Debates of Oct. 7th, 2004

Agriculture

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, yes, I believe we need to remove these barriers. It does not concern me as a producer. I believe most producers would say that they would like to see a good two-way trade. That will help cultivate the discussion to opening the border totally for live animal trade across the border.

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

Mr. Chair, I was told that I would be splitting my time tonight with the hon. member for Lethbridge, but I am at your disposal.

It is a great honour for me to have my first official get up in this great House that Macdonald built. Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me, I would like to compare it to the Montreal Forum and my first game in the big leagues. I am on my first shift, I have a breakaway, I see an open net and I all I can hope for is that if I hit the boards, a Liberal will be there to cushion me. I throw in that sense of humour not to make light of the situation we are here to discuss, but to show the House that as a farmer I am fast losing my sense of humour.

I rise here tonight to address a very serious matter that is affecting not only my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, but almost every rural riding in this great country, and that is the BSE crisis.

My riding is a very rural. It is the number one beef and lamb producing riding in Ontario. It also has a very large number of dairy farms as well as a number of elk, bison, deer, emu, hog, poultry and goat producers. We tend to focus our minds on beef farmers as being the only producers affected by this issue. That certainly is not the case, and it would have been remiss of me not to have pointed that out.

Another forgotten fact that should be pointed out to the government, especially after the curious but blatant absence of any mention of agriculture in Tuesday's throne speech, is what areas of Canada this crisis actually affects.

The government obviously needs a quick and valuable lesson in geography. Contrary to Liberal beliefs, there is life in rural Canada. There are hard-working Canadians who do live north of highway 401 in Ontario and outside the boundaries of our large cities. There is also a perception by the government that the BSE crisis is an Alberta or a western problem. It is time for the government to wake up and smell the beef. This fiasco is happening from coast to coast.

The minister's government is quickly filling up a library full of ineffective programs that have not helped in any way to solve this crisis, from the laughable program last summer that funnelled government money into packers pockets, which by the way the government could have saved a lot of administration costs if it had just asked the packers to pick their cheque up at the door, to the unworkable CAIS program that the minister admitted was not working. However, he also said that he would fix, but that is yet to happen. The government in essence has done nothing but stick its head in the proverbial sand, praying and hoping that the border will open or even that this problem will go away on its own.

While the minister stands idly by, producers in my riding are filing for bankruptcy. These people are not abstract numbers but fellow farmers and friends of mine, such as the Barfoots, the MacDonalds and the list goes on.

Just yesterday the national advisory committee established to set out the policies to get needed moneys to cash strapped farmers met in Calgary. This group consists of industry leaders and government staffers from Agriculture Canada. The group came away from that meeting yesterday totally disgusted in Agriculture Canada staff and with their lack of flexibility or willingness to come up with an agreement.

Will the minister take leadership and instruct his staff to come up with a suitable solution? Will he make the necessary changes to the CAIS program immediately so that it will do the job it should have been designed to do?

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

Mr. Chair, let me first point out to that member and the member who spoke before him, there are three very specific commitments in Speech from the Throne

One is to ensure that we could strengthen the agriculture industry. I think that is a fairly strong commitment. Second is to deal with the border issues particularly related to BSE. Third, and most important, is the importance of ensuring that we have a strong and viable rural Canada. That is a very specific commitment in the Speech from the Throne as well.

I spent four years as the secretary of state for rural development. I travelled rural Canada from one end of this nation to the other trying to ensure that we had strong and viable communities and that our young people could have a future in those communities. That type of commitment is a demonstration of the government's ongoing willingness to deal with the issues facing rural Canada, including agriculture.

In terms of the specific meeting that the member talked about, those individuals engaged in the meeting are primarily engaged in developing the parameters around the set aside programs, not in dealing with the CAIS program. The issue there, and the hon. member from Ontario would appreciate this, is to find a national platform for delivering a set aside program so the necessary number of animals are removed from the marketplace and the price can continue to do what the price has been doing in recent days, and that is recovering.

The initiative needs to reconcile the different perspectives by different parts of the industry and by different provinces, but we are determined to find that solution. We are determined to have that national program. We are determined to bring some rationality back into the marketplace so producers can make business decisions based on a market that is rational and operating in a way that it should. The men and women of good faith are engaged in that process. They worked through the day yesterday and through the day today. We will work with them to ensure that type of solution can be found. As the hon. member mentioned, it is critical and it is important. I have given my instructions to them to ensure that they work towards a solution that will result in a program that will benefit producers from coast to coast.

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

Mr. Chair, on the comments from the hon. minister, he said earlier tonight that he wanted a made in Canada solution. He also said shortly after that that he was depending upon the industry leaders. I talked to Mr. Eby early this morning. When I asked him how it went, he said in five words, “Not very good at all”. The other thing he said was that the flexibility by the minister's staff did not appear to be there whatsoever.

I still implore to the minister, that what I am hearing and what he is hearing are two different things. He needs to meet with his staff and see that they do try to come to an agreement. In his comment about depending on the industry leaders, let us not pretend. His staffers and all the politicians in this room do not have as much knowledge about the industry as the people who are actually in it and leading the different farm organizations.

