Debates of Oct. 12th, 2004

Agriculture

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Chair, of course it is true. There is a protectionist group down there. Why would they want the border open when they are in control of a few head of cattle and making thousands of dollars? It is all about money for a lot of people. To me it is not about money. It is about a general livelihood across the nation, both nations as a matter of fact.

The member and other people in the government would be quite surprised how much support we would get for getting the border open if we approach it by saying that there is a drastic problem going on. Marketing magazines down in the United States are already reporting 35% to 40% lower surpluses in the history of the cattle business, and here we are sitting with a huge surplus. Instead, we come up with programs like CAISP and all kinds of little things that are so convoluted and complicated that farmers cannot even figure it out. They have to get a lawyer or an accountant to help.

Where is our committee? Where is our group of people? Let us not make this a partisan thing. Let us get some Liberals, members from the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP, and let us form a committee. Let us involve some industry people and then get some of our friends across the border, because they are our friends, who also agree the border should be open, and go down there and fight until we get the job done. What is wrong with that?

We should take on these protectionists. They are not the majority, they are a minority. Most people do not even know what is going on down there because we have not got the fight in us here to go down and explain how drastic it is. I spent almost two hours with the ambassador from the United States. He assured me that that was an excellent idea. He was even willing to supply me with the names of senators and representatives who needed to be seen regarding the issue.

Instead, we dream up programs, complicate them and make them so difficult that nobody can understand them. Farmers do not even know how to get copies of the applications, and in most cases they are not even available. Over and over those kinds of problems exist when we address them in the manner that we have.

I do not understand what is wrong with a group of people from this House, led by a few from each party, including the industry, including people from the U.S. who want the border open, going down there and saying “Look big brother, things are not right. People are hurting. People are suffering, not just in our country, but in yours as well”. They are begging and pleading for livestock in many areas down south, but instead, we keep coming up with convoluted announcements. The government announced something like $1.4 billion in Lethbridge, or some ridiculous figure, once upon a time.

Where are the tax breaks? Where are the incentives? Where are the deferrals? What can we do for these people today, immediately? They are going to lose their land and we are the problem. We have suddenly become the problem. We need more than a take note debate to solve it. We need some sincere, committed hearts to say that this issue is going to be fought and brought under control, and I hope that I will be included.

I know what it is like to lose a farm. I stood on a farm with my father and brother when we had to shut down because there was no other hope after about the fourth hail storm. In those days we had no hail insurance. There was nothing we could do, no one to turn to. I see no reason for that to happen in a great country like Canada. I see no reason at all for us to allow such a thing to happen.

If the government needs to find the money, let me help it. We can go through the public accounts and find all the waste. We will help the government find the money, but let us get the job done. It is still not too late. This fall is going to tell the tale. Let us get with the program.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to address the House and by extension, all Canadians.

I want to take a little bit of a different tact in this debate. I want to speak to our cousins in the big cities, those who enjoy good quality food produced by our farmers. We talk a lot about health care and the need for good health care, but those people who sit down to the table every day to enjoy food produced by our farmers must realize how important this debate is this evening.

I would like to ask those who are in the big cities to give a little bit of an ear to what our country cousins are experiencing at this time. We need the support of those people who enjoy good quality beef and food we are discussing tonight.

Before I go much further, I want to ensure those who are in the cities that our farmers and ranchers are doing everything they can at this point to survive. In my area of eastern Saskatchewan, Yorkton—Melville, they are trying to get slaughter plants built so that they can butcher their beef and export it to those who want it. They are trying their best to do it but the border is closed. That is what precipitated this entire problem. The leader of the Conservative Party clearly explained why the border closed and how the Liberals failed to address it as they should have immediately. But going beyond that, we need to do more for our farmers.

We heard members opposite defend the farm programs that they put in place saying in the throne speech that they would do more. They barely mentioned it but they said that they were going to quickly address the BSE crisis. We have had a year and a half for them to quickly address the crisis. Farmers are doing their best to survive, but they cannot hang on any longer and the programs that are being put in place are not effective.

The average compensation reaching farmers is less than $1,000 and it costs them $500 to fill out the highly bureaucratic forms. They have to hire people to decipher what these forms are all about and they are being caught with virtually no compensation for the past year and a half. That is why we have asked for this take note debate on this whole issue.

We can talk a lot about this. I was surprised as I talked to people in the big cities, that they do not realize that compounding this BSE crisis is another crisis that has hit the prairies, and that is the August 20th frost that absolutely devastated crops across Saskatchewan. Over three-quarters of the province has had the quality of its crops and yields reduced.

