Debates of Oct. 7th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appreciate if we could clarify that. I understood the Prime Minister indicated it was unanimous and I think you said it was on division. Could we clarify? We are certainly in support of this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me just do that again. I am sure the House is somewhat sympathetic to my position. My hearing is just a little shaky this evening. The vote tonight is on the subamendment. Is the subamendment carried unanimously?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment to the amendment agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The special order states that the take note debate starts tonight at 7 p.m. The House will suspend until 7 p.m., at which time we will commence the special debate.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6:20 p.m.)

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 2, Mr. Strahl in the chair)

Agriculture

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this committee take note of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

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

Mr. Chair, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. I know you will do a great job.

It is also the first opportunity for us as colleagues to collectively come together in committee of the whole. For some members who are new to the House and for viewers who are watching this tonight, this is intended to be more of an informal debate. I hope we can react accordingly. We have an opportunity as colleagues to share ideas about this important topic.

As is often the case, several fixed speaking notes were prepared for me but I do not intend to use those because this is an evening to be talking from the heart. It is an evening to be talking about the challenges being faced by our beef industry. It is an evening to be talking about the challenges being faced by producers, their families, and by the communities supporting those producers. This is what tonight should be all about.

It has been a difficult year and a half for Canadian producers. One of the things we need to do is recognize the challenges they face and to recognize how they have, day in and day out, week in and week out, month after month, risen to that challenge, showed the determination that their industry would survive and the determination to work under what has been very trying circumstances.

The existence of this industry in Canada and, for that matter, the broader agricultural industry across the country, is critical not just for producers, as important as it is for them, not just for rural Canadians, as important as it is for our rural economy from coast to coast, but critical to all Canadians. One of the realities is that even though the issues that face the industry are complex and difficult, when we push it all away it is fairly straightforward.

It is important that we in this place, working with the industry and our provincial counterparts, ensure that we create an environment that will allow producers to be successful and to operate profitably. If they do not have an opportunity to do that then they will not be there and if they are not there it will be difficult for this country and difficult for this country to do without them.

BSE has been a significant challenge for them. The government, working with members across the aisle over the last several months, has developed a number of programs to assist the industry. The reality is, with the most latest announcements, it is close to $2 billion of assistance. It is important and needed.

Working with the industry and working with our provincial counterparts has been a critical part of what we have been trying to do over the last few weeks. It was time to take a different approach than the one which we had taken before.

When BSE was first detected and the borders were closed there was an expectation and in fact an anticipation that we were dealing with a short term problem, something that would be corrected in a very short period of time. The programming that was designed and put in place worked under that supposition.

However as time moved on and the issues became more complex and more difficult, it became apparent to the industry, which made it clear to me in my role as Minister of Agriculture and to the government, that it was time to take a different approach. It was time to take a made in Canada approach.

The reality is that it was no longer appropriate for our producers to get up in the morning and realize that no matter how hard they worked, and no matter how much effort they put into what they were doing, their future was dependent upon decisions that were made in another country. The time had come for a made in Canada solution.

The announcement on September 10 was based on those ideas. It was based upon a collaborative effort with the industry and the provinces, and it was based upon repositioning Canada's beef industry.

First, it entails continuing to work on making or having the U.S. border open. Regardless of what we do--and those other things are important--having access to the U.S. market is important. I have worked with Secretary Veneman, my counterpart in the United States, urging her to open the border. Quite frankly, the scientific evidence indicates that it should be open.

Beyond that, we felt it was important to have made in Canada solutions, solutions that saw us balance our ability to produce beef with our ability to process beef. In that respect, we put in place two very important programs. The first was an initiative to build new slaughter capacity in this country. This is something that producers, no matter what part of the country they are from, have told me is absolutely essential. This program invests close to $66 million to do that, in providing both a loan loss reserve and the regulatory framework that will allow this to take place in an expeditious way.

At the same time, we also realize that slaughter capacity cannot be developed overnight, that it takes a period of time to be created, so at the same time we put in place set-aside programs. Cattle that were coming to the market, either fed or feeder, would be delayed so that we could balance our ability to process with the number of animals that were available to process, or in other words, to balance supply and demand. With that balance, the marketplace would begin to set the price, we would see the rational operation of the market, and that would allow producers to make good sound business decisions based upon a marketplace that was operating in an appropriate fashion.

We are working with the provinces as we speak to ensure that the details of this program are put in place collectively with the provinces, because they are critical partners in this, and we will soon be in a position to have these programs rolling out.

In addition, we felt it was also important to make sure that our foreign marketplace was not just the United States. We felt that it was important to open markets right around the world, particularly in the Far East. I know that there is a member of the party opposite who, along with me and members of the industry, will be travelling to the Far East next week to do just that: to work on developing new markets. This package pledged some $37 million to do that.