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. member makes a good point, and it is important to emphasize this here.

In the program that was announced on September 10 and the component parts to it, because there are many component parts, the flexibility is there and the different provinces will choose to use different parts of the program. That is essential. Different provinces have made different decisions on how they will participate. Ontario has made a different decision than Alberta, and again for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I believe that flexibility is absolutely in place, and that is the appropriate way to go.

I think the hon. member realizes this, but we should emphasize it. The design of the program comes from the people in the industry itself. It spent a great amount of time consulting with its members. It spent a great amount of time travelling across the country to develop the component parts to this program.

The member is right. The industry leaders have the expertise. They live with this every day. They have an understanding of what the needs are, and that is why I felt it was imperative to built that program in a collaborative way, working with them and because they are also an important partner, working with the provinces. That is the process we followed. I was pleased we were able to come to an agreement on the parameters of the program. We are working to ensure that we have the details so we can begin the processes of setting aside animals, building new capacity, expanding our foreign markets, and continuing the process to urge the Americans to reopen the border.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the member's comments and the appearance of his wanting to work with them. That is good, but my point in this whole thing is that I do not think it is getting through to his staff. I think he still needs to have that. One thing he mentioned is the different provinces. I understand very clearly that is a complex issue and it throws some wrinkles into the whole thing.

The bottom line is that federal dollars have to get out to these cash-strapped farmers and I think the federal government will have to put them out there. I know there is the fear of the uneven playing field but I think we have to fix as many of these family farms and businesses as we can before they are all gone and sort out the uneven playing field at some other point. I think that maybe as we get into it we will find it probably will.

I urge the minister not to play games too long with how the different provinces react and to get on with our game of getting the dollars out there.

[David Smith, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, today is my second intervention but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the population of the beautiful riding of Pontiac, which includes Buckingham, Masson-Angers, MRC des Collines-de-l'Outaouais, la Vallée-de-la-Gatineau and MRC de Pontiac, for the confidence they placed in me on June 28 by electing me to represent them in the House. I consider this a great honour and I thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. I know that you will fulfill this task remarkably and with dignity.

That being said, the subject that we are discussing tonight is very important to me, because this debate deals with an issue that I care a great deal about. I was raised on a farm, not far from here, in Maniwaki. Thus, I am very concerned with the situation of cattle and the beef industry as a whole. This beef and cattle industry is part of our history. It has played a role in the settlement of the first colonies.

Several years ago, people celebrated this industry by gathering during events such as the Shawville fair, which attracts over 50,000 visitors every year, while the population is close to 35,000.

The beef and cattle industry is part of the present and the future. This industry also represents one the main components of Canada's foreign trade. Indeed, Canadian beef is internationally renowned for its high quality. Canada exported over $4 billion in beef and cattle products in 2002, which allowed it to reach third place among world beef exporters and to enjoy a trade surplus of over $3.2 billion in beef products, or almost 6% of our total trade surplus.

Clearly, we are talking here about a key industry for all Canadians. This is an industry that has built an excellent reputation for itself at the international level. Considering the reaction of foreign countries following the discovery of a BSE case in May 2003, the industry has paid a very high price for developments over which it had no control.

This is why the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in close cooperation with the provinces, the territories and the industry, announced last month a series of measures to the tune of $448 million to reposition the Canadian cattle industry. Repositioning Canada as a world leader for exports of high quality beef is a key feature of the new strategy aimed at helping the industry.

Under this repositioning strategy, the current government is committing in excess of $37.1 million in new money to intensify our efforts to settle the issues relating to access to international markets in the context of BSE. The reopening of the U.S. border to Canadian cattle and to Canadian beef products from animals that are over 30 months old remains the top priority.

We are also increasing our efforts in other regions of the world, particularly in Asia. Incidentally, this weekend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will leave for Korea, Japan, China and Hong Kong. Our approach is to focus on presenting arguments that are based on science at the technical and regulatory levels. The government is making abundant use of such arguments to support its cause.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as deputy ministers and ambassadors have made standardizing access to foreign markets for Canadian beef products a priority.

Sustained efforts were made to foster the review, revision and implementation of the guidelines set out by the World Organization for Animal Health concerning BSE. The goal is to take into account the most recent data and the low level of risk linked to many of the products produced in Canada and other countries.

There is no scientific reason for other countries to continue to close their borders to Canadian cattle or Canadian beef products derived from cattle over 30 months old.

Unfortunately, as we know, international decisions are not based solely on science. We have to deal with political and economic pressure as well as the concerns of consumers. We are working very hard at it. Cattlemen's associations are also looking into this. They are working with their counterparts to try to put pressure on foreign countries from the inside.

The people of Canada are well aware that our beef is healthy. Because of all the measures in place to ensure the integrity of the production and inspection systems, beef consumption in Canada rose 5% when BSE was detected last year. The Canadian food inspection system in place in 2003 was sufficiently rigorous to detect the infected animal and remove it before it reached the human food chain.

