House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

AgricultureOral Question Period

February 26th, 2004 / 2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about supply management are confusing. On the one hand, the minister is reaffirming that he will defend supply management, but he recognizes at the same time that there will be opposition around the table and even added, “We do not have much support”. The minister's hesitations weaken his position.

Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to eliminate all ambiguity and clearly reaffirm his commitment to defending the supply management system, as it currently exists in Quebec and Canada?

AgricultureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant Ontario

Liberal

Bob Speller LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, from back in the days of the hon. Eugene Whelan through many ministers of agriculture within the Liberal Party of Canada, we have stood firmly behind supply management. I would question if there is that stand in other parties in the House.

MulticulturalismOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government.

In 1993 Conservative attack ads ridiculed those overcoming physical disabilities. In 1997 we saw ads about no more prime ministers from Quebec. Now there are Caribbean attack ads.

Does the Minister of State for Multiculturalism agree with me that these ads are stereotyping negatively Canadians of Caribbean origin, are harmful to our country and are even harmful to our relations with other nations of the region?

MulticulturalismOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore Ontario

Liberal

Jean Augustine LiberalMinister of State (Multiculturalism and Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, the new Conservative ads reinforce racial stereotypes and are unacceptable in a modern multicultural society. We are working so hard to ensure that we speak to diversity, that we speak to inclusion.

The pattern that we see from the reformed Conservatives is a pattern that is very painful and very hurtful to members of our multicultural community.

MarriageOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's action plan for democratic reform is hollow and devoid of integrity.

Since March 2003, all private members' bills have been voted on in Parliament. However, the right of MPs to vote on my Bill C-450, which uses the Constitution to protect the legal definition of marriage, has been revoked.

Why is the Liberal government so afraid of democracy that it is resorting to undemocratic tactics to prevent MPs from voting on this important issue?

MarriageOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that our party, in collaboration with the rest of the House, agreed to make all private members' bills votable. Criteria were established regarding these bills which are votable by default but which would not be votable if the criteria were not met. All the parties in the House agreed to these criteria. If he has a problem, it is not with us nor with democratic reform, but with himself.

HaitiOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, while the French minister of foreign affairs described President Aristide's government as a government that is now at an impasse and no longer has constitutional legality, and asked for his voluntary departure, yesterday, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs continued to say that he needed appropriate political conditions to act in the Haitian crisis.

Could the minister tell us today under what political conditions he is prepared to take part in an intervention to prevent a bloodbath in Port-au-Prince?

HaitiOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Toronto Centre—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to take action. We have worked with all our colleagues from the Americas, and also with our European partners, including France, to ensure that there is a political condition that is legitimate under both international law and the Haitian constitution. Obviously, there must an agreement in Haiti to have a government or a union, so that we can help the Haitian people resolve this crisis.

We are working with all the members of the international community. We are pursuing our efforts. Of course, should Mr. Aristide decide to leave—

HaitiOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

That will conclude question period for today.

I believe the hon. member for Saint John is rising on a point of order.

Point of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, during the debate yesterday with regard to the marijuana bill, it was inappropriate for me to put the question which I did. If any member took offence to the question I asked, I apologize to each and every one of them.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, in asking the government House leader what business we will be conducting for the rest of the week and into next week, perhaps I should also ask when we will see some new legislation from the government, because everything we have seen to date is recycled information.

Let me also ask him a supplementary. The leader of the government in the other place outlined a new policy that he promised to use for the appointment of the Senate ethics officer. Members of the Senate have been promised wide consultation prior to any appointment, and this also includes independent senators. However the agreement of all parties will also be necessary before the governor in council will make the appointment.

Is the government House leader going to bring in a statement that will outline the procedure that we will follow here in the House? Will it be the same as introduced in the Senate?

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I will begin at the end, to be completely logical.

These are Senate matters. They do not concern the House in any concrete way. I would need to know what the Senate was going to decide before I could answer the question.

Also, regarding new bills, I am assuming that a bill that is good for the people is a bill that is good for the people, whether or not it existed previously. That is what we are working on. I hope to have the cooperation of our colleagues across the way to continue this process.

