Debates of Oct. 7th, 2004

Agriculture

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Earlier, there was unanimous consent to extend the debate with the minister and I am wondering if we could have such consent to extend by about ten minutes the debate with the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition and I have had this exchange indirectly before. We did it through the media. I understand that the member has his views, which I do not share by the way, in terms of his analysis of the cause of the problem, that it is all an issue of saying bad things about the Americans. I do not believe that is the cause of the problem.

We have substantive issues, real issues, that face our producers. Although I said, and I will live with it, that there would be a great deal of rhetoric here tonight, and indeed there was, I have very specific questions.

In the BSE recovery program that was announced on September 10, there were four components. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition which of those components he would disagree, or perhaps agree, with. To recap, they are: first, to work toward opening the U.S. border; second, to build new slaughter capacity; third, to manage the flow of cattle into that slaughter capacity to bring balance to the marketplace; and fourth, to work toward expanding marketplaces beyond the United States through a number of measures, many of them on the regulatory side, but some of them on the marketing side.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition could put forward his views on those four specific initiatives, I would appreciate it.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chair, all that needs to be said when after all of these months, the Minister of Agriculture needs to ask us our policy on these things, because our policy on these things has been on the record for some time. If the government had acted, we would have dealt with some of these issues a lot earlier.

Now that the minister has come around to acting on some of these things, I would urge him, rather than just make an announcement, to actually act on them. If people can apply for some support, then let us actually get an application form that they can work on.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the leader of the official opposition. First, I want to reiterate that, indeed, a critical condition is to change the attitude that the previous Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had. He had made this a national issue. More specifically, the mad cow disease issue had become a national problem. Moreover, the regulations and solutions were the same everywhere.

Yet, Quebec producers may be the most frustrated by this situation in the country, because they had a traceability system and they could follow their cattle from one end of the process to the other. When the first case of mad cow disease was discovered, measures could have been taken very quickly to define the region of origin and to properly target the problem and circumscribe it, as was done with the avian flu. Then, we would not have had the problem that affected the whole planet and brought the price of beef down throughout the world.

Is there not a way to find specific solutions, such as cull cows? Dairy producers are primarily located in Ontario and in Quebec. It is mostly there that there the issue of refund for cull cows remains unsolved.

Currently, people are compensated to the tune of 16% for their cull cows, while the replacement rate is 25%. This means that there is a shortfall.

Does the leader of the official opposition agree that we should take the same attitude with this issue as we did today with the throne speech to find solutions? This would force the government to come up with concrete solutions, even if these solutions might be different across the country. This would solve the issue and it would eliminate the problem that currently exists in Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer. Of course, it is possible to find regional solutions. We already talked about the status of the industry in each region and particularly about production. As for slaughter capacity, there are discussions about regional differences and the possibility of finding solutions for regions.

However, above all, to be fair to the government, the basic problem is the border closure, and this affects all Canadian regions.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to indicate how proud I am to be part of a caucus and an opposition where we have so many people here tonight who are ready to be the government in waiting.

Here is the reality. It should probably be directed to the minister, but I will ask my leader what he thinks. Later this fall I can guarantee that in my riding and many other ridings the banks are going to foreclose on scores of young farmers in particular because they cannot make their land payments. The basic payment that has reached the farm gate in Wild Rose on average has been $924 since the implementation of all of these programs. The minister can check the records if he does not believe that.

I am saying to the minister, can we get an application out quickly? Farmers are willing to borrow the money at low interest. They do not want a handout. Will the minister help them save their land and then leave the industry to them to continue to work and try to save it because they know how to do it. But they cannot do it if they lose everything because the banks are going to foreclose.

Will the minister at least provide something, or does my hon. leader believe that the government should at least provide some mechanism for them to make their fall payments to save the land so we can continue the battle?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Wild Rose for that suggestion. I have recently met with the Canadian Bankers Association. I know many members of our caucus have been meeting with various banks to discuss this problem. In fairness, the banks have attempted to be very patient for the most part with this situation. I know the concern that has been expressed to me by the banks and frankly a concern that I share, is that this situation does not appear to have an end in sight. This has been the fundamental problem.

