I have problems with bringing this motion forward, much as my colleagues do. I'll try to explain my position to my colleagues across the floor. Mr. Lemieux's motion basically suggested—and we agreed unanimously—that we look at options for dealing with SRMs. When we haven't done that, it's hard to come back next week and tell the minister what he has to do. We've heard one set of witnesses on SRMs, but we have not talked to a lot of other people in the industry. We talked about this and we passed Mr. Lemieux's motion, unanimously.
I want to point out some facts. There are some things going on right now that address this question. There is a $50 million fund to help our slaughter facilities. I understand that Keystone and Levinoff each got $10 million. I assume that some of that money is going towards determining how to go about removing the SRM material on the production floor.
I'd like to see what happens there. We're also looking at regulatory solutions on SRMs. One thing we have to be concerned about is this thirty million-some-odd dollars that Mr. Bellavance wants to give Cargill and Excel. Does Cargill need another $10 million from the government? Does Excel need millions more from the government? No, and I think my producers back home would say the same if I asked them that. They all remember the BSE scandal. They all remember how that money went straight to the packing plants—the producers didn't benefit from it. Are we now going to make a recommendation that the minister give the packers more?
I'm wondering if we have given this enough time. Have we given Mr. Lemieux's motion enough time? Have we given this $50 million fund enough time to show results? Are we going to put forward this motion? Let's say the government was to go ahead with this. We're going to give Levinoff $10 million and then give them a few million more? Are we going to do the same for Cargill? Does that make a lot of sense? That's the question I have for the colleagues across the floor.
We all want to help farmers; I believe that. I look across the floor and I know you guys want to help farmers and you're looking at the best way to do it. It's not always simple. It's not always quick and easy. If we do this and end up with a countervail, all the work we've done to open up markets would get shut down. These packing plants would shut down. Our beef industry would be in worse shape than it is today. Do we want to do something that creates that type of scenario? No, I don't think so.
I agree with Mr. Lemieux—let's back off on this motion. Let's deal with Mr. Lemieux's motion that we have in front of us. I think it's adequate. It makes recommendations to the minister to look at it. Let's see what kinds of options they come up with besides what they've already done. Let's give it a little time and see how it looks down the road.