As to the plans for the coming week, as you know, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health, including transfer payments of $2 billion to the provinces. Then, we will consider Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed by Bill C-15, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, and finally Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

On Tuesday, March 9, at 10 a.m., the Secretary General of the United Nations will address both houses of Parliament in the House of Commons. As you know, all parties have agreed that the Wednesday schedule will apply that Tuesday, in order to leave the morning free in honour of the Secretary General.

Finally, Thursday, March 11 will also be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Blackstrap.

As the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which is the second largest cow calf producing county in the Province of Ontario, this debate is of particular significance to the farming community in my riding.

Last week the farmers in my riding had a meeting to discuss the ongoing crisis on the family farm, which has resulted from this single discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, or as it is now popularly known, mad cow disease.

On relatively short notice we had 400 to 500 farmers packing the Opeongo High School auditorium looking for answers and I have to congratulate Douglas area dairy farmer Preston Cull for taking the initiative in organizing the meeting that included speaker Ron Wooddisse, president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.

Farmers need cash in their hands right now. Leaving the announcement as to whether or not there will be any assistance as an election promise, rather than doing something now, only will be seen as a very cynical move on the part of the government. Waiting for the election is just too late.

Farmers do not want their livelihoods held hostage by an election. They know what the Prime Minister's record is on keeping election promises. In fact farmers as well as all Canadians are still waiting for the Prime Minister to keep his 1993 election promise to eliminate the GST.

Let us be clear. Even the Liberals' provincial cousins in Queen's Park are saying that Ottawa lacks the leadership in providing support to our farmers and it needs to do more to help the farmers. That is the Ontario Liberals saying the same thing. These words are right from the mouth of the Ontario provincial agriculture minister, which considering how little his government has done, seems to be practising the same Liberal policies at the provincial level as well.

Farmers, like all Canadians, listen to the news and read the papers. What farmers in my riding say, and I would expect cannot understand why, is that when it comes to money for such things as $2 billion for the Liberal gun registry, or $250 million for the sponsorship program, or $161 million for the Prime Minister's private, personal companies, or $500 million to cancel the helicopter contract only to turn around and spend $700 million to buy the same one, or $50 million to cancel the Pearson airport contract, why, when it comes to wasting taxpayers dollars like this, the former finance, now Prime Minister, was so quick to sign cheques. Yet, when it comes to helping save the farming industry, the government claims the cupboards are bare.

It is not right that the farmers are put into a position where they literally have to beg the government, especially considering what an important role in our economy that agriculture plays. No farmers means that we do not eat. Canadians are smart.

At the beef meeting held in my riding last week many farmers questioned the spending priorities of the government.

Phyllis Hartwig of Killaloe, who had the experience of the great depression, likened today's plight with farmers as worse than the dirty thirties. The prices of the cattle right now are about the same as they were in the 1930s. She also made the connection that the very money that has been wasted could have been used to help the farmers right across Canada.

All farmers are asking the very same thing. Why does the government always have money to waste on foolish things, but when it comes to something as important as our food supply, Ottawa has to be pushed, yelled at or shamed into doing the right thing and even when it does it, it usually gets it wrong?

Mr. Wooddisse, the president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, made the observation that there had been no shortage of meetings between the government and the farm organizations. Yet each time a financial package was agreed to, the farming organizations would leave the room only to find that when the government announced the details of a compensation package, it was completely different from the ones the farm organizations had agreed to with the government. It is time the government started listening to farmers. Farmers want answers.

Why is there such a huge difference between what our beef farmers are receiving at the farm gate and what consumers are paying at the store? At the auction barn on Tuesday, cattle went for less than 10¢ a pound. Yet even for regular ground beef, we are paying $2.00 a pound. Who is making all the money?

Farmers in my riding are also saying, and a show of hands was asked for by farmers at a public meeting, that if Canada needs to test every animal to gain the confidence of our trading partners, then let us just simply get on with it.