We have been listening, not just to the government in fairness, but to many that have been telling us since the inception of this crisis, some in the leadership in the industry itself, that the solution is just a couple of months away, and all we have to do is be patient and many of us have. The banks in many cases have been, but they are running a commercial business and cannot continue in that mode forever.

This is one solution. I want to encourage the House to do tonight, and I have certainly encouraged our agricultural critic to do this, is to look at solutions that will deal with a range of possible situations. We could certainly have the border open sometime or not long after the next presidential election in the United States. That is possible. We could have a situation where the border stays closed for a period of time. We could have a continuation of this partial closure that we have now.

The other thing we could have, and we have seen how capricious the actions have been in this situation, is a situation where the border opens again and then some incident that never even touches our food supply like this one causes it to be closed again in whole or in part.

Therefore, I would encourage all members on the government side not to propose just a solution. This is an important short term suggestion. We must look at a range of solutions that are going to deal with a range of possible outcomes.

Accuse me of rhetoric, but part of the solution must include having a proper attitude toward our most important neighbour and trading partner, standing up to them when we have to stand up to them on issues like this, but let us not poison our relationship on things that do not matter to the people of this country in a way that hurt our vital interests.

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

Mr. Chair, it is truly an honour for me to rise in the House of Commons to take part in a debate for the very first time. I want to wholeheartedly thank the fine folks of Haldimand--Norfolk for the trust they have placed in me as their representative in the House of Commons.

Further, it is a great honour for me to stand as the official opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood, and deliver my maiden speech on behalf of farmers and livestock producers right across this great land.

I wish to thank the hon. minister of agriculture and the government House leader for finally capitulating and heeding the Conservative Party's request to hold this important debate tonight.

Over the past several months I have met with a wide range of stakeholders across this country who have suffered greatly since the mad cow crisis hit on May 20, 2003. As a group we have launched a BSE action committee with many MPs from our party and others, seeking the input of their stakeholders right across the nation.

We have talked and we continue to meet with producers and packers, agricultural organizations, numerous government officials and the financial sector to hear their comments and their solutions. Everywhere it is overwhelmingly apparent that the Liberal government's plans have failed to deal effectively with the mad cow situation.

This evening I would like to concentrate on the recent Liberal BSE aid package and its evaluation as reported to us in our consultations. Although producers no doubt appreciate the government's initiative, this plan is long overdue. It is woefully inadequate and administratively unmanageable.

In September the plan was released that can only be considered phantom farm aid. Why phantom? One month after the minister announced this new aid package there are still no application forms available for producers to apply for desperately needed cash. These are phantom forms.

Astoundingly, the Agriculture Canada website link for “Measures to Assist Industry in Response to BSE” does not even list this new program. How can farmers apply for a program that has no application form, and for all intent and purpose does not exist almost a month after it was announced? Many of the funds are phantom too.

The original Liberal plan claimed $66 million for loan loss reserves to increase slaughter capacity. Really, when we dig into the depths of it, only $38 million has been earmarked for financing. The balance is for CFIA inspection.

While everyone agrees that increased slaughter capacity is critically important for the long term viability and sustainability of the industry, $38 million is barely enough to open one plant, get it up and running, let alone stimulate an entire industry.

What is more, as of October 6, 2004, the allocated funding proportions of this aid program were still not approved by the Treasury Board. Much of the $385 million pledged to sustain the industry until capacity is increased includes cash advances from the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, CAISP, and from final payments under the Transitional Industry Support Program, TISP.

For the Liberals to announce final payments under the Transitional Industry Support Program as new money is not only misleading, it is an insult to the industry. The deadline for applications for TISP payments was July 31, 2004, and applications for both components are no longer being accepted. These too are phantom funds.

