Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2003

Supply

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my hon. Canadian Alliance colleague who talked about consumers stepping up to the plate. Were there other levels of government that showed more leadership on this? Notably in the west I think they probably did a whole lot better. Maybe the member could respond to that.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because I am remiss. I did not really pay tribute to the Alberta government, which has done a truly outstanding job of responding to the crisis in Alberta, sitting down with the stakeholders at every step and then, when the programs were not working quite right, changing the programs. It did that almost immediately.

It is a tribute to the type of government that we should have in Ottawa, which is a government that listens to the people who are being affected. It worked so well. It worked in an outstanding way. I would argue that Shirley McClellan, the agriculture minister in Alberta, today is one of the most popular politicians in all of Alberta because she listened to people. Shirley McClellan is a tough, intelligent person who listens to people. She deserves a lot of credit and I am happy to pay tribute to her today.

I also want to again acknowledge municipalities that stepped forward and did whatever they could. So many of them organized rallies around Alberta and around other provinces too, frankly, to draw attention to this and to show some support for their industry.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate proposed by the Conservative Party, regarding an issue of great importance to our economy and vital to Quebec's economy. We are talking about mad cow disease.

Just yesterday in the House, the Liberal government, through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, refused to add a second phase to the financial assistance program for businesses affected by the mad cow crisis, which has continued since May 20.

The Quebec government is demanding—and the Bloc Quebecois has tirelessly echoed that demand—that the federal government provide additional funds to the Financière agricole du Québec for the creation of programs to enable its farmers to survive this crisis. They need the basic necessities.

The federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could not have been clearer. The answer is no.

In response to my question yesterday, the minister simply said that the government had money—over $1 billion—to help farmers under its agricultural policy framework, but that it would not do anything until the provinces signed the agreement. In other words, it is knowingly using a catastrophe to blackmail the provinces. It prefers to let farmers suffer, although their revenues have dropped dramatically since the lone case of mad cow was detected in Alberta.

The Conservative Party motion demands:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister should convene and lead a multi-party delegation including representatives of the industry to Washington at the earliest possible date to discuss with officials of the Congress and the Government of the United States all possible means to fully reopen the U.S. border to shipments of Canadian livestock.

Going to the United States is one thing but, until then, the goal is to ensure that our farmers do not go bankrupt. We must ensure that they have the necessary funds to survive.

The situation is so bad that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is calling upon the government to inject no less than $195 million in additional compensation to farmers affected by the ban on our beef exports. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to note that I am not the one saying this, but I am reporting that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is calling upon the government to inject no less than $195 in additional compensation. That is something he ought to have in his notes.

Just to provide some idea of the magnitude of the problem, the price of cull cattle, which was around 55 to 60 cents a pound prior to May 20, is now around 18 cents. If that is not a problem, I do not know what is. The beef cattle producers are not the only ones in trouble now, so are the dairy producers. The whole food chain is involved, from farmer to processor.

People can no longer manage to feed their animals, and now are being threatened with bankruptcy as well. We do not want anyone trying to tell us there is no problem and we do not know the true situation. Fifteen percent of Quebec's entire dairy production is in my riding. I have talked to many farmers, and everyone is hard hit by the situation. There is a great deal of anxiety. Some people are losing sleep over it, because of their uncertainty about what is going to happen if a solution is not found quickly.

The drop in cull cattle prices, coupled with the fact that some producers got no compensation because phase one of the federal program did not apply to them, has had a huge effect on this important sector of our economy.

They can boast about injecting money into the program, but it was just the first phase. Not everyone was compensated or had the chance to turn to the Financière agricole for a loan to sustain their operation until the crisis passes. How long will it take to resolve this crisis—a month, two months, three months? No one knows. Will farmers be able to hold on any longer? Can they hold on for another three months?

The Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Françoise Gauthier, was here yesterday to hear the official no response from her federal counterpart. Yesterday and today the national news reported that Quebec's minister had returned to the National Assembly with a flat no. She believes she will be able to sign a policy framework agreement with the federal government by Christmas. That is only three months away.

Let us come back to the content of the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion, which proposes sending a parliamentary delegation to our neighbours to the south. The problem is, who will lead the delegation?

The complex and unique situation, to say the least, that is brewing within the governing Liberal Party is such that we are ending up—I feel I must say this—with a type of two-headed monster: a prime minister who is no longer the leader and a leader who is not yet the prime minister. That is how ambiguous the machinery of government has become.

We feel that representatives from Quebec and the provinces should be added to this delegation. The presence of MPs from various parties would be all the more useful because the Liberal government has not done a good job of defending the interests of farmers, especially those from Quebec, since the beginning of this crisis.

The Bloc plans to be part of this parliamentary delegation going to the United States. Count on me to explain what is unique about the system in Quebec and to work on having the U.S. ban fully lifted, at least for Quebec. If Ottawa does not defend Quebec, the Bloc will.

The minister says there is no example of a territorial approach for an embargo—what we call regionalization—but he must have a really short memory. Canada took this approach last year by imposing a ban on chicken from three U.S. states. It can very well promote the partial lifting of the ban, but the situation is far from being resolved.

The effects of the crisis are still being felt and agricultural operations are having to deal with substantial quantities of livestock that have accumulated since the crisis began on May 20. Let us remember that, despite the partial lifting of the ban imposed by the United States, the amount of beef crossing the border represents only a portion of what was exported before the ban was put in place.

This partial lifting, which excludes live cattle, has not translated into a return to normal market prices for certain products. The price of beef is 65% lower than it was before May 20, 2003.

Producers, who continue to suffer despite the partial lifting of the ban, still need help. Products which can now enter the United States constitute only about 35% of shipments.

Since the beginning of the crisis, the Bloc has avoided being alarmist about public health measures. We wanted to give the government a chance. Four months after the ban was put in place, it is clear that there has been more talk than action from the government. Measures ought to be taken, in the direction of regionalization rather than centralization, which is so dear to this government.

Curiously, while we have been debating these important issues, he who is now the boss but not yet prime minister has stayed out of the debate. It would be interesting to hear the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard on this topic. What does he think of the current government's attitude with respect to producers' demands? What does he think of the blackmail being used by the Minister of Agriculture who wants to shove the agricultural policy framework down the throats of the provinces?

I recently took the opportunity of an open house day organized by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec to visit a dairy farm in my riding, owned by the Lupien family in Saint-Joachim-de-Courval.

As I had already done with a beef producer, Jocelyn Autote, I spoke with the Lupien family about the impact of the crisis on their sector. Beef producers are not the only ones affected; the dairy industry has been as well, as I have already pointed out.

According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, on August 7, “We are losing close to a million and a half dollars daily as a result of the American embargo on our meat”. Dairy producers also sell cattle. They need to replace about 25% of their herd annually. The cull cows, those no longer producing enough milk, are sold for meat. Some 70% of cull cows were exported to the U.S. or Mexico before the ban.

