth which is what the government wants and a participant in that at no cost could be the Province of Nova Scotia because the Province of Nova Scotia, to our understanding, buys very little Nova Scotia turkey and I don't understand why all the regional school boards, all the regional hospitals, et cetera, et cetera, are not looking at purchasing Nova Scotia products.
It's a win-win situation for the Province of Nova Scotia for economic benefits, et cetera, and I don't understand why it hasn't happened even though Premier Hamm has indicated in the blue book that that was one of the things that was to be promoted and we're only finally getting to that point of realizing what may be the potential there. You know our own government doesn't support us and I'm not professing that it's at any cost. I don't want to see a $10 turkey going to - as long as it's competitive, but if it's only a cent or two per kilogram, that determines it's going to be Nova Scotia as opposed to Quebec or Ontario, what would be the better decision?
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. DOOKS: My last quick question. Turkeys, when you're raising them, is it true that if something happens like a thunderstorm or a plane should happen to fly over, they huddle together, is that true?
MR. DAVIES: To be quite blunt, they are about the stupidest things on the planet. (Laughter)
MR. DOOKS: I've often heard they were temperamental. An average farm is 60,000 birds, so to speak, how many would you lose from the time you take shipment of the poults until harvest time?
MR. DAVIES: An average loss of mortality, as it's referred to, 2 per cent is the morbidity rate you hope to accomplish on a healthy flock, maybe up to 3 per cent, depending on how long they're in. Like Dave alluded to before, you can have a disease problem but with proper bio-security, we find in Nova Scotia the disease is usually brought in from the hatchery. We've had very little disease until, I would say, the last five or six years here. Some diseases that were never here, cropped up. Where else did they come from, because they were from out of province and whatnot. But no, the heat and the comfort of the bird within the first 24 hours is extremely critical.
Everybody is different, every farm is different, every building on a farm is different. Remember, they have a 24- to 30-hour truck ride, they are born, they're handled once, put in the boxes and shipped out; it's quite a shock to the system. Me, personally, I check them every half-hour to hour for the first 18 hours, so if they come in at 10:00 p.m., you're up all night. If there's a flood, or if one of the heaters or the heating system has a malfunction, there is crowding beyond belief. You can lose hundreds at a time if you leave the barn for an hour and something like that happens. Chickens are a little more resilient, and maybe a little smarter.
MR. YOUNG: With regard to the airplanes and things like that, yes, I concur with my learned partner here, they are the stupidest things on Earth. But airplanes, et cetera, those are misnomers because these birds are contained in a self-contained, environmentally-controlled building. They don't see the light of day until the door is opened when they go out.
MR. DOOKS: The big day.
MR. DAVIES: We don't like to talk about it, the liberation. We always say they have a good life but it's a short one.
MR. DOOKS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your chickens must have fun teasing them. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question from the Chair. I was just curious, you were talking about the major grocery chains and the size of turkeys, they're wanting smaller turkeys but indeed they do sell the 8-kilogram to 11-kilogram turkeys. From what I hear, you don't really produce those in Nova Scotia and I'm wondering why. I think they call them toms, don't they? Is that the proper name for them?
MR. DAVIES: Well, one of the main reasons is our processor can only process live, he's pushing it at an 8-kilogram bird which in the store, or eviscerated, is about 6 kilogram to 8 kilogram at the outside. So that would entail a lot of investment on the plant's part. The other is, 99 per cent of those - realizing some do come in fresh - are frozen. As of late, a lot of it is older stock, what we deem fire sale prices. The only reason the stocks in the country are coming under control is they've basically sold them for a song, to be quite blunt.
