Debates of Oct. 12th, 2004

Agriculture

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will begin by thanking the voters of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. For those who do not know, my riding is in central Ontario. It is south of Algonquin Park tucked between Lake Simcoe and Peterborough. Lindsay is my riding's largest community but it is made up of many small villages and towns.

The northern part of my riding where I am from is known certainly to everyone in the Toronto area as part of cottage country. The southern part of my riding has a history of successful mixed farming that goes back almost 150 years. It is obviously those farmers that I am concerned about this evening and about whom I would like to speak.

Agriculture is and always has been a major industry in my riding. That is why I feel it so appropriate that my first speech in this place will focus on preserving a future for agriculture. The BSE crisis has had a devastating impact on many families in my riding and I fear the worst is yet to come.

BSE has hurt beef producers, but it has also hurt many others, such as sheep, goat, elk, deer and dairy producers. It has also hurt many businesses that rely on the primary engine of agriculture to drive a rural economy, things like implement dealers, truck drivers, auction barn employees, hay producers and seed dealers, to name just a few.

One week ago today as I listened to the Governor General deliver the Speech from the Throne, I waited patiently to hear what the Liberal government would have to say about the future of agriculture in Canada. I waited and waited and waited. Before I knew it, the speech was over and I realized that the subject of agriculture had not been raised at all. In fact, the word “agriculture” had never even crossed the lips of Her Excellency the Governor General.

Over the past week as I have listened to the debate on the Speech from the Throne, my mind has drifted beyond what I did not hear from the Liberals to what I really wanted to hear.

Prior to entering elected office, I worked for several years as a professional political speech writer. Just as music fans can dream about the greatest concert that was never given and sports fans can dream about the greatest match that was never played, speech writers can also dream about the greatest Speech from the Throne that was never delivered.

In that vein, here is what I would have liked to have seen written in last week's Speech from the Throne. It goes something like this:

“The Government of Canada acknowledges and appreciates the enormous contribution that farmers make, and have made, to Canadian society. The Government of Canada recognizes that farmers are important, and that the work they do to provide food for our families is crucial to the health, wealth and security of Canada”.

“In response to the crisis that now exists in agriculture across Canada through no fault of the farmers, but rather as a direct result of a trade conflict, the Government of Canada has declared a state of national crisis in agriculture. In so doing, the government will make the immediate management and ultimate resolution of this national crisis its number one priority”.

“The Prime Minister of Canada, together with the Minister of Agriculture, will assume co-management of this file until sufficient progress has been made so that this state of national crisis can be lifted”.

“The Government of Canada is committed to seeing farmers and the entire agricultural community through this difficult time, and to ensuring that our farmers keep on farming today, tomorrow, 10 years from now, and 50 years from now”.

“The Government of Canada wants farmers to know that they are valued members of Canadian society, and that they are valuable contributors to the Canadian economy”.

But alas, these words remain but a dream for they were not heard in Canada's Parliament last week. It is my expectation that such words will never be heard in this place until we have a Conservative government fully committed to creating a future for young farmers and a future for everyone in rural Canada.

In the meantime, I want farmers in my riding and across Canada to know that I and the Conservative Party will continue to make every effort to force this national crisis in agriculture onto the agenda of a reluctant and urban oriented Liberal government. I hope that one day I get to make the speech that I just referred to.

My final comment today has to do with something that was in the Montreal Gazette on Saturday, a story about Bombardier. I will quote two short sentences:

Federal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre says his government must move quickly to put together a package to persuade Bombardier Inc. to build its proposed new, larger airliner in Canada. Otherwise, Ottawa risks seeing Montreal lose hundreds more aerospace jobs, Lapierre said yesterday in an interview.

It is interesting to me that we are talking about tens of thousands of affected Canadians from coast to coast and there is no action but when an issue comes up in one of our large urban centres that may potentially affect hundreds of jobs, the government is willing to step forward. This article is suggesting $700 million.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting how many times the opposition members try to drive a wedge between urban and rural Canada. We are trying to unite the two. They try to drive a wedge by mentioning Bombardier and they only tell half the story.

Is the hon. member really saying that the $2 billion that has been committed to the livestock industry, including beef, sheep and dairy cull cows, et cetera, is not a commitment? The member opposite tries to imply that the government has not tried to be there. We have.