Moreover, the government has taken many important steps in order to improve food safety, by strengthening its ability to detect BSE and by reducing the risk of a recurrence of the disease.

We have removed the specific risk factors from all food intended for human consumption. We have increased our surveillance and reinforced our animal identification methods. We have also undertaken to strengthen our prohibition on animal feed by removing the specific risk factors from all animal feed.

That will complete Canada's response to the recommendations made in June 2003 by a team of international experts who studied and praised Canada's skill and efforts in this matter.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food appointed a BSE consultant in Asia, who has already gone to Asia three times to direct technical discussions on the changes Canada has made to its BSE policy following the development of World Animal Organization for Health guidelines.

Canada and its cattle and beef industry would benefit from international measures established by the World Organization for Animal Health being broadened and more uniform in order to base market access decisions on science and not a series of other factors.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is currently creating new positions for geographical technical consultants who will focus their efforts on major foreign markets. These consultants will strengthen ties with their counterparts responsible for regulations in the target countries, who could provide a considerable value for beef, cattle and genetics.

Implementation of the new strategy marks the beginning of a Canadian solution.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, the ongoing crisis in the cattle industry in Canada due to the BSE related border closure has threatened and continues to threaten the very existence of the historic backbone of our Canadian economy. The United States department of agriculture's proposed rule change process and subsequent court challenges by short-sighted groups in the U.S. who are fighting to keep the border closed could very well keep live Canadian cattle out of the U.S. for some time to come.

Softening of testing requirements by countries like Japan should have a positive effect on Canada's situation, but there are no guarantees. The uncertainty that is causing turmoil in this industry continues. In the short time I have, I would like to offer a few suggestions I have heard from producers on actions needed to preserve our cattle industry.

Number one is slaughter capacity. One action that is supported by all sectors of the industry is an increase in Canadian slaughter capacity. Any beef leaving this country should be in a box, not on the hoof. Investors and development groups seeking to build packing plants have done a lot of legwork and research and some of them are ready to proceed to the groundbreaking stage.

These groups, along with their financial backers, need to know exactly what funds are available to them and how these funds can be accessed so construction can start. Without the immediate start of construction to increase capacity, the rest of the government program is meaningless. The set-aside program can only function properly if the animals set aside can go into an orderly marketplace when the set-aside period is over. Beginning construction will send a clear message to both the U.S. government and the U.S.-owned Canadian packers that competition is on the way.

Number two, we need a full court press in the United States. A lobbying effort in the U.S., targeting both elected officials and consumer groups, is absolutely critical and this government should be fully engaged in coordinating these efforts with the resources needed to do the job properly. We need to inform the U.S. consumer that the high prices they are paying for both beef products and dairy products and the loss of jobs due to the closing of slaughter facilities are a direct result of politics and have nothing to do with food safety. Levering and broadening the support for the Canadian industry that already exists in the U.S. is absolutely critical.

Third, NAFTA rules. This government needs to use all the tools at its disposal through our trade agreements to fight this unjust and purely political action. Producers have initiated a chapter 11 challenge on their own and a chapter 20 challenge should be under consideration by this government. Our trading partners use all the legal tools at their disposal and so should we.

Number four is a herd rationalization program. As time passes by and our Canadian herd continues to grow, compounding an already serious problem, rationalization of the size of the herd through a mature animal cull must be considered, albeit as a last resort. Animals over 30 months of age are a problem that we will have to solve separately from our younger animal issues. If we can find a use for some or all of the beef in these older animals, great, but if we cannot, other solutions need to be considered. Using this process to meet our OIE testing requirements is also a definite plus.

Number five is harmonization and recognizing health standards. We must eliminate the issues opponents to an open border are using to argue for restricted access to U.S. markets. Standardization of health protocols is an essential part of eliminating that opposition.

Number six is a rapid response trade dispute resolution mechanism. This is a proposal that our party has raised in the past, one that was included in the Speller report on the state of agriculture. It is a structured cross-border mechanism to look at and head off full-blown trade disputes, a trade arbitration process, so to speak, a process to bring parties together to resolve issues before they get out of hand, with the BSE crisis a case in point.

Number seven is research and risk management. This country should be a leader in the research on animal disease. We have a multi-billion dollar industry in this country and we should protect it with sound science and research. We should have the risk management tools, the information collected by the government, to provide to producers to make decisions.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that this industry, properly handled, can not only survive but can prosper and become stronger and more vigorous. I believe it is possible and necessary to create an atmosphere in agriculture in Canada that will attract our bright young people instead of chasing them away. I only have to think back to yesterday and meeting the wonderful youngsters from the Gem, Alberta 4-H club and their parents to realize there is a potential for a bright future in this industry. It is government's responsibility to secure that future for the next generation.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his remarks because we are getting late into the evening and he is the first speaker from the opposition party who has actually had some concrete, clear-cut proposals. It was good to hear. I think there were some good suggestions.

I am especially pleased and did not realize until tonight that the opposition took some of their agriculture policy direction out of the Speller task force report on the future of farming. That is indeed good to know. Maybe we are not so far apart after all.