I was in fields in Saskatchewan this last Thanksgiving weekend. I went into a field of wheat. It looked beautiful. The farmer had cut it down and it was lying in swaths. It was wheat that would normally be used for making bread. I examined it, rubbed it out, and there was absolutely nothing in that crop. There might have been a little bran, but the frost completely devastated the crop. What should have been a good quality crop was virtually non-existent.

We have the frost compounding the BSE crisis because when the grain crops were not doing well 10 or 15 years ago farmers began to go into cattle, to diversify and do their best. That is why I come back to it. Farmers are doing their best to survive, but they do not have any more options left. The government has created the problem, but it is not helping them solve it.

I want to explain more about the situation in my particular area. Business people in the City of Yorkton told me they are absolutely devastated. The farm crisis is not just affecting those people who are producing the grain and the beef. It is by extension affecting all of our cities.

Families that normally would send their children to hockey school, piano lessons or all of the things that farmers do, are not able to do it any more. They are being severely impacted. The businesses in my home town are at the end of their rope as well.

This affects people in the cities, but they do not realize it. We have taken for granted a good quality food supply. Therefore, I ask for their support because the government has made this into politics. It says, “Only 2% of the people are in agriculture so we don't have to worry too much about it because 98% of our vote comes from the cities, so we can ignore these people”.

I am appealing tonight to our city cousins to listen to the pleas of rural Canada for some kind of help and help us put pressure on the government to act. If we do not act soon we will not have that good food supply there. We are going to lose our middle class farmers and corporations will grab hold of that food supply. Let me warn people that at that point it will not be as it is today, where they can count on this.

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

Madam Chair, I agree with some of the points the member raised in terms of the situation on the farm. It is serious and we have said that. We have been trying to work at that.

In fact, I had the pleasure of being on the Prime Minister's task force on the future of farming out of which came roughly $6 billion for the agricultural industry and a safety net program. Is it as good as it could be? Improvements can always be made.

The member opposite tried to leave this impression, and this is one of the troubles that I have with the party opposite. He said that the government said that it did not matter because only 2% of the people were in agriculture. I say to the member opposite, that kind of rhetoric I do not appreciate.

We care about farmers on this side too. I would ask the member opposite to tell me directly what government member on this side of the House ever said that they are only 2% of the people and they do not matter. We are supposed to be having a take note debate to improve the situation, not get into the falsified rhetoric that the member opposite is doing and leaving the impression that we do not care. We do.

We put in place the business risk management program. On the CAISP that the member talked about, close to 70% of cattle producers are in fact triggering a CAISP payment. The federal government announced the CAISP special per head interim payment for 2004 for producers of eligible cattle and specific ruminants based on inventories as of December 23, 2003, in order to address the cash flow and liquidity issues. That was one of the programs that really worked. It got the money out to producers in a hurry.

The program that was announced in May worked well because it was a simple application. Yes, I agree with the member opposite that the CAISP application is terribly complicated and we have to improve it. However, the application in April was a simple program and the returns went out in a matter of 30 days. It was based on inventory numbers. It is not that the government is not doing anything. We have the CAISP. We have production insurance that will hopefully deal with some of those crop problems the member talked about.

The key point I want to make is that the kind of rhetoric that the member is insinuating, that someone on this side said that farmers did not matter, is wrong and he should apologize to every member in the House.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Chair, let me simply say that if the government cared, if the members on that side cared about our farmers, they would do something about it. Their actions would demonstrate that they care.

These words mean nothing. They sound so good. However, people who are immersed in the industry, our beef and grain producers, realize that these government programs are not working. They are not delivering the money to them.

The member is doing exactly what I complained about in my speech. He is giving the impression to our cousins in the big cities that the government is really doing something to solve the farm crisis. What could be further from the truth? That is an absolute falsehood that he would give the impression to the people listening tonight that the government is doing something.

We would not be having this take note debate tonight if the government had done what it should. I rest my case.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, we have discussed a lot of what has happened on the domestic front to mitigate the problems that have resulted from this crisis. I would like to address the international side.

I would like to ask the member his view on the approach of the government in getting the southern border open. Here are some concrete suggestions on how that might have happened more quickly. We could have lobbied more vigorously the consumer groups in the United States of America who consume Canadian beef. We could have linked arms with the American slaughterhouses that slaughter Canadian beef and make a livelihood from it. We could have sent our representatives to Washington to link arms with the congressmen and senators from the states who consume Canadian beef. We could have built the domestic pressure on that side of the border to get the border open to Canadian beef.

Instead of doing that, we have a Prime Minister who is not in Washington today, but is globe-trotting in Europe. Members of his own caucus, whom he refuses to discipline, are attacking our closest friends and biggest consumers as idiots, morons and worse. What does the hon. member think of the approach of the government to getting the borders open?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Chair, the member makes some excellent points. We have been exporting our young people to the U.S. now for a long time. It is called the brain drain.