We all had hoped the border would open up earlier but it did not so on September 10 the minister took a somewhat different tack. Should we have done it sooner? I do not know. Hindsight is 20/20. However he did take a different approach: to keep the pressure on the Americans; to increase the slaughter capacity within Canada; to utilize a set aside program to make the market function so that producers could get the price of their product out of the market; and to try to expand new markets.

Is the hon. member opposite saying that we should not be doing that? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that we should can the announcement of September 10? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that we should not be spending the $2 billion on this industry?

We know there are problems out there and we are acting on them. It is unproductive for the member to try to drive wedges and leave the impression to confuse farmers that we are only supporting the likes of Bombardier, because that is just not accurate.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that my colleague talks about commitments the government has made and the announcements that have been made. If he would actually talk to farmers he would find that no CAISP cheques have arrived yet. It is all well and good to say that the money has been promised and the money is there but if CAISP is the pipeline, the pipeline is blocked. The money is not getting to farmers and those farmers will be broke this fall. Promises, more words and more rhetoric from the government in Ottawa will not help them.

I also find it interesting that in his language my colleague seems to be acknowledging or suggesting that his government has failed. As I hear his argument, he is saying that the government has done a lot of work, spent a lot of money and that it is not its fault that it did not succeed. The bottom line is that a lot of farmers across this country, beef producers and many others, multi-generation businesses, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo mentioned, are at risk of losing their farms. They have not changed. Their business has not changed. This is a political issue. This is a political trade dispute. The Liberal Party is the Government of Canada and it is its responsibility to deal with it.

If the hon. member is standing in his place and saying that he acknowledges that even though everything has been done and that the government has made its best efforts, it has been unable to help farmers across Canada, then I accept that admission of failure. Someone famous once said “Lead, follow or get out of the way”. I would suggest that if the government cannot lead any more on this file, then it should step aside, get out of the way and let someone else deal with it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is misinterpreting my--

[The Chair]

I think that is a point of debate, but we have time for a 30 second question from the member for Huron--Bruce and about the same amount for an answer.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would like to make it a point of order, Mr. Chair.

A few moments ago the hon. member across the way said that when the throne speech was delivered, Her Excellency the Governor General did not use the word “agriculture”.

On this side of the House the book which gives the notes on the throne speech on page 5, chapter 6, the word “agriculture” is indeed--

[The Chair]

That is an interesting point but it is not a point of order. We are still in questions and comments if anyone actually has a question or comment.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if the Liberal Party is committed to farmers and committed to doing more than announcing programs that do not work and announcing money that never hits the home and the farm gate and never helps the families, where are the Liberals this evening. Where are they in the House to debate and to bring forward a good healthy--

[The Chair]

Again, we are not supposed to bring attention to someone's attendance or non-attendance but we do have time for about a 30 second response from the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. If there was a fleet and passing reference to agriculture in the Speech from the Throne I must have missed it. However, partisan jousting aside, the fact is that farmers across the country are on the verge of bankruptcy. Money has been promised and it has not arrived. The bottom line is that these people need help now and if it does not come soon it will be too late.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is the first time that I have the opportunity and the privilege to rise in the House of Commons. It is with great enthusiasm and pride that I am taking this opportunity to salute and thank warmly the people of the riding of Compton—Stanstead. I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it is, in my opinion, the most beautiful riding in Quebec. I invite you to come and see for yourself. I will be honoured to be your guide.

Having said this, I want to bring you back to the riding of Compton—Stanstead, because a number of the concerns that our constituents have result, in part if not in full, from decisions made in this House. While the riding has a large urban population, much of it is covered by forests and farms, particularly dairy farms.

As regards the softwood lumber and the mad cow disease issues, which have been dragging for so long that the situation has become dreadful and unbearable for a large number of producers. They feel totally abandoned and left to fend for themselves by Ottawa, by the federal government, by those who make decisions in this august chamber. These decisions have a direct impact on their daily lives, but they are made by people who do not know anything about what is actually going on.

Speaking of cows, I point out that I will now deal more specifically with the impact of the mad cow issue in my riding, across Quebec especially, and mainly on the cull cow and the feeder cow farms.

