Bill C-16 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act

This enactment amends the Canadian Dairy Commission Act to increase the maximum total for outstanding amounts of loans made to the Commission by the Minister of Finance and for amounts drawn by the Commission from a line of credit to five hundred million dollars.

Canadian Dairy Commission Act

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I think it has been proven for several years now that these programs do not work. I am sure that the minister is aware that people have been saying for more than five years now that these programs are not working because people have to exhaust all their resources before they can access them.

For the past two and a half years, these programs have apparently been undergoing an overhaul. Last week, we were told that people have to draw from these programs even though they have to exhaust all their resources first. That does not work.

We had a clear example of that during a meeting of one of the House committees when representatives of the agricultural sector clearly demonstrated that these programs do not work. I do not understand why the government keeps saying that these programs are important and that they have a role to play.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauce for his remarks, which were very relevant as always, particularly with regard to agricultural issues. Heaven knows that the member knows what he is talking about since he was once a farmer himself. In another life, he ran a family farm for many years.

One of the things that upset me the most over the past two months when it comes to agriculture and food is the euthanasia of animals.

I know we are in a crisis situation, but how can we waste food like that?

I would like the member to explain how that situation played out in his riding of Beauce.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

In my riding, there is an agri-food processing firm, a slaughterhouse, that employs 1,200 people. Many of these employees had to leave the production line due to the public health measures. These measures ought to be respected, to be sure, but as a result the plant's processing capacity has been significantly reduced.

I can tell you that there are more than 100,000 hogs in Quebec farmers' hog barns. In Canada, there is a processing backlog of more than 140,000 hogs.

Pork production is unique and quite unlike other types of production. When piglets enter the pork barn, older hogs are taken away to be slaughtered. We currently have a problem that is only going to get worse with time and, unfortunately, we will have no other choice but to resort to euthanasia. Although this is being put off for now, we will never be able to deal with the backlog at these slaughterhouses. The summer holidays are not far off and it will be very difficult to achieve.

Since this government took so long to take action, animals will have to be euthanized in the cattle industry, not to mention the poultry sector, where hatching eggs have already had to be thrown out, on top of the 200,000 chicks that have been destroyed in Canada.

The saddest part of it all is that this food will not make it to our dinner tables. There is a certain degree of lag time in farming. It is inconceivable to think we can shut down the system today and turn it back on tomorrow and all the meat, dairy and farm products will be on store shelves the next morning.

That is the challenge facing the sector. If we want to maintain our food sovereignty, we are running out of time.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from La Prairie.

If we claim that agriculture and agri-food are essential services, then we have to put our money where our mouth is. We know that agriculture is an important pillar of our economy. In fact, $68 billion in annual revenues come from farms. Every year we lose 5% to 7% of our farms. As my colleague said earlier, it is predicted that this year we might lose 15%. The losses are huge. Millions of litres of milk were dumped, and millions of eggs and chicks were destroyed. The poultry sector has posted losses of $115 million. These figures represent the losses to date.

Right now, there is a backlog of approximately 100,000 slaughter-ready pigs. Day by day, as my colleague said, euthanasia is being put on hold, but it is going to happen eventually. The pigs are growing too fast and cannot be kept in their facilities. This is a highly complex issue.

As for beef, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is projecting nationwide losses of $500 billion. The beef sector also has a backlog of 100,000 cattle. Grain farmers are facing a loss of $86 million. The government recently announced an investment of $77.5 million to help slaughterhouses upgrade their facilities. However, the food processing industry says those upgrades would cost $860 million. The funding is nowhere near enough.

Slaughterhouses are operating below capacity and sometimes close for days at a time. The restaurant market has collapsed. We need to be aware of these things. Many small eateries will not survive the crisis. Demand will stay low. The agriculture sector is urging us to take action and improve the ongoing programs while taking into account the unfortunate fact that the crisis is going to last longer than a year. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. All this uncertainty is putting us under tremendous pressure and threatening our food self-sufficiency, our food security and our national security. It is that bad.