I went down there to visit them. In California the meat prices are sky high. What the member has said, that we could have built allies with those people, is bang on. We did not go to that segment of the American population that would really come to our aid.

I see our minister from Saskatchewan went down there. He talked to the Americans. He said that if the border did not open soon, we would not send them any cattle later on. What kind of a threat is that? That is so ridiculous. He went on that this would be a matter of grave concern to Canada soon. It should have been of grave concern for the last 18 months.

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

Madam Chair, I want to begin this evening by congratulating you on your appointment as one of our Speakers. I trust that you, like all the others who have either been elected or appointed, will govern this House in the way that you oversee the procedures on a day to day basis in a fashion which we all find acceptable. I congratulate you once again.

On the same note, I would also like to extend my profound thanks to the people of Huron--Bruce, my riding. Their support in the recent election is truly gratifying and I pledge to do my best to ensure that their trust is rewarded with effective representation.

Lastly, I would also like to thank my family, most particular my children, Cam and Brian, and particularly my wife Kathy. Without them and their unending support and confidence, I could not do my job as an MP effectively.

Now to the matter at hand. I find it fitting that one of the first issues tackled by this Parliament is BSE. This matter is one that has already sparked a crisis in the agriculture sector across the nation and, if left unchecked, promises to continue to decimate the future of our primary producers.

That being said, as the recently re-elected chair of the commons agriculture committee, and on behalf of all members of the committee, we need to turn words into actions. Time is of the essence and our farmers are looking to us for help and leadership. We must not let them down as the price of failure is much too high.

Prior to May 20, 2003, most Canadians did not know what BSE stood for. In fact most did not know what bovine spongiform encephalopathy was or how it could potentially devastate our domestic cattle industry and adversely impact upon our national economy as a whole. We may have been vaguely familiar with the term “mad cow” from Hollywood movies and doomsday television plots, but we had no idea how dangerous BSE really was. In short, we had no concept of what was to come.

Canada had a brief bout with BSE a few years back. However, that animal was found to have been a British import. Consequently, we were able to escape from the full effects of a BSE discovery, but this time the animal was unmistakably Canadian in its origin.

Unfortunately, as this House and our Canadian beef farmers know all too well, on May 20, 2003, our naivety was forever ended. Canadian farmers, and for that matter all of rural Canada, have spent the past 17 months coming to terms with the sad reality of BSE. More important, we have been trying to move past it.

I will not rehash yesterday's news. Nor will I attempt to explain to the House what the root problem is. We already know. We have debated this issue at length and to pretend there are new consequences is disingenuous at best. Members know that we cannot fix the past or turn back the clock. The problem is imminent, it is here and it requires our immediate attention and action. Debate is fine, but Hansard cannot be deposited into a bank account.

Today the Canada-U.S. border remains closed to live Canadian cattle. All of our other international trading partners refuse to buy our cull cows, and live beef and domestic cattle prices remain severely depressed as a result. During the recent election, the Conservative candidate in Huron—Bruce put up signs demanding that the Canadian government open the border immediately. I agree that this would be a fantastic idea. However, if we could open the border, we would have done it months ago. How can one open a locked door when the key is on the other side?

We need to deal in realities and not in wishful thinking. Our farmers deserve at least that much.

As an aside, I would like to extend my personal congratulations and appreciation to the Department of Agriculture and to the CFIA. Both have done tremendous work with respect to this matter. It is worth mentioning that, prior to Canada, there has never been a reopening of an international boundary so quickly following the discovery of a BSE incident. I am of course referring to the fact that the U.S. is again accepting our boxed beef. Agriculture Canada and the CFIA deserve a pat on the back for this.

Furthermore, I would be remiss if I failed to again remind consumers that the affected beef did not make it into our food supply. To put it plainly, our system did exactly what it was set up to do; to protect Canadians and our international customers. Again, Canadian beef is completely safe.

Despite all these achievements, this is all in the past and while we should be pleased with all of these successes, we must do more. Money is a vital first step. In my opinion governments must continue to work to stabilize our industry. To date, more than $1 billion has been invested in the sector. However, to an industry that generates ten times that amount in direct annual economic activity, that is a drop in the bucket. We need to continue to work with industry leaders like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the CFA and the OFA, to ensure that the help reaches those who are most in need.

That brings me to my next point. How do we make certain that money gets to our primary producers and is not diverted into the hands of corporate giants? Prior to the last election, the standing committee had launched an investigation designed to explore this issue. In fact the House even went so far as to unanimously hold certain packing houses in contempt for failing to cooperate with the committee's investigation. That was a concrete example of turning words into action, where there was cooperation in the House on all sides.