Many calves and heifers brought good prices from American producers. These sales represented about 10% of the income of a dairy farm, but close to 75% of the amount of farm income producers set aside for maintaining their families.

It is estimated that, in Quebec, approximately 12,000 steers could not be slaughtered before August 31, the last day of the federal-provincial assistance program. Some farmers took them to auction but, despite their insistence, ended up taking animals that ought to have been headed for the slaughterhouse back to the farm. As a result, they were deprived of financial assistance from the federal government, because this was only for slaughter cattle.

This explains why, at the September 22 federal-provincial meeting of ministers of agriculture, Quebec was calling for Ottawa to add phase two, retroactive to September 1, to the compensation package for businesses affected by the mad cow crisis. The Liberal government refused to do so.

Both beef and dairy producers want to see all border restrictions lifted promptly, but they are sensible enough to realize that the financial impact of the crisis will continue long after the ban has been lifted.

To quote Jacques Desrosiers, President of the Association des engraisseurs de bovins du Québec,“The money we lost cannot be reinvested in our businesses. We generally buy a lot of cattle in the spring, but this year we put a stop to it, so that has slowed down our production for the entire year”.

Those most in danger of bankruptcy are small producers and next generation farmers. Every time an agricultural sector is hit by a crisis, the number of farms decreases. The reason is simple: the smallest producers often do not have the means to get through hard times and are swallowed up by the larger producers.

The President of the Syndicat des producteurs de bovins du Centre du Québec, Alain Laroche, said on August 28:

The cattle industry, which generates 20% of the jobs in central Quebec, is on the verge of a catastrophe. The situation is a cause for concern for the next generation. It will be impossible for young people to buy a farm, even a family farm. Young people will go down with their farm...People must be told that we can no longer make ends meet.

The mad cow crisis has lasted over four months. What can be said about how Liberal government is handling this problem? The Bloc Quebecois has done its own analysis of the situation, and it can be accused of having some bias. But let us look at what observers outside the Canadian political scene think.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is pleased with the way the Liberal government has handled the mad cow crisis. Here are the comments of a neutral foreign observer. Jean-Philippe Deslys, a French specialist in bovine spongiform encephalopathy, who was in Montreal on August 22, could not believe that Ottawa had not learned from the mad cow crisis in Europe. He said:

Because, faced with this crisis, Canada has behaved like all other countries affected, before it, by this strange disease, with France and Great Britain leading the pack. It is making the same decisions and the same errors with, ultimately, very predictable repercussions on consumer confidence and the economy.

How does he describe the way the federal government has handled the crisis? He thought it showed more concern for the media than for public health. He said:

One might have expected, in the context, that decisions would be made to protect the beef industry economically. But no: the authorities went into an administrative mindset, especially in terms of management of the crisis in the media, instead of taking a scientific or public health approach. And in the end, the repercussions on the economy are not what one would have wished.

There are other people who do not share the Liberal government's views. The President of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, speaking about the agricultural policy framework, said, “We are not satisfied with this. Quebec has 25% of Canada's population, 20% of its agricultural production, and receives only 10 or 11% of the envelope”. He said this in a telephone interview.

He is worried about uniformity in implementation. “Not to recognize that there are differences in agriculture [in Canada] takes a lot of imagination”. Mr. Pellerin condemneded the “hypercentralizing approach” of the agricultural policy framework. The President of the UPA intends to demonstrate over the coming months that the framework “does not improve the situation at all...Time will tell that it does not work”.

In this context, Quebec finds itself facing yet another demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. The consequence is that Quebec might be forced into signing the agricultural policy framework.

“You know the state of our public finances”, said the Quebec minister. “We do not have $130 million to spare, and everyone in the industry knows it. What we have to do is reach a consensus that will allow Quebec to sign this agreement while maintaining as much flexibility as possible to establish our programs”.

Finally, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, on a recent visit to my riding, told journalists:

The mad cow problem should have been regionalized. There was no reason for it to involve all of Canada. When the problem arose in France, for instance, Italy did not panic. Yet, Italians are much closer geographically to the French than Albertans are to Quebeckers.

While only one case of mad cow was diagnosed in Canada, all the provinces were affected by bans imposed by our foreign partners. The U.S ban on all ruminants hit us especially hard, because the U.S. is our main buyer. It is very hard for farmers, slaughterhouses and labs that specialize in bovine embryos, such as IND Embryotech in my riding.

While the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged that the American decision was reasonable during the diagnostic stage, we feel that it is unfair to continue the ban for provinces that were not affected.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to point out that, if Quebec were sovereign and in control of its own borders and health policies at this time, it would not have been hit by the U.S. ban. Laurent Pellerin, President of the UPA, said the same thing at a press conference on May 21, 2003:

If we were separate provinces with distinct inspection systems and regionalized commodity marketing mechanisms, there would be just one province having to deal with this problem now.

The current situation is particularly frustrating for Quebec producers who have long had to submit to a series of constraints aimed at ensuring healthy herds and irreproachable product quality.

As far as tracking is concerned, Quebec is well ahead of others, and more and more innovative methods are being developed. I know a slaughterhouse in the riding next to mine, Richmond—Arthabaska, is working on a system that would make it possible to track an animal from birth right to the supermarket meat department.

In conclusion, over and above all the facts and figures about compensation, the columns of gains and losses, there is a human side to this. Agriculture is the men, women and families who devote themselves to providing us with food. This is something that the bureaucrats, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food himself, seem to have lost sight of.

We support the motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, because we have the best interests of the devoted people of our rural areas at heart.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I have just a few questions for my hon. colleague. We are still hearing statements that are completely untrue.

I do not want to downplay the importance of the mad cow crisis in Canada and Quebec—since the hon. member comes from Quebec—as it is an extremely serious problem on which the minister works hard every day. There is talk of sending a delegation, but approximately 200 interventions are done directly with other countries via correspondence, discussions and so forth. This means that there is something happening every day.

People also say that nothing is being done, but budgets were prepared and there are still funds available under the strategic framework. All the stakeholders agree that a national agricultural policy was needed, and this policy is part of the strategic framework. Is the hon. member trying to get the strategic framework signed as quickly as possible, because there is a great deal of money for the farmers?

She continues to provide inaccurate information, including that the specialist from the European Union supposedly said that consumer confidence was down, which is untrue. Is she aware that consumers are eating more meat now? Here is the real question: does she know how many head of cattle Quebec buys from the west, when she mentions regionalization? Because cattle can be shipped from one province to another. Does she know the answer?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am totally flabbergasted to hear comments like that. I am quoting people like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Jacques Desrosiers, President of the Association des engraisseurs de bovins du Québec, and Laurent Pellerin of the UPA. I have also quoted people from my riding, people from Saint-Joachim-de-Courval.