On the member's first point, that being the construction of slaughter capacity, I wonder if he could elaborate a little on how he sees the government being more involved. Certainly we have put out measures for small and medium-sized plant operations. I would agree with increasing Canada's capacity to slaughter. That is basically what we had to do in the hog industry when the Americans gave us a rough time. We built our own industry. Now we are recognized in hogs as the best around the world.

We have a tremendous beef industry, but we must have, as the minister so often has said, a more Canadian approach. Could the member expand on that point and also on the herd rationalization program he mentioned?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, of course the hon. member and the minister must realize that the set-aside programs that have been designed, both for calves and for fat cattle, will not work unless at some point in the process we have more capacity or the border opens.

With the way the situation exists on the border opening, with outfits like R-CALF in the United States that are going to challenge legally any ruling that comes from the U.S. department of agriculture, I feel that this thing could drag on for years. So let us look at a made in Canada solution, as was mentioned earlier.

In order to send the message to the Americans that we are serious about creating an industry in this country that is strong and viable, we must have the capacity to run the animals through our slaughter facilities in Canada without using their slaughter facilities. Anything that leaves this country should go out on a hook or in a box, not on the hoof.

Both of the big plants in western Canada are outdated and aged. If we could show that we are actually starting construction of major, modern plants--and I would say one in the west and one in the east--we could show that we have the capacity to do the slaughtering and we could build this industry far better and stronger than it was in the past. Cement in the ground, with construction starting, is absolutely critical to the whole issue of moving forward.

There is the issue of rationalization of the herd. We can sell beef 30 months and younger. If it is slaughtered it will go, but 30 months and older is a whole different situation and we will have to deal with that in this country. Certainly there are markets for it. As a last solution there is herd reduction and herd rationalization. If a use cannot be found for some or all of the beef in those animals, then another option should be looked at. Those options, as I said, should be the last options we consider in this country, but they should not be options that we do not think about. As the size of the herd grows and those older animals keep getting put back into breeding stock, it just compounds the issue.

If I have time for one more comment, I want to mention the trucking industry in the country. Right now the fall calf run has started and it is going pretty well. Prices are fairly decent and producers are taking their animals to town.

There is a 40% reduction in the number of cattle liners that are capable of hauling these animals to market. They cannot get enough trucks to move the cattle they want to move right now and the fall run has not really hit full blown steam. Forty per cent of that industry has left. It has gone elsewhere and is not coming back. That is happening throughout the industry, whether it is trucking or the people who work in the plants, in the industry, in the auction markets or in the feedlots. That expertise is leaving the industry and it is not being replaced.

Once that happens, it is the beginning of a death spiral that we have to do something about. It is imperative that we act quickly and in a manner that restores the confidence in the industry so the whole industry starts to move and from cow-calf operator to consumer the chain is in full movement.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary for staying for the debate. We have had late night debates before and we have not always had the attendance by them. Although, when I look across and I realize the amount of room they have, I think we might hear the duet “It's Lonely Out Tonight” .

I want to take a minute to thank my riding for my re-election and the opportunity to come back and represent the citizens of Cypress Hills—Grasslands on the issues that are important to them. Right now there is no issue more important than BSE.

As I was preparing for this speech, I was thinking about the times we have been here to discuss this. I think this is probably the third or fourth time we have been here late at night to discuss this. How many speeches have we given, I do not know. I cannot think back to the number of times I have spoken on this subject.

I was the question period coordinator last spring for our party and we asked enough questions on BSE and on agriculture. At times I think the agriculture critic was getting tired of being asked to ask questions. There has been a multitude of statements made on this, and the problem persists.

We all know what happened in the spring of 2003 and the problems that resulted from that. Actually, the minister admitted tonight, and I think it is the first time I have heard this, that there really was no long term planning right from the beginning.

There were some of us who immediately called for packing plants to be built immediately. I do not know why any of us were thinking at the time that this would be a short term problem. Momentum seemed to build that this would go away in a few minutes or a few months. That was never realistic right from the beginning. It was not possible for that to happen.

Think about the reaction other countries had to us and the reaction we had to other countries with the same problem. It was not going to be a short term responsibility. The government failed producers miserably when it pretended it was. It never acted in the long term interest.

Since then many things have happened. There have been at least two failed programs. The government was six to eight weeks late in getting money to the farmers and the ranchers. Both times the markets were beginning to stabilize and both times the money collapsed the market which collapsed the prices for producers.

Our plan last spring was one of which we were proud and it was a good one. It called for a billion dollars to be spent on this issue, with $400 million going to top up programs, $350 million towards the cull, $75 million for packing plants and other money allocated for things such as trade and establishing testing regimes.

This September the government came out with its program. I have heard lots of discussion tonight about that. The member for Lethbridge has done an excellent job of talking about the problems in which we find ourselves. He has also talked about possible solutions.