The time for talking about it is over. Farmers need action, and they need it now. Farmers are tired of the government telling them that it does not have any answers to this problem. It will be a year in May that the single case of BSE was found, and farmers are no further ahead in seeing an end to the crisis on the farm.

It is also interesting to note that while politicians were invited to attend the farm meeting last week, they did not want any of the Liberal politicians to stand up and speak. Such is the frustration in the farming community with some politicians.

I am pleased to confirm that the new Conservative Party of Canada does have a plan to help farmers. In the short term it is our intention to top off the farm income program. While the federal government has paid out only 60% of claims, we would pay out 100% of the accepted claims.

The BSE crisis has demonstrated the fact that we need more processing capacity in Canada and a new Conservative Party would budget $75 million to help build up that capacity. Before the crisis, we sent our animals to the United States only to purchase the meat in our own stores. A new Conservative government would help build the processing capacity right here in Canada.

A new Conservative government would provide $400 million to help cull herds to support the reduction of the excess mature cattle to restore the economies of scale on the farm. A new Conservative government would top up the CAIS program to deal with the deficiencies that the business risk component of the agricultural policy framework program recently introduced by the federal government.

The new Conservative Party would provide an additional $300 million to address the cash-on-deposit section of the CAIS program, as well as bolster the federal contribution of the crop insurance. We need to review the regulations on negative reference margins, and a new Conservative government would reinstate sectors like woodlot owners who were dropped from the coverage of the CAIS program.

Of particular interest to the cattle producers in my riding, a new Conservative government would provide interest free cash advances, primarily directed to cow-calf producers, at approximately $300 per calf-cow pair, and the loan would be repaid on the sale of the calf.

A new Conservative government would earmark $25 million to cover the interest on the loan guarantees to backgrounders and feedlot operators and for replacement of dairy heifers. The loans would be valued at approximately $200 per animal.

These are the short term measures a new Conservative government would undertake on behalf of farmers of Canada.

Mid and long term, we would be looking into implementing a number of other measures as the next government of Canada. The time for action is now.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague. What we are hearing is a short term fix, also perhaps a more mid term solution and long term perspective, fulfilling a real need for the agricultural sector. We need to re-emphasize that it is not always just complaining about the shortcomings, but it is providing a positive alternative.

Would the member summarize what those three perspectives really mean and what is the commitment that she is putting forward for the short term and mid term solutions and in the long term perspective?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the short term, just to recap, we would pay out 100% of the accepted claims, as opposed to 60% of the claims. We would budget $75 million to help build up the capacity for processing meat so we would not have to rely upon other countries that currently are not even accepting our cattle. Right now, farmers are left with shooting the animals and not having any money come back from processing them because there are no processors that can handle them.

We would provide $400 million to help cull the herds to support the reduction of the excess mature cattle.

There would be a loan program, with no interest, so farmers could borrow money to help feed the animals. The loan would not have to be repaid until the animals were sold. There would be $25 million earmarked to cover the interest on those loans. The loans would be valued at $200 per animal.

On the mid and long term, we would be looking to implement other measures as the government of Canada, but I am running out of time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the overall problem, especially with BSE, a lot of people think it is just a western problem, an Alberta problem. It is not. It is a Canadian problem. The member who just spoke represents an Ontario riding.

A lot of people perhaps do not know that not only do we have an agriculture problem, certainly a BSE problem, in Ontario, we have that problem in parts of Atlantic Canada as well. Anybody in the business, whether it be the dairy business or whether it be the beef business, is affected by this.

How does the member see this affecting her province, so more and more people understand this is not just a western problem? This is a major problem and the economic downturn is having a drastic effect on all our provinces, and on the country generally.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have people in the farming business now who are pulling out their life insurance policies, looking at them and coming to the conclusion, in some cases, that they are worth more dead than alive. It is coming to that.

They have no money left. They cannot spend any more money to feed the animals they currently have because they have no money coming in. They will have three times the number of calves after the spring births. They have had no income for the past year. They are at an impasse. It has been a terrible blow to the economy of the farmers themselves.

Then we have the feed stores, the equipment dealers, the car lots which sell vehicles to farmers, and grocery stores. Everyone in the service sector who service our farmers are being affected by this as well.