Regretfully, the clock ran out on the process when Parliament was dissolved for the election. However, I am pleased to report that the committee planned for that and provided provisions to permit this study to be continued when the House resumed and the committees were reconstituted. It is every bit my intention to continue in that direction. I do not say this because I have a vendetta against the packing houses in question. No, I say it because in the past couple of months alone evidence has surfaced indicating that packing houses are making record profits at a time when our primary producers are facing the greatest economic challenge ever. This seems suspect to me.

As evidence of this, I cite the June 15, 2004 CBC story reporting that 10% of the BSE aid package intended for Alberta farmers was distributed to two specific meat packing companies. The Alberta government stated that while the two packers in question received a combined total of $42 million, 22,000 Alberta farmers were forced to share $158 million left after corporations received their portion. Now I am not an economist, but this does not seem fair to me and I would suggest that Canadian farmers would agree.

What I am saying is our farmers need for us, all members of the House, to help them to help us. Rural Canada is the foundation upon which Canada rests. BSE represents a serious threat, not just to our beef industry but to all rural Canada. Aside from the fact that BSE negatively impacts on sheep and lamb markets, the dairy sector, pet food manufacturers and farm equipment dealers, to name just a few, it also undermines all of rural Canada.

When I urge members to turn words into actions, I am sincere. In the past I have supported motions in the House regardless of the partisan origin. I completely accept that good ideas may not have an exclusive political affiliation. One example is the motion that was brought forward by the member for Perth--Wellington. I supported it because it was worth supporting, something that I would urge all colleagues to do in the future.

In the months prior to the last election, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented two specific and unanimous reports on this matter. These reports contained recommendations that were agreed upon by all parties because they did not represent any specific partisan agenda but rather, they were designed to help farmers.

Today I would again lend my support to those reports and the recommendations contained therein. I would like to thank committee members and staff for their work on the recommendations. Again, I call upon this House to adopt the suggested measures.

Increasing domestic slaughter capacity, instructing the commissioner of competition to conduct an inquiry into the pricing of slaughter cattle and beef at the wholesale level, intensifying diplomatic efforts with the U.S. aimed at implementing the world organization for animal health code and repealing both countries' import embargoes, while continuing to negotiate other modalities of an implementation plan that would improve the free flow of livestock and meat are all attainable measures that could actually help our farmers at the farm gate.

We know what the problems are. Now is the time to concentrate on securing and implementing real solutions. We need to take immediate actions aimed at increasing our domestic slaughter capacity and put in place a safety net that will truly stabilize the industry until such time as trade is normalized. Moreover, we must ensure that diplomatic efforts are strengthened, not just south of the border but around the globe.

Canadians know our beef is the best in the world. We must work to remind our trading partners of this reality. In the meantime, Canadian farmers have every right to expect that this Parliament will offer support in a time of need. I for one intend to work toward this goal and I call upon each and every member of the House to do the same.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Chair, in terms of supporting regional capacity and in terms of what the member said about packers, the one thing we can say for sure out of this debacle is that they have made a killing on the backs of our farmers. We have heard a lot of talk about regional capacity but I am very concerned that at the end of the day the packers will be stronger than they were at the beginning of this. They will have more power to undermine any small regional plants that get off the ground. I have not yet seen anything in any of the plans that will support our regional plants standing up to either price dumping or predatory practices on the auction floors.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions about what direction the government might take?

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

Madam Chair, the implications of more capacity and building for more capacity, whether it is through government assistance, through loan guarantees or through whatever measure the government or private industry choose, one thing remains certain, following the opening of the borders in the future, whenever that might be, we need to ensure that the guarantee of supply to those packers is assured. If we do not do that we will fall back into the same trap that got us into this problem in the first place.

One of the plants in this country that slaughters over-aged animals is located in Quebec. Ontario has one plant that slaughters the under 30 month old animals. Those plants are dominant in the field. They control the marketplace. In fact, a high percentage of the market goes to one particular plant in Ontario. It not only controls the cattle coming in but it controls the cattle in the feedlot and the calves that will go into the feedlots this fall.

Unless we can ensure that some mechanism will be in place for those left in the industry, whether it is a self-imposed tariff on the benefit that would be derived by going outside of our country in the export of that product, live animals in all likelihood, we need to face those kinds of situations down the road. I am certainly prepared to support that kind of thing. If there is a $50 benefit in going outside the country to ship an animal to the United States, I am prepared to support imposing a tariff of some sort to take that back to support the industry which we have helped to create and which we need for the future.