At the same time, we have developed a specific cash advance program to provide liquidity, to provide cash to producers in the short term, because it will take some time for this market to find its appropriate equilibrium.

In closing, I want to say one thing to Canadians, to producers and to the members in the House. We are politicians. We tend to use rhetoric. Across the way, I see the hon. member who is my critic and the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Their job is to be critical of the government. I know that, I understand that and I expect that, but I also will make a request.

I am going to be here tonight and I will be listening to the members across the way. I hope that along with the criticism we will also see suggestions and creative ideas on how we can move forward. Quite frankly, to do the job that we need to do as parliamentarians is going to require all of us from all sides of the House to work together, not in our own interests but in the interests of producers and in the interests of all Canadians. I pledge to members here tonight to give my very best effort to ensure that takes place.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, part of the frustration of being from Atlantic Canada and going through the BSE crisis is that most people think it is an Alberta issue or a western Canadian issue, but there are farmers in my riding, in my province and in all of Atlantic Canada who have lost all their equity.

The federal programs have not been there to help them. I think most of us are coming to the conclusion that we have to adapt to the fact that we are not going to have access to the American market like we have had in the past. Maybe we will not have access to it at all. We have to work to find new markets and prepare ourselves for the new reality.

Right now so many farmers are on the very edge or verge of selling all their cattle and walking away from farms that have been in their families for decades. They need some encouragement, some wisdom and some help from the government just in order to stay on the farm and keep on going.

In Atlantic Canada, we suffer from a lack of slaughter capacity. We have no federally inspected slaughter capacity now in Atlantic Canada. All of our beef goes to central Canada. When there is a market in Atlantic Canada, we should be able to service it ourselves, but we cannot because we do not have federally inspected slaughter capacity.

P.E.I. and the co-op in P.E.I. have invested a great deal of money in a brand new plant in Borden to try to service all the maritime provinces. Both the co-op and the province have put a lot of money into this. They have a tremendous commitment to it and it is almost done, but already they have two problems. One is traceability. They cannot access the government program for traceability. We need traceability in Atlantic Canada so that we can guarantee a quality product and prevent any of the BSE issues that have happened in the past.

The other thing is that we already need an expansion of that plant to do a cull cow line so that cull cows can be processed there in a federally inspected process. Then we could provide that meat to Atlantic Canada, become self-sufficient, stop the importation of beef and help our own farmers survive. That is all the farmers want. They do not want handouts. They do not want gifts. They want the ability to survive.

In the last few days I have had discussions with the minister. He has indicated a willingness to provide traceability and to provide the funding, or he has certainly given encouraging comments on that. I hope he will stand tonight and confirm that and give the farmers in the maritime provinces some hope that they will be able to sell their products and sell their cows for what they are worth. That is all they ask. They do not ask for anything other than the ability to survive and market their beef.

I ask the minister to stand tonight and say to Atlantic Canada that there is help and there will be help in these two areas of traceability and funding for the cull cow line.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I think he brings forward a couple of very important points.

One point is that this is a national problem. It manifests itself differently in different parts of the country. The requirements in Alberta are different from some of the challenges faced in Manitoba and different again from those faced in Saskatchewan. They are different again from those faced in Quebec and different from those faced by operators in Atlantic Canada. The member makes that point quite well.

He also makes the point that when we are building capacity not only is it important in the largest sense in that we need the capacity to match the supply, but there are also issues about different regions. We also need to ensure that different regions have that capacity.

I want to compliment the member. He has mentioned his own interventions with me and with several of my caucus colleagues over the last few weeks, including the hon. member from Prince Edward Island, my parliamentary secretary. They have made strong representations about the plant that is being built in P.E.I. This plant is being built with the cooperation of the Atlantic provinces. I have had an opportunity to meet with the premiers and, as well, as recently as a few hours ago with the premier of P.E.I.

I agree that it is important for us to develop programming that will allow them to put in a state of the art traceability system. As I indicated to my caucus colleagues, which I am quite willing to indicate today, we are working very hard to make that happen. As I indicated as recently as this afternoon to the minister from P.E.I, we are doing all we can to make that a reality. We will work very hard over the next while to do just that.

In terms of the specifics of putting another line into the plant, the loan loss reserve, which is there to assist with the expansion of capacity, would be available as long as there is a business plan that is sustainable and makes economic sense to go along with it. I should say that our partners in ACOA have been a big part of what has been taking place there as well. I am very appreciative of that.

We are working very diligently on the issues that the member put forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. minister. How long do our producers in Quebec have to wait before they can earn a decent leaving from their production?