Some producers in my riding, who are not beef producers, have also been affected. I want to talk a bit about them tonight. One family farms sheep and has stayed in touch with me over the last year. I will read a section of a letter that he wrote me in the last couple of days. He has been brought into this, inadvertently I guess, and has paid a price as big as most of the beef producers have. He says:

The impact that BSE has had on us has been very tough and financially challenging. Our lamb trade here in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba has been north-south with the USA. Just 100 kms to the south of us, feeder lambs that go into a feedlot to be fattened are currently selling for $.95 to $1.18 USD per pound. We are currently being offered $.60-.65 CDN per pound. That's less than half of what American sheep producers receive.

Most of us are not familiar with why that happened. However, he goes on to say:

The problem is that because of the closed border, there is no American competition in the marketplace, only one packing plant for lambs in Western Canada and hundreds and hundreds of kms to get to a market in Ontario.

The main reason for low prices in the sheep business is lack of competition for buyers. With no American lamb buyers competing for our lambs the western packing plant,...only has to bid the already low price western lambs receive at auction in Toronto...

That is one reason why the lamb producers are suffering.

Then there is a problem with packing. The minister asked for suggestions tonight, so I will read his suggestion. He states:

The first order of business should be to have CFIA lift the ban on USA imports so that we show to them how ridiculous their ban on Canadian lambs is.

We have heard tonight from the member for Macleod. He has said that there is a continuing problem with anaplasmosis and blue tongue in cattle coming from the United States to Canada. The lamb producers feel some of that same pressure on what they see as a ridiculous ban on lambs coming into Canada.

We need to get the border open. These folks have been brought into this through no fault of their own. I understand that the government is meeting with them tomorrow. However, we are 18 months into the problem. That border should be open to those folks. The government has not been aggressive enough in dealing with that problem and it needs to be solved.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to comment on the sheep industry. Our sheep industry is pretty small in my home province, but there are quite a number of industries and a number of other markets. Other members have mentioned it tonight and I think it has to be put on the record that the problems that BSE has caused go well beyond the beef industry.

There are a number of producers here tonight from the dairy industry watching the debate on BSE. The dairy industry is a supply management industry and usually a relatively profitable industry with not great margins but decent margins in terms of providing for their families and getting a fair return on their labour and investment.

It has to be stated on the record that the dairy industry too has suffered as a result of the BSE crisis. The United States is no longer one of the biggest markets for dairy heifers and we cannot ship live cattle to the U.S. As a result, the dairy industry is suffering as well and certainly the cull cow trade is not working well either.

I think it should be noted for the record that the dairy industry and any commodity that is into ruminants also find themselves in trouble as a result of BSE. Perhaps the member opposite would wish to comment on that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, that is an important thing to note because there are other industries. Elk and buffalo have been brought into this. It is not fair to those producers because the BSE problem has affected the beef but these other producers have been brought in as well.

I do not think the government has been aggressive in dealing with this issue with the United States. The discussion about the beef can go on and will go on, but there has not been much talk about what has happened to these other folks. There has not been much talk about taking care of them or doing something for them. They need to be remembered in the discussion about this issue as well.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, this is my first intervention in the House. I would like to thank the people of my riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt for electing me to represent them in the House.

It is a great honour and privilege to represent this riding, particularly in light of the history of some of the previous members from long ago who represented the riding. In particular, I think of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, who represented most of the rural portion of my riding. Mr. Diefenbaker was a Prime Minister who stood for the farmers of Canada, and who unlike this government actually delivered for the farmers of Canada.

My question for the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is following on something said earlier by a colleague. One of the things we note is that most of these programs are provincially shared. In particular, looking at a document produced by the parliamentary library, it notes that the provincial share contributed by the Province of Saskatchewan as of September 26, 2004, was a mere $12.5 million. For Saskatchewan's 3.5 million cattle it works out to $3.50 per head.

Does the member think that the Calvert government has done an adequate job in providing only $3.50 per head as of this date, September 26?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt. As we know, he is one of several young MPs who have come into the House from Saskatchewan. We are proud to have him here.

Obviously, those of us who come from that province understand the deficiencies of the Saskatchewan government. We have unfortunately had to live with an NDP government for far too long. Basically, it has run the province into the ground and it shows up in the aid programs that it cannot provide for our farmers. We watch other provinces that provide a large amount of aid to their farmers. Unfortunately, the Saskatchewan government does not seem ready to step up to the plate and do that.

In fact, when this program was announced, as the minister would know, the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan embarrassed all of us by threatening first of all to sue the federal government over the program. He found out how ridiculous that was, backed off and now the provincial government is trying to provide a bit of aid to farmers. It has been inadequate. Since 2000 one of the problems we have had is dealing with the provincial government and getting it to fully fund the farm programs that are in place there.

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

Mr. Chair, I cannot help but refer to the last comment where the member opposite was criticizing the Saskatchewan government for threatening to sue us. My golly, that member over there has threatened worse to us from time to time.

I too want to congratulate all the members on all sides of the House for their election to this place. This is a very important take note debate. It is sad in a way that we need to have this take note debate as a result of the BSE issue but it is extremely important and I thank the House for agreeing to allow it to be held tonight.