There are also labour problems. We need to talk about foreign workers and seasonal workers. From the numbers we were given, about 85% or 86% of workers have arrived. However, many of those seasonal workers were already here. The more time passes, the harder things will be. There will be a labour shortage of more than 15%. This is not a criticism of immigration officials. On the contrary, I think they are doing a good job. However, we need to be aware of the problems and help our agricultural sector.

In his announcement, the Prime Minister said that it was an initial investment and that if more needed to be done, he would do it. Today I want to let him know that, yes, more is needed, and I hope I am not the last person to say so.

Of course we are here to talk about Bill C-16. Our party has been recommending this solution for several weeks. It has taken a long time, but we are very pleased to see it today. Clearly, we support the bill. It will make it possible for the Canadian Dairy Commission to store additional amounts of products that have a longer shelf life to absorb market fluctuations. This may result in less dumping of milk. Unfortunately, it is a little late, since a lot of milk has already been dumped, but things will be better in the future.

We have a positive attitude and are looking to the future. We are pleased to support the bill, but more must be done. I will compare our situation to what is happening in the United States. In Canada, several measures totalling $252 million have been announced for the agricultural sector; in the United States, producers have received $19 billion in aid. Of course, we do not have the same population. This represents 12 times the amount of assistance. According to OECD estimates, every year, year after year, the U.S. provides twice as much support for its agricultural sector than Canada.

Farmers are strong, proud and good people who get up in the morning to work so that they can feed our people. At some point they also have to grapple with international issues, and they are facing competition. In a hockey game, the players need to be on equal footing. If my stick is too short, I will not be able to win the game. We need to give our farmers the tools and support they need, and what is going on now is outrageous.

I will calm down a bit, but it is unacceptable. Of the $252 million in assistance, $125 million is not new money. The government can have fun with creative bookkeeping, twist definitions and call it unused money, but at the end of the day, this $125 million is not new money. The government can make announcements, but it should not be presenting this money as new money, when that is untrue. That is misleading.

We are talking about the $50 million that Canada is allocating to buy back food surpluses, but the United States allocated $3 billion for that same purpose just this week. I do not know what it will be later, but the situation is totally surreal.

The government keeps saying that it is working hard to find solutions. I have a simple solution to propose to the government. Once again, I am reaching out and offering my help. I think that the other parties are interested in doing the same. We are here to work, but the government needs to listen to our constituents.

In her remarks earlier today, the minister said that we need to give people what they are asking for. To that, I say let's do it. We are ready. What are these people asking for? They are asking for a targeted emergency fund and quick action.

Small businesses are in trouble. The Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec said that it did not get any answers regarding practical measures to enable small agricultural businesses to be eligible for emergency loans. Sadly, these small businesses do not have a payroll of $20,000. They get paid differently, with dividends, but that does not count. Sadly, that does not fit into the right column on the form. I do not know whether that can be inputted in the much-talked-about calculator, but these businesses are not eligible.

Processors are sounding the alarm over cold storage. They need support because they are storing a lot more inventory than before. Must even more food go to waste?

The government says the AgriStability program works and is asking farmers to use the existing programs. Let's talk about that.

First off, telling farmers to use the AgriInvest program is like telling students that they are going to get help because there will not be any jobs this summer, but only if they empty their bank accounts first. The same is happening with farmers. These programs are investments in case of need. It is appropriate to treat farmers like any other group in society. This is about saving money. I am sure the government will get up and tell me that this is what emergency measures are for. Yes, but this is an exceptional situation.

Marcel Groleau, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, appeared before the committee this week. He was wondering if decision-makers even understand these programs, and he explained how AgriStability works. The example he shared was of a typical farm that brings in $250,000 per year, spends $100,000 and nets $150,000. As it stands, the program requires the program year margin not to exceed 70% of the reference margin. This year, if such a farm were to lose $80,000, or more than 50% of its revenue, it would not collect a cent from the existing program. Clearly, this program is not working. Without that margin, the program would pay the farm $24,500 to compensate it for the $80,000 loss. Ever since before the crisis, the agricultural sector has been asking the government to change the rate to 85%, which would result in a $40,250 payment. That would be a program that works, just as it did before the 2013 cuts.