Lastly, the administrative viability of the proposal is cause for concern. Administrative relief through CAISP is a proven recipe for disaster. Many farmers are still waiting for their CAISP advances for 2003. If that is the government's definition of an advance payment, how long will it take to get a delayed payment for 2004?

CAISP is a disaster, but it is not a disaster program. It is intended to provide income when producers claim-year margins drop below their previous five year Olympic average. Until cattle prices increase through an open border or a substantial increase in slaughter, every year will be a claim year.

What producers need, what the cattle and other ruminant producers deserve, is reasonable, responsive, reliable relief in the real world, in real time, not phantom forms, phantom funds and phantom farm aid. Canadian farmers and producers demand and deserve better. I hope that this debate will provide the government with the input it so obviously needs to aid farmers in this time of need.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the hon. member on her maiden speech in the House. I recall making my own first speech and I know there are butterflies when one does that.

Let me make a couple of points and then ask a question. In terms of the increased slaughter capacity, there are two components to what we are trying to do and both of them are critically important. The member may not totally appreciate the approach that we are trying to take here.

On the one side we are trying to ensure that the regulatory process surrounding the approval of new slaughter capacity is enhanced so that it can happen more quickly. We are providing a single window so that those applicants are not spending a good amount of their time running around to different government departments and agencies, but rather that they can get it all in one place. Then of course, once we put new capacities on line, if we do not have the ability to inspect, it is of very little use to us, so it is also important to provide that.

In terms of the loan loss reserve, the idea is not that it is simply $38 million. By constructing it as a loan loss reserve, where a portion of every advance will be made by the private sector, this government is not trying to decide who has or has not a good business plan. We are allowing the private sector to do the due diligence.

The idea is that the $38 million can lever at a rate of three or four to one. As I mentioned in the announcement, it should be able to result in between $140 million and $150 million of new investments. These are instruments that have been used in the past quite successfully and we have seen that kind of leverage occur in the past.

I have a question for the hon. member. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association was an integral part of the development of this proposal. Mr. Eby, who is the president of that association, has said very clearly in the announcement that he felt that this was clearly the right thing to do. He indicated the importance of working with the provinces and ensuring that we have a common platform for delivery, which we are in the process of doing to ensure that we have an efficient program that will work effectively.

Mr. Eby was with me at the press conference when we announced this. He was very supportive of it. Does the hon. member think that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is incorrect in its support of this program and the design that it put forward, which we have basically adapted in this proposal? Is she uncomfortable with the CCA position or does she think it is appropriate?

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

Mr. Chair, there are several factors to consider here. One is that $38 million will not put the cement in the ground. That is what we need. We need cement in the ground to build the facilities. We need the capacity and $38 million of loan underwriting will not underwrite very much in the way of capacity.

In terms of the administration of it, yes. The CCA said there needs to be a common platform, but CAISP is not a common platform. It is administered differently in provinces right across the country. That is one of the reasons why there is regional inequity in who will get the benefit, how much they will get and when they will get it. With regional variation, not all our farmers are being treated equitably. That is unacceptable to me and to the Conservative Party.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague. This summer I was speaking to an editor of a livestock magazine at the Canadian junior Hereford show in Regina. He spoke about the hardship that his industry was experiencing with livestock publications and with all our farm magazines. It is just one area in the whole agricultural industry that is really suffering. What are the hon. member's communities saying about all the other hardships that are being experienced in agriculture?

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is absolutely correct. It is not just the producers who are affected by this. A wide range of people across our country are affected such as producers of farm magazines, people in feed shops, people from whom farmers buy their clothes, their shoes and their groceries. It affects the people from whom producers want to buy a new car but cannot. It even affects whether or not their sons or daughters can take piano lessons. It affects whether or not someone can afford to compete to become the rodeo princess. This comes down to the very fundamentals of life and luxuries.