Lilydale is a huge, huge co-op out West, they cover three provinces and they're in deep financial straits because of the market. It's not a secret, I'm not telling anything out of school. Their bankers went to them and said, unload this inventory and unload it now at this price. It again posed another problem, it flooded the market, decreasing prices everywhere. People were a little shaky around the past festive season and ACA didn't do too bad, they sold all they had but they kept the cards close to their chests, not overproducing, not overselling, not putting too many birds in the barn. Luckily, they were a little short and had to take some extra, which is always good news. The cost thing is the biggest, when you see those birds out of province and they are frozen. You still have Butterball, which is sort of the flagship, but for a little cooking oil stuck in with a needle they're pretty smart marketers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't for a minute think that that's the answer, the Butterball. In fact I don't even care . . .
MR. DAVIES: No, but I wish I had thought of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In fact, I don't even care for them.
MR. DAVIES: As a further processed product, there's a cost of about 15 cents. I think the netting they put around it costs more than what's in it, but whoever thought about it is smart.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Marketing self-basting.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, if I could just add to the comments made, you raised a very good point too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very quickly, if you could. We have quite a few who want to speak now.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. You've raised a very good question regarding why do we not have the larger-sized birds. You're perfectly right, the toms. That's another problem that we have within our industry and my chairman has elaborated on that to a certain degree, but there's another aspect of the industry that we could be developing as opposed to just . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That forty per cent that you were talking about.
MR. YOUNG: . . . the tray, fresh tray-packed birds. It's a one size, small bird, but our processor doesn't have the capability. There's an opportunity. We used to have tom birds being raised in the province when we had two processors, because one was capable of doing a larger-sized bird. Today, even though they've done an excellent job in doing what they're doing, they've restricted themselves from frozen product, from larger-sized birds and all the rest of it, partially because of the economic cost of getting into and having a specialty line that would handle those larger-sized birds.
Government helps industry to develop in other sectors, why is there not the opportunity - whether government has been approached or not I cannot say, I'm not on the board of directors of ACA or within management - but is that an opportunity?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Because, Mrs. Baillie, you haven't had an opportunity to ask a question, I'm going to go to you and then I'll go to our representative of the Opposition Party and then back to Mr. Hendsbee, if that's agreeable. I know Mr. Hendsbee you were ahead of both in the queue, but . . .
MRS. MURIEL BAILLIE: We've been hearing a lot about the turkeys being raised and so on and I was interested in Sonya - you said you were an inspector?
MS. LORETTE: Yes, I am, under the Natural Products Act. I think it's Section 7 under the Act whereby appointments are made and I'm one of the individuals in Nova Scotia who received an appointment under the Act to go and inspect a facility to make sure that, number one, the birds are there, the birds are in good health, the licence holder is following
the criteria set forth to that individual and if everything is up to par, I just fill in my report and report back at the office to the board.
MRS. BAILLIE: How many would there be in Nova Scotia? Are there many inspectors?
MS. LORETTE: I don't know. I do know that in the Valley there are four appointments.
MRS. BAILLIE: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: And she can cover anywhere in the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Baillie if you have another one later, we'll have time I'm sure. Mr. MacKinnon, I'll move back to you.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to ADI.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Try to be nice, though.
MR. MACKINNON: I will, in my usual fashion. Mr. Davies, would you and your organization be kind enough to table for members of the committee a list of the user fees that you now incur that you didn't incur before this realignment of the department?
MR. DAVIES: I wouldn't have . . .
MR. MACKINNON: To the best of your ability.
MR. DAVIES: To the best of our ability, in very general terms, I would say for instance when you would get as a poultry . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I can take it on notice and your executive director, whoever, can provide us with it in written form. It would appear to me that you seem to be incurring a lot of user fees and unexpected costs that you didn't before.
MR. DAVIES: It's twofold. Fees that were there have increased and some fees have just . . .
MR. MACKINNON: If you could give us both. Could you give us that within seven days?
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, if I might. To Mr. MacKinnon's questioning - I'm just wondering how we put a dollar on some of these, some of these are intangible.
MR. MACKINNON: To the best of your ability.
MR. YOUNG: It's just things that we, all of a sudden, now have to do that we didn't have to do before. They may not necessarily have cost us any dollars and cents, but it's my time, my employees' time that I have to . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Include that to the best of your ability.
