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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have just a brief comment to hon. members.

When posing a question, if one is using a citation from a document or quoting, and if that quote happens to include the given name or family name of an hon. member, members are still not allowed to incorporate that into the quote. So that members know for next time, even by citation, members are expected to change it up when they read it, such as the hon. member for Papineau or whatever the case may be.

If there are any questions on that, members can get back to me.

We have one last short question and response.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the discussion tonight is just how woefully short the efforts of the Liberals have been, including to assist agriculture.

On this, including the $200 million for the Dairy Commission, how is Canada stacking up in its assistance for its agriculture sector as a whole compared with the money being given by other countries such as the United States?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because we are just not stacking up at all compared with our U.S. neighbours. I always look at things on a population basis. We have about 37 million people in Canada compared with 370 million in the U.S., so Canada has one-tenth of the U.S. population. The U.S. just put $19 billion into its agricultural industry with a stroke of a pen, and the money is out there. Canada has put $252 million forward. If we were making a parallel effort to that of the U.S., we would have put forward at least $1.9 billion, and our industry in fact asked for $2.6 billion.

Therefore, our industries here on the agricultural side are not even close to being competitive with our U.S. neighbours. That is on top of the fact the new trade agreement is not as plentiful as the old one was, either.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. I just want to correct the record. The member for Brandon—Souris was incorrect in some of his comments at the beginning about his origins. Wingham is in the riding of Huron—Bruce, smack dab in it. Of course, Huron—Bruce county has some of the best agricultural lands in the country.

I would also mention to him that former NDP member Pat Martin was also not too far down the road from where his relatives grew up. I am pretty sure he is not related to him. Maybe he had it too good in Huron—Bruce and he moved out west. I do not know, but we are happy to have him here tonight.

If we go back in history to the years from 2006 to 2015, those were 10 of the best years that Canadian agriculture has known. It is indisputable and I cannot reiterate that enough.

When the Conservative government came into power in 2006, there was a lot of work to do and we did a number of different trade deals. It really changed the direction and dimension of agriculture. It was not only agriculture, but it certainly benefited from a number of those trade deals. We also did things with red tape and a number of other things that allowed farmers to get out from underneath some red tape and bureaucracy so they actually could focus on their operations. I can think of people not too far down the road from me who upgraded their machinery a few years ago. They put GPS equipment in, and have different rippage and tillage systems for their cash crop. Those were very good years.

It could be a fluke, but it likely is not, but over the last five years there has been a downward trend in the sentiment and reality for agriculture in the country. Farmers have a different outlook on agriculture, unfortunately, than what they did just five years ago, and it is not in just one sector. It is not just in dairy; it is in all of the other supply-managed sectors. It is in the cash crops, beef, pork and in all the other sectors that we would call agriculture. Their outlook is diminished and there is a number of different reasons why.

That is where we need to start this discussion today with Bill C-16. We are not anywhere near where we were just a few short years ago.

Three trade deals need to be discussed as well today: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, what the government now calls CPTPP; and then the USMCA.

When we were in the 2015 election, we came to a resolution midway through it. There was an agreement with TPP, which included the United States. The supply managed sector said that this was setting up for future generations in agriculture. It was a very positive time. It put everything to a conclusion, a finality, and allowed everybody to think about moving forward and about the investments and growth that would be there.

Subsequent to that, we have had a number of issues. Some of them are in direct compensation. I am speaking particularly around dairy. There have been a lot of complaints about that. There is a lot of uncertainty around TPP. With USMCA, there are some ballpark figures. However, certainly the way in which these dollars will be delivered are still to be seen. That is an issue.

What we are dealing with today is something we will call a positive. It is an action that needs to be taken. As the member for Brandon—Souris said, it is not enough for all of agriculture. I wish we could be talking about further compensation for pork and beef, but we are not having that conversation today.

Also, I would like to talk about processing capacity. It would have been fantastic if we could have had something in the bill. I know there has been some money allocated to processors, but I understand it is pretty well for PPE. I do not understand, for the life of me, why Cargill, one of the largest processors in the world, with deep pockets, needs money for PPE. It seems to me it would have its own money for it. Maybe it could have help getting PPE, but certainly it could afford to purchase its own.

I have talked to trucking companies that truck directly to dairy, and trucking companies that truck to other facilities. They are ineligible for all of these programs. They are the ones that do not usually have front-line people on the cutting edge of what is being used for PPE, so that is a frustration.