You know as we all do that, in May 2003, the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Alberta led rapidly to an embargo by the United States, which was followed by other countries, causing extremely serious problems within Quebec's beef industry.

We can well ask how a cow that falls sick in Alberta, 5,000 kilometres from Quebec, can have such devastating effects there. We are told that mad cow disease is contracted through the use of contaminated food, such as animal feed containing ruminant by-products. However, this practice has not been used in Quebec for quite a long time. Why then must Quebec producers be penalized for something that is not their concern? In this matter so incredibly badly managed by the federal government, not only the cow is mad, and I will try to respectfully illustrate this.

If we go beyond political partisanship, we see that science indicates that Quebec producers have the best record in Canada in terms of management and disease monitoring for their herds. It is probably important to point out that Quebec cattle farmers have been prohibited from feeding animal meal to their cattle since 1993, well before the federal ban in 1997. Quebec producers find the current situation particularly frustrating since they have been abiding for a very long time by a whole series of restrictions to ensure that their cattle are disease free and that their products are of the best quality possible.

Although this is grossly unfair to our producers, it is nothing new. This kind of unfairness is well known and has to do with Quebec's specificity. Of course, it bothers some people when we say that Quebec is “different”. The rest of Canada would rather think it is only a catch phrase, something said in jest or so much bravado. Why is it so hard for them to believe that Quebec is different not only in terms of our culture, our values and our language, but also our agriculture? Farming in Quebec bears little resemblance to farming in western Canada. When you insist on national legislation and approaches, you can expect some major bumps along the way.

I will quote anyway the fine words written by the Prime Minister of Canada during the recent leadership race in the Liberal Party of Canada:

Every time I speak with farm producers, I realize how extensive the farm sector is in Canada. Different regions focus on different products; the risk factors are not the same everywhere; the level of diversification, added value and intensification varies considerably from one province to another; the age and attitudes of producers must be taken into account, understood and incorporated into the policy development and program implementation process.

This is from a letter addressed to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

At first glance, one might think that these were the words of someone with a clear view of the farming reality in this country. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the case. Going back at least 25 years, federal policies have consistently ignored this diversity, and the single principle that overrides all others is that, since a Canadian is a Canadian no matter where they live, any agricultural program must therefore be the same for everyone.

I will keep to myself the qualifiers that come to mind in connection with this kind of social and economic aberration. Still, one must recognize that there have been countless interventions in Ottawa based on a model so broadly used that it really applies to nobody.

The new agricultural policy framework that was just cooked up for us in Ottawa fits perfectly into that category. Here is an agreement that is being forced upon the provinces and that they did not have the choice to approve to get their share, even though it misrepresented the initial agreement, which was much less centralizing. I am drawing inspiration from remarks made by Laurent Pellerin, the president of Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles, who, to my knowledge, is neither a Bloquiste nor a sovereignist, but who may well become one at the rate at which our producers are being attacked, and given the kind of financial strangling of Quebec that has been going on for years in a number of areas.

Here I would like to say something to limit an impression being allowed to spread, no doubt because it serves the interests of those behind the rumours. I have heard frequent criticism of the senior officials drafting agricultural policies from the comfort of their offices, without ever setting their feet on site. In my humble opinion, this criticism is unjustified in most cases. In fact, it seems obvious to me that policies generally originate with the political world, and thus with politicians.

This fact, no doubt straightforward, struck me when I heard the throne speech. This is a speech that is supposed to reflect the intentions and orientations the government has in mind for the coming months. Yet, as we have heard numerous times this past week, the Government of Canada is the Prime Minister and his team of Liberal MPs, elected by a scant 33% of those who exercised their right to vote on June 28 across Canada. Those are the rules of the game, and I accept that.

If I detour via the throne speech, it it is because I have discovered the following two main thrusts in it: the incredible number of federal intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the steamroller effect of all-powerful centralizing machinery driving this government and leading to the present impasse in which agriculture in Canada and in Quebec now finds itself.

Ottawa has come up with five different aid programs so far in an attempt to remedy the effects of the crisis. The needs of Quebec producers are not being taken properly into consideration for the simple reason that the intervention model is based on a reality that is foreign to Quebec and unacceptable, particularly in its latest version, to the cull cattle and feeder calf sectors. Yet, with a bit of effort, and a modicum of good faith, it would be so easy to make the corrections required at this particular point in time.