MR. YOUNG: On farm costs.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. I would like to go back to Page 4 of your presentation, where you made representation last year to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, requesting assistance for producers but were told that because of signed government agreements, they were unable to provide financial aid. Would you be kind enough to give us some clarification, put a little meat - excuse the Freudian slip, of course - on that issue?
MR. DAVIES: White meat. The real white meat. (Interruptions) Another smart marketing campaign. We have, going on now - and either of my colleagues could correct me - to be quite blunt, I am also involved at the national level, and I have so many regulations and papers coming at me. This one was based on the APF. There was a ministers' meeting at about this time last year, I believe it was. They signed some documents as a preamble to the APF that supporting an industry, or subsidizing - I guess is the term used - within your province prohibits interprovincial trade. It's an unfair advantage. So because of that, one of the stipulations was no support to commodities within your province.
We had issue with that. We heard of the beef transport and the hog people. We realize it was put under different programs like NISA or something to that effect. We felt the explanation fell a little short.
MR. MACKINNON: You feel that you have been shortchanged on this issue?
MR. DAVIES: Not shortchanged so much as just it's maybe the door was closed a little too quickly. We were sort of at a loss, to be quite honest.
MR. YOUNG: If I might, I hate to keep jumping in here. At that time, I was chairman, when we met with the former minister, Mr. Fage. We made our presentation to him and basically outlined the seriousness of the situation within the Province of Nova Scotia regarding turkey and turkey producers and the dilemma that they were in, the stabilization,
the self-imposed stabilization program that we had in effect, which is mentioned in the report. That was funded by all producers in the Province of Nova Scotia, a goodwill gesture from one producer to me, a producer who ships out of the province to an outside processor taking 9 cents less by other producers who had the ability to ship within the province. We worked together.
We did that for as long as we could financially do it. At that point, we went to the government, we outlined the situation, told them what we would like to do, how we would like to proceed, and we asked for some financial assistance, if at all possible. We were turned down, and basically we walked away with the perception that it was inappropriate at this time because of the new APF, agricultural policy framework program, that was taking place or that was signed or about to be signed.
It was contradictory to that program, therefore, we had to go home and try to reassess what we may be able to do as an industry to try to stay afloat. We feel that, as well as government can find ad hoc dollars for other programs and other situations such as drought, such as our recent flood, we thought that there may be some compassion, some assistance from within government.
MR. MACKINNON: I appreciate that. My final question, on a previous day, we had the Federation of Agriculture appear before one of our committees - it may have been this committee - with regard to the provincial water strategy. The representative at that time indicated that they had not been consulted prior to the development of that particular water strategy. What input did your organization have into the development of the provincial water strategy?
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. DAVIES: None. If I could be so bold, this would be federal, provincial, municipal, town, the farmer is the last one. There are exceptions, of course. I have a conference call tomorrow as a member of CTMA, as vice-chair of the national turkey agency, I am also a director of the Canadian federation, which is their parent organization. We have an emergency call, almost, based on things like the APF going through, because of a lack of consultation with the grassroots farmers, fees are imposed, et cetera. That is a huge problem.
Now the experts are the ones that do, that have the boots on every day. That's in any field. I think it's just consulting with - like I said, there are a lot of consultants out there that were ex-Department of Agriculture employees . . .
MR. MACKINNON: But in short, your organization . . .
MR. DAVIES: No.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, maybe at the end, I would like to make a motion with regard to the Harbinson report, if possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the record show that John MacDonell has joined us from the NDP caucus. Good morning, John. Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: I have a few other questions in regard to your supplier - you have ACA in the Valley and you said there was another abattoir, was that Nadeau, a few years ago?
MR. DAVIES: No. Nadeau is just chicken, that's in New Brunswick. It used to be Maple Leaf here, Maple Leaf and ACA, and now it's Flamingo in Quebec and ACA here. Maple Leaf still has a processing plant that's strictly chicken.