People are asking us to take action in a targeted way. I am going to set the rest of my notes aside because I am almost out of time and I want to appeal to parliamentarians to work together. Yes, we are all members of different political parties that each have separate objectives. However, with this COVID-19 pandemic, now is not the time to sound like a broken record or to toe the party line. It is time to work on behalf of farmers, who need us to take action.

If our response was appropriate, I do not think that, two days later, a large group of farmers would indicate publicly that it is no good. It takes a couple of days to read a document, conclude that it is no good, call one's friends and organize a meeting.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we see these farms across Canada face financial hardship going into spring planting and in putting their cattle to pasture and things like that as they transition to the summer months, there is definitely a huge cash flow requirement at this point in time.

With the bill we are talking about today, the Liberals are looking at this fund and saying that, because of COVID, the government is injecting these funds into this organization. The reality, in fact, is that it is because of bad decisions made by the government in the past that our farmers are in such bad shape that they are not able to withstand stress such as COVID or anything else.

Does the member think that there needs to be more help provided to farmers who face this financial crunch as they go into the season?

I can tell the member that Costco in Saskatoon did not have beef this week, and that is a real thing.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As I said earlier, I am not here to criticize past actions by any government. I am here as part of a call to action.

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of a vegetable producer for example. He has to invest between $850,000 and $1 million to sow his field. It should be noted that agriculture has never been easy and nor will it be two years from now. There are external factors such as the weather and a surprise strike at CN last fall. On top of all that, this year farmers do not know if they will have enough workers at harvest time.

Producers are telling me they are going to plant soybeans and harvest it mechanically; that way, they will be okay for a year. They will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they will still be there next year. If they sow their fields with the current guarantees, they risk losing more than $1 million and going bankrupt. They will not do that because agricultural producers are entrepreneurs. Keep in mind that they have to assess the risk.

As a result, there will be a food shortage in the fall and products will be a lot more expensive. We will be dependent on foreign imports provided, of course, that foreign countries will want to send us their goods. Some recent examples might lead us to believe they will not. By the fall it will be too late. We have to act now.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He is always so passionate and engaging. I think we agree on some points.

I do not understand why we are still debating this today. For more than three weeks now, we have been calling on the government to take substantial action for Canada's agri-food sector. I do not know whether my colleague has an opinion on this matter.

What will we have to do?

Earlier I mentioned that we are running out of time. What is the government waiting for?

The $250 million announced last week will not fix the problems in the coming weeks and months for Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry. As my colleague said, there will be supply problems in the fall. This disruption will not disappear and will catch up to us.

What does my colleague suggest that we do?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. I really appreciate it.

Before answering the question, I would like to share my personal interpretation of this notion of time. We are not just running out of time. We are most definitely out of time. It is now or never.

The member for Beauce asked what we should do. We all need to sit down together to figure out a solution. We need to know what kind of wiggle room the government has and how much it can invest. Then we need to see what stakeholders think of our solution. We need to do something, even if it means working weekends and around the clock, so we can announce a fund next week. That is where we are at. We need to adapt our programs.

A lot of money has been thrown at the problem so far. I am not criticizing; we agreed with that. We had to take action. The government injected over $252 billion. I do not for a second believe that there is no money for agriculture. What use is health care if people have nothing to eat?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a health crisis. Everyone knows that. A health crisis affects the health of the population. More demands are being put on the health care systems of the various regions of Canada. Unfortunately, Quebec is no exception. We know that the Quebec health care system has been sorely tried by the COVID-19 crisis. Seniors' residences in Quebec are a good example of the major difficulties being faced by the Quebec government and the Quebec health care system in particular.

What are the solutions?