In summary, it is having a devastating effect in Ontario, and I know this devastating effect crosses the Ontario-Quebec border and out into the Maritimes as well.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address my party's motion on misplaced priorities.

The waste perpetuated by the government has been tremendous. The sponsorship scandal, the gun registry and the other mismanaged government programs should not exist and should not have been allowed to continue once they were known to have gone askew.

The waste is bad enough in the best of times but the problem is compounded because this is not the best of times for Canadians. Our health care system has been slashed and hospitals have been closed. We have a shortage of doctors, long waiting lists for life-enhancing surgeries and access to diagnostic equipment is limited.

High tuition fees and the prospect of an overwhelming debt load is discouraging our young people, the people who will take care of us, from pursuing higher education.

Our cities and municipalities, struggling to deliver services passed on to them by other levels of government, cannot provide the essential infrastructure, such as roads, public transit and affordable housing, that would allow them to prosper.

Our armed forces personnel risk their lives serving in hostile areas in the world without the protection of modern equipment.

Police and other authorities are fighting a losing battle to make our streets safer from sexual predators, guns, drugs, gangs and organized crimes. They do not have the resources or the manpower to eliminate crime, and when they do overcome these obstacles, our justice system often sends the offenders back out into society with the most minimum of penalties.

Agriculture has been battered from a series of problems: drought, grasshoppers, subsidy wars, trade disputes and the ongoing mad cow crisis. Our agriculture sector is in ruins.

No, this is not the best time for Canada, and that makes the blatant squandering of our financial resources even worse.

The motion before us today, that the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs, such as the sponsorship program or badly managed programs, such as the gun registry, to address the agriculture crisis at the farm gate across Canada, is an important and timely suggestion.

Canadians are tired of the waste and of no one being accountable. They are tired of seeing the need all around them, yet not having the government respond in a meaningful way.

Today's motion is not about asking Canadians to shell out more money to help save the industry, rather it demands that the government make some common sense decisions about programs that are not working but are eating up vast amounts of resources. This is not rocket science. Ordinary Canadians do this every day when managing their own resources and budgets.

I am from Saskatchewan, the heart of the prairies, where agriculture is an important way of life. The west has been hit hard by this crisis, as has every region across the country. It is a national problem requiring a national solution, a solution that takes regional differences and needs into consideration.

According to the dictionary, agriculture is a science. It is an art or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops and raising livestock and, in varying degrees, the preparation and marketing of the resulting products. This is a basic definition. However, in Canada agriculture means much more than that. In some cases it represents a long held family tradition passed from generation to generation. Agriculture is a business, one that affects thousand of workers and transcends our borders into the global marketplace.

Agriculture is still a developing field. Innovation, science and initiative have resulted in novel best practices that have improved production and allowed us to circumvent some of nature's obstacles.

In Saskatoon, for example, we are known for research into the field of agricultural biotechnology.

Finally, agriculture is also part of our identity as Canadians and has a direct influence on our quality of living.

Let me cite some facts. The agriculture and food sector in Canada is the third largest employer. It accounts for more than 8% of our national GDP. It is clear that a healthy agriculture sector is vital to a healthy Canada, yet we find ourselves in a position where 2003 realized net farm income is expected to hit negative $13.4 million nationally.

In Saskatchewan the number will be negative $465 million, a drop of 177% from 2002. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would you do if your income went into the negative margins 177%?

Government aid programs are not designed to handle such an influx of problems this serious, let alone a situation like BSE where we are cut off from trade with the United States.

It should have been clear that more needed to be done after we saw the fallout of the discovery of the first case of mad cow last May, yet reports say that Health Canada scientists warned that proposed measures to curb the disease were inadequate. The warnings went unheeded and that reveals a level of arrogance that goes beyond being unprepared.

It is easy to lay blame and point fingers but that is not what our farmers need right now. What they do need is action, not a year from now, but today; not months from now, but today. They need help and they need it now.