MR. HENDSBEE: What about New Brunswick and P.E.I., the turkey producers there? Do they have their own abattoir, or do they have to send it to Quebec?
MR. DAVIES: There is no production of turkey in Newfoundland. In New Brunswick, their turkey is shipped to Quebec, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of production is right on the border of Quebec and New Brunswick. About seven to nine hours is their trucking, which within the Province of Quebec is a normal thing. You're out of your realm when you're dealing with a processor that is once removed. You don't have any authority as a board over them, negotiating. It's a goodwill gesture. We have signed documents, but it doesn't make people sleep any better.
MR. HENDSBEE: I'm curious about your marketing strategy, talking about Turkey Tuesdays and stuff like that, fish on Friday, the Catholics always had that kind of thing to fall on, you have the KFCs and the Swiss Chalets promoting chicken, you have all the other fast food into chicken burgers, whatever the case may be, and the restaurants are having chicken wings and stuff. I would like to know if there's any value-added product or the breakdown of the full turkey instead of just the full birds going off in production. You have your thighs and drumsticks and breasts that are usually as value-added processing, in regard to separating and that, and ground turkey is another product.
Have there been any other discussions in regard to - I don't know, does a turkey have wings like a chicken has wings, in regard to buffalo wings, perhaps you could call them elephant wings, the big munchies at the bar or whatever. I'm not sure if those products are available or not. I'm trying to see if there's any other value-added or other types of products that could be promoted.
MR. DAVIES: That's a very good point. As we mentioned briefly in our presentation, our local processor, ACA - Eastern Protein is under their umbrella. They do a fair amount of processing in chicken. In the other provinces, mainly Ontario and out West, there is a lot
of turkey, further processes, we referred to it, and products. Wings, I don't know, it must be the size or something. To me it would be a better deal for your money, but that's not a big issue. Almost anything in chicken, like the pies, the stroganoff, the list is endless.
Lilydale, as I mentioned earlier, has produced, I think, 14 new products this year. That doesn't mean they're going to stay on the shelf or end up on the shelf. It's very competitive. Public perception - most people will tend to have, let's say, a turkey sub before a chicken sub, but they will have chicken nuggets before turkey nuggets. It's just our way of thinking in our society. That's what we're trying to change through generic - we went from just promoting turkey to slowly getting into further processing.
The reason we couldn't go into specific further processed products across Canada, because it is a national program, is because some provinces don't offer all those products. Basically we would be paying into the pot to help support a multinational in Ontario that maybe has turkey pies. So we went with ground turkey, which we have always had here, and tried to promote, and turkey parts and the small turkey. Finally, something - to be quite blunt - went our way, because some of the big guys, believe it or not, don't have ground turkey and we did.
We promote through our retail shows, we companion with Sobeys and are invited to some of their special trade shows, and are promoting these products in tandem with the Turkey Tuesdays. Direct to your question, yes, there are lots of products out there.
It's our capability here to develop them and, as in anything, it's like a new automobile, there's a lot of money involved in developing marketing, getting it into the stores, and staying in the stores. We have sort of been pushing, and Sobeys has also challenged ACA, our motto is sort of whatever you have for chicken, do it with turkey meat. There's no change. Like if it's a chicken nugget, make it a turkey nugget, try it out. There's a little more to it than that. The packaging is different. There's a cost to everything, but through the research dollars that we've secured in the last three weeks, there's a program going forth and if you want more information, I will let Sonya expand on it, but this is what we're looking at, as David alluded to earlier, how do we get into the government and services and HRIs, it's called - hotel, restaurant and institution - within our own province, you know, how do you get a piece of that?
MR. HENDSBEE: In regard to that, what about other breeds in the poultry, you know, you hear about emu and ostrich and all that, the exotic birds and the farming. Does that have any impact or are there any local producers that you have in your 24 producers experimenting with that type of product?