I would have a number of suggestions, recommendations, even supplications, to pass on to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food and to the minister and his team, in the hope that they can find a few minutes to examine them between celebrations.

In my opinion, the first question to ask is this: is there real political will to settle the mad cow issue? I speak of political will because it is clear to me that this is a political issue, a political embargo, where it is evident American protectionism is being used to punish Canada for having dared to refuse to go to war alongside the Americans in Iraq under the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction. It is obvious that their real objective was to get their hands on the planet's main oil supply, right under the noses of the international community, which barely dares speak above a whisper. Can we force our neighbours to listen to reason or are we doomed to domination by the imperialist wishes of our American friends?

I cannot believe that Canada, if it pulled up its socks, could not find reasonable solutions for everyone. Our Prime Minister recently went to Washington to discuss the mad cow situation with President Bush and to try to find solutions. Our Prime Minister came home with a bill for US$5.5 billion for helicopters, but absolutely nothing new on the mad cow issue.

This is not exactly what we call having a backbone. If Canada has so little negotiating power with this almighty neighbour, we can understand that our defence minister seems so anxious to get involved in the star war with the American president.

I received a distress call from a red deer producer. These people proudly showed their farm to us, but their message was one of despair. This despair was very troubling because these people, like many others, really feel on the verge of losing everything they have built up by the sweat of their brow for years.

It is the same for the neighbour on the left or on the right. It is the same everywhere. These people raise red deer. They are professionals, just as dairy producers with 20, 30 or 50 years of experience are professionals that our country should be proud of.

These red deer producers make a living by slaughtering animals sometimes. To slaughter a red deer, they must use a federal slaughterhouse. However, the federal slaughterhouse in the area refuses to slaughter the red deer because —

[The Chair]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time is up.

The member might be able to complete her answer after question and comment period.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Chair, I am actually shocked by a couple of comments that the member made.

It is absolutely terrible that a Canadian member of Parliament would stand in this House and basically imply that someone else's problem, which is happening in this country, is of no concern to her. It is absolutely terrible for a member of Parliament to take that position.

The member opposite asked why we penalize Quebec producers. Quebec producers are not being penalized. We operate under a control system, under programs that are to a great extent national in scope, and I will come to that in a moment.

The member asked why we would penalize Quebec producers for something that was of no concern to them. I think it is of concern to every Quebec producer if any animal in this country has BSE because the beef industry is integrated. Cattle move from Quebec west. Cattle in the west move from the west to Quebec. Some cattle from elsewhere in the country are slaughtered in Quebec.

The fact is that in terms of her point, why not just make Quebec a region and leave them out of this problem, it is pretty near impossible to do that on BSE but it is something we have done in other cases where we could. We have used the principle of regionalization with significant success in the past for the benefit of producers in Quebec and elsewhere in the case of tuberculosis, avian influenza in B.C. which was a real disaster for producers but we were able to isolate it there so that Quebec producers and the rest of the producers in Canada could continue to ship and export.

However, on BSE, and I want to make this point specifically, no country has successfully zoned for BSE. To assure our trading partners of BSE freedom, Canada would need detailed records documenting the movement of animals, their point of origin and point of slaughter, feed and animal products into and out of that area and, because of the long incubation period for BSE, records would need to date back many years.

In this instance it is impossible to go to that regionalization. We have done it in other instances. Is the member really suggesting that either she, her party or Quebec producers just do not give a darn about the rest of country? Is that what she is really suggesting in her remarks? I hope not.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong. I never said that Quebec is not worried about what is going on in the rest of Canada.

I am very worried about the farmers in my riding. When some of them get up in the morning, they do not know whether they will still have a farm to run that night.

What I am saying is that, since 1993, Quebec producers have banned the use of animal meal in cattle feed. They only use vegetarian feed. The single case of mad cow disease happened 5,000 km from our province. Quebec is farther from Alberta than France is from Great Britain. Yet, we are still penalized. Ontario and all the other provinces are being penalized because of this one cow.

If the government had put its foot down, I think we would not be in this terrible situation today and people from all across Canada would not be going bankrupt.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to address this important issue this evening. I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I have to say as an aside that I appreciate the new member but I warn him that he steps into a pair of big shoes.