Of the 22 municipalities in my riding, 20 are rural. All summer I have crisscrossed the various areas and rural municipalities and the remarks I made are based on authentic numbers. I verified them with the farmers and with people like the presidents of the Association des engraisseurs or the UPA. And I have just been told I have been providing inaccurate information.

It is true that the problem has not yet been solved but what he said about consumers is not true. Let him come into my riding and see if beef consumption has gone up. People do not have the money they once had to buy beef. The price of beef to the consumer has not gone down. It is the same as before, despite the fact that producers are selling their beef, and their cows, the culled cattle, for lower prices. I do not know where he got his figures, but I know that mine are not the same. I would like to sit down with him and go over them, because mine have been verified.

It is really insulting to hear the parliamentary secretary accuse us of providing inaccurate information when we did some serious research. I do not know where he got his figures, but I have my doubts about them.

I would like to come back to the minister's attitude yesterday, when he met with the ministers of agriculture. They have to get down on their knees and plead with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and tell him there are people who have needs and who are being forced into bankruptcy; some are even having nervous breakdowns. I hope he watches the news, because this week we saw a western farmer who was in tears and he is not the only one there in this situation. People are very worried right now. There are even some who are threatening suicide. It is starting to get serious.

We were just told that $1 billion is available but an understanding cannot be reached with the provinces because two or three of them do not want to sign the agreement. First, the provinces have to be brought to their knees and, once the government has the upper hand, then they will get the $1 billion. Such an attitude makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the parliamentary secretary should apologize for accusing the opposition parties of providing inaccurate information. If he thinks he knows the truth, well, he is the only one. It is like the marching soldier who thinks he is the only one in step.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me applaud the member for Drummond for her presentation and representation of the real situation in her riding. Her comments demonstrate that this is not just a beef cattle, western Canada problem. This is an agricultural problem across the country.

Very little has been said about milk producers, the dairy industry. It has the same problem right now. The problem is the border is closed. What does the dairy industry do with its old cows? Normally the old cows would be shipped down to the United States for cheaper cuts of meat. Right now there is absolutely no market. It is the same thing with the old cows in the beef industry.

Further, not only has it affected the dairy industry in a similar manner that it has affected the beef industry, but because the borders are closed, the people who raise buffalo or bison have the same problem. The people who raise domesticated elk have the same problem. The sheep industry has the same problem. People who raise goats have the same problem. It just goes on and on.

It is not about all the billions of dollars that the Liberals tell us they are putting into funds to help people. The fact is that people who want help are not getting the help. That is the question the Liberals have to answer. If they were doing such a great job, people would not be asking where is the money. People are going broke. They are pleading for their livelihood. That is the issue today.

The member for Drummond indicated that yesterday the provincial ag ministers met with the federal minister to talk about funding. In fact the federal ag minister has always said it should be a 60-40 split on the BSE crisis. To date, the federal government has only committed $276 million, while the BSE affected provinces have contributed over $350 million. That is a fact. That came out of yesterday's meeting. How can the provinces get the federal government to really provide the help the people in this country need?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, I want to answer the question about dairy cattle. I had spoken about this earlier.

Yes, it is a problem. It is not just about beef cattle. This is about all farmers. Whether they raise dairy or beef cattle, whether they are processors or consumers, everyone is affected by the mad cow crisis. It is not limited to the agricultural industry; it affects us all.

It was also said that numerous calves and heifers were sold at a good price to American cattlemen prior to the crisis. Those sales represented 10% of a dairy farm's total income. They constituted almost 75% of the amount that cattlemen deducted from their sales figures for their families' welfare. As a result, farmers do not have this money for their families. We are talking about their basic needs, not about money for a pension fund or a pension plan.

Earlier, in the Standing Committee on Finance, I heard a Liberal Party member ask a question of the representative of the Canadian farmers association. He mentioned a long-term tax credit. Yes, but you have to have money to get a tax credit. You have to pay taxes to get a tax credit. However, this problem is not something that will happen in a year's time; it is happening now. At this moment, people do not have the means to keep their business afloat, let alone their family.

What means should be considered, to answer the question? The Liberal government is basking in billions right now. The provinces, which are responsible for meeting the needs of their residents, should not have to beg on bended knee for the money they need to support their industry and their economy.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, the issue before us today is that there should be an all party delegation that goes to Washington as quickly as possible to intervene and get the border reopened to the export of live cattle.

We in the NDP caucus support that position although we think it is a relatively short term solution, and I will address that a little later in my remarks. Before I go any further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

The situation is this. The border was reopened some three weeks ago to cuts of beef animals under the age of 30 months, and the United States border remains closed to essentially any shipment of live animals.

It is urgent that we remedy this as all speakers, including the Minister of Agriculture, have said in the debate today. However until that urgency is resolved and the border is reopened to live cattle, the other urgency is that there be programs in place to assist farmers, ranchers and cattle producers to get them over the hump this winter, and throughout the fall at least, until the border reopens.

Yesterday, when the federal Minister of Agriculture met with his provincial counterparts, such relief was not forthcoming. The argument was that the BSE recovery program for the mad cow case should be extended. The suggestion from the Minister of Agriculture was that we invite our so-called trading partners to countervail and put up objections to that.

I think that is patently ridiculous. That will not happen and it has not happened. Despite what the Minister of Agriculture says about the BSE recovery program, it has not been adequate. The point of proof is that three prairie provinces have put in additional supplementary programs to assist better their farmers and ranchers. Even more interesting is the United States is well aware of these additional supplementary programs and has not objected to them.

We find it passing strange to suggest that if they were to do something like this, it would jeopardize our trading relationships with the Europeans, Americans and other countries.

In rejecting the idea of extending the BSE recovery program, the government has put all its faith and trust in the agricultural policy framework agreement and has said that if provinces will sign on to that program, all the problems will be resolved and there will be lots of money there.

We know that six provinces have signed on and there are four significant agricultural provinces that have not signed on to this. I think one of the major reasons they have not signed on, but the government does not talk about it, is the fact that the industry itself is first very wary about the APF and second, they are even more concerned that we would take money from the agriculture policy framework and put it into the crisis called mad cow disease.

The APF was designed almost two years ago. It was agreed to in Whitehorse at a time when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was telling Canadians that mad cow disease, or BSE, was “a European disease and it certainly couldn't happen here”.

The APF was designed for floods, drought, hail and all the other problems that farmers ran the risk of being affected by. It certainly was never designed for a crisis such as this, which is costing the country upwards of $10 million a day or more.

On a tangential point, the minister suggested that the money had all been paid out very equitably. I want to note for the record that one of the program designers at Agriculture Canada was quoted earlier this summer as saying that right from the start people who were designing the program were concerned that equity could become an issue but no one had a solution to control whose cattle went first to the slaughterhouse.