If we look at the province of Ontario and what has happened in the last number of years with processing, specifically around beef and pork, it is very frustrating. We have seen Quality Meat Packers close. We have seen Ryding-Regency have its licence pulled in December. Right now, there are about 12,000 head of cattle processed each week in Ontario. Of that, 1,500 could have been from Ryding, but Ryding is out of the picture. This is not to say that Ryding was completely innocent with respect to its infractions, but the frustrating thing in the Ryding situation was the cloud of secrecy after the initial violation occurred.

No member of Parliament in this House, except perhaps the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and maybe cabinet, would know exactly what the issues were at that specific moment back in the fall of 2019. No one knows. I tried to find out exactly what happened, exactly what the final straw was as to why it was pulled, and we do not know. The media does not know. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association does not know. I do not think Beef Farmers of Ontario knows, to this day, what the final straw was. The issue is that once it is pulled, that is it. It has to start back from scratch. That is a problem.

In the future, it needs to be transparent and open, so that if it is the will of the House of Commons to help deliver a financial package or a dollar solution to it, that occurs, because now, for example, kosher beef, almost all of which Ryding provided to Canada, is coming from Mexico. We saw last week in the news that ground beef is coming from Uruguay.

I would challenge the Minister of Health and the ag minister to show anybody on this side of the House of Commons that Uruguay and Mexico are as diligent with their inspectors regarding ear tags and cattle being unloaded at a processing facility with a limp. Currently, if one gets the wrong inspector, the animal is euthanized. It is five feet from being put on the line, and now it is scrapped.

How about traceability? How about the new transportation rules the government has imposed? How about the new rules it imposed at cattle auctions for further processing of horns, etc.? I bet it is not even close to what we put our producers through here, and the fines they get, such as a $1,500 fine if the animal does not have an ear tag so they know what farm it came from. There is a lot we need to do with the CFIA and transparency. There has to be a reality whereby if we are importing beef, those countries have to be held to the same standards we are, or we have to come to an agreement as to what all the standards are.

There also needs to be an investment in greenfield processing capacity, at least in Ontario. I am sure there are other parts around the countryside. Conestoga Meats in Breslau is a great example in the pork sector. It is a kind of public-private partnership. In spite of the pandemic right now, it is doing very well. Farmers have a share of the hooks, and it works out quite well.

The other thing I wanted to talk about, which I did not get a chance to do earlier today, was really to go back to what the member for Brandon—Souris said. To my mind, the minister said that we are going to go with our business risk management programs, and she talked about the calculator. One of her pork farmers received $11 a head. If that is not proof enough to the House that this is not working, every person who has a pig farm in this riding is losing $70 a head because of this pandemic and the processing capacity. They are losing money unless they have a contract, which many do, but some do not.

When farmers are losing $59 a head and the agriculture minister says that AgriStability is going to give $11 a head, what is the point? It is not enough. As I said earlier today, it is not like this is old MacDonald's farm with 10 pigs in the barn. There are thousands of pigs, and the losses are in the millions and hundreds of thousands.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing his experience and for the real detail he went into talking about this issue.

What does it means to his constituents that there was nothing to deal with the processing capacity across Canada and with the impact that will have?

There was the announcement of a $50-million set-aside for cattle and $50 million for pork producers. This will come nowhere near addressing the culling of animals, even for dairy producers. Bill C-16 does not include funds to address the culling of animals resulting from not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but even the increased imports through USMCA.

What impact does it have that there is nothing to address the bottleneck in the processing capacity? How critical is this situation?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the set-aside is good, because, as I said, if farmers are losing $70 a head, the worst thing they can feel is knowing they have to keep paying for something they will lose money on.

Pork and beef farmers do not want to euthanize their animals. They want to see their animals become food. However, the reality of the situation is that if the barn is full and weaner pigs are coming in, there is no space and farmers have to sell their pigs for what they can get for them. That is where we are at. We know the processing capacity in Quebec, for example, where some Ontario hogs are sent, is reduced, and things gets backed up and pigs end up in Manitoba or wherever else.

This is a short-term problem, yes, and set-asides and other things will help, but for the long term, we have our heads in the sand if we are not looking at food sovereignty in this country and our processing capacity in the provinces to process what we have here.

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

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

I would like him to tell me what he thinks of the impact of government's lack of action in terms of providing short-, medium- and long-term support for agriculture.

Around the world, in the United States for example, considerable sums, about $19 billion, have been allocated. There is far greater support for pork producers.

What will happen here? What is the concern in the short term?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is absolutely baffling. I have spent so much time on the phone in the last five or six weeks talking to farmers and other people, and they ask me why the government does not do more for them. They are not looking for a brand new pickup truck in their parking lots. They are looking for an actual conclusion. They have lost a market because of this pandemic. They are not asking for what happened in September. They are not asking for what happened in October. They are asking for what happened from March 15 to today. It is baffling.

