Debates of March 8th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also rise and represent the constituents in my area who depend on agriculture.

The BSE crisis and border closure has impacted the industry like nothing else because it comes on top of other catastrophes in the industry. The frosts across Saskatchewan on August 20 had a terrible impact on the grains industry.

Agriculture producers want to see a much more vigorous defence of agriculture internationally and domestically by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. I wish the agriculture minister would be making the speeches I hear him making here to the U.S. senators.

I want to send a very clear message to the agriculture minister today that the CAIS program is not working. I get calls daily from farmers at wit's end trying to adequately access those funds and get them in a timely fashion.

Something was done very quietly, not announced in the budget, and that is the farm improvement loan, the FIMCLA program. Why was this program quietly cancelled? Farmers have come to me in the last while saying the program--

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about what this government was doing when the USDA was making its decision and when the interim injunction court case was being held. The judge in that case said that the USDA “failed to provide the specific basis for the conclusion that its actions carried an acceptable risk to public health and failed to provide the data on which each of the agency's critical assumptions were based”.

Instead of making political speeches, the government members should have been building a case for what they say is the scientific case to say that this inter-border transfer will be safe. Were they making that case? Why were they not at the table when the interim injunction was being made?

The government applied late. It had no legal representation to make a case for Canada. Now this is in the courts and due process must be respected regardless. Political capital should be used to expedite that process to make it weeks and not months. The question is whether this government has that kind of political capital. It does not appear that it has because of what it has done.

Where was the Canadian government when the injunction was being granted? How much effort did the government put into substantiating Canada's case by evidence, facts and data?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister a very simple question and treat this debate with the seriousness it deserves. When will the minister be going back to Washington? He indicates that he has been there. When will he be going back?

When will the Prime Minister be going to Washington to sit across the table and look eyeball to eyeball with the U.S. administration and President Bush and have this discussion?

My producers in Palliser are devastated. The negative impact of this crisis has been very far reaching. It has decimated an entire industry. People are looking for help from this government. Can anyone from this government tell us when this border is going to open?

The Prime Minister's dithering and deception regarding missile defence has left this government with precious little credibility. The U.S. president was not even returning the Prime Minister's phone calls. If the Liberals do not think there is a link between trade disputes and missile defence, they can ask Frank McKenna and he will draw it for them.

When will the globe-trotting Prime Minister be going to Washington to--

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour tonight of splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat.

As the agriculture and agrifood critic for the official opposition, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and vice-chair of the agriculture committee, for initiating this urgently needed debate on the ongoing BSE crisis in Canada.

It is vital that this debate take place because it is important that all Canadians, including those in urban centres, fully appreciate the absolutely dire situation that the Canadian cattle and other ruminant industries are facing at this time.

Our producers have suffered greatly at the hands of free-trading mercenaries south of the border. They have suffered at the hands of protectionist politicians. They have suffered at the hands of this Liberal government, which has mismanaged this agricultural crisis, one of the worst in Canadian history.

Before I go on, I would like to put this debate in a historical context. It has now been 657 days since the U.S. border was unjustly closed to Canadian cattle and other ruminants. Throughout this time, our producers have endured untold personal and financial suffering.

It is estimated that our farmers have already lost well over $7 billion. Billions more are likely to follow. The ripple effect of these losses has significantly affected the trucking industry, the auction marts, equipment dealers and many other industries that do business with cattle producers.

Rural municipalities are suffering from decreased tax revenues. In fact, many farmers and affected businesses have been unable to pay their municipal taxes.

To highlight the seriousness of this situation, 79 municipalities in western Canada have declared their regions an economic disaster zone. As of December 3, 2004, there were 41 municipalities in Alberta, 26 in Manitoba and 12 in Saskatchewan that had declared their regions an economic disaster zone as a result of BSE.

In this context, the largest calf crop in history occurred in the spring of 2004. During this time 4.7 million calves were born in Canada. On top of all this, after countless Liberal assurances that the border would reopen, assurances from both this minister and the previous minister, Canadian cattle and other ruminant producers have once again had their hopes dashed.

Two recent U.S. court decisions and a vote in the U.S. Senate have delivered further blows to our already beleaguered livestock industry. To add insult to injury, today we have heard allegations that members of the protectionist group R-CALF are currently paying bargain basement prices for Canadian cattle off our very own feedlots.