MR. DAVIES: No. Our processor and a couple of quota holders, as we refer to them as opposed to a free-ranger, who just has a licence and doesn't own a quota, have been looking at the more natural bird I guess. As you're aware, Maple Leaf through their chicken
has their Prime which has no meat or fish meal in it, animal by-product I guess would be the industry term for it, so they're looking at changing some of their feed and running some trials with some quota holders. It's sort of an underlying thing.
The fear is if everybody, if organic and natural is a big push in the public, as a producer, if everything becomes that, your feed costs can almost double. We're not going to get any more out of the market. It's then the expected norm. It's then the benchmark of what all food should be. I'm sure you will pay double for it in retail. In fact, I will guarantee you will, as you've seen some foods in there. We will absorb the costs. They will make twice the profit and you will pay for it.
MR. HENDSBEE: What about a genetically smaller breed of bird, of turkey, whatever, you know, call it a super chicken or a small turkey, whatever, a dwarf turkey (Interruption)
MR. DAVIES: A churkey.
MR. HENDSBEE: You know, something that's smaller. You see the department stores now have rotisserie chicken, the barbequed chicken that's already cooked. I think some small families or individuals, or single people, have a problem with cooking a large turkey or cooking a turkey because of the massive size of it and having it in the fridge all this time, but if they can have a smaller product that would be available to them and probably easier for them to consume, I think it's probably a way to put it because I would have thought a smaller bird, you wouldn't have a long production period, less food, less feed, less water, less chance of contamination or mobility if you have a shorter production period for that item.
MR. DAVIES: As we mentioned briefly before, those are all valid points. There's something called feed conversion when growing any animal and specifically talking turkey, no pun intended. The light bird, they have sort of this optimum growth period for the bird the size we grow and that's about 5 to 6.5 kilograms which is about a 10-day period roughly. Below that, and they should consume roughly 2 kilograms or pounds, it's irrelevant, of feed for every kilogram or pound that the bird grows, a conversion of two.
For a light bird the conversion is higher because they've not met their optimum growth point and when they get heavier, it's the opposite. So the light bird, we have a small program in place that is an equalization - or cost recovery, sorry - we have too many programs. The cost recovery is that the processor does pay and they have no qualms with that. It doesn't quite cover our costs, but it's like 2 cents, then 2.5 cents, it depends, but these are getting such light birds. In fact, we have a pricing meeting this afternoon with the processor to look at some of these issues.
It's the higher cost for a small bird. The bigger bird, they're offset because of the amount of meat on $1.50 as opposed to half the meat on $1.50. So if we were to recoup the cost, I don't even think anyone would look at profit for recouping those costs, just pay us for the extra what it would cost, the extra 10 or 15 cents, we'll supply you with the bird. We'll supply the retailer. But they can go to Ontario or Quebec where they're putting through - well, between Ontario and Quebec, it's half the production of the country, or 55 per cent, so about 60- to 65-million kilograms. Just for them putting through the sheer volume they can pick these light birds off the line almost, but they will not grow them because they won't get paid enough for them.
So, the retailers, as David mentioned here, sort of have us where they want us. If you want us to take your birds, they have to be, they're talking under 4 kilograms and about 3.25 to 3.5, which for you, in the store, is a chicken.
MR. HENDSBEE: Is there any such thing as a genetically small turkey?
MR. DAVIES: Not small enough, no; smaller, but we grow them now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, David, you wanted to jump in?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, I just wanted to jump in here on genetics. You've asked about that. I know in chicken they tried to genetically, not GMO-type thing, but just through natural selection and breeding tried to develop a smaller hen, a mother hen, in order to produce the same size chick that I would put in my barn. It never came to fruition because it just didn't work. Turkeys, just because of the inherent nature of the beast, is a large-type bird. Those in the scheme of things that do that type of work, have the breeder stock, et cetera, may be working on that, but we're not aware of anything that's genetically being done to produce a smaller-type bird.