I want to underscore that point because I am aware that there were a lot of people, small operators, small producers, who desperately were trying to get their 30, 40 or 50 head of cattle into a packing plant this summer when money was available through the BSE recovery program, but they could not get their cattle in. Why? Because the feedlot operators had basically a monopoly on it, working closely with the packing plants, so it was business as usual.

In one incident a farmer in the Moose Jaw area tried every day to get his 40 cattle to market. The day after the recovery program ended on August 28, the packing plant called and said that it would be happy to take his cattle after rejecting him all summer. Of course the only difference was that he was no longer eligible for the approximately $500 of the federal money to offset the low price that the producer was being paid. That was the situation.

We have another situation now that I addressed the minister on earlier, and that is the whole matter of cull cattle. In a joint proposal from the Canadian Meat Council and the Cattlemen's Association yesterday, they proposed that there be a program to help get cull cattle to market. This would cost $195 million and would provide the producer with a choice of marketing the animal or wintering it, the feed costs of course being higher. It is examples like these that the minister said that would invite a countervail so we could not go there.

Going to Washington is a solution but it is a short term solution.

The Minister of Agriculture said in his remarks that until we had this health problem we effectively did not have an international border when it came to beef and beef products. The reality is that 60% of our live beef are shipped to the United States for packing and processing. That has never made any sense to me, and it makes even less sense today. It is akin to shipping raw logs to Japan or somewhere else in the world and buying back finished lumber.

Why in the name of higher employment would we not want to build packing plants and have the jobs here, then ship meat products into the Untied States and elsewhere around the world rather than ship the live cattle? However it is typical of the way we have always treated our overabundance of resources.

It does not want to hear this, but the Canadian cattle industry is far too heavily integrated with the United States. The two major packing plants in Canada are both foreign owned, the one in Brooks, Alberta, and the other, the Cargill plant, in High River. We should give serious consideration to building another packing plant Canada, perhaps on the western Manitoba border or in eastern Saskatchewan, somewhere in there, where there would be more opportunity for shipping beef and producing boxed beef to go into the United States.

To wrap up, we are in lockstep with the United States on this issue and the industry in Canada does not want to hear any suggestions that we should not be in lockstep.

For example, we should consider eliminating the use of bovine growth hormones and potentially opening up markets to the Europeans and Japanese who are not interested in buying our products because of that. The Canadian side of the industry does not want to hear that. They do not want to talk about banning all animal feed to animal feed.

These are just some of the examples we need to look at to have a more Canadian market and less of a market with the United States.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question is primarily on the last part of the hon. member's speech, specifically on animal protein going into animal feeds.

His comment was that there seems to be some resistance from industry, but the members of the industry with whom I have met have conceded that it is absolutely essential and imperative that we take animal protein out of animal feeds, even to the point of any cross-contamination. We would not feed ruminant protein to chickens, for instance, which happens today. It would be taken totally out of the food stream.

The other issue is there is a good market for animal protein to be fed to fish. There is no reason that we could not feed a lot of our fish in fish farms and aquaculture animal protein made from ruminants.

I think there is more consensus on behalf of farmers and a real understanding that the animal protein needs to be taken out of the food chain, especially for ruminant? There is also consensus that there are other species that are safe to feed. Certainly we need to take it out of the barnyard so there is no opportunity for cross-contamination. Could the member comment on that?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member for South Shore on this issue.

It may be that I have talked to and have met with people different from those of the hon. member. However when the industry officials came to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food back in July, there was real reticence on the part of a number of those people about changing the rules significantly between Canada and the United States. They were concerned even about the specified risk material, the changes that were announced by Agriculture Canada to lessen the possibility of mad cow, which is contracted through the spinal cord and the retina.

The other thing that is interesting as well in this whole discussion is this. The Minister of Agriculture indicated to me in a conversation in June, before the House rose, that he fully expected before the end of that month an announcement from Agriculture Canada banning all animal feed to animal feed. It is now more than three months later and there has been no announcement. I have no idea, but I can only assume that it is resistance from the industry itself that has prevented that announcement from occurring to date. I think there are concerns from the rendering plants about what they will do with all this excess material and I think that is the reason for the delay in the announcement from the Minister of Agriculture.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I believe one sector of the cattle industry which has been drastically neglected in this debate is the transporters of live cattle. The individuals who own specialized equipment, the truckers, have been left out of any kind of potential compensation or bridge financing component in this crisis. These individuals still have to make payments on their equipment.

Could the hon. member comment on whether the haulers of livestock should be considered in a compensation package of this nature?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that a lot of people have been left out of this compensation package and truckers are definitely some of them. I know we have a very large trucking operation in my riding, Roberge Transport, that has been dramatically affected by this, but the smaller operator, the small cow-calf operator, the backgrounder, by and large has also been negatively impacted, or to put it another way, has not been able to access the BSE recovery program.

There is lots of hurt out there and that is why we need some transition steps until we can get the border open to live cattle.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words in this very important debate and indicate my support for the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party to send an all party delegation to Washington. It is a positive thing and should really happen.

What I want to impress upon the House is that the mad cow crisis has been a real crisis across the country economically and in particular in western Canada. In my riding in the province of Saskatchewan it has been a very serious crisis. It has affected not only cow calf producers and cattle ranchers but also it has affected the truckers and people who work in the industry. There has been a whole economic slowdown that has had an impact of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of the spinoff. It has slowed down the whole economy. We have to deal with this crisis as a country.

The government should have taken a much stronger stand with the Americans. The Americans cut off the borders for many weeks and have now allowed them to open for some classes of cattle. The flow now is not much more than a trickle. It is because of the Americans' hard line that we have suffered greatly.

I think our cattle industry is far too integrated with the United States. We have far too few packing plants in the country. It was a big mistake made over the years, that we did not maintain more packing plants that would supply the need for ranchers and farmers and also provide jobs here in this country.

The Americans have taken a tough line. We have an industry now that is integrated with the United States. The packing plants are in America. The jobs are in America. The economic benefits go to America. When there is a problem, the Americans cut off the border. The mad cow that was found in this country may indeed have eaten feed that came from the United States of America.

It seems that we have been shafted on this. We have been hit over the head with a club by the United States. Our Prime Minister should have taken a much tougher stand with George W. Bush and the American administration.

It is not just this issue. It is also the American farm bill when it comes to grain and other crops with the huge subsidies by the Americans that are hurting Canadian farmers and hurting Canadian producers. We have very efficient producers in this country that cannot compete with the American farm bill and these massive subsidies. It is another example of the problems that we have because the United States is not taking a reasonable attitude toward Canada and Canadian producers.