I want to acknowledge the former member of Parliament, Roy Bailey, a great member of Parliament. We look forward to seeing Roy down the road. Hopefully we will have a chance to run into him down the way. He was certainly someone who appreciated the issue of agriculture and certainly the problems caused by the BSE crisis.

The issue I want to address off the top has to do with the parliamentary secretary getting up, almost with every speech that is given, and sort of reciting the number of programs that the government has launched to deal with the BSE crisis, running through the amount of money that the government is apparently spending to deal with the BSE crisis.

I appreciate what the member is saying. I think there is truly some goodwill there in wanting to deal with this situation. However I have to remind him that there is a big difference between programs, the amount of money that is thrown at the problem through a big bureaucracy and the results that are obtained. I think that is where the parliamentary secretary and the members on the government side just do not get it.

Earlier this evening I pointed out that they have a program for backstopping any kind of initiative to start a new slaughterhouse. They have all these programs in place, but the problem is they do not even have the forms yet for that initiative. In fact, one entrepreneur who contacted the Department of Agriculture was informed that there would not be forms for two to three months while we are 18 months into the problem.

Two to three months is just too long. It is unacceptable. What is the problem? We have been through three agriculture ministers in the last eight or nine months. It is like a revolving chair over there. There is always a new minister but there are never any new ideas. There is nothing that moves this problem forward.

There are so many aspects to this where the government has failed. I want to touch on some of them. I mentioned a minute ago that the programs and the money that the government is throwing at this is not working. I want to back that up by pointing out some of the interventions I have had from people in my riding.

I love the people of my riding. They are such good people and they work so hard. They are in a terrible situation today. I think hon. members on all sides of the House know that in the cattle industry people are not accustomed to having to come to the government to ask for some support. It is antithetical to what they believe in.

Unfortunately, we are in that situation today. They come and, in sort of a very demure way, ask for some support and help. I think they almost feel badly about it. When I read these interventions from people in my riding they talk about how every time the government gets into these things it fouls them up, but that they are in a situation where they have to accept it. I have a number of these interventions in my binder.

In fact, that is true. That has actually been borne out in what we have seen in the last little while. While my friend, the parliamentary secretary, spouts statistics about how the government has brought forward this program and that program, all I know is that I have interventions from people here saying that their incomes have dropped by two-thirds because the border is closed. They say that they used to sell bulls into the U.S. but since their incomes have dropped by two-thirds they no longer have the ability to purchase cattle, to expand their herd or do the things they used to do. They are worried about their livelihood.

I have other interventions here from people who say that because the programs are not working they are in a situation where they are no longer able to get credit from the banks. They cannot expand their herd and do some of the things that they wanted to do.

I have had interventions from people who are absolutely desperate. They do not know what to do or where to turn. I want to argue that the government has not done the job that it should have done and should do because it thinks its job is finished when it announces a program.

I want to argue that the government's job is finished when we get some results. Those results have not been forthcoming, and until they are, the government had better be nose down, rear end up and get to work. It simply has not done the job that it needs to do.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Chair, I just want to make a point. With this member, I do not have to recite the programs that the government has announced and that the money is out there. I did that several times earlier and I hope the member was listening.

However, on his point on an application form, there is no application form for the loan loss reserve and there will not be an application form for the loan loss reserve. It will operate based on an agreement with the lending institutions. It was a good point that the member made.

Our objective is to increase the slaughter capacity. With the set aside programs that we talked about in earlier discussions, it is to try to make the market operate, to try to bring normalcy back to the market so that producers can get paid out of the market while we are moving towards expanding that slaughter capacity.

However, on the loan loss reserve, that will be with the lending institutions, not with the entrepreneur who starts up the packing plant. I encourage those entrepreneurs to continue to move forward in that area.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of points. First, when the set aside is done, if there is no extra slaughter capacity or the border is not open, we will have exactly the same problem. It is almost as though the government is sort of hoping things will magically sort themselves out. If there is not some kind of new capacity or the border is not open, we will be back in the same situation. The government has absolutely no plans for what happens after the set aside is over.