They can roughly estimate what they need right now, but it is like there is nobody to talk to. It is so frustrating. Hopefully one of these days the government will wake up and get to the table.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Huron—Bruce say the word “baffling”, and I have to agree with him that this is baffling.

I have heard some of the comments from the Minister of Agriculture that these business risk management programs continue to exist for farmers and farm families, but they ignore the reality on the ground that all of us rural MPs are hearing about from the farmers. They say the business risk management programs are just not working.

I am reminded of a famous Ike Eisenhower quote: “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.” That seems to be the impression we are getting right now from the government. It is an Ottawa-knows-best approach that ignores the realities on the ground.

Does the member for Huron—Bruce have a comment on that?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say once in a while Perth County will give Huron—Bruce a run for its money on farmland production.

The agriculture minister toured my riding just before the election for an announcement. She toured the beef farm of a Liberal supporter. Farmers told her exactly what she has been hearing today. I cannot figure out how we can sit in the House of Commons and say AgriStability and AgriRecovery is our offer. It is ridiculous. If we want to lose our food sovereignty and be completely reliant on the United States and imports from Central America and South America, the goal is being accomplished with the inaction here today.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for standing up for Quebec farmers, of course. All the comments we have heard throughout the debate clearly show that all farmers in Canada are affected. One thing we keep hearing over and over again, in both French and English, is that this is not enough and it is not coming fast enough. We keep hearing that. I want to thank my colleague for standing up for our farmers.

We are here today to debate Bill C-16. Of course, there are other bills worthy of study in the House, such as Bill C-216, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois and also addresses the aspect of “not enough”.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-16. In fact, I would have liked to have seen it go further, because we are talking about the COVID-19 crisis and I heard all my colleagues talk about going beyond what is offered in this bill, which we obviously agree with. This crisis has shown just how essential the agricultural sector is. Of course, it is also essential in normal times. We can also see how fragile this industry is. This fragility was evident last year, in particular with respect to the consequences of agreements.

It was assumed that these agreements would come with compensation, but such compensation was never received, which has hurt our farmers. Add the effects of the crisis on top of that, and it becomes even clearer that farmers urgently need our help. We support what Bill C-16 does. We are absolutely in favour of it. However, I want to join my colleagues in saying that it is not enough.

The subject I want to talk about in the House of Commons today is food sovereignty. We are discussing Bill C-16, which is about milk and our dairy farmers. I represent a very remote region, a rural area in Quebec whose agriculture sector is also suffering. My farmers' presence in the dairy and vegetable sectors has shrunk to almost nothing. Regarding what is being said in the House today, I have to say that it is also urgent for outlying regions or regions that are not normally thought of as farming regions. Since food and sovereignty are issues we want to bring to the fore, the fact that we have farmers in our area is important to me, because our farmers' presence is dwindling.

There is another topic I would have liked us to discuss in the House today. We are talking about agriculture, but we are on the COVID-19 committee. With all due respect to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, I would have liked us to be able to discuss related topics that would inform the debate and the proposals. Debating a subject that we all agree on is one thing, but we also need to know how to make proposals so we can push things further.

When it comes to food sovereignty, the whole issue of the fishery has not been addressed in the House since the beginning of the crisis. We finally have access to Parliament via the COVID-19 committee. I am seeing major parallels. When it comes to agriculture, for example, we are talking about the market. There is a surplus on the market and it is hurting producers' income. They are uncertain. Doubts remain, and producers are concerned. We are seeing exactly the same thing in this other industry, which is also a food sector. Mariculture and fishing are part of it. These sectors are hurting because, like farmers, they will not be able to dispose of their stock and they will have additional costs.

They will not be able to invest. It will take years for businesses in the fisheries and agriculture sectors to pay off their debts.

We need to talk about debt. I know there are people in my riding who are worried about going bankrupt and who are acutely aware that they are operating at a loss right now. We will have to support them after this is over.

I talked about shrinking to almost nothing. Here, we talk about things and make decisions. Yes, we need to pass this bill, but we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. The future is riding on this.

I do not know if my colleagues feel the same way, but I suspect they do. When an industry is under pressure like the agriculture sector is now, whether it is because of treaties or a public health crisis like this one, we need to think about the next generation. We want food sovereignty, but we have no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a next generation.