Everyone within these communities is affected. They are mainly small communities where people depend upon one another. The largest producer of income in the area is the cattle producer or the other ruminant producers. They feed the economy of small businesses, the service businesses, in the area. Everyone is affected by this. It is a loss of income of over $2 billion to the beef industry. It is a gross understatement of the impact that this crisis is having on our country.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before entering the special debate on the situation surrounding the mad cow disease, I would like to take this first opportunity in the House to thank all the constituents who put their faith in me on June 28, in the riding of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

It is with humility, but also with vigour, that I undertake these new functions. The leader of my party has honoured me immensely by asking me to be the official critic of the Bloc Quebecois for agriculture and agri-food.

Like several of you, serving this sector is not new to me and I promise you that I will concentrate all my energy, as a Quebec elected representative, on furthering the cause of our farmers who are presently going through a real crisis.

Let us go back to the reasons why we are here together tonight. What we have to know is that, on the mad cow disease issue, Quebec has been doubly affected. The mad cow disease crisis should never have affected Quebec's cattle producers, who have long been following stricter rules than those concerning producers in the rest of Canada.

The discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Alberta in May 2003 and the American embargo that followed have deeply paralyzed Quebec's cattle industry. If Quebec were sovereign and were controlling its borders and its health policies, it would not be hit by the American embargo today.

As Mr. Laurent Pellerin, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, said on May 21, 2003:

If we were separate provinces each with its own distinct inspection system and if we had a more regional approach to product marketing systems, only one province would have to deal with this problem.

The current situation is especially frustrating for Quebec producers who, for a long time, have had a series of rules that are stricter than Canada's for the very purpose of ensuring the health of their livestock and the quality of their products.

Ottawa, which says it is open to having special agreements with Quebec, should talk as soon as possible with Quebec authorities about decentralizing the entire food inspection system and dividing Canada into several health regions. Such regionalization of health practices would spare Quebec producers a similar crisis in the future and would allow Quebec to promote the excellence of its practices. Quebec producers are currently being penalized because a case of mad cow was discovered in Alberta, some 5,000 km away. It is not right for Canada to be considered as a single health region.

The regulations in Quebec are much better than Canada's on many levels. For example, a tracking system follows an animal from birth to death, and, the use of ruminant derived meals was banned in Quebec four years before it was in Ottawa.

The minister argues that he has come up with long term solutions, but he is doing nothing to protect producers from any new cases of mad cow.

Let us now talk about the assistance programs that are ill suited to Quebec's needs. The federal government has implemented assistance programs to support producers and help them make it through this crisis. Livestock producers concentrated in Alberta are getting compensation for every head of cattle slaughtered.

In Quebec, the majority of beef producers are in fact dairy producers who sell the cows that no longer produce enough milk. These animals are what we call cull cows.

Every year, producers cull 25% of their herds. Unfortunately, the federal program compensates for only 16%. Although the price they get for their cattle has dropped by 70%, they only get compensation for two thirds of the livestock they sell. The federal government has to improve its compensation program for cull cattle as soon as possible.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently set up his BSE-5 program to provide assistance to the beef producers hard hit by the mad cow crisis, but the flaws in this program are hurting Quebec.

The scientific term for the mad cow disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE. The BSE-5 program was set up with Alberta in mind. Unfortunately, Quebec was forgotten. The program has a $488 million budget, of which Quebec is only getting 4%. For Ottawa to be fair, they should have improved upon the BSE-4 program under which Quebec was getting its traditional share of 10% to 12%. Then, Quebec would have received between $40 million and $45 million. Quebec's current share is estimated at $15 million.

As for cull cows, the dairy farmers are culling 25% of their herds and only receiving 4% from Ottawa.