I will give a couple of examples of how it affects ordinary people. I received a phone call early in July from a farmer in Balcarres in my riding. One of his neighbours had a bull that had been injured and because of the injury the bull had to be destroyed. The problem was there are no slaughterhouses nearby. To ship the bull to a slaughterhouse to be slaughtered would have cost more in terms of the freight for shipping the bull than the farmer would have received in the proceeds from the sale of the meat from the bull.

That is a good example how mad cow disease affects ordinary people, when the freight bill is higher than the proceeds from the sale of a particular product.

There is another example in my riding which shows again how some of the Americans overreacted. In rural Saskatchewan near my hometown of Wynyard is Big Quill Lake. It is about the fourth saltiest body of water in the world. Believe it or not, there is a shrimp fishing business on the lake. There is shrimp fishing in the Prairies, small brine shrimp. They rely on American buyers. They were told by the American buyers in June that they would have to delay buying the product until about August 1 because of mad cow. That mad cow is affecting the shrimp business does not make any sense.

Those are a couple of examples of how this has really affected ordinary people right across the Peace.

The beef industry is extremely important. I was at the demonstration on the Hill last Wednesday. It is extremely important for all Canadians. Farming really is the foundation on which our country is built. When the farmer is better off, we are all better off. When the rancher is better off, then we are all better off in terms of the spinoffs in the economy and the jobs right across the country.

It seems that the federal government does not realize this because it has been very slow to react. In fact since the crisis broke a few months ago, the federal government has only offered to pay 60% of a $400 million program, some $276 million. The provinces have to put up the other $184 million. Since then, in Saskatchewan the provincial government has been adding extra money to the program, as have some of the other provinces as well because of the importance of the beef industry to the country.

The federal government has the money. There is a budgetary surplus. There is a contingency fund. The cattle producers need the money if they are to survive. Investment in the cattle industry at this time would be helpful not just to the industry but to the country in general in terms of stimulating the economy, circulating cash throughout the economy and making sure there are jobs for more Canadians regardless of where people live. These are very important things that should be noted by the federal government.

As I said before, the mistake we have made over the years is that we have far too few packing plants. Most of that industry is now going south of the border to the United States. That has to be changed so that we have more packing plants and more jobs in Canada. If that happened it would be a very positive thing.

The beef industry, the farming industry, is extremely important. We have had an incident of one cow that has caused a great deal of damage to the economy. Then we have a federal government that has been very slow to react in terms of trying to provide some assistance to the farmers of Canada. That is what a government is all about, to provide assistance to those who are in need. This a case where people are in need. This is a case where people need some help.

As I said before, the Americans have been very insensitive to the fact that we are their major trading partner. They have been insensitive to the fact that it is a very integrated industry. They have been insensitive to the fact that there was only one cow, and that cow may have eaten food that came from the United States.

Our government should have taken a much tougher stand with the Americans. It should have been much more aggressive with them on this issue. It should be providing more assistance to the cow calf producers and ranchers right across the country.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member of the New Democratic Party. I am somewhat upset that he took the easy way out in the sense of simply turning his guns on the Americans and blaming them for everything that has transpired. I think we could get into a long debate about whether that is the proper way to go and the proper way to try to get the border open at this point.

He talked about taking a tough line with the Americans. One would not have to take a long look at the balance of trade to see who ultimately would end up getting hurt the most. However I understand that sentiment because I hear it in my riding, as I am sure the member does in his. It is being expressed by a lot of people who are hurting right now.

I want to very briefly say that one of the truly terrific things that has come of this crisis in our beef industry is the response by the Canadian public. It is just incredible what we have seen unfold from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

Beef consumption has shot up dramatically as people recognize that our beef is safe in Canada, unlike a lot of other countries that suffered through something similar when mad cow disease was found in their herds. Their public basically did not support their farmers. That has not happened in Canada. It is quite the opposite in fact. I would suggest that if the government provided even half of the support that the general public is showing to our beef industry, our industry would not be facing the problems that it is.

The member spoke very eloquently about some of the harm he has seen in his riding being done to very real people who have worked real hard over a lot of years to build up their farms and their businesses, whether it is a trucking business that hauls live livestock, or whether it is the farms, or the packing houses and the people who are employed there. There is a lot of hurt all across the nation.

I would put to the member that the proper place to point the finger is across the way. The deterioration we have seen in the relationship between our country and the Americans is playing itself out to the detriment of our beef industry. I would offer those comments to my colleague.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, certainly we are the largest trading partner of the Americans. About 85% of our trade goes to the United States. One should not forget that we are also their largest trading partner. Canada is more important to the United States than all of the European Community put together roughly. The Americans depend on us a lot in terms of their trade as well. We are the principal trading partners of each other. The percentage is greater from our country because we are smaller. We should not forget that we are the most important trading partner of the United States of America.

The Alliance tends to think that we cannot stand up for our own rights. A little while ago that party said that the U.S. ambassador should be given ministerial status. Never before have I heard anybody suggest that the ambassador of the United States be made a minister in cabinet. Do we have to bend over backwards for everything the Americans want? The Americans have not even asked for that.

That party across the way has been talking about getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board because the Americans do not like it. When the Americans say jump, those members always ask how high. What we see across the way on your left, Mr. Speaker, is republican party north. That is what the Alliance is.

What about George Bush and the war in Iraq? The Alliance wanted us in there fast. Thank goodness the majority of people in the House said no, that we would not send troops into Iraq. George Bush said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Who believed him right away? The Alliance Party. Those weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

We need parties that stand up for Canada and for Canadians. We need parties in this country that will not kowtow to everything that a right-wing Republican in the United States wants. George W. Bush is losing the confidence of his people but he still has the confidence of the Alliance. Shame on the Alliance.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick rebuttal. The reason the Canadian Alliance is opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board is that it is a monopoly. It is undemocratic. It is the same as the party that the hon. member represents. When we had a debate and a vote on the issue of protecting the traditional definition of marriage, the New Democratic Party ironically was the only party that would not allow its members a free vote.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is democratic and is supported by Canadian farmers. Farmers elect directors to the board. If we want to listen to the farmers, we have to support the Canadian Wheat Board. Once again, that undemocratic party is standing for big business and American interests.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, but moreover, it is indeed my responsibility to enter some remarks, on behalf of my party and my riding, to the economic crisis that is affecting every single region and every single riding of this country. In one way or another this pertains to the fact that our border has been closed to safe Canadian beef products going to our principal trading partner, and our friend I might add, the United States of America.

To illustrate how tragic this particular crisis actually is, Madam Speaker, I know you are well aware of the fact that $11 million has been lost each and every day to the Canadian economy due to this border closure. In addition, to make the number even more stark, over the last four months, since this border has been closed, it has been estimated that we have lost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars to the point that many family farms are questioning whether they are going to be able to continue throughout this process.