Another thing with genetics and even with the smaller-type bird, a lot of people say, I don't have the time to cook a larger bird and all the excess and I have to eat it for a week and so on, if you go to a smaller bird, you'll notice in the display case that it doesn't have a nice finish to it, it looks blue. That's just because it's immature. It takes from week 12 onward to get a nice or a whiter sheen to that bird that it looks like its actually finished. So what does the retailer or the processor have to do? He has to hide it in a bag that has multi colours on it, so you don't see until you get it home and stick it in the oven, oh, gee it's blue. There's nothing wrong with the bird, it's just that it isn't mature enough. So those are some of the problems regarding the smaller bird. It's public appearance, public perception.
The other thing is, a smaller bird, I'm paying $1.50, $1.60 per poult. The smaller that bird is, I work in cents per kilograms on my feed costs and on my poult cost, and if I grow that small a bird, an inefficient bird, my poult costs per kilogram go through the roof. When I know I only have $1.30 for a live price and my poult costs go through the roof, that's even
less money in my pocket at the end of the day unless I get a fantastic premium for that product.
MR. DAVIES: It's price point with retailers, everything's a widget, and we have a hard time convincing some of the bigger ones that this is a live animal. It's not even an apple or something where they can grade them, or potatoes where they can grade them more readily. Still, they have problems there, but it's a organism, I guess. I was going to say with a brain, but we'll skip that part.
MR. YOUNG: There are very good concerns and thoughts that are brought up.
MR. DAVIES: These are all the things we struggle with.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you for that. We're going to have to wind down fairly soon. We do have a little bit of business to attend to and there's a few more members who want to ask some questions. Yes, Dave, I am going to recognize John MacDonell. John you were with us a few minutes, so I'll give you a few minutes.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in, my apologies. I have sheep lambing, and can't always plan my day. I really appreciate that I was able to get here while you were still here.
Actually, I'll leave this with you when you go, some questions I put to the minister the other day in budget estimates. Some around my questions to you around the levy stuff, and also around the percentage of the market here that you don't have, which is a concern for me.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell, I wonder if you would table those questions with the committee members, as well.
MR. MACDONELL: Sure. I wish I could table some answers. Talking about the birds, and this is a bit of a rabbit track maybe but I'm curious, the birds you breed, are they Holland Whites, Nicholas Whites, or (Interruptions) they're Nicholas Whites. So they're fairly big, they're fairly large birds. Does anybody breed Holland Whites? Do you know anything about them at all?
MR. DAVIES: The basic ones are the BUT, the hybrid and the Nicholas. They're so close now. You get them in your barn, if they grow to a full - which we don't usually get, one's a little more slender, or taller, or bigger breasts, but the size we grow, it's six of one, half-dozen of the other.
MR. YOUNG: There are other genetic streams but these are the ones that the commercial breeders have developed. Like Mr. Davies says, they have the hybrid, the Nicholas and the BUT. Worldwide, those are basically the commercial breeds that are used.
MR. MACDONELL: Its because of their size, that's the relationship when you're talking about trying to get a size range, that actually is the most optimum for making money. I think turkeys grow by building their structure first, before they put meat on it, so you are feeding a frame first. So it's pretty hard to adjust the time to say, well no, don't build so much bone, it would make you all meat.
MR. DAVIES: If I could, one of the problems we have, being such a small player even in Canada, you can imagine how small a player we are in North America, no one is going to develop a bird - we are extremely unique in North America - and spend the millions of dollars to develop a bird that will mature at 11 weeks, because that might come down the pipeline in the future. We see a trend - we have categories at the national agency - from heavy to lighter birds. Now, that's a good thing nationally, it's not a good thing for us. It's like we developed this market, we were the first to do fresh, the first to do light birds but, as everybody knows, that window of opportunity is usually six months to a year. They are realizing it has to because the public, as you mentioned before, are demanding - smaller households, single households - the smaller bird.
MR. MACDONELL: Part of the market you don't get in Nova Scotia, is it that 40 per cent - I think it's around 40 per cent - the part that they're filling? You said because of the volume, they have these birds anyway, without worrying about growing them just because of the large volume.