We also need to ensure that we create a marketplace for our product, which we know is the best in the world. We need to go into the Pacific rim and other countries that have an interest in our product and create a market there so we do not become reliant on the United States of America. That is the way we have to go. As we go down that road we will see a lot of issues addressing that issue going forward.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Chair, I listened quite intently to the exchange between my hon. colleague and the NDP member and I am not quite sure he answered the question.

As I understood it, I think the member was referring to the fact that the government has not come up with any answer for the problem. However the Canadian public, thank goodness, has responded so overwhelmingly that beef consumption is up considerably. We may have variations on the percentage but we all can agree that it is up considerably. And yet ironically, the low prices that the farmer receives has not resulted in a savings to the consumer which would obviously fuel even greater consumption if there was a price incentive.

It seems to me that the supply and demand situation has created the anomaly that although the general population has responded to the crisis in making a conscious choice at the supermarket to purchase beef instead of chicken, pork or some other meat product, the supermarkets do not understand why they should lower the price when demand is up.

I think what the member was getting at was that whether it was the packers, the supermarkets or a combination of the slaughterhouse, the packers, and the supermarkets, the problem is that the lower price to the farmer has not resulted in a lower price to the consumer.

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

Madam Chair, my colleague is absolutely correct. The reflection of price at the farm gate does not reflect on the price over the counter. I would be remiss if I did not also add my words of commendation to the Canadian consumers who have supported our industry. They have very sincerely bought our Canadian beef, no matter what the price is or has been at the counter.

The problem we have had, and many of us know this because we have had the wholesalers coming and telling us that the price they are paying to the packer when they order beef in boxes or quarters or whatever form, they are still buying that beef at the price they were paying prior to May 2003. No savings have been passed along, which is one of the reflective issues that has caused us to come to the conclusion that the packers have made huge profits. There is no doubt about that. They have admitted that. However somehow this country sees nothing wrong with making huge profits on the backs of those who are going bankrupt. There is a moral issue here and I take exception to that.

It is time consumers, producers and everyone else understood what has been happening. Surely we will learn from this situation some of the lessons that we have not learned very well in history and that is that in the past there has been a culture in the packing house industry that when a program is put forward by government, whether it is 7¢ as it was in the 1960s, it will make every effort to claw that back if at all possible, and that is wrong.

Unfortunately we should have taken a different route with that program but we did not. I know there are people in this world, including Russia where our Prime Minister is currently visiting, that are looking at buying product from Canada. If it means that we have to test every animal and go to identification systems where we are already way ahead of the game in terms of the United States, then let us go there. Let us take ruminants out of all kinds of feeds. Let us take that route and make sure that our product is far and beyond anything that anyone else in the world could offer. That is my submission to Canadians and to the House. I will support the things I have said this evening.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to have time to say a few words on this and to ask a question of the member opposite.

He rightfully acknowledged that his government blew it when it came to the program on delivering money to cattlemen which ended up going primarily to the packers. That was a good step forward but he went on to say that he found it morally reprehensible that the packers were reaping such huge profits.

I would ask the member what the most effective thing the government could do to help solve that problem? I would suggest that it would be to help create competition, to really have some money flow that would allow and encourage new packing plants to get on stream as soon as possible.

The government has said that it has $68 million or some such figure that will go to that. In fact, it is about half of that. However we find out how from the provinces that the money will not flow for at least three months.

On the one hand the member says that he finds it reprehensible that the packers are making this kind of profit. On the other hand, his government has done nothing in a year and a half to put even one new packer in place. As of right now, no government money is going to help a packing plant start up. That is a sad commentary on this government.

Could the member explain to us and to the cattlemen in particular why it is that the money has not done the job in helping even one packing plant start up?

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

Madam Chair, if I ever said that government by itself made all the decisions in terms of program then I was wrong, but I did not say that.

What I said had to do with the way that we delivered the program, but let me tell him that it was done with the concurrence of the primary sector, the beef producers themselves and our farm organization. We did not walk alone.

The first program, as he will recall, was a program where we talked about loan guarantees. That never even came to the table before it was taken off. We ended up with cash to the farmers, which ended up being a bad plan. Nevertheless, that is what we put forward.

I think it is also fair to say that no one in their wildest dreams ever thought that 17 or 18 months later this problem would still not be resolved. We should have known. The protocol, if taken to its ultimate limit, would be seven years. We are just nicely into the seven year period. That does not make it any easier to swallow.

Having said that, there is now money for the packing houses. Some people have said that we should have gone to chapter 11 and had a challenge on that. If we had told the people then that it would take two or three years they would have said that was not acceptable.

We have to understand that there was a farming community that thought there was an imminent end to this issue but they needed money quickly. The government, therefore, had to respond quickly or we would have heard from the member's side, from other opposition members and perhaps even from our own side that we were not delivering quickly enough.