I have not seen a more callous and disrespectful lack of leadership since I have been in this chamber over the last six and a half years, than we have received from the Prime Minister and the government on this crisis.

This is an issue that our leader, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, has pointed out and made very clear. This needs all hands on deck. This is not a partisan initiative by any means. We are calling on the House, this chamber, to put its shoulder to the wheel and do what is best for all farmers and for the beef industry in Canada. We are asking for an all party delegation to go to the United States, our trading partner and friend, and show that we have a safe, sound food safety system and that there is no need for our border to be closed to livestock at this point in time.

Government members have said that we are the first government that has actually had any kind of a border opening when a country has had a BSE case and had the border partially reopened. Let us be clear. The border is 70% still closed right now. We are losing $11 million per day. So far, the government has not done enough. It is completely and categorically insufficient.

Moreover, we have a duty as a nation to look at this issue from an international perspective as well. What signal does it send to the international community when a progressive country like Canada has a single case of BSE? We have a progressive and modern system to be able to trace the lineage of that cow which was detected to have BSE. We can determine what herd that cow was actually in. We can tell its entire life history in terms of where this cow has been and we have taken a number of steps to ensure that our system is safe.

What signal does it send to another country which happens to discover a BSE cow? Do we think that country will be as progressive as Canada has been in terms of fessing up to the international community, but moreover proving that we had our act together? We need to have this border open not only for the preservation of our own economy, for our own beef industry, but we need to ensure that responsible behaviour throughout this world takes place with respect to food safety and that we have an international perspective.

There are so many sectors of this industry which are really taking it on the chin right now. I would like to take a moment to speak to two particular sectors which are front and centre in the riding of Fundy--Royal that I have the privilege of representing.

One sector I would like to speak to pertains to the dairy industry. Many people think this is a beef cattle issue and it is. However, it also means that dairy cattle cannot go to the United States. Many farmers breed dairy cattle for export. That industry is now closed. There is even a probability that cows over three years in age will likely not be shipped to the United States for a number of years even if we did have the border open to a livestock perspective.

We also know that it is paramount that farmers refresh and renew their dairy herds. Part of that process is the fact that culled cows must be rendered at a facility. Quite often those culled cows may be even shipped stateside to be rendered. Moreover, given that we have an incredible surplus in rendering products, we know that culled cows from dairy farmers are only receiving a pittance compared to what they had received in the past.

Madam Speaker, I intend on sharing my time with my colleague who has joined us to participate in this very important debate, the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

There is a clear consensus that actually rests within the agricultural community from the provincial level in terms of what needs to be done. We need almost $200 million of immediate farm aid just to bridge the beef industry over the next number of months. I am saddened by the fact that we have not been able to convince the minister of agriculture to make the contribution that is required with respect to ensuring the preservation of the beef industry.

The provincial agriculture ministers have not managed to convince their federal counterpart. There is consensus on the fact that $195 million is needed to lessen the impacts on cattle producers.

It will cost $200 million. We have a clear consensus of what needs to be done to bridge this particular issue.

Another sector that I would like to highlight in my remaining time hits very close to home, about 30 kilometres from my house. The province of New Brunswick does not have a kill facility at the present time. One particular trucking company, Valley View Farms, which is Jim Sherwood's operation, has had an 80% drop in business since the outbreak in Alberta of BSE in this one cow.

Truckers carrying livestock have incredibly specialized equipment to transport livestock in a very humane way. The price impact may actually mean about a $2,000 payment per month for only one trailer. If a trucker were to have a fleet of 20 trailers that would mean a $40,000 payment. These individuals obviously have loans that must be repaid and no means to be able to address those loans.

I am calling on the Government of Canada to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure that is necessary for transporting live cattle. If we do not have bridge financing for those transporters, that sector of the beef industry will not be there once the border does open up. These truckers must be included in this framework as well.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Fundy--Royal spoke to this issue and what we are seeing as members of Parliament in our ridings, especially in rural Canada. The situation is not dissimilar anywhere in Canada, whether in the heart of beef country in Alberta, southern Ontario, New Brunswick or rural Nova Scotia.

I listened to the government earlier. One of the issues discussed was our relationship with Japan, and our opportunity with Japan to build new markets for beef and our lack of response very early on in this crisis to deal with it in an equitable manner. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spoke earlier and said they had 76 meetings with Japan. That is all well and good, however, it was the first three meetings that did not occur where the problem arose.

When we had one case of mad cow, the Japanese asked to come to Canada to loan their expertise on this subject and to see for themselves how we controlled the health of our product going out into the marketplace. Rather than accept that help and build goodwill with Japan, the minister responsible for agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it was okay, we were fine, and we did not need their help. The Japanese called the second time and got the same answer. They called the third time, but they have not called a fourth time. That is why we have had 76 meetings trying to open the Japanese market back up, because they got a total ineffectual response.

The other comment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was that we have had 250 to 280 interventions on behalf of the department in regard to opening the border. Again, it is not the amount. We could have 2,000 interventions. What we need is a delegation that is non-partisan, non-political, and led by the Prime Minister and all the leaders of all the parties in this place, to go visit our partners in the United States and bring the message forth to open that border up. That becomes the issue.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, essentially, what it comes down to is that there would not be a better illustration that the Government of Canada could put forth than to send an all party committee.

Every Canadian has a major problem with this issue. They find it incomprehensible why the Prime Minister would not personally get involved in a file that pillages the economy by $11 million a day. I do not know why the Prime Minister wants to keep his hands and fingernails on 24 Sussex so much that he would not even take the risk of getting on a plane, going to Washington, and having a conversation with the President of the United States. This is the right thing to do. It is all hands on deck on this particular file.

There is one aspect that I wanted to include in my remarks and I did not have time to do it. I would like to take a brief moment to do that.

This is a humanitarian issue as well. If the Government of Canada does not act and does not provide the financial resources to the beef industry right now for bridge financing, the $200 million that the industry requires, that reckless and irresponsible judgment not to provide those funds will result in cattle dying en masse due to starvation over the course of the winter. That is a point of fact. That is an image that Canadians do not want to see from a humanitarian perspective.

If we end up having to burn these cattle that die from starvation due to this crisis because of one cow, then we will see the same imagery that we saw in the U.K. just a number of years ago. If we want to devastate an industry in perpetuity, that is what will happen. If we do not provide that bridge financing to ensure that we fulfil our humanitarian obligation to feed these cattle, that reckless abdication of action will result in that. Every member in the House will have to look at themselves in the mirror and say that they knew for a fact that not enough was done in this debate.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and give a perspective on how the BSE situation has affected my little corner of northern Nova Scotia, which comprises Cumberland and Colchester counties.