As we have heard from my colleagues, we have a plan that would address short term needs as well as future considerations. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has itemized what needs to be done to help save this industry. For the short term it means topping up the 2002 Canadian farm income program payouts from 60% to 70% to a full 100% coverage; increasing processing capacity for mature cattle as well as all other livestock sectors; establishing a mature livestock rationalization program; creating a Canadian agriculture income support program top up for BSE affected farm operations; supporting interest free cash advances; and, convincing lending institutions that the Canadian government will support producer cashflow. Those measures would cost about $900 million, less than half the cost of the gun registry program.

In the mid-term an additional $100 million could help us continue to press for North American trade, particularly with the U.S., to return to its normal state; establish testing regimes for all non-North American markets; work toward integrated continent-wide rules on processing with regard to identification, handling and disposal of specific risk materials rendering protocols and trace out programs; and, support educational and promotional programs for domestic consumption of home-grown livestock.

Canadians have been extremely supportive of the beef industry during the BSE crises and it is imperative that we remain and maintain that confidence. In the longer term we can work to expand our market base by increasing our presence in countries, such as China and Russia. Like any industry, agriculture will prosper from growth in developing new markets.

All this could be accomplished at no cost to Canadians. It is a simple matter of directing money from programs that are not garnering appropriate results to ones that will show immediate and long lasting returns.

By essentially ignoring the crises, our government has put not only the agriculture sector at risk but also the many spin-off industries that rely on agriculture. Doing so, while continuing to waste money on ineffective programs, such as the gun registry, which is widely acknowledged as a complete failure, is insulting as well as irresponsible.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that government is doing all it can as efficiently as possible for Canadians in need. The need of farmers across the country could not be more apparent.

On behalf of the farmers and the agricultural producers in my riding, I ask my colleagues here in the House to support the motion. I ask my colleagues to send a signal to Canadians that we will not let the agriculture industry sink any further.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give my support to the motion put forward by the Conservative Party, asking, and I quote:

That the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs such as the sponsorship program—

Some $100 million went up in smoke or lined the pockets of friends of the Liberal government. It continues:

—or badly managed programs such as the gun registry—

Again, hundreds of millions of dollars were misallocated.

—to address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada.

We can only agree with the motion before us. I have a question about it for my colleague.

What is the most shocking to Quebeckers and Canadians today, is it not the fact that they work hard for their money and paid taxes to the government and there are urgent needs such as the farmers' needs? In Quebec, the farm problem concerns both cattle and dairy farmers. People who earned 20% to 25% of their income selling cull are in a situation where the survival of their farm is in question.

Is the true issue not the public's lack of confidence in the government? Is it not the fact that people would like to see the money they pay in taxes being used properly? People are willing to pay taxes, provided that this money is used properly. Does the public not feel swindled by the current government?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member when we talks about taxes. The farmers have very little control over selling their own products and have nowhere to pass on their costs and yet they foot the tax bill for so many farm inputs. In our area for operating expenditures there are hidden taxes for everything from fuel to fertilizer to pesticides. There are all sorts of hidden taxes to seed. Farmers are paying taxes but they have nowhere to pass on their costs. They have little control over the price of their products. When we talk about taxes, farming, which is one of the most capital intensive industries, is indeed paying a lot of taxes.

Yes, it is a sad day for us in Canada when we see what is before us across the floor with the scandals that have unravelled. Yet we have not seen any action for an industry that is so vital, which was mentioned earlier, from coast to coast. We have a serious problem.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant Ontario

Liberal

Bob Speller LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to address the motion today.

I understand, as the Government of Canada understands, that agriculture today is having some very difficult times. I recognize, too, that as I have travelled across the country talking not only to farmers, farm leaders and farm families but to other Canadians, that indeed all Canadians recognize the struggles being faced by Canadian farmers and farm families today.

Not only I but the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers have been out talking to farmers and farm groups to hear from them what they feel the approach of the Government of Canada should be. Not only are we talking with them, we are taking action. We are acting on many elements of the problem. We are also trying to deal with and solve some of the critical issues that face agriculture today.