It was a case of delivery and then we found out that it was not working quite the way we figured it would work, but is that not often the way it goes, even the way we do our own business sometimes? I think we responded rather quickly and I think we responded favourably to those who were helping us design programs. I think in fairness to all, there is enough blame to go around for all.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will fulfill your duties with dignity and objectivity.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Jonquière—Alma, a new riding created as a result of the redistribution, for the support and confidence in me that they expressed on June 28. It is a privilege to be able to represent them here in this House. I can assure every one of them that I shall work very hard to demonstrate that I am worthy of the trust they have placed in me, but also and above all to debate issues of concern to them, agricultural ones in particular. What is important is to work hard at delivering the message here in the House of Commons.

The overall situation needs to be understood. In 2003, one case of mad cow disease was discovered in Alberta, which triggered a total ban on Canadian exports to the United States. This plunged Quebec into economic disaster, as well as being a source of great frustration for our Quebec producers. They had been subject to very strict health standards for a long time, yet one cow in Alberta, 5,000 kms away, was enough to send their incomes plummeting. The agricultural industry of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean was already struggling, but now I can tell you it is in dire straits.

In order to mitigate this situation, Ottawa should have entered and should now enter into discussions with Quebec in order to decentralize the food inspection system and divide Canada into a number of public health regions. A similar kind of regionalization—it must be recognized—would have made it possible for Quebec's producers to be spared. They could have been peacefully exporting to the American market today, and showcasing both their constant efforts and their public health leadership. Instead, for farmers in Quebec, especially in the regions, life is not rosy.

I would like to remind the House about the importance of agriculture to Quebec, so that members will understand what an important place this industry occupies. For example, the agricultural sector in Quebec has sales of some $5 billion. There are 44,000 men and women working in agriculture every day to produce the cereal and milk for our breakfast in the morning.

In Quebec, agriculture has also been shrinking in recent years. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of producers dropped from 53,000 to 44,000. We know this is a problem already. We know that a solution to this problem needs to be found quickly.

As for agricultural renewal, that is tragic as well. There are only 6,500 farmers under 35 years old. This figure dropped by 52% between 1996 and 2001. That is the state of renewal in agriculture, and renewal is important. We see the number of agricultural students in CEGEPs and universities declining. There is a lack of interest in agriculture, which is seen as an industry plagued by crises.

Two weeks ago, along with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I had an opportunity to meet agricultural producers. My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was with us as well when we met these farmers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. We even met with the Union des producteurs agricoles, not just to hear their message but to understand it as well. They had a great deal to say about the way the Liberal government is handling this crisis. One had to be there to feel the depth of their frustration.

Last year farmers sent a devastating message. I do not necessarily approve of it, but it showed their distress. In front of the cameras, they went so far as to slaughter a cull. This caused an outcry in the local media. The message behind this action is important. These farmers were trying to show that they no longer had any money for their cull. A cow that could once sell for between $800 and $900, today is worth between $0 and $200. In some cases, farmers have to pay to get rid of the cow. This is a significant loss in farm income.

What did the government do after the crisis? It came up with a fifth program which, at this time, is failing Quebeckers and the farmers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

This program was created for Western Canada. It may be good for some, but it does nothing for dairy farmers who have cull.

Representatives from the Union des producteurs agricoles, among others, have taken steps to make the government understand this. Farmers have held demonstrations. There have been political representations. Hon. members expressed their opinion to the former minister and questions were asked during the last Parliament. I can assure you, the government has done nothing.

This is a $488 million aid package, but Quebec is receiving a measly 4%, or roughly $15 million. The government has to understand that what the producers really need is roughly $150 million.

After talking to the Union des producteurs agricoles, we did a small calculation. Our region gets $105,000, which is somewhere between $100 and $120 for each farmer, but we know that one cow used to be worth between $800 and $1,000. This is totally ridiculous and is a slap in the face to the producers.

Another important issue was raised earlier in this House. I am thinking about the whole issue of competition. The producers also pointed out that, while they are being paid next to nothing for the cull shipped to the slaughterhouse, the retail price for streak is still $3.89 a pound. The price has not gone down. One has to wonder where the profits are going, Once again, the government must look into that and take appropriate action.

Our producers are so exasperated that, in another press conference last week, they announced that more pressure tactics would be used. I am very sensitive to their plight. I hope the situation will not escalate, that it will not go as far as last time. But at the same time, I realize that, if something happens, the Martin government will be partly to blame. It must take its responsibilities and help those producers who need help.

This government must get this message, in this House, today. Our farm producers are expecting help. After all, they are in no way responsible for the mad cow crisis, given that the infected cow came from western Canada.