Often we hear people refer to this as mostly an Alberta issue, but it is not. It has hit the entire country, not just Alberta. It has hit my Province of Nova Scotia. It has hit Ontario, as has been related by the very distinguished member for Perth--Middlesex who has spoken out very vocally on behalf of the farmers of Ontario. When many others have been silent, he has spoken loud and clear. He has made it very clear how serious the issue is for farmers in Ontario.

The first I knew about this whole thing was from a farmer in my riding who called me after shipping a load of live cattle to Pennsylvania. The cattle went through the U.S. border into Pennsylvania, but he was stopped by state troopers and made to take the truck back to Canada. He had to store the live cattle in New Brunswick. He could not even bring them home. It was devastating to him because they are still there and he is still paying for storage of the cattle and to maintain the cattle there.

This has hit farmers right across my riding in northern Nova Scotia, and not just beef farmers, because dairy farmers as well have had a hard time dealing with culled cattle and milk cows that are no longer useful for milk. It has hit everybody.

Recently a farmer came in to my office to tell me that he had a foreclosure notice from the farm loan board. He could not make his payments because he could not sell his cattle. The Government of Canada is proposing to foreclose on this man, this farmer who cannot earn a living anymore because the Government of Canada has been unsuccessful in getting the border reopened. The government will not try things. It is perfectly willing to sit back and let the system unfold without taking any initiative or using any imagination.

We in this party have proposed that an all party delegation go to the United States and send a really strong message that we want something done about this, that we need a change. The government refuses to do that and meanwhile the farmers in my riding are having their bank loans called. The government is calling loans. Farmers cannot sell their beef. At the last auction, I understand, there were only a few head of cattle. It is truly a disaster.

It really reflects the attitude of the government on agriculture and in regard to farmers in the entire country. It is not only BSE. We have had disaster after disaster in the agriculture industry and the government now in power does nothing to help. There is no handout. There is no effort to try to bridge the gap. It does not try to help in any way.

In my riding the farmers have experienced a double disaster. In March there was a terrible flood and a lot of the soil was washed away. There was a tremendous amount of erosion. They have applied for assistance under the disaster financial assistance program. The applications go through the province, but at first the farmers were told that the land would be covered under the DFAA and there would be no problem about it.

I have here a letter from a representative of the farmers, Sandra D. Fisher, in Brookfield, Colchester county, Nova Scotia. I will read just some selected lines to the House. It is a long letter.

She outlined to the minister that a representative from EMO publicly stated in front of all the farmers and the media that he saw no reason why leased agricultural land would not be covered. A simple letter from the titled landowner stating that the land was being used by the applicant for agricultural purposes would be all that was necessary. The farmers did that. Then they were told they had to bring in their financial statements to prove that 51% of their income came from agriculture.

She stated that again the farmers followed the instructions and did that. Then the farmers had to accompany, on several occasions, numerous inspectors, engineers and auditors to prove the actual damage. Then again they were asked for more documentation from the people who own the land stating that any reimbursement received for the land would in fact go toward reconstruction of the said land.

They did that. They went through that process. Most of the people were faced with many unanswerable questions. They could not even answer them.

Then in late summer, contrary to the first statement, they received word that the leased land was not going to be eligible under this program.

No matter how many documents they supplied, no matter what criteria, hoops and hurdles they were given to go through, they could not qualify.

I am still optimistic that they will get some compensation for this. I met with staff officials of the Minister of Defence this morning about this issue and some others. I am optimistic that maybe we can get through some of these hurdles. Certainly it was a good meeting about this, but again we see that this is about farmers not being able to access assistance because of red tape, hurdles and roadblocks put in their way.

It is symptomatic of the way the government deals with agricultural issues. It is certainly very disappointing when the farmers are not asking for a lot on the BSE issue, to come back to that. They are not asking for a lot. They need some help with feed and storage costs and they need help to cover the costs of culled cattle. They need a revenue deficiency program to make sure they do not lose everything they have.

Many of the farmers in my riding have been in business for decades and are successful people. Under normal circumstances they can compete with anybody. They are successful and good at what they do and they can compete, but this is not a normal circumstance. This is a disaster. Where is the government? The government is hiding. It will not come to the table and help to any extent the farmers who are about to lose their livelihoods. This is not only their livelihoods; it is their way of life. It is their lifestyle. Usually it is their home. It is everything to them.

I join the chorus of voices here today calling on the government to use some imagination and to try some new ways. Even if it is our idea, the government should have a look at the idea of an all party delegation going down to Washington.

In the softwood lumber case, the government did just the opposite. It allowed every province to get to Washington. Instead of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade leading the battle in Washington on softwood lumber, it let everybody go down individually and try to make their own deal. But in this case we are saying that everybody should go together to Washington and try to convince them of how critical this is to our farmers and how safe our cattle and meat products are now. We should not be sitting back waiting for something good to happen, but that is the style of this government.

I call on the government to consider our proposal, to accept the proposal and try it. What can go wrong? It could try this proposal to meet with the officials in Washington with the strongest possible representation from every part of Canada. The government could just try that. We have nothing to lose and an enormous amount to gain. I think it would send a strong message. It would also send a message that we are reaching out to the United States to try to build a bridge.

I call on the government members too. I call on them to join in the battle, to stand up and fight for the farmers, to speak up for the farmers and convince the government to try something new, to try our proposal. It will not hurt. There is nothing to lose. I call on the members and the government to do these things, to try something new, to use a little imagination, and to not sit back and let this hopefully unfold and resolve itself.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester for his comments. He demonstrates that this problem is a very broad one. He demonstrates how the dairy industry is being hurt by the BSE problem. Not long ago we heard from the member for Drummond, who talked about the problems in Quebec.

I think we also need to talk about and look at the impact it has had beyond agriculture. From this perspective of central Canada, the public of Ontario probably does not realize that the agricultural business industry in Ontario is second only to the auto industry. We can imagine the impact this will have down the road for the people of Ontario.

This is not just about people who live on farms. It is about the people who live in small communities. We can imagine cashflow coming to a halt and how that would impact business. In fact, as my hon. colleague is a former private entrepreneur and was in the business field, I would like him to comment on how it would impact all the small communities in his own riding.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is another dimension of the broad effect or impact of this disaster. On the weekend I talked to car dealers who have trucks on their lots that should not be there. They should be sold. There should be cattle dealers on the road. They should be delivering cattle to the U.S. The dealers have trucks lined up that they cannot sell because the farmers have no money. They have no income. Even if this is fixed today it is going to take a long time to catch up to where they were.

Tractor sales are down. I talked to a tractor dealer who has all kinds of tractors and implements in his yard that normally would be gone at this time of year but are not. They are still there, because the impact of this problem goes right from one end of our country to the other. It affects our small and rural communities, not just farmers. As I said, that was a very good point: it is not just about farmers, it is about small business people, and it does not matter whether it is groceries, clothing, farm tractors or trucks or whatever business it is in these small communities.