One of the hon. members across used this opportunity to put forward a proposal from the Conservative Party. As I looked through that proposal, I recognized that in fact the Government of Canada had already acted on most of it. It was not until word was out in the farm community that we were acting and working toward something to help bridge farmers, from now until when the new CAIS program came in, that we finally received a response from the opposition as to how it feels the governments could best spend their money.

Just last week, I had a very productive meeting with the national safety nets advisory committee, which is a group of farmers from across this country who are involved in different parts of agriculture. They talked to me about where they felt the Government of Canada could best serve farmers with its safety net programs. We said at that time that some changes needed to be made to the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS program, and we have done exactly that.

At that meeting, we also talked about an annual review of the business risk management portion of our safety nets. There is concern in the agricultural community that with the bringing in of this new program farmers do not understand the program. They are not sure whether or not it will actually help them out.

What I have done is ask members of the farming community and my provincial colleagues to provide names of some people I could put on an advisory committee, which could in fact review this program to see whether or not it is working for farmers.

In fact, we went further. I asked them to get together a group of individuals who could review the new agricultural policy framework. This is the new framework that sets the relationship between the Government of Canada and farmers across this country for the next number of years. I want to make sure that program is working, so I have asked these groups to give me names so that I can draw together a group of people who could then look at the APF to see whether or not it is doing what we feel it should be doing for Canadian farmers across the country.

As was said earlier, the 2003 income situation for farmers was bleak. There was no question that Canadian farm income in 2003 was negative. We have not seen that in this country. We have never seen negative farm income.

We are responding to that. We hope the new safety net program we will be bringing in will be able to respond to the situation. In terms of funding, this program will not have some of the barriers that the old program had. We will be able to respond to this situation.

There are other dollars out there for farmers. Dollars have been put out to cattle producers, farmers who are feeling the negative impact of the border closing. We brought in a $520 million program for BSE.

Later on, we recognized that certain parts of the industry were not being helped by this program so we brought in another $200 million cull cow program. We also have brought in what is called a $600 million bridge funding program, which helps farmers move from the old safety net programs over to the new one. These funds are being funnelled to farmers now. Applications for farmers are being sent out. The process is ongoing.

I have asked my department to look very closely at those dollars that farmers are now eligible for to see if there are ways in which we can get them out more quickly. Unfortunately, I have to say that I wish we could do these things more quickly. I have asked my department to review the process with which we do this, because it is critically important that farmers who are eligible for these funds actually get them as quickly as possible. I have asked my department to look at ways in which we can do that, perhaps by designing programs.

I want the new safety net review committee to look specifically at this to make sure that the new program we have in place will indeed address the concerns and the problems being faced by Canadian farmers and farm families across the country.

I also want to say that we had negative income at a time when safety net dollars from the federal government and the provinces were at a record high. In fact, close to $5 billion in safety net dollars went out to farmers in the past year and we still had negative income, so we can imagine how difficult this situation is.

I believe that governments need to do more. That is why I have been sitting down with the members of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to work with them on how government can address the problems in the industry today. It is a different industry across the country. It is an industry made up of different types of farmers. Under the old program, some farmers were impacted in a better way by the dollars that went there.

I want to make sure that all farmers across the country are treated fairly. That is why I had meetings again today and yesterday with farm leaders to make sure that the design of any new program reflects the reality of the difficult situation that is being faced by farmers.

I want to talk a little about the border. It is critical that we get the border open. One of the reasons why Canadian farm income is so low is the BSE situation.

I have worked very hard with my provincial colleagues. I want to say that provincial colleagues across the country have come together on this issue, which we do not generally see. It always seems as though the provinces are blaming the federal government and the federal government is blaming the provinces. We have worked very hard to make sure that we have a coordinated approach on this issue. We have worked very hard in cooperation with farm groups, too, to make sure that the responses we are putting out are reflective of what really is needed within the industry.

I had an opportunity in the past month to speak on a number of occasions with U.S. Secretary Veneman. I had occasion in Costa Rica to mention the issue to U.S. trade ambassador Robert Zoellick. I know that the Prime Minister has spoken to President Bush about it and has also talked to President Fox of Mexico about the issue.