MR. DAVIES: And price. It's our understanding - and we won't get into this because we could be here all day - the product is being dumped. The way it's being dumped is because there's consolidation in the retailers, the retailers own the brokers, they are putting it through their system. They can buy it for whatever price they want in Ontario, it's not the processor doing anything wrong. We know it costs more because we have had people come down here and we've tried to hook up with processors in Ontario, they pay more for their birds up there. Even though their input cost to the farmer is cheaper, they pay more for the product because their mandated price they negotiated is 12 cents higher in Ontario. How can they send a bird down here, plus freight, cheaper than we can grow it in our own backyard? Because they're selling it at a fire sale rate, it's old stock, it goes through the retailer system and ends up in these stores. So, the processor is not dumb, and you can't get the books of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Unfortunately, some of this stuff we've already covered so I will turn the floor over to Mr. MacKinnon, who would like to make a motion.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, my motion is to speak to the Harbinson report, that this committee, by letter, to the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, urge the minister to make official representation to the federal Minister of Agriculture, opposing the Harbinson report, as prepared for WTO. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You heard the motion. Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I was just wondering if we could amend that. Why not send the letter directly to the federal minister?
MR. MACKINNON: The reason why I did this is because of the proper protocol and the fact that this organization comes under the umbrella of the provincial ministry. If the conclusion is . . .
MR. PARENT: It would seem to me if we sent it to the federal minister and copy it to the provincial minister but I mean, six of one, half-dozen of the other . . .
MR. MACKINNON: My intent was to make the provincial minister a partner in this process, because it's the council of provincial ministers that meets with the federal minister to make it a reality.
MR. HENDSBEE: We'll get him to draft a letter to the federal . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I thought that was proper protocol, but if you want to bypass the provincial minister . . .
MR. PARENT: I was just going with the original letter that was written, it wouldn't bypass, I would copy to the provincial minister.
MR. DAVIES: I believe they meet as federal and provincial ministers within the next couple of months. Is it July?
MR. MACKINNON: So it would be timely.
MR. DAVIES: I'm glad you brought that forth, we were going to mention that before we left.
MR. MACKINNON: I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved. Seconded?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): You don't need a seconder.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't need a seconder.
Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Mark Parent, you get the last word, then we will formally or informally thank our presenters, and then we will do one little piece of business.
MR. PARENT: I had some more questions, but in light of the time, Mr. Chairman, I will not ask them. I just want to thank you very much. My mind goes back to many years ago when Mark and I knew each other in a different capacity. I am always amazed that farming, that agriculture is an international business, that our farmers are competing worldwide and, I think, doing it in a marvellous way. The breadth of knowledge that the farmer has to have nowadays is just incredible. I just want to commend you and thank you for a wonderful presentation. I will grab you later with my questions, since we are running out of time.
Mr. Chairman, I am wondering, as well, whether it might be worthwhile, and I hesitate to advance this since I am just sitting in, to write a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources on the introduction of wild turkey. I don't think that's going to happen, but we may want to support the concerns of the turkey producers on that as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be in order. I don't think we need a motion to do that.
MR. PARENT: It's just a request. It's a non-indigenous species, and I think it would cause problems for our turkey producers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dave, Mark, Sonya, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you very much for bringing us up to speed. I know I've learned a lot about your organization and business. I know it has experienced a great deal of growth through the years, and I hope that's able to continue. Most of the members around this table are from rural Nova Scotia, so we want you to be successful in Nova Scotia and we want to fill that gap of 40 per cent with perhaps even the larger-sized turkeys.
Hey, I can't say it with Dave, cover your ears, but who wants to eat greasy chicken, when we can have nice dry - I am a dry meat person. I like turkey, I really do. I know chicken is sort of a base food in this province and in other areas. I hope the two industries can continue. Dave, in your case, you're involved with both of them. I wish you all the success in the world with that. Anyway, having said that, thank you. We will come back to the table in a couple of minutes and continue with our business. You can stay or you can pack up.