Yes, the same free trade mercenaries who argue that Canadian cattle are unsafe to eat and that the apocalypse will occur if ever Canadian cattle were to cross the 49th parallel, are the same ones who are allegedly purchasing Canadian cattle right off our feedlots. If this is true it is beyond reprehensible, as they are only taking advantage of lower prices that they themselves created.

Our farmers are reaching the breaking point. They are losing their hope, their farms and their livelihoods.

How has the government responded to the BSE crisis? Let us take a closer look.

The CAIS program is not working, the loan loss reserve program does not really exist and the Liberal government continues to insist that the Americans are our friends in this crisis although it continues to find ways to insult them and disrespect them.

The Liberal solution of using the CAIS program to deliver emergency aid to cash-strapped producers suffering from the BSE crisis has been a colossal failure. Simply combining an income stabilization program with a disaster relief program is in itself a recipe for disaster.

That is why as a short term solution we are calling on the Liberal government to immediately dip into its massive surpluses to help Canadian farm families in need, more in need now than they have ever been.

We demand that the government immediately use the budget's contingency funds to help our cattle and livestock farmers. Further, we are calling on the government to provide tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers devastated by the BSE crisis.

With regard to slaughter capacity, there are currently 17 million head of cattle in Canada. Although slaughter capacity has increased slightly to approximately 85,000 a week, the number of cattle in Canada still significantly exceeds our current slaughter capacity. This massive surplus of cattle continues to result in depressed cattle prices and therefore production costs continue to significantly exceed market prices. No one can make a living that way.

The Liberal loan loss reserve program announced last September was supposed to help stimulate additional slaughter capacity in this country. In spite of this agriculture minister's often bragged about program, slaughter capacity has not increased one iota as a result of the loan loss reserve program.

We know this because we have recently learned that the program is a sham. It does not really exist. The fact that this loan loss reserve program does not exist is an insult to livestock producers so desperately impacted by the BSE crisis. To add insult to injury, the Liberals announced in the budget that $17 million is to be redirected from previous BSE commitments to this non-existent program. The minister is simply offering would-be slaughterhouse investors the sleeves off his vest.

Today in question period I noted that the Minister of Agriculture made an announcement that a loan loss reserve agreement had in fact been reached with the Farm Credit corporation. That is good, but it took six months to get that agreement. Has an agreement been reached with the banks yet? Not at all, but then we have only been waiting six months. Desperately needed are real incentives to increase slaughter capacity for investment and processing plants now.

We have been calling on the Liberal government to provide tax incentives for investment in co-operatives. Providing tax relief on the initial investment in a co-op would stimulate increased slaughterhouse investment and promote a made in Canada solution to the BSE crisis, which is something we have all been looking for. In addition, the government must ensure direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity.

With regard to the impact of the BSE crisis on other ruminant producers, I have said this before and I will say it again, why has this government failed to take any real action in addressing these particular producers' needs? Recently we learned that all four western provinces have developed BSE programs to compensate producers of elk, deer, bison, sheep and goats. Other ruminant, cervid and camelid producers who have suffered unjustly during this crisis have demanded and continued to demand action from the government. So far their demands have fallen on deaf ears. This is shameful.

We in the Conservative Party have asked and continue to ask the agriculture minister to ante up and kick in the federal portion of this funding for other ruminant programs, ones already committed to by the western provinces. Furthermore, as a result of the massive surplus of cattle in the Canadian herd, we believe that a federal cull program is necessary now more than ever.

In light of the continued closure of the U.S. border to Canadian live cattle, a cull program is no longer just an option but a necessity. The cull program should be targeted to animals born before the 1997 feed ban. The meat from these animals should whenever possible be used for human or animal feed as appropriate.

A reduction of the national herd with compensation to farmers would serve three purposes. First, it would provide cash immediately to the farmers. Second, it would relieve farmers of the burden of feeding their cattle. Third, it would decrease the herd size so that market prices could be allowed to rise naturally. It is worth noting that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supportive of a cull animal program.

I wish to close by saying that our farmers are fed up with the government's empty rhetoric and hollow promises. I and all of my colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada implore the agriculture minister to secure real relief from the contingency fund for our producers in their time of need.