We know that the government is trying to find solutions to the problems facing Quebec and Canada, but it is relying on an old habit. It is the old habit of thinking that big brother in Ottawa knows better than everyone else, that big brother in Ottawa will solve the problem for the provinces and Quebec and will tell everyone else to step aside, because big brother has the solution. The problem is that, based on the slapdash way it managed the border closure at the beginning of the pandemic and the way it managed the Phoenix pay system, I am a bit worried when I hear the government saying that it has all the answers and it knows what to do.

The NDP leader made it very clear today that he thinks the federal government just needs to meddle in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. It just needs to shove the provinces aside. However, everyone in the National Assembly in Quebec's Parliament and everyone across Quebec agrees that Quebec's jurisdiction must be respected, more specifically with regard to health. I am not the one saying this. This comes from the National Assembly and the various political parties.

As a solution, the Liberals initially tried to take over the long-term care homes. However, they were promptly informed that it was none of their business. I think they got the message.

There are always roundabout ways of doing things. The federal government said earlier that the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec must be respected, yet the Minister of Health said it wants to provide money for mental health, home care and so on. It cannot do that. That is a roundabout way of doing something it is not allowed to do directly. It cannot offer money to sectors that are managed by the provinces and Quebec with strings attached.

What is the solution, then? I can say that the NDP's solution is completely off base. It is not surprising that the NDP, which had 59 MPs from Quebec in 2011 has just one left. The Liberals' solution is no better. The Conservatives have proven that they cannot maintain consistent measures over time and were not able to manage the health care systems in the provinces and Quebec.

The solution is set out in the British North America Act, that famous document that created Canada. The solution is right there in black and white. This document states that the provinces have jurisdiction over health, and this document is sacred to many. It is simple: Health care belongs to the provinces and Quebec.

The Constitution also covers how government services are funded. Since the Canadian provinces and Quebec start off with fewer financial means to manage their jurisdictions, the Constitution was written to include a system in which the federal government would transfer funds to the provinces and Quebec. They knew that the money was in Ottawa but the needs were in Quebec. The fiscal imbalance dates all the way back to 1867.

Let's look back in history. At the time, this was not a major issue because health was often managed by religious orders. However, it became a problem when the responsibility for health was transferred to the welfare state in 1960.

Quebec was going to manage the health care system and would obviously call on Ottawa to lend a hand by providing program funding and federal transfers. It was thought that Quebec and the federal government would fund the system fifty-fifty, but such was not the case.

What happened was that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is rising on a point of order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's enthusiasm. He is a very talented orator.

However, today's debate is about Bill C-16, which deals with agriculture. Unless I missed something, he has not yet talked about agriculture at all.

It is not that I do not find his remarks about health and areas of jurisdiction interesting, but we are here to talk about agriculture.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Would the hon. member like to respond to the point of order?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

As the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I want to point out that we had agreements with the government and the other parties to meet physically once a week to talk about COVID-19 and problems arising from the pandemic.

We were told we would get 30 minutes every Wednesday to talk about anything we wanted in connection with COVID-19. The government stipulated that, whenever possible, it wanted to introduce bills for debate on those days. We agreed because it was easier for the government.

I would ask the indulgence of the House to simply say that every party is supposed to have 30 minutes to talk about all kinds of COVID-19-related things, but we are not getting that time today. I would ask the indulgence of the House to continue my remarks.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would remind the member that it was the Conservative Party that actually wanted to see more members in the House, or more sittings of the House with the existing number of members we have today, to do exactly what he wants to do. However, today we are here for Bill C-16. If he thinks he can speak about something else, that is not appropriate. He should go back to topic and speak about what is at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the comments made by the hon. members for Louis-Saint-Laurent, La Prairie and Prince Albert.

Statements by ministers take place during the meetings of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. The government usually decides the topic of those statements. If it begins with statements, for instance, all the other parties can add their comments.

Today the House has been reconvened to debate Bill C-16. The standing orders suggest that comments must be pertinent to the subject before the House. Usually there is quite a bit of flexibility, but sooner or later members must ensure that their comments pertain to the subject before the House.