It is not just the nasty separatists who are demanding fair treatment for Quebec. Let me read from an article by Laurent Pellerin in La Terre de chez nous of September 23:

The case of BSE is another patent example of the impasse this centralizing vision of agriculture can lead to. Ottawa has produced five different assistance programs to try to help soften the blow of the crisis. The needs of Quebec's dairy farmers are neglected for the simple reason that the intervention model is based on a reality that does not exist in Quebec and which cannot be applied, especially in its final phase, to the cull cow and calf sectors. We can bet that things would have been very different if the UPA's calls for “special status” had been listened to and heeded.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois is demanding of the Liberal government. Ottawa must reinvest in agriculture while respecting Quebec's programs, particularly the Financière agricole du Québec. Ottawa should improve its aid program for dairy producers in Quebec, who are different and who produce 50% of the milk in Canada. Most of Canada's dairy cows are found in Quebec, and that is why Quebec supplies 200% of the veal consumed in Canada.

Ottawa must standardize health practices. Ottawa must act rapidly to eliminate meat meal in all animal feed and ensure that producers do not face additional costs.

It is appropriate to ask whether the Liberal government has the political will to end this crisis equitably and help the Quebec producers who are severely affected by this situation. In Quebec this really is a crisis.

Moreover, the government must begin a major operation to have the United States open its border. It is clear that scientifically speaking the case of the mad cow is over and done with. The current crisis is not scientific but strictly political.

As I mentioned a little earlier, many of our cattle producers are suffering because of this situation. Recently, I talked with a former producer of Saint-Benoît-de-Beauce who lost everything because of the mad cow disease crisis. I say “former producer” because he was forced to sell off all his herd this year, that is 36 pure bred cows and 42 commercial cows. Last year, he sold 54 feeder calves for a total of $39,000. This year, he sold as many, but for half the price.

The problem is that he is not alone in his situation. We learned this week that six Abitibi cattle producers were forced to give back the keys of their farm to their financial institutions. These are often ancestral farms that are disappearing. Thus, we may ask ourselves if the government wants to solve the problem. Despite this, cattle producers are desperate for help, and we are very anxious to have the minister listen to their message.

That being said, we have other questions for the minister and the Prime Minister. In the United States cull cows sell for 55¢ to 60¢ a pound of live weight; in Canada they sell for 10¢ to 15¢ a pound. So we ask the minister to go half way and set the floor price at 25¢ to 38¢ a pound. It would be a win-win situation for both consumers and producers. However, does the government have enough fortitude to impose such a floor price on the middle men who did not lower their prices during the crisis? This crisis has done irreparable damages to several producers back home.

Second, can Quebec expect to receive its traditional share of these programs? As I said earlier, milk producers are culling 25% of their herd but they only get 4% of federal help instead of their traditional share of 10% to 12%.

The minister decided to have this emergency debate on the mad cow disease crisis. Up to now Quebec producers have been well aware that the measures taken by the minister are tipped in favour of Alberta, and all they get is a few crumbs. We have every right to wonder how interested the Liberal government is in the survival and development of Quebec agriculture and how far it is willing to go to allow it to prosper.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member asked a couple of questions and I will make a couple of comments.

I think all members of the House will agree, and I certainly do, that agriculture in Canada is different in different parts and in different regions of the country. That is one of the reasons I suspect that constitutionally it is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.

One of the commitments I made very clearly at the federal-provincial conference that took place recently in Prince Edward Island was my willingness to work with my provincial counterparts in a way that would allows us to deal with the specific issues in different regions.

We need to understand that although we have national objectives, although we understand that it is important to achieve national results, we need to understand that oftentimes how we achieve those results may be different in different regions depending on the reality and on the challenges those particular regions face. I made that commitment to my 10 provincial colleagues and they were very accepting and very appreciative of that and very willing to work under those circumstances, including the minister from Quebec.

The hon. member is quite right. There is programming that is designed in some respects at fed and feeder cattle, cow-calf operations as well, and that the industry is larger in other parts of Canada than it is in Quebec.

In Quebec though there are specific issues that I will not say are unique to Quebec, but are very predominant in Quebec. The member points those out quite well.

I have met with Mr. Pellerin. I have met with the UPA. I have met with my provincial counterparts. As I mentioned, I have met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They have outlined some of those challenges. She also talked about the issue of the cull cow. She talked about the reality of the decline in price and the need to deal with that.