No one is arguing the safety of our beef. We know it is the best in the world. What we are arguing for is direct support for our farmers and producers. They need it. They deserve it.

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the agriculture critic's speech she outlined some of the facts as they really exist. I cannot understand why she did not stay on that vein throughout her remarks. We are dealing with a serious problem and I cannot understand what purpose it serves to get into political rhetoric and basically provide misinformation to the farm community on some of the existing programs.

The minister is going to meet with the cattle industry in Alberta on Thursday. He has said that we need to look at other things we could do as a result of the border closing. Members on the other side should be admitting up front that the repositioning strategy is having some impact. In her own remarks the member said that slaughter capacity has increased.

I want to ask the member a question with respect to the loan loss reserve. She said it does not exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously members of the Conservative Party do not know how a loan loss program works. Money does not need to be spent right away on a loan loss reserve program. A proposal from proponents of a beef slaughter plant would go to a lending institution, and as the minister announced today, they can now go to Farm Credit Canada as well. They would bring forward a proposal, which would be analyzed on its commercial merits. The loan loss reserve would backstop the loan with the lending institution. This would give that plant a better opportunity to get off the ground and succeed in terms of the slaughter industry.

I have a couple of simple questions for the member. Is that not true? Is that not how the loan loss reserve program works? Does it not have merit in terms of increasing slaughter capacity and giving producers the opportunity to build their own plants? Let us have a little--

Madam Speaker, I know how the loan loss reserve program is supposed to work. The way it was described last September, would-be investors could apply to get underwriting from the government to reinforce their application to their bank to get financing to start up a slaughterhouse. It sounds good, but unfortunately as of two weeks ago at committee the Canadian Bankers Association testified that no agreement had been reached between the government and the CBA to make such a program operational.

In fact, the way things were structured, investors would have to get permission from the loan loss reserve program before the bankers would honour their application. The bankers of course want to know that they would get their reserves. We were also told that the applicants could only apply for the loan loss reserve program after they had bank financing. This is a catch-22 situation. They cannot get A until they get B but they cannot get B until they already have A .

The loan loss reserve may exist on paper but operationally it does not exist. As of two weeks ago at the very latest, nothing existed with the banks. It does today with the FCC, but not with the banks. Two weeks ago the application forms, which were promised three months ago, still did not exist so people could not even apply. For all intents and purposes that means that operationally the program does not exist.

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the minister used the expression “political rhetoric” dozens of times. Anytime we come up with a constructive suggestion, a real method, a path to address the situation, they dismiss it as political rhetoric. They dismissed our demands to drop the cash on deposit requirements of CAIS. They have since promised to buckle to that because of the thousands of farmers who have let them know that we, and not the Liberal Party, represent them. The difference is that the Liberal Party represents the bureaucracy and we represent the farmers.

Could my hon. colleague, the critic for agriculture, comment on the Liberals' habit of announcing funding and then not delivering it, not even having the forms available to apply for the programs that they introduce?

Madam Speaker, the cases where promises have been made and nothing has been delivered are legend. It was only a few months ago that forms for emergency CAIS deposit applications were announced, yet three weeks later the links on the Internet where these forms and information about the programs were supposed to be available were not there, not until we raised it in the House and then magically overnight they appeared. I guess it was just lucky timing.

In the budget there was an announcement of over 20% of the original September announcement for BSE, over $100,000 had been redirected. In other words these were promises, announcements that were made but were not kept. It was redirected into other BSE relief programs. None of the money is to go to the producers, only to bureaucrats and consultants.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the emergency debate this evening with respect to the crisis in agriculture. In this case we are talking about BSE but I do want to talk for a moment about the crisis in agriculture in general.

I want to thank the member for Haldimand—Norfolk for her leadership on this issue. I want to thank the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for sponsoring the debate tonight. I also want to thank the member for Lethbridge whose spot I am filling tonight. He represents a riding where there are 900,000 cattle and feedlots. He is also a leader in this area. Those are big cowboy boots to fill, but I will do my best to do that tonight.