There is no question that the closing of the U.S. border and it remaining closed to our industry as a result of one case of BSE over a year and a half ago has caused economic severity to producers, to rural Canadians and to many businesses in this country. Yes, as has been said here earlier tonight, it has caused, in many instances, a tremendous loss of hope. We have been trying as a government to correct that situation.

There is no question that, yes, producers continue to face extreme financial and emotional hardship. I talk to these producers on a daily basis as well. Many of them are my neighbours and many of them are my friends. Even after the amount of programming and effort that the federal government and other levels of government have put forward, the problem still remains.

However I will give the Leader of the Opposition credit for his remark tonight when said that the basic problem was the closing of the border with the United States. There is no scientific reason for that border to remain closed.

The opposition does not want to talk about this too much but a lot of effort has been made by the current government and the past government in trying to convince the United States to re-open the border, right from both prime ministers and various cabinet ministers to the regulatory bodies. I have been down as a cabinet minister to the U.S. a number of times. The current Minister of Agriculture has talked to the secretary of agriculture a number of times. Parliamentary delegations have tried.

Earlier tonight the member for Yellowhead talked about the former member from Essex, the chair of the Canada--U.S. parliamentary association, who led a delegation to the United States capital where we as members of all parties tried our best to convince American congressmen and senators to get the border opened, yet to no avail.

However I want to underline the fact that every effort has been made. For members opposite in their rhetoric to try to leave the impression for political reasons that every effort has not been made is just purely wrong. Every effort has been made and, as the minister said earlier, we will continue to make efforts in that regard.

Most of us in the House, as I have already said, have seen the impact of BSE on families and on communities in many ways, whether it is dealerships or families themselves, even the credit unions and some of the banking institutions. My province is very dependent on agriculture. Our number one commodity is agriculture and we are certainly feeling the effect of BSE in our province.

I have tried to listen as closely as possible to the debate tonight. It was my hope that the discussion tonight would lead to some better solutions. The minister has outlined many solutions from this side of the House. Until just half an hour ago we really had not heard any from the other side of the House.

Sometimes as politicians we do let political partisanship get somewhat in the way. It does not happen with myself very often but it does happen with members opposite and we have heard some of that tonight. But I think we can all agree that the basic problem is the closing of the border with the United States. Whether our United States colleagues want to admit it or not, up until the border closed, the North American beef industry, and it is a North American beef industry, was the most integrated industry of any between our two countries in our trading relationships, with the flow of cattle down, stockers, feeders, calves and slaughter cattle back up and Canadian beef cattle and dairy cattle going to slaughter houses in the United States.

We would have liked to have seen Canadian capacity in terms of slaughter and we would have liked to have seen that in the past, but the way the market built up was the way it was working. It was the most integrated North American industry of all between our two countries. However because of the Americans not wanting to abide by the science, we have seen how quickly that can change. I mentioned in earlier remarks the situation with the dairy industry.

Some people in the United States have let politics get in the way and are trying to keep the border closed. Following the border closure I want to put some facts on the table because members opposite, again with political rhetoric, seem awfully confused tonight on what the facts really are in terms of what the government and the previous government have done.

The fact of the matter is that following the border closure the Government of Canada did move quickly. We put in place feed controls, CFIA and food safety, and the BSE surveillance program. Members opposite seem to have forgotten about those. We have to thank Canadian consumers for their efforts to help the beef industry last year by buying their product because they know Canadian beef is the safest product in the world and we have the system to back it up.

As the member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound stated, this is indeed a serious matter and it does affect more than beef. Because it is such a serious matter I have to put some facts on the table.

Quite a number of payments were made and I will outline them. With regard to payments made since May 2003, there have been efforts made by some over there to say the money was not put out. The money was put out but it was not enough. It is rather interesting to note that when the Standing Committee on Agriculture met on this issue to figure out where $500 million disappeared to and when we wanted to take on the packing industry, it was a member of the Conservative Party who denied the House the right to call those people in contempt and get a look at their books to see what had really happened and whether the packing industry had really bled off that $500 million. Let us look at the numbers.

For BSE recovery the budget was $520 million and to date $465 million has been paid. For the cull animal program, $120 million was budgeted and $110 has gone out. The transition industry support program was budgeted at $930 million and $568 million has gone out. As the minister has said, the rest will be out before the end of October. There is the repositioning that the minister announced on September 10 of $488 million, of which $385 million will be in direct payments to producers and that will eventually be paid out.

We want to continue to pressure the United States, increase the slaughter capacity with a made in Canada solution, work to try and make the market work through the set aside program. We want to bring the market in balance so producers can get paid out of the marketplace which they want to do.

We want to work to find new markets. As has already been mentioned, the minister will be travelling with some members of the opposition to work toward finding those new markets next week.

It also should be pointed out that the efforts to move product to the United States have in some ways been successful. We are now exporting in terms of beef products to the United States 213,849 pounds up until September 25, which is nearly at prior to BSE levels. The efforts are paying some dividends in some regard.