Second, with respect to slaughter capacity and these forms, the member is playing semantics. It is a game of semantics. What the entrepreneurs were looking for were some guidelines. They wanted to know how to go about working with the government and the private lenders to bring about extra slaughter capacity in Canada. I know the member knows that when we talk to people on the ground, they say the number one issue is more slaughter capacity. For 18 months people have been talking about how we need more slaughter capacity and it is not happening. Why do we not have some tax incentives to encourage slaughter capacity?

The member asked where the new ideas were. What about some tax incentives to encourage that? What about a five year averaging program so when people have these fluctuations in their income, when they have to dispose of their herds, there is some way to ensure that it is not all taxed away and that they have the capacity to rebuild their herds? What about those for ideas? Why is the government not producing some new ideas so we can actually get the industry back on its feet?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, the member continues to criticize ideas rather than go out and promote them. We would like him to go out and promote getting that slaughter capacity up. If we are going to make this system work, we need members over there talking about the loan loss program, et cetera, and the need to expand our slaughter capacity to get this industry working again the way it is supposed to work.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I suppose that was a question. I do not know about the loan loss program, but I would say the government is a dead loss many times, certainly on this issue.

I want to argue that not only has it failed on the program side, it has completely and utterly failed when it comes to the issue of getting that border open again. I cannot believe that member and other members have defended a colleague across the way who has gone out of her way to antagonize our biggest trading partner over and over again. Where is the Prime Minister on this? Why is he not saying to his MPs that when they open their mouths, they have an obligation not just to represent their constituents. They have an obligation to this country.

The government so often has failed our country when it comes to making that message clear. Who is paying for it today? Thousands and thousands of beef producers across the country. It is shameful that the government has not done a better job of reeling in its own members.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, the whole issue of capacity is a major issue this evening. We at one time had capacity. Some of those plants are still there but they are sitting idle. What would the member's view be toward borders opening in the future? How do we ensure that those who now guarantee supply to that plant which is building for this capacity are assured of supply down the road when the border opens? How would the member deal with that issue at that time? They need our over age animals. That is where they have been going for a long time. How would the member propose we deal with that issue to ensure that those plants can keep operating?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think it is time for us to start looking at some opportunities. We know that in the northwest U.S. many of the plants that used to accept our cattle are very old. I think there is a chance at least that down the road, if we increase capacity here, we will have much more efficient plants than they will have in the U.S.

We have a much lower dollar, and I think we have a lower cost of doing business. At some point, potentially we could turn this to our advantage, but it takes some leadership on the government side. In order to do that it takes someone on the government side who believes in this. Unfortunately, we do not have that. All we have right now are people who say, “Here's a program. Here are some criteria for meeting it. If you don't meet it, too bad, you're on your own”. That is not good enough. We need a plant. We need some extra capacity. We need it now.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, I agree that the phenomenon we are facing is unusual and perhaps unprecedented, but it requires action on the part of the government. For 18 months we have not seen the border open. For the best part of the first year, it was hope against hope that it would be open without taking any positive steps to make sure it happened.

Despite all the programs that have been mentioned and all the dollars that have gone in, why are farmers frustrated? Why are they in a desperate situation? Why are they are not getting responses when they ask where the money is, where their entitlement is? Why is it so complicated for the farmers? Many are unable to hire lawyers or accountants to get the forms completed. They must do it themselves. They find they have made errors and they do not get the assistance. When they phone, there are delays. When there are timelines, they are not met.

While the minister is postulating about what needs to happen, farmers and communities are going down. It is real. There is frustration for farmers, real people, in elevators and offices, grown men with tears in their eyes, who are saying that they do not think they can make it through the fall, and we are talking about what we should do.

The big issue is, do we want to preserve our farm industry or do we not? Do we want to save our cattle industry or do we not? If we do, we must take immediate and bold steps and invest some funds. I am not talking $600 million or the $1.6 million. Most of the programs are designed to meet the dollars that the government has set aside as opposed to asking farmers what they need and designing a program to meet those needs. That is lacking. It is not that difficult and it is not that complicated. The programs should be simple and easy for the farmers to understand.

Many of the issues facing the farmers are beyond their control. There is BSE today. Tomorrow it is something else, low commodity prices or world market conditions. We are expecting our farmers to preserve and save our food supply, to preserve an industry by using their equity, by borrowing more money, by mortgaging their farms, carrying the load that our country and their government should be carrying on their behalf.