I will start by pointing to the fact that the government has not taken the crisis on the farm seriously. A couple of weeks ago the finance minister stood here and delivered a budget speech on the economy. He did not even mention the fact that farmers today are facing probably the worst crisis that they have faced since the Great Depression. That is not an exaggeration.

In 2003 farm incomes went negative for the first time since the 1930s. Interestingly that same year when the CAIS program came in, $1.4 billion was allocated but it still could not be triggered. Even though farmers were in this terrible income crisis, it still would not trigger payouts to all kinds of people who were losing tremendous amounts of money.

I want to argue that the minister is wrong when he says that the CAIS program is working. I want to argue that this crisis affects everyone in agriculture, not just cattle producers. It is a serious problem. The best way to make the point is to read an e-mail I received today from someone in my riding. It says:

This time of year when a farmer should be getting the “spring fever itch”, I'm getting depressed because there is no money left in any of our commodities and our expenses are going through the roof, our margins are rapidly shrinking. These are things I know you are aware of...hence why I'm sending you this e-mail.

My brother and I are second generation farmers, this farm has seen many changes in the last 10 years to accommodate the growing numbers the farm has to support, and falling prices. Our debt load is at its absolute max. and with the futures on many different crops, it's not looking good.... I'm not looking for sympathy, I simply wanted to explain our situation to you to give you a little history and to bring up a few points.

He goes on to say:

I am 32 years old and losing hope in my career and my country very quickly. I know there is no magic cure to turn things around, but I feel as a last ditch effort you in some way carry hope for the farmers in Alberta--

He says flattering things about me which I appreciate, but there are many people in this place on all sides of the House who care deeply about farmers. In the face of all the evidence that the government is failing farmers on the CAIS program, and in terms of getting some resolution when it comes to getting the border open, I do not understand why the minister a few minutes ago stood there and defended his actions. His actions and their lack of results are indefensible. That is the point. We have an obligation and a right to stand and criticize the government when it is not doing its job. The Liberals are not doing the job for Canadian farmers today.

Even though the minister does not like to hear the criticism of his department and the things that they do, we have an obligation to stand up for farmers on these issues. That is what we are going to do tonight.

I want to talk for a moment about the border. Not long ago the Prime Minister, knowing that the border was due to open on March 7, because he was afraid of the debate about missile defence at the Liberal convention, went out before the convention and announced his decision not to support missile defence. In other words, for political reasons he decided he would jeopardize goodwill with the Americans, knowing the border should be opening on March 7, simply because he did not want to have to face the music at the Liberal convention. In other words, he put his concerns ahead of the concerns of Canadian ranchers and cattlemen. That is simply disgraceful and the result has been borne out.

I am not going to argue that the judge in Montana took that into account, but I know those senators did when they voted to get rid of the rule that would open the border.

In fact, not long ago there were some Canadian parliamentarians who went to Washington. They had a discussion with a Senator Smith from Portland. I looked at the minutes of the meeting and he absolutely tied the security issues and Canada's lack of support on security issues with the problems affecting trade in cattle and beef together.

The minister and the Prime Minister can duck, dodge, dive and weave all they want but I am telling members that senators on the other side of the border are saying the two are tied together.

In the United States, security trumps trade, and we are seeing it happen again in this situation. It is time for the government to wake up to that reality and to start addressing some of these concerns the Americans have about whether we are true allies in so many of these situations.

They are tied together. I do not know how many times I have heard that in the last little while. When I go back home people are saying that the relationship between how we treat our American friends on these security issues and the problems in trade are tied together. Farmers and ranchers know they are connected but somehow the government seems to think there is no connection at all.

I touched for a moment on the CAIS program. I just want to emphasize how frustrated farmers are with this program. It is not doing the job. We can have a situation where people have lost money every year for the five year period that the formula applies to for the CAIS program and if in the last year they lose less money than they lost the year before they will not trigger a payout. They will be losing money. However, if in four years out of five years they make money and in the last year they lose a little bit of money or make less money they will trigger a payout. It is crazy. We have a situation where people who are in dire economic straits, on the cusp of losing their farm, will not get a payout on this program. It makes absolutely no sense and yet the minister stands in this place and defends the CAIS program.

Without naming names, I can look across the way and know I have heard similar criticisms coming from members on the other side. There is no question that the minister has to get his act together and straighten this out.