The bottom line is that yes, we want to see the border opened, but until it is opened we will try to build the Canadian industry with a made in Canada approach. We will try to find new markets. A lot has been done out there. We will look at the take note debates, the points that come across tonight and try to improve the program as the minister already mentioned.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to put on the record a letter that I received from one of my constituents and I will ask a question at the end. The letter states:

I am sure you are aware of the problems that the western farmers and ranchers are facing. Do you realize how serious this is?

We have been ranching for 36 years and never have we been in this financial trouble before. We have mortgaged our ranch to help our two sons purchase land, much to my protest. I did not want to see them go into debt and work hard and get nowhere, but they purchased land anyway.

Over the last four years we have fought drought, grasshoppers and now BSE. Our investments have been cashed in to pay bills, buy feed, et cetera. Now we are broke.

Our farm insurance was due so we shipped five two and three year old purebred Charolais bulls and two purebred Charolais dry cows hoping to receive enough to cover the insurance bill. Guess what? It wasn't enough. I could not believe it.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the sale. Ridiculous! The cost of our utilities, fuel, groceries, repairs, machinery, et cetera has increased drastically, but the beef and the grain we sell is worth less.

Something is wrong with this picture. Our income is selling some calves, cull cows and cull bulls in the fall. We sold some calves last fall, receiving half the price we were expecting. We chose to keep the cull cows and bulls, a mistake. In the spring we sell around $40,000 worth of breeding bulls and heifers. This spring we sold $6,000 worth. How are we to pay our bills and live? Our regular customers did not replace their bulls and older cows because of the poor market.

Our accountant advised us to join CAIS. We did and now received notification to deposit $15,000 into a special account. How in the world do we do that when we have no money? The bank will lend it to us, but it only has to be paid back. I think that would be defeating the purpose.

I realize you cannot control these things but something has to be done. The western ranchers and farmers are in trouble and we need your help now.

The letter is signed by a farm wife from Endiang, Alberta.

This debate is a direct result of the government's failure to recognize and provide a timely response to this crisis. We have been going for 18 months and we still have no access to application forms for any of this. Farmers do not understand the program because the government has not got the information out.

The government announces programs, stands in front of cameras and makes the great announcements. It says it wants to increase capacity, but nothing in this program does anything to increase capacity. Those who want to start are saying they are being pushed back now by the banks. We have a set aside program that is contingent on extra capacity, but few now are stepping up to build packing plants.

The parliamentary secretary in his past has been involved in the agricultural sector, albeit we were never much in agreement with the guy. What hope can he give a farm wife who is watching a family farm disappear, a farm wife who is watching her children who want to get into a generational farm and is begging them not to and is being told that maybe they could enter into this program or that program?

Why has the government failed to plan for this crisis? Why do we fail to react? Why do we come here 18 months after the fact begging for a government to respond in a timely way? Why does the government not act?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, again we see that the hon. member is substantially wrong in his facts. The debate is as a result of the border remaining closed because the Americans, for whatever reason, do not want to see the science in this issue. They are playing political games with the border. That is why the government has in fact responded and will continue to respond and build on the programs that are there.

Regarding the letter that he read, I certainly sympathize with that individual because there are hundreds of similar stories across the country. Do not think the Government of Canada or any members on this side of the House take pride in that situation because we do not. It has happened in a way that was to a great extent beyond our control.

I did have the offer and I will come to the figures in a moment because the member implied that we do not have money out there. Let me remind him again that for the BSE recovery program, $465 million went out; for the cull animal program, $110 million out; for the transitional industry support program, $568 million went out, and the rest up to $930 million will get out; for the repositioning program, $488 million went out.

No matter what money we put out, I will admit it will not compensate for the market not working. That is why the minister, in meeting with the ministers and deputies, and I happened to be at the meeting in Brudenell, P.E.I., talked in ways of trying to be flexible to work with those ministers in the provinces, to find a better way of doing things and getting the money out there so that the programs work in the interests of primary producers. That is what we are all about: making the program work in the interests of primary producers.

The member mentioned the CAIS program. In fact coming out of the CAIS program, the deposit deadline now has been extended to March 31 and discussions are ongoing to see if there can be another approach taken. There is movement and the minister has showed that he is willing to move to try to do his best to make the program work for primary producers. That is what we will continue to try to do. I just wish for a moment the member would talk about what is out there and what we have done instead of trying to confuse the issue all the time like the member is trying to do.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member wants to confuse Canadians with bloated and exaggerated claims of assistance, but the fact remains that the forms are not available, the CAIS program does not work, there is not enough money, and when it takes $80 million to put a plant together, the government offers $38 million.

Given that this is the most crucial issue facing Canadians today, I am asking a simple question. Given that it affects sectors from trucking to hardware stores, I would like to know on this crucial issue exactly how many times the Prime Minister has had a discussion with the President of the United States.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I cannot answer how many times because I did not ask him how many times. I know that discussions were held and I know that the Prime Minister was there to get the issue solved. This issue was talked about many times at the cabinet table when I was there and currently as well. I know that every effort has been made to get that border open, but the Americans just do not want to listen. For whatever reason they do not want to listen to the science. They should listen because we have science on our side.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question related to exporting.