I challenge this minister, this government, to come to my riding and meet with the producers, so that they take in this message clearly, if they are not getting it today.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Chair, I listened with interest to what my colleague had to say. I have to say that I have great admiration for the place of agriculture in the society of Quebec. This is an admiration I have had for many years, which is now increasingly being shared by my constituents. I am not now simply speaking of beef or of meat. I am speaking of the whole farming system. I know the strength of the dairy system in the province of Quebec.

One of the things that has impressed me, which is what I would like my colleague to comment on, is that it seems to me that in the province of Quebec--I can only speak for Ontario and I have to be a little careful because I am elected in Ontario--in times of crisis in one sector where one commodity is having a problem, in some fashion agriculture is organized in Quebec in such a way that the other commodity group farmers come together and stand very solidly with the people who are being harmed or experiencing a crisis at that particular time.

Over and above the cull cow issue and all of the others which he quite rightly raised, would my colleague care to comment on that? Are there mechanisms in the farm community in Quebec which encourage them to help the commodity groups that are in a particular crisis?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

I am afraid that the member for Peterborough and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development misunderstood the fact that we are now into his presentation. We are past the time for questions and comments.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chair, I thought it was questions and comments for my colleague. I do not recall anyone asking him a question.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

I called for questions and comments and there was no one standing. Then I called on you for debate.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chair, I stood to ask a question. Could I ask for unanimous consent for my colleague to respond?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair]

We are moving on to your presentation.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies to my hon. colleague, it was my mistake.

Madam Chair, I am glad to speak today. All of my colleagues on this side who have spoken are farmers. They are people with current and past farm experience. I greatly appreciate their wisdom and the advice that they give me in rural caucus.

I am also an associate member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I sat in on some of the hearings last summer that had to do with the packers. I was shocked by the way we were prevented by members of the opposition from subpoenaing packers and packers' records.

I am not a farmer. I do not have a farming background. I am a member of Parliament who has the enormous privilege of representing farmers. I have worked very hard to do that. I have come to appreciate not only the agricultural community but the entire rural community in my riding, and its enormous strengths, its enormous patience and its enormous wisdom. The farmers in my riding have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to train me so that I know the difference between a cow and a horse now and very important things like that.

I appreciated what one of my colleagues opposite said: that one of the purposes of debates such as this, a take note debate on this critical issue, is to raise interest in the general public, particularly in the urban public, not just in the big cities but in many of the small cities where people either have forgotten there is a crisis underway or have misconceptions about it.

What I would like to do in the short time available to me is speak to that and try to again explain what is going on to people who are not as involved with it as my colleagues in the farming community are.

First of all, there is the point that has been made again and again. Over a year ago now, one cow was discovered with BSE and was very quickly traced and did not get into the food chain, but that triggered this crisis we face. Most of us, and this includes the farmers, I think, although we knew some of the things that happened elsewhere in the world with BSE, thought it was going to be a short crisis.

By the way, the medical and science experts, not only here but in the United States, the international science panel, which the Americans actually paid for themselves, said that it was going to be a short term problem and that the border, which was closed because of this risk of transfer of disease, would be open.

They were proved partly right, because in fact, very quickly, as some of my colleagues have said, we succeeded against all the odds in having the border opened to meat of younger animals. That meat has been flowing over the border ever since. I think that is one of the reasons why people think the crisis is over.

Now we know that we are faced with this longer term problem. The problem has nothing to do with health and nothing to do with science. It has to do with politics. The Americans will not open the border. Our colleagues have given some suggestions, the Prime Minister has tried and our ministers of agriculture have tried. We have tried to operate through customers of the United States, such as Japan, to encourage them to encourage the Americans to open the border. Those things have not worked.

Now we are trying to deal with the longer term problem. That is why I am glad we are having the debate. We are going to build new slaughter capacity in Canada because we do not have enough capacity to slaughter the animals we are producing, the animals we previously were selling into the United States.

We have the set-aside program, which has just come in and which is to fill in the gap between the building of the new slaughter facilities and to get some animals on one side and help the farmers a little while that capacity is being built. There is also a cash advance program, which is on now.

Our minister, as we speak, is in the east trying to open up other markets and diversify, which by the way is something we should have done long ago. The Prime Minister is in Russia and is pressing agricultural exports with Russia. By coincidence, about a year ago I had the opportunity to speak to President Putin of Russia for 45 minutes, and half the time I spent talking to him about restocking the genetic pool of the Russian agricultural industry from Canada.

He himself said at the time that we are such a good fit with Russia, with our climate and so on, that the Russians want our genetic stock and that they are looking forward to trading with us. That is a part of the program. There is no health problem. We are trying to deal with what is now a long term political problem.