The minister says that we are making partisan points. Well let me make an offer to the Minister of Agriculture. I know I could ask members who are sitting here today if they would be willing to work with the minister on a good faith basis to get that fixed and to get payouts to farmers in a timely way, in a way that makes sense based on their income, and I know we would be prepared to do that. We would be prepared to sit there and help get this thing fixed. We are here to make a difference. We want to make this minority Parliament work and if we can make a difference, and the minister is willing to do that, we would be thrilled to do it. However the minister claims that the program is not broken. He claims that it is working fine. We cannot start on a basis where the minister will not admit that there are serious problems in the program.

I want to talk for a moment about what I think is a fundamental shortcoming of the government: the need to increase packing capacity. I know there has been some additional capacity but we are talking about almost two years now since the border closed and we still are way behind the curve in terms of getting more animals slaughtered. The only way we can get cattle south of the border now is to send muscle cuts, boxed beef, into the U.S. We need to get more packing capacity.

This loan loss program is just a joke. We would be prepared to work with the government if it were willing to work with us to make more money available so that we can get more slaughter capacity. However we need to see some admission from the government that the current situation is not working but it does not seem to be willing to admit that.

I think I heard the minister say something positive about the possibility of a cull program. Over a year ago the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster argued that we should be doing that and we have advocated that position ever since. If the government is considering doing that we would certainly support it.

Madam Speaker, the member made a considerable amount of sense in some of his remarks except where he tried to draw the link between ballistic missile defence and the decision that has been made in this case. The fact is that the president and the administration are with us and with us very strongly on this issue.

On the member's point that he would offer producers the chance to meet with the minister to talk about some of the problems with CAIS, the minister has already been doing that. He met with a group of Manitoba producers today who had some positive suggestions. The minister has always said that we are willing to make improvements in CAIS.

The member opposite spoke a fair bit about the senate hearing. Let me give him a quote from the senate hearing that refutes some of the arguments made by the member. The senator from Colorado said, “Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. The boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada creating a public policy windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004 approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12 point increase over 2002 levels”.

The senator goes on to say, “During 2005 beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds”.

Surely the member would recognize that some of the efforts we have made have been successful. Yes, we want to do more. We want to increase slaughter capacity but surely the opposition would stand up and recognize that we are making progress. The minister and the government as a whole have been working extremely hard on this issue in the interest of Canadian producers.

The member from Fort St. John may laugh but $4.8 billion to producers from the government is nothing to sneeze at.

Well, it did not reach my farmers.

Madam Speaker, there is a big difference between announcing the money and actually delivering it to the farm gate. That is exactly what has not happened on Canadian farms.

It is so frustrating to hear members across the way. When we go back to our ridings, and I know the member hears this too, it does not matter how many press releases the government sends out. It does not matter how elaborate the programs are that the government has designed or how many bureaucrats are dedicated to them. All that matters is whether or not we are getting results at the farm gate.

We are not getting results at the farm gate. What I am concerned about are the farmers who are stressed to the breaking point and the farmers who are giving up on their operations. The member can talk all he wants about what the government is doing but what I care about are the results that are being delivered.

It is fine for the member to talk about beef going across the border. It is great that the slaughter plants are able to send more boxed beef across the border but if we do not have an open border we do not have an outlet for that excess capacity and it means we have depressed prices. It means that many people cannot keep their farms and ranches going.

What we care about are the results that producers are getting. I hope the government is prepared to work with us to try to fix some of these problems. I cannot speak for everyone else but that is the offer I am making. I know that is what producers in my riding want. They do not really care which party gets this resolved, they just want it fixed.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for Medicine Hat. He has spoken on these agricultural issues many times and I know that he spoke very eloquently for the member for Lethbridge who, unfortunately, could not be here this evening.

In the short time I have I want to really express the frustration on behalf of farmers in Prince George--Peace River and indeed all across Canada. I do not understand, as the member for Medicine Hat just reiterated, why it is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would stand up and defend the bureaucracy against the farmers.

I farmed for 20 years and was involved in farm politics. I know the frustration in the 1980s and it is still the same frustration today. We have programs designed by bureaucrats to service bureaucrats instead of being designed to help farmers. I do not understand why the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Agriculture would stand tonight and defend this program that is not working.