In the past few weeks our officials have gone to Washington to talk to the United States about how we might coordinate in an effort to, first and foremost, resume trade in North America in beef, and second, to work together at the OIE to get a coordinated approach and to get recognition at the OIE that in fact the situation of beef in Canada, in the United States and in Mexico is different from that in the European Union and in countries where there have been a number of cases of BSE.

As for cases, we have had one cow. The United States has had one cow. The international peer review panel, when it reviewed both Canada and the United States, said that particularly here in Canada the response we took to this one case of BSE was in fact a response that could give Canadian consumers, and indeed consumers around the world, the confidence that not only is Canadian beef some of the highest quality in the world but it is indeed some of the safest in the world.

We are working with our American colleagues, and our Mexican colleagues too, to work together to market North American beef around the world and to move into these countries such as those in Asia and other countries that have taken North American beef in the past, to work with their governments and also to work with their consumers to give them the confidence that the international review panel gave Canada: that in fact our beef is some of the safest beef in the world.

We will continue to work to get these borders open. The Americans have indicated to us that in fact there will be a review period. Based on this new case of BSE in Washington state, that review period with regard to live cattle going into the United States will more than likely be 30 days.

After that 30 day period is done, once that legal period is done, we have an argument that I believe is based upon science and is one that recognizes the fact that the risk factors between the United States and Canada are no different. In fact, these risk factors, which frankly are based upon some of the responses we have taken with regard to tracking, tracing, surveillance and testing of animals, are the same. There should be absolutely no reason why the U.S. border should not be opening to all live cattle once that legal process now in place is done.

We will be working with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, with our provincial colleagues and with other countries around the world to make sure that we get that message out loud and clear to those decision makers in the United States who will decide when the border will open.

It is not a question of whether the border will open; it is a question of when. I believe, as I said, that we have the arguments in place to give the United States the opportunity to work within the international protocols of the OIE and to recognize in fact that the border should open.

Finally, I want to bring hon. members' attention to the hard work and the dedication of public servants across this country, within my own department and within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They have been working very hard on this issue and have been in meetings for hours at a time, working with countries around the world. They have been in Japan, in Korea, in Russia, and in China. They are going to these countries, telling them and showing them exactly what it is that we have been doing in Canada to try to give them the confidence they need to open their borders. We have been somewhat successful. We have opened borders a lot more than anybody else ever has when they have had a case of BSE. We will continue to work on that.

I want to give Canadian farmers and farm families my commitment to work with their leaders and with them to bring in programs and provide the necessary safeguards they need to continue to farm.

It is difficult. We have a group of young Canadian farmers in Ottawa today who are meeting and I know how difficult it is for a young farmer to start out in this industry. We have, I believe, within the agricultural policy framework, the tools that are necessary to help these farmers in fact do that.

In Canada, we need to move beyond this crisis-driven approach to agriculture. Not only do we need to deal with the crisis that we have today, but we also need to look to the future.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have read the task force report that I chaired with the Prime Minister and which talked about moving agriculture beyond crisis-driven agriculture.

I think we have some of the solutions and I want to use that to work with farm leaders across the country to bring in the programs that meet the needs of Canadian farmers and not just meet the needs of the public servants who put them together. I have asked the people in my department to go through the document to make sure the voices I heard as I travelled across the country were heard and that as a government we take the action necessary to address their concerns.

In terms of the motion, I think we need to move beyond motions like this in the House. We need to move beyond the name calling across the floor. We need to work together as a Parliament with the focused goal of helping farmers, farm families and communities across the country.

I believe there are opportunities in agriculture. I believe Canadians recognize how critically important the food they eat is to the future of our country. If we do not deal with the international challenges that we will be facing, then we will be importing food into this country and Canadians will not know what type of food they will be eating.

We do get cheap food. There is no question that over the years there has been a cheap food policy. There is concern among many farmers and farm families that their share of that food dollar is not what it should be. In fact their share of the food dollar has been going down over the years.