I do not have a lot of beef cattle in my riding, but I remember a very important time for me in Parliament. I was having a problem in a particular sector and the Atlantic caucus, the people from the Maritimes who had nothing to do with it, jumped up and supported my riding. I hope the young girls who have stayed so late tonight know there is a future in farming and that we appreciate their enthusiasm. I want the farmers to know that people across Canada understand what they are going through and are supportive of them even if it does not affect their region.

There has been some suggestion from those who are not too familiar with the efforts that nothing is being done to try to increase our exports and open the market with the United States. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to inform us of some of the things to refute the fact that nothing has been done and what we have tried to do to increase our exports around the world and to open the border to the United States.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, that is a good question. I would not want to do anything wrong on the procedure at this hour because I do not know whether I am out of time for answering questions, but I will answer it anyway.

There have been many efforts made. The previous minister of agriculture did a tour of Japan, Korea, et cetera, to try to open markets there. The current minister will be doing a tour next week of Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and some other countries to talk about our beef industry, the kinds of products we have and the high quality food and safety measures that we have in order to open up markets.

I was in Moscow recently. There is a population of 16 million in the Moscow region. That is half of Canada's population. We need to be looking to those markets to try to lessen our dependence on the U.S. market because obviously the U.S. does not believe in free trade and rules based trade. That is the reality. We have to look at other markets around the world. We are making every effort in that regard.

As well, the Department of International Trade and our embassies abroad are also trying to open up markets for Canadian products, including beef products. We are in fact moving embryos to Russia right now. There are markets opening up for some of our cattle in those ways as well.

I want to point out that every effort is being made. The bottom line is we want to do the best for our producers because to a great extent they are this country's engine of economic growth.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is a tremendous honour to stand in this place to speak for the first time since the good people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry elected me as their representative. I am very pleased that my first speech is on a subject of great importance to the people of my riding and to the people of Canada.

The leader of the official opposition and our agricultural critic have raised serious concerns about the BSE compensation program announced by the minister last month. The opposition struck a working group to consult farmers from coast to coast on BSE in the hope of improving upon the Liberal aid package by making it responsive to the needs of those directly impacted by the crisis. Members from all parties were invited to take part in this process. My role in this consultation process is to focus on the concerns of the dairy farmers.

I would like to thank the Dairy Farmers of Canada and all of the provincial dairy producer organizations for their excellent cooperation in this process. I would like to especially thank the individual dairy farmers who shared their experiences and insights with my office.

I am not being partisan when I say the feedback that I have received from dairy farmers about the Liberal BSE package has been very negative.

The comments from the dairy producers are somewhat along the lines of those from the beef producers. Most of them told us that they had not yet received any details on the compensation programs, how it operated, what its eligibility criteria were. In fact, a month after the program was announced, producers are still waiting for application forms.

An overwhelming majority of farmers we heard from said that they still had not received enough information about the package and those who had looked into it said that the package was too little and too late. Many dairy farmers have lost their entire profit margin as a result of the BSE crisis.

In other words, many dairy producers have lost a portion of their incomes. For the past year and one-half, they have been working for next to nothing. They are generating no income whatsoever to feed and clothe their families.

Given the plight of the farmers in my riding and across Canada, how can anyone explain to them the waste of billions of dollars on the gun registry, the funneling of taxpayer money to Liberal friends through ad scam or the extravagant entertainment costs of the head of Canada Post who just happens to be a former Liberal minister?

Dairy farmers in my riding and across Canada have very little faith that the government's BSE package will help them much, if at all. When I look at the government's track record on compensation to farmers, I cannot help sharing the farmers' pessimism.

Another thing I heard from many of the dairy farmers we consulted were the words “thank you”. They were grateful that a politician was actually asking for their views. The government has ignored the people who are suffering the most as a result of the BSE crisis. No wonder the Liberals seem so paralyzed when it comes to addressing this issue.

I have heard more good, constructive suggestions for dealing with the BSE crisis from farmers in the last two weeks than I have heard from the Liberal government in the last two years.

The producers do not want a facile solution. They want to draw some lessons from their experience. They have already given some thought to the direction their industry should take, and they deserve to be heard.

Among the long-term solutions they hove proposed are: development of a national processing capacity, diversification of international markets, adoption of stringent policies for inspections.

The BSE crisis proves that Canada's relationship with our main trading partner is falling apart. It certainly does not help that the Prime Minister accepts radical anti-American intolerance and childish name calling on the part of his caucus members.

In conclusion, I want to tell my hon. colleagues opposite that there is only one way out of the BSE crisis and that is by respecting Canadian farmers, respecting their needs and their ideas.

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

Mr. Chair, I know you are about to bring this debate to a close but I want to thank all members from all sides of the House for participating here tonight. I know it was very appreciated by me to hear the views and perspectives of all members on all sides.

[The Deputy Chair]

It being midnight, pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to adjourn the House and report.