The message being sent to young people who want to get into farming or fishing is that no one knows what lies ahead. We need them, but they will not get paid. They will not get any support when they need the government. It will always limit their power and what they can do. The government will not be there for them. This is what I heard earlier, in every language: We will not support them. That is the message. This raises the whole issue of the next generation.

I also want to talk about initiatives and adjustments based on needs. Certain images come to mind. For instance, we were talking about livestock earlier. There are a lot of regulations around animal welfare. That is excellent, but it can cause problems for regions like mine, for example, where we no longer have an abattoir. That is one concrete example.

A farmer from back home comes to mind. He lives in Longue-Rive. A few times over the years, he has thought about simply quitting. He cannot do it anymore, given all the regulations and all the assistance that is out of reach for him.

I am also thinking of all the fishers. It is the same thing. There are fish quotas. They will have to buy equipment, a boat or assorted fishing gear and repair nets. There are a lot of expenses to cover for an industry that is not being supported either, not in the regions or anywhere else. My colleagues in British Columbia or my colleagues in Atlantic Canada might say exactly the same thing about this industry that might not have a big enough next generation.

All the discussions we have here, all the recommendations we hear, all that delays our providing help—all of this stalling—only make these sectors of the economy even more fragile.

I wanted to symbolically include the issue of fishing, which is related to agriculture. To me, these sectors are in similar situations.

Yes, of course we have to help the dairy industry, but we also have to help all the other industries, including the pork, turkey, poultry, egg, fishing and mariculture industries, to ensure that we have true food sovereignty. True food sovereignty requires a next generation that we must support.

I would like our debates to cover broader subjects than just agriculture, the focus of Bill C-16. We are here to help people cope with COVID-19. This will have repercussions for years to come.

I would like us to eliminate these silos—these issues are interrelated—so we can help our farmers, fishers and, above all, our communities.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many good points in her speech. I saw a report published in The Globe and Mail earlier this week by a grain farmer in Alberta, whose name is Mr. Nielsen. He indicated that he got into agriculture because he loved it, not because he thought it would be easy. The dairy industry is certainly not easy, as I pointed out earlier today.

Mr. Nielsen also makes a comment that farmers face weather, market volatility and costs of input on a regular basis, but they manage for that as much as they possibly can.

The mental health of farmers is something we need to look at too, and I would ask my colleague to comment on that. That article published by The Globe and Mail indicates that 58% of farmers meet the threshold for anxiety and 35% already meet the level of what is classified as depression. Even though they are like that, they love the industry. I was a farmer all my life so I know where they are coming from.

Could my colleague expand on that or does she have anything to add?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I also thank him for letting me speak about mental health as well.

That is of course collateral damage. There are two considerations in our communities. We are talking about agriculture. However, depending on the size of the farm, we know very well that some farmers live a solitary life. It is a huge endeavour that entails many risks, whether it is a dairy, horticultural or grain farm. Farmers experience a great deal of stress and anxiety.

As I said earlier, there were flaws in what the government offered as a result of the agreements. There is compensation that has not been paid. We see what is currently happening. There is even more pressure on farmers, whose work is considered essential. The fact that they are considered essential also means that our help is urgently needed.

This was also among the demands made by Quebec, the provinces and farmers with respect to mental health. They obviously need support, because these people work hard. I had a spouse who was a farmer, and I saw what a life of farming was all about, with all it demands. I saw the stress, but also the desire, since farmers love what they do. As my colleague said, it is a passion. We need to support them.

I want to expand on the topic of rural life. Many rural ridings have high rates of suicide among men, primarily, and among farmers, as we heard earlier. These two aspects combined make this situation even more urgent.

I completely agree that we need to support them on this. Obviously, if we want to help them, we need to provide financial support, because that is where the stress comes from.

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

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

Earlier, she mentioned the importance of the next generation and the fact that businesses are heavily in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy.

Does she believe that the federal government should provide direct assistance rather than offering loans to farm businesses that are already heavily in debt? What does she think about that? What message would she like to send the government?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we want to help an essential industry, and I believe that this is an essential service, we need to do more than offer loans. Obviously, if farmers are already in debt and have already been waiting for help for a year, we need to come to their aid quickly.

When businesses are in trouble, when they are on the verge of bankruptcy, they are unable to repay a loan. That could take years and it puts businesses at risk. Of course, direct assistance would be preferable to send a message to the next generation, which is wondering whether it should continue in an industry operating at a loss that has its share of problems. Even if these people are passionate, even if they have a sense of duty and want to feed their fellow citizens by doing the noble job of a farmer, they need to have the money to be able to do that.

With this crisis added on top of everything else that has happened, I think that we need to give them direct assistance.