When something happens that is beyond the control of farmers, our governments must step in immediately and help them out. There needs to be a program designed that is not ad hoc and that is not a knee-jerk reaction, as we have seen.

For instance, the first program put moneys into the pockets of the farmers only to have the cattle dumped on the market. The cattle crisis goes on and the funds are passed over to the packing and slaughter houses. Somehow the government tries to blame the opposition and says that we should have known better. The moneys are going some place else. The government designed the program and ought to know how it works. The minister should take those things into account before the program goes on.

Now we have a stand aside program. It has some value but it will go into feed which will be lost again, and we have no assurances that the market will survive.

We have to look at the big picture. We have to be sure that our farmers and ranchers are backstopped from those kinds of circumstances that are far beyond their control. We need to have a simple process. We do not want to have farmers investing money to join a program, like the CAIS program.

I heard the minister say that it was an income stabilization program. In fact it has requirements of five year averages. Five poor years are still five poor years. The rules are arbitrary. Announcements are made before programs are ready to receive applications. To me, it seems disjointed. It seems to be not well thought out. I realize it is not an easy situation and that it is complicated, but I would ask the government to decide the big issue. Are we going to preserve our farming industry? Are we going to preserve our cattle industry? If we are going to, then we have to meet the need that will meet that result rather than the government saying that it will give a little and try to design a program to meet that bit while it hopes farmers will survive, that they can use their equity and come out the other side.

The industry is being told that it may take a year or two but that it is on its own except for what it gets from the government, which is not very much. It is time to be more specific and bold. It is time to design a program that will preserve our food industry.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Chair, the only comment I want to make is that I want it to be clear that it is our objective on the government side to ensure that farmers indeed do survive. We are trying to be there as best we can for the industry. We have all cited examples tonight of terrible, devastating circumstances that livestock producers and producers of other ruminant commodities are facing.

I live in a rural community. These people are my neighbours. I cited examples earlier tonight of financial problems but also personal problems as a result of the BSE crisis, which the Leader of the Opposition himself admitted was really as a direct result of the closure of the U.S. border.

I want to underline the fact that it is our objective to keep farmers in business. The members opposite can try to make all the political hay they like with this issue if that is their desire to do so. We want to make this system work for producers. We have consulted with the industry. For the last announcement there was quite extensive consultation with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the four-pronged approach that we are taking. We desperately hope that those set aside programs will allow the market some normality so that producers can get better prices out of that marketplace while we are ramping up our slaughter capacity. We want to see that happen.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, it is true that the government has a desire to see things happen, a desire to see farmers survive but it will take more than desire. It will take some action. I would like to encourage the minister and his department to have a marketing plan that is not just international, which is important, but an aggressive marketing plan within our country, within our citizenry to say that we need to stand with our farmers.

We need to market our product within Canada. We need to be aggressive in our marketing and ensure that consumption takes place within our country and that we have the production capability to meet that need.

We need to diversify. We need to enlarge our markets but we must take the steps to do this and we must do it now. Our farmers are the most efficient, productive farmers anywhere in the world. They need some assistance from our government, some direct action and something that they can see is a tangible step to actually seeing that something is being done.

In terms of marketing, I have not seen any marketing in our country that would enhance beef sales and purchases to have our consumer stand with our farmer to any major degree. There has been small pointed advertising but nothing significant on a national basis. That is necessary.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like us to reflect for a moment because we have been talking considerably about the government's responsibility to market. As a farmer, as someone who represents an agrarian riding, I know that farmers are great producers. Canadian farmers are the greatest in the world with the best products, but we simply do not know how to market our product. We can get it to the farm gate but we do not know how to return a price for the product that we produce.

Why is it that because it is agriculture we think the government needs to market our product? Why does the agriculture sector not do as the auto industry does, as the aircraft industry does and as so many of our other sectors in the manufacturing field do? They go out and market. Yes we have desks in various parts of the world that help our agricultural communities do that, but we simply do not have frontline professionals who know how to market our product and sell the good of our product. Why is that?

Government should be there to facilitate it but we cannot expect government to sell General Motors cars. Farmers ought to do a better job. I have said that in a kind way, I hope, because that is how I intended to say it.