A number of suggestions have been made. Obviously, with the closure of the U.S. border, the ability to have greater capacity to deal with cull cows is essential. It has been pointed out, and I think with some justification, that it is not just simply a matter of capacity. It is a matter that the capacity be increased in the context of a competitive environment so there is the ability to compete back and forth so the price will find an appropriate level in the marketplace. That is one potential solution.

The idea of a floor price has been mentioned. I have indicated my willingness to look at any proposed solution. However I will be very straightforward with the hon. member. I would prefer a solution that could see the marketplace itself deliver on the appropriate price rather than having to have direct intervention into that marketplace.

I think it is possible to do but, as I have said, I will meet with the Quebec industry--dairy is beyond Quebec and so the industry that we need to deal with is beyond Quebec--and see the type of solutions we can come up with to make the effective gains for producers that the hon. member is talking about.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly what the minister just said, there will be a meeting very soon. Earlier I mentioned that we needed 25% to help our producers of cull cows. Could I hope that we may reach such an agreement in the very near future?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will not speculate on how long it will take us to develop a particular solution but I understand there is a different challenge that is faced by some of the industry. I am committed to working with the industry that is affected by that. I am committed to working with the province of Quebec and other provinces that face the same issue. I am committed to making sure those parts of the program that we announced which are applicable are tailored in a way that makes sense in Quebec and in other areas that face those particular challenges.

If we do need to do things differently, if we do need to take a different approach, I will go into those discussions with a very open mind and one bottom line, to take actions that will be effective in helping producers.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am adamant about this because our farms are quickly disappearing one after the other. It is urgent that we have a meeting and an agreement as soon as possible to allow our producers to make a decent living.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, yes, we need to have an early meeting. As I mentioned, shortly after being sworn in I met with the UPA and Mr. Pellerin and had a very frank discussion about the issues in Quebec. I have met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada, which of course has a significant number of members in the province. I have met on numerous occasions with the minister and we will continue to do that.

I believe the hon. member and myself have a meeting scheduled very shortly to talk about these issues. I look forward to that and to the progress that the two of us can make together.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Chair, before speaking to this debate, I would first like to thank the voters of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for putting their trust in me and electing me. I want to reiterate to everyone in my riding my commitment to represent them with integrity and vigour.

I thank my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for her speech. I fully agree with her that the mad cow crisis never should have affected the agricultural industry in Quebec since, for a long time now, cattle producers in Quebec have been using rules that are stricter than in the rest of Canada.

The Lower St. Lawrence region was hit hard by this mad cow crisis, and is still suffering the consequences. I would like to quote the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles of the Lower St. Lawrence, Claude Guimond, who reiterated as recently as last week that, “There is a crisis, a serious crisis. It is huge and devastating.” He added that he truly feared for the future and that the producers felt abandoned by the government.

In the Lower St. Lawrence, this crisis affects more than 1,000 farms that have suffered losses in gross income estimated at roughly $17 million. The three RCMs that I have the privilege of representing, Rimouski-Neigette, Témiscouata and Les Basques, have roughly 50% of the affected farms. After deducting the assistance provided to the Lower St. Lawrence, there is still a real shortfall of $7 million for local farmers and action is urgently required.

I fully agree with what the hon. member said. The government has to act. The necessary measures have to be taken without delay in order to reopen the borders and to ensure that they stay open. The government should also use Quebec as a model for health regulations.

I heard the minister say that some problems and challenges are specific and unique to Quebec. I would like to ask my colleague if, in the whole issue of cull, she is prepared to remind the minister that we in Quebec are not only unique—which is regrettable in terms of our difficulties in this area—but that we are often very unique in finding solutions to our challenges.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

The situation in Quebec is, in fact, unique. It could help us a great deal and would save the situation if we had mobile inspectors. SInce we have all said on numerous occasions in this House that we are different, and that we have many problems with mad cow disease as far as cull cattle go. We would need 25% of a budget to decently meet the needs of our producers.