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

Mr. Chair, I am hopeful--and, as I said, working with the industry--that the combination of items we are putting in place will work toward returning the industry to profitability.

I said on September 10, and I said earlier in the House, that my objective is to see that our producers are profitable. I think it is important to ensure that profitability with or without access to the U.S. market, as preferable as it is to have that access to the U.S. market, which we will continue to do.

The hon. member did not say it directly in her question but I know that it is an important issue. As I have said, there are regional variations across Canada. The challenges faced by Quebec producers are in many respects unique and it is important to deal with that.

I have met with my colleague, the Quebec minister of agriculture, by phone or in person on six occasions. We have had lengthy discussions. I met with the UPA and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We have had some very frank discussions about some of the specific issues facing Quebec.

Many of the initiatives put forward on September 10 certainly do apply in Quebec, but I am very cognizant of the fact that there are some specific realities, some that face the dairy industry. That is not just in Quebec; there are a lot of dairy operators in other parts of the country. I think it is essential that we deal with those specific challenges as well.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague opposite raising the matter of traceability. I hope the minister will bear in mind that in Peterborough there is a DNA cluster which deals with human and animal DNA. I am advised that we no longer need tags and we do not need chip implants: all that is necessary is the registration at birth of an animal and then it is possible by scanners to trace the animal for the rest of its life. I hope the minister will take that into account and that when we go to traceability we go to the best available technology.

On the matter of slaughter capacity, in Ontario we need a capacity of 1,500 to 2,000 animals a day. I know the department is working on it, but as the department is working on it I hope the minister will consider small, regional abattoirs built to the highest possible standards, which can take not only beef but sheep and other livestock. In the long term, I think, such small, regional abattoirs would benefit us, and not just locally; in the end, they would be very acceptable to the international market.

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

Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right. We need to use state of the art technology in traceability. It is important for us, particularly in respect of obtaining access to those foreign markets. We need to be able to demonstrate what I believe is the reality: that we have the safest beef supply anywhere in the world.

Having a top of the line traceability system just adds more evidence to the fact that this is the reality in Canada. It is important to be able to demonstrate that to the world. Part of the initiative for Prince Edward Island would be to create something that is state of the art, a model that can be used anywhere.

My colleague is quite right. When we talk about building capacity, part of the initiatives we put forward is an effort to target medium-sized and smaller operations. Many of the big investors are quite capable of achieving, all on their own, the necessary dollars they need. It is the medium-sized and smaller operations that oftentimes need the assistance and it is toward them we tend to put our efforts.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. If the minister agrees to it, could see unanimous consent to extend his question and answer period by 10 minutes.

[The Chair]

Is it agreed that we extend the answer and question period by 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair]

Let us try to keep questions short then. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of collegiality I have joined my compatriots over here.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister this. We are all talking about regional slaughter capacity. That we know is the fundamental need. Yet we know we lost our domestic capacity because we did not support it and they cannot compete against the giants. That is a fact.

I do not see anything in this proposed plan that has been brought forward that will allow these regional plants to survive against the big packers. They have made a killing and they are making the killing now. There is pressure on any regional plant that goes up against them.

At the end of 2005 any of this loan loss reserve will not be in place. What happens when the border reopens and our small struggling plants go up against the big boys in the United States and in Canada? We will be back to square one, which is no regional and domestic capacity.

I would like to know if we have a plan for dealing with that.

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

Mr. Chair, first , part of it will depend on the particular business proposal that comes forward.

The idea of using certain business models, such as a cooperative model, something similar to what is being used in Prince Edward Island, is one way to do it. Producers in Prince Edward Island have to buy what they call a hook, where they guarantee a flow of product to a particular regional slaughter facility.

One of the requirements of the loan loss reserve is that they are able to demonstrate that they have a business plan that is sustainable and that makes good business sense.

There is no question that when the border reopens there will be a market adjustment that takes place. However, I believe that given the experience that has taken place and which our producers have been through, given the creativity and determination of our industry and given the initiatives that we have undertaken as part of the package that we announced in September, we will be able to create that slaughter capacity. We then can ensure, as much as we want and will enjoy the expanded international markets, that we create an industry which also has the capacity to process more of its product here and which allows us to have the opportunity as a Canadian industry to ship and sell processed beef.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of points and then a couple of questions. I am sure the minister fully understands that the idea of a set aside program is absolute folly if there is not increased capacity or if the border is not open when that set aside program ends.

To that end, I believe the date that the set aside on calves when they can be put into slaughter stream is critical when we look at when some of these calves hit the ground and when they will be ready for market. I understand that there is some debate still going on between the federal government, particularly the province of Alberta, and others about what that date shall be.

I would like the minister to comment on that if he would.