There is another misconception out there. In addition to the fact that many city people think the problem is over, many people think it is a western problem. Goodness knows it is something that has hit the west very badly. We know from Alberta and Saskatchewan exactly what the impact has been out there, but this is a nationwide problem. It is part of this extraordinary food producing system that we have in Canada.

In the east and in my riding, the problem is not meat as such. People imagine that sides of beef are going over the border. In my riding there are over 1,000 livestock farms. Almost all the traffic is in livestock. The animals used to go over the border live. It is quite a complex industry, as some members here have said. We are talking about all ruminants. In my riding alone, in addition to cattle, there are llamas, buffalo, goat and sheep farms.

For the benefit of members and the people watching this debate, of the sheep farms in my riding, one of them produces milk and cheese, others are more focused on meat, and others are more focused on genetic stock. Before the border was closed, the Canadian sheep industry was in the process of replacing the genetic stock in the United States.

I have hardly spoken about beef, which I will do very briefly to explain because it is a complicated industry. As my colleague from the Bloc said, I have 125 or so dairy farmers. They are faced with particular problems from this crisis. I have people who are cow-calf operators, people who are essentially feedlot operators. Their problems are all different and they are all suffering.

I hope people watching this debate who are not farmers will feel for the farm families in this amazing, complex food industry that we are so proud of. In my riding over 1,000 families are directly suffering and many others are being affected in the rural areas and in the city by that suffering.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Chair, as agriculture critic for the official opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the effects of the BSE crisis on Quebec and put a question to the hon. member opposite.

While commenting on the announcements made by the agriculture minister on September 10, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, Laurent Pellerin, asked the minister to revise his strategy in order to quickly invest new money in cattle operations, which are on the brink of bankruptcy 17 months into this crisis.

Mr. Pellerin said: “I do not understand why Ottawa and Quebec gave around $150 million last year to support the Quebec beef industry, but are making such a modest contribution this time around. Nothing has changed. Producers are facing as tough a situation as ever”.

According to the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec and the Union des producteurs agricoles, although Quebec producers need over $141 million, they will only get between $15 million and $20 million under the new transition measures, which will meet less than 15% of their needs.

I would like to ask the hon. member the following question. How far does he think the federal government should go to support the Quebec industry, which was and continues to be hard hit by the BSE crisis?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for her question.

In reply to the first part of the question, people keep asking why the minister does not do this or why the government does not do that. This has been explained. Throughout this crisis we have always tried to consult with all the players in the industry. Maybe someone thinks there is something wrong with that but I think our minister should consult. At the WTO negotiations, for example, Canada was one of the few countries which took delegates from the various commodity groups to engage in those discussions. Consultation is very important.

With regard to the cull cow program, and I tried to explain this in my riding, it is my view that one part of the problem has to do with the dairy industry. The dairy industry is very important in my riding. Where there is a cull cow problem, the treatment should be the same all across the country. I am sure that is what the member would prefer.

We know the dairy industry is very strong in the province of Quebec, but it is also very strong in Ontario and other jurisdictions. I say yes to a cull cow program and one which is as effective and as vital as we can get, but it should be the same across the whole country.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Chair, I congratulate you on your appointment and wish you well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary indicated earlier that he had learned a lot of things from his colleagues about BSE and I am glad to hear that. The government and the media have not done a good enough job in educating our urban friends on how big a problem this is.

I would like a bit of education myself from the hon. member tonight. The minister was here for the debate last Thursday night and I informed him about some discussions I had had with some industry leaders. They informed me that the meeting they had had with Agriculture Canada staff was not very fruitful. They implied that the staff was not very flexible and did not seem willing to come up with an agreement.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture indicated earlier tonight that the government wanted to hear some good general comments. The minister said that they are working night and day, seven days a week. Those were his exact words last Thursday night. I would like to know the play by play action. What happened on Friday? What happened on Saturday? Does he get the picture? I would like to know what was accomplished over the weekend.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chair, I draw attention to the fact that I am the member for Peterborough, in case some members opposite think that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, which I am not. I am something else. I am not privy to the Minister of Agriculture's office and the discussions that have gone on there recently.

I want to repeat my remark about consultation. I know from the work that I have done in the House that we are a government which consults with the industry.

The member mentioned the bureaucracy. I believe that the House can drive the bureaucracy. I do not believe that the House is under the control of the bureaucracy. The same applies with an effective minister and his political staff. Picture the Department of Agriculture as a pyramid. The minister and a handful of political people are at the top and there are tens of thousands of bureaucrats underneath. We can imagine how difficult it would be to drive it.

The minister's job is to drive the government's agenda. The government's agenda is to keep working at this, to listen as much as it can to the industry, and to produce programs which are as effective as humanly possible, as quickly as possible.