I believe there are some structural problems within the industry that need to be addressed. One of the ways in which we can do that is to work through value added chains that we have set up in our department to get the producers, the processors and the retailers in the beef industry sitting down at the same table and recognizing that if they do not resolve their own problems, the challenges that they have are not within the Canadian industry itself but are from outside, and that if we concentrate too much on the day to day problems we will miss the fact that there are other countries out there willing to challenge us internationally, including countries like Brazil and China that have a lot of low cost ability.

Those are countries around the world that in fact used to be net importers of Canadian products. Now they are net exporters and we need to recognize that. If we do not, then we will fall behind. This is where I believe the agricultural policy framework can work best. It contains provisions which can help farmers and farming communities address these challenges internationally. Over the next number of weeks and months ahead I will be working with farm groups to ensure they are able to work with the programs within the agricultural policy framework and to ensure these programs are actually working for them.

I will leave with one note. The Government of Canada, from the Prime Minister on down, has recognized the difficult situation our farmers and farm families are facing today. We are working with the provinces and the industry to address the needs. I can give the farm families the assurance that we recognize that there is a problem out there, but at the same time we want to make sure that the programs we bring in are the best to suit their particular problems. These are problems that have challenged us for many years and the Government of Canada and my caucus colleagues will continue to work toward resolving them.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister commenting on the government taking measures to assist farmers.

I come from an area in British Columbia where many of my constituents are cattle producers. It is most disheartening to hear these people tell me that the cost of selling their cattle is higher than the return they get from the sale. Some of these people are hanging on and wondering if they will make it through to the season when they sell their cattle, probably in the fall of the year.

First, could the minister tell the House how many farmers are on the threshold of financial failure because of current market conditions?

Second, could the minister tell us how many of those farmers facing loss will be saved because of the measures the government is putting in place?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, given the negative farm income, I am sure many farmers across this country are having a difficult time.

In the past few weeks I had an opportunity to sit down with the heads of the Canadian banking groups to get a better sense from them as to how they saw the farm income problem, whether their branches down at the grassroots level were having a difficult time in terms of dealing with the situation.

The Canadian banks gave me the assurance that in fact they recognized that this was a problem of particular concern and one that they felt would resolve itself over the next little bit. They gave me their assurances that they would work with these farmers at the local level to make sure the credit they needed would be available to them and that the programs available to them would be available.

In terms of the meeting with these banks, I gave them my assurance that I would continue to monitor the approach that the banks were taking to these farmers and farm families, and that I would continue to address the needs as those needs came about.

There is no question that Canadian farm families are having a difficult time. We believe that the dollars we put out will help address some of these needs. Right now I think there is a need to bridge some dollars between now and when the border may open. There is a need to bridge before we get into the full dollars that will be coming out of the CAIS program, which will probably be in the fall.

I think more needs to be done, and, as I said, I am working with farm groups across the country to work on a program that might help do exactly that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree readily with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that farmers are having a very difficult time right now. Debt loads are high. The mad cow crisis is causing similar problems for both dairy producers with cull cows and cattle producers.

There are also problems for young people going into farming. A few weeks ago, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and I met with about fifteen young students at the Institut de technologie agricole de La Pocatière. They told us about the major problems they see for the future and the difficulties dedicating their lives to this industry. What they find most frustrating is that these problems are occurring at a time when the federal government will have a $7 billion surplus for this fiscal year. These young people had great difficulty understanding this. One of them was extremely frustrated and upset.

Some $100 million was wasted on sponsorships. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food if he would not have preferred to see this $100 million allocated according to needs and the demand for programs for suffering farmers. The same is true of the millions that went into the extremely poorly managed firearms program.

The minister says that we must move beyond this motion and move forward. To do that, should trust not be earned and should this government not change its current behaviour? Ultimately, people get the impression that they are paying taxes, that they are not getting a return for their money and that money is being spent on futile things so that friends of the system can put money in their pockets, while groups need this money to survive a crisis. The money is not there, and they are told there is none, when there will be a $7 billion surplus.

What can the minister tell us about this to restore confidence and ensure that we can all work together?