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

Mr. Chair, it is a real honour to stand here tonight. This, obviously, is my first time in such wonderful and honourable surroundings. I would like to put on the record that my grandfather, Charlie Angus, was an immigrant to Canada and a very strong social democrat. He lived and died building the gold mining economy of Timmins.

Now, 40 years later, his grandson is here as a representative of the people of a great and inclusive country. I am very honoured to be here tonight and to speak on behalf of an issue of fundamental importance to rural Canadians. I would also like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague who can pull me off the floor as soon as I go over five minutes.

At the outset I would like to note that the government did not call this debate an emergency debate. It was a take note debate. Well, take note: we have hardly anyone here from the government side tonight. This is an issue of dire emergency to the families of rural Canada. It is an emergency that is wrecking the fundamental fabric of our rural lives.

I draw the hon. minister's attention tonight to the presence in the House of Algoma Cattle Farmers, Mr. Jack Tindall, his wife and his son.

[The Chair]

Although we are a little more casual in committee of the whole, it is not considered customary to draw attention to people in the gallery by name. You can talk about the issues and so on but try not to draw attention to persons in the gallery by name.

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

Mr. Chair, I will not draw attention to their name, except for the fact that this family drove nearly 1,000 kilometres today on less than 12 hours notice to be here tonight. I will be careful not to mention them by name, but to say that they have lived the nightmare of the closed border, the collapse of cattle prices and 15 months of inaction. I would implore the minister to sometime tonight find time to meet with them and find out what they have been going through.

This family that will remain nameless was here in July with a group of Algoma and Timmins--James Bay farmers to meet with the NDP caucus. We went out and met with the press. They delivered a plea that we needed immediate action plan in place before the fall auction sales. The fall is here and we have a plan but it is not really in place. In fact our farm families are telling us that what we have is all hat and no cattle.

The electronic tagging system for set aside feeder cattle is not ready. Farmers have no idea when it will be ready. We know that they do not know where the forms are. A basic floor price should have been in place this fall, but the government feels that we should have trusted the market. This family that I will not mention went to market, along with a number of other Algoma farm families, and they were killed on the floor this fall. That was the result.

I am sure the hon. minister will tell these nameless farm families to apply to CAIS, but they are not eligible for CAIS, like many other farm families across Canada.

I will mention another family, not by name of course. They are proud Franco-Ontarian pioneers in my riding who opened up farming in my region. Four generations of farm equity was wiped out in 15 months. The father, his sons and his grandsons phone my home every single day because they are their farm. They have taken the machines, they have liquidated the cattle and they are going after the grandfather's house. What do I tell them when they phone me? In this plan there is no debt relief. There is no tax relief. It is just all hat and no cattle. We are being told the promise is that we will advance next year's debt onto this year's debt.

Let us crunch the numbers. In dairy most families have lost $25,000 in the last year and the federal government is coming back with nothing more than $150 to $300 per farm. Top rated dairy cows valued last year at $1,800 a head are being written down for as low as $200 a head. They cannot take that to the bank. The debts are rising, our machines are being repossessed and our support infrastructure in rural Canada is crumbling.

While we are talking about cull cows, I would like to point out that our farmers are now more under the thumb of the large packers than ever. The packers have made a killing and they continue to make a killing. Without a basic floor price for cull cows, animals that should have been worth $400 are being bought up for little more than the price of a pair of rubber boots, and the consumer continues to pay a premium across Canada. Meanwhile, rural Canadians continue to be cast adrift and we are supposed to hope that somehow over the next year market forces will come to bear and help people out.

I know I am a newcomer to this room, but I would like to point out that since 1997 there have been more emergency debates on agriculture than any other single issue facing the House. We have talked a lot and the farm families here tonight have heard a lot of talk. However, the one difference between 1997 and today is that it has only got worse. I implore the minister to work with all of us. It has to stop.