It is a tremendous amount of money. I think somebody mentioned a minute ago that it is $11 million a day. If we take $11 million a day out of the economy, that is going to hurt a lot of the car, implement and clothing dealers and the grocery stores. It is $11 million a day and what are we doing about it? Nothing.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to respond to the motion from the hon. member for Perth--Middlesex. The hon. member's motion would have the Prime Minister lead a delegation to Washington to persuade the United States authorities to open the border to shipments of Canadian livestock.

Federal and provincial governments, along with industry officials, have been working diligently to resolve this issue since a cow affected by BSE was first discovered in May.

In an effort to reopen international borders to Canadian cattle, the government has been maintaining a dialogue at the highest level, not only with United States authorities but with other countries as well.

Our case is clear. There is no scientific evidence to prove the need to keep the borders closed to Canadian cattle. We stand by our rigorous investigation that we conducted and the sound science it represented, which the international team of scientists agreed to as well.

With a single BSE cow being discovered in May, the science capacity of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was certainly put to the test. I believe that hon. members from both sides of the House will agree that not only did it meet that test, it surpassed it. It was proven that this animal did not enter the food chain, which was gratifying to Canadian consumers.

The CFIA launched a very thorough investigation on trace-forward, trace-back and trace-outs from this cow. Eventually the agency quarantined 18 locations. These included farms in two lines of inquiry, trace-forward locations, and a feed inquiry. The CFIA also investigated another 36 trace-out premises in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In all, they submitted over 2,000 samples to the laboratory. Out of the 2,000 samples, only one, the original cow, was found to be infected. This was very encouraging news.

On July 9, Canada made the decision to stop supplementary permits of non-NAFTA beef and veal. This action was taken to increase opportunities for Canadian beef and veal suppliers.

Since the investigation, the government has been successful at partially reopening some borders to certain beef products. Canada was able to regain access to the United States, Mexico and Russia in just over 90 days, as opposed to the seven years recommended by the Office international des épizooties.

No other country hit by mad cow disease has been able to open its borders, although partially, so quickly. This proves that the international community has confidence in the surveillance and testing we have in place and that the efforts made by the federal and provincial governments, along with industry, have been successful.

Regular shipments of certain cuts of beef are now moving across the border into the United States through permits. Discussions are ongoing to finalize requirements for the export of Canadian beef and beef products to several other countries, including Mexico, Russia, Jamaica, Antigua, the Philippines, and Trinidad and Tobago. We demonstrated that by working together we can surpass international standards, not only for our food safety and investigation but also to be able to partially reopen international borders in such a timely fashion.

In a letter signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico, they requested that the OIE encourage a more current, practical, risk based approach to BSE. The objective is to assure consumers worldwide of a safe food supply and to address international trade issues that arise upon discovery of the disease in a given national herd. All three countries believe there is a crucial need for an international agreement upon a science based trade response for countries that have tested positive for BSE.

Since the letter was sent, other countries such as Australia and New Zealand have provided supporting letters to the OIE to back North America's position. This proves that not only North America but the international community believes it is time for international standards to be revised.

Canada has demonstrated that we are a leader. And although we have accomplished more than any other country before us, we need to continue to work toward completely reopening international borders to live cattle. We need to continue our main focus, that is, to reopening international borders to live cattle as soon as possible. I cannot say that enough.

Border closings are to be based on science. It is time countries revisit the issue basing their concerns on science perhaps rather than politics.

I am sharing my time with the Minister of Health, Madam Speaker. I apologize for not indicating that earlier in my speech.

The current situation facing our beef and cattle industry is just another example of the support we provide. I assure the House that we will continue to support the agriculture sector until international borders are opened to livestock.

Over the summer we had three emergency agriculture meetings to address the BSE situation. I know that all members of that committee and the House want to do everything we possibly can to ensure that international borders are opened to live cattle as soon as possible.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture have been working tirelessly to open international borders to livestock. The Manitoba minister of agriculture had some positive comments to make today, according to the Winnipeg Free Press . Minister Wowchuk is quoted as saying:

In my opinion, they (the federal government) are moving on this as quickly as they can. I believe in the near future we will see live animals under 30 months moving across the border by the end of this year or very early in the New Year.

That was certainly a positive comment coming from Manitoba.

The Prime Minister has spoken directly with President Bush, who has agreed to work hard to reopen the borders. Many cabinet ministers, senior officials from CFIA and the Privy Council Office have also had numerous discussions with officials and ministers, not only with the United States but with other countries as well to urge them to reopen their borders.

Although the government has been in constant contact with officials from many countries and we have been successful in partially reopening international borders, I believe we need to ensure that we make every effort to open international borders to live cattle in the very near future. If this requires the Prime Minister to lead a delegation to the United States or wherever there could be a positive message, that should be done. If a trade delegation led by the Prime Minister is needed to help speed up the United States regulatory process, then I believe as a government we owe it to our producers to try every means possible.

This issue is not only affecting our beef producers but also many other sectors of our agricultural community and our communities as a whole. However we need to ensure that a trip to Washington by a group of politicians and industry officials is something that will be well received in Washington because if not, it could perhaps be a step backward.

Although we are making headway through the discussions that are taking place behind the scenes, maybe more advances could be made if the Prime Minister did go to Washington. It is definitely something we need to consider very seriously.

Canada understands that countries have control over their own borders and we would never dispute this fact. We just need to ensure that every effort is made to help convince the community that our beef is safe, continues to be safe and that borders can be reopened.

I also want to thank consumers for their faith in the industry, which has been so valuable during these serious times. We have never given up hope of opening up all international borders and we do not intend to give up on this fight. If it takes the Prime Minister to lead a delegation to accomplish this, that is what should be done.

Much has been done by all levels of government and industry since May 20 to move this along. Perhaps one area that needs to be improved by all of us is communication to our members and to our producers.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. I appreciated the comments made by the member and I certainly agree with a lot of them.

I know there has been a lot of effort made by various individuals to address this problematic situation, and the Minister of Agriculture has certainly put in some effort I know, as well as his provincial counterparts. I take my hat off to Shirley McClellan who has been a real workhorse as the agriculture minister in Alberta to accomplish this.

The member said several times in her speech that if a delegation led by the Prime Minister was the answer, then it should be done and if this was a good idea, it should be pursued. However I never really gathered for sure if the member believed that this was something that should be pursued and that indeed there should be a delegation.

Does the member agree with the motion? Does she agree with me that we need a group of members from this Parliament in solidarity on this issue to address it in a meaningful way?

I know in my conversations with various people from the United States, particularly some senators with whom I have had a chance to visit, they are quite concerned about this.

This motion is a great idea and it should be pursued. However I would like to have it confirmed whether the member feels the same, or does she think it needs examination, or what might be the weak spots.