MR. DAVIES: We would just like to thank you, again, for the opportunity to listen to our presentation and the interest you've shown through your questions is obvious. It's always a learning experience any time anybody comes upon something new, and that's the approach we took with this. We didn't want anybody to be slighted, thinking it was maybe too elementary, because sometimes when you're in your own field you take certain things for granted. We always take the position that people do not know - no insult - anything about your industry, which I always found the best and direct approach.
I would just ask you to keep in mind that our industry, at the present time, agriculture's mark is integral to the economy of Nova Scotia, it is a rural province, and our industry itself is in - and maybe we didn't elaborate too much today - a crisis situation now and it's some short-term direction and support we're looking for from the members. So anything you can do, we would appreciate shedding light on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you will see, I think you'll agree that this committee is very much in support of your organization . . .
MR. DAVIES: And we appreciate that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . and I will certainly commit to continuing to buy fresh, Nova Scotia-grown turkeys.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I, too, would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to address your concerns and questions. It gives me a better insight on how government does work to a certain degree - other than watching at home on TV, on Channel 10, the chaotic sessions that we sometimes have in the House. The executive had the opportunity to sit down with the honourable John MacDonell and one thing stuck in my mind, even to this day, from his discussion, and it was that we have all sorts of industry and all the rest in the Province of Nova Scotia. We have a very diverse province, Nova Scotia - from agriculture to high-tech, but the thing that impressed me the most was that he said those other industries, if they don't like the situation that they're in, leave - and agriculture doesn't. We just stay; we take the good, we take the bad, and that's why we need a government that will help to support some of our primary industries, and we're one of those. We need your support and I must say I do certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and to have the opportunity to address you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will ask Sonya if you want to say a few words.
MS. LORETTE: Yes, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to come before you people today. In the long run it makes my job a lot easier back at the office. I would just encourage each of you, if you have any questions or if you require input to further discussions that
you're having with your colleagues, please feel free to pick up the phone and give me a call at the office - or one of the directors. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we have one piece of business before the committee, and it's a letter from Henry Hicks. It has been kicking around for some time, and I think everyone is aware of it.
MR. HENDSBEE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With outstanding items on the agenda, with other pending things looming in the future, on the horizon, I'm not sure we're going to have time in this committee to deal with some of these outstanding items, for instance the spraying of silviculture lands. So I think that we should probably just table that and maybe defer it for some other future committee to deal with.
MR. MACDONELL: I'm curious as to what that really means, because if this committee changes, or whatever, where does this request by Mr. Hicks go? Is there something to indicate that it will come back at some point? Is there some way to flag this that it doesn't go into the Neverland, you know, how can we be sure that that's going to show up again?
MR. PARENT: Can I echo the honourable John MacDonell's comment - you're honourable in a descriptive sense, yes - but Henry is a member of my constituency. So I agree you have a lot on your plate and the winery is important, sort of growing, which is next, but just does it get lost or does it come back after a significant event may occur in this province? When it's tabled, it can be picked up from the table, can't it?
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're just postponing it.
MR. DOOKS: There are going to be more governments. There will always be a government in Nova Scotia, there will always be committees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's for sure.
MS. STEVENS: If I may, I have to proceed as if there isn't going to be an election. So what this would mean is it would go to our next agenda-setting session which would be in September. If you'd table it now, then it would be on the table as an item that has been passed in to deal with and it would be voted on at that time. If there is an election, what can happen is that when there's a new committee you always give a history of what the committee has done in the past, what items had been approved, but of course had been nullified, and it would be at that point that the members could pick through that and decide, and they'd have to vote on it again. Even items that have been approved by this committee
would be nullified by that election, but the other committee could come back and say oh yes, shall we talk about bringing this forward? So, as the clerk, I keep the continuous files.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then it's my understanding that it's going to be on the table there for the new committee if that happens, unless we're still here in September.
Everyone in agreement on that? Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 11:02 a.m.]