Also, on the aspect of the calves that are put on the set aside, they cannot be marketed. I think the original thought was they could not be slaughtered during that period but they could still be marketed. Will the calves that will be put on to the set aside be able to be marketed, to go to a backgrounder or a feed lot, during that period of time? Will that date where these animals can get into the slaughter stream be flexible?

Just before I finish, yesterday we had the opportunity to meet with a fine bunch of young people from Gem, Alberta, the Gem 4-H Club. I understand they are still in Ottawa. If we turn around and look up we might see some of them.

To me, this is what this debate is about, Mr. Minister. It is the future of our agricultural industry. We should have these young, bright people lining up to get into this industry instead of worrying about its future. I think that is where we want this debate.

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

Mr. Chair, it was great to go to the reception and meet the young people. It is important for the future that they see an opportunity in the industry to remain there. That is why I said earlier in my comments, when we strip it all away and get rid of all the complexities, how important it is to ensure that producers can be profitable. It is important that people see they can have an economic future for themselves and for their families so they will continue in the industry. It is important for themselves, yes, and important for their families and for their communities, but it is important for all of the country.

I will talk about the dates. I am not trying to avoid that. I am trying to cover all of the member's points. There have been intensive discussions in the last three days between officials of my department and of the provinces, including Alberta, to try to work out what the best date would be. Those meetings were still ongoing as of a couple of hours ago. My directions to officials, and I have said this to the minister from Alberta, is to find a way quickly to make this program work. In many respects I believe we need to be guided by those in the industry themselves. They are the ones whose knowledge and experience I would be counting on in order to provide advice as to what would be the most appropriate date. We are looking very closely at that and we will arrive at a conclusion that makes sense for the industry and for the viability of the program that we are putting in place.

Finally, as we say, the issue is holding them back and setting them aside. The issue of ownership during that process is something that was also part of those discussions, but the key point is keeping them out of the slaughter process, regardless of where the ownership may be at any one particular time.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, if I understood him correctly, the minister asked for specific measures. I come from a riding called Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which is located next to the riding represented by my hon. colleague opposite. In my area, a majority of small and medium size businesses are going through an unprecedented crisis. Abitibi—Témiscamingue has lost $16,161,716 since the beginning of the mad cow crisis, and 1,400 producers are about to go bankrupt.

The minister asked for some very specific recommendations. The problem in our area is linked to the slaughterhouses. Between 1999 and 2003, close to 5 million head of cattle were exported from Canada to the United States. If the ban is scientifically based, how do you explain the fact that these millions of Canadian animals found their way from the feed lots to the tables of U.S. consumers, even after the discovery of the first case of mad cow?

We want the minister to realize that the phenomenon of the concentration of slaughterhouses has reached the point today where the four main slaughterhouses in the United States control 80% of the slaughter capacity. In Canada, four slaughterhouses, including two American owned businesses, account for 91% of the total weekly slaughter of steers and heifers.

On behalf of Quebec and probably the other provinces, we ask the minister to set a floor price, because the slaughterhouses have benefited and are still benefiting from this crisis. This is a well known fact. Fred Dunn, the Alberta auditor general, carried out a study which showed that the slaughterhouses gained the most during this crisis.

If he wanted, the minister could set a floor price for the slaughterhouses as early as tomorrow. Can we rely on him for that?

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

Mr. Chair, first, regarding the member's opening comments, I agree. Quite clearly, there is no scientific reason why cattle should not have access to the United States.

Second, I believe that the increase of slaughter capacity is essential. I also agree with him about his issues about concentration and that is why the program we put in place is designed and targeted for medium and small sized enterprises.

Several colleagues have talked to me about the situation in western Quebec and northeastern Ontario. Perhaps there are some opportunities to work in conjunction with those two regions, which I think would make perfectly good sense. I am sure the hon. member would agree.

The suggestion in regard to floor price has been brought forward in many respects. It is something to take a look at. If we are able though to create a competitive situation within the slaughter industry, then I think that would be an ideal solution for dealing with the issue about which the member is talking.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my allotted time with our agriculture critic, the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk. Let me just begin by acknowledging that this new member has demonstrated in her very short time here an exceptional dedication to the cause of our agriculture community and is providing strong leadership to help those who are affected by this case.

Mr. Chair, with you and others as our guide, we are taking our first steps on the lesser travelled road of minority Parliament. This is our first emergency debate, but it is one that we have been asking for since June 29th because there is nothing new about this emergency. We are not dealing with a situation that arose overnight or in the last few days.

BSE was first reported in Canada on May 20, 2003 and there was an emergency debate in the House on the issue only six days later. What has changed since then is that because of the inaction and insensitivity of the government the situation has grown much worse for the thousands of men and women and their families who depend directly or indirectly on our beef exports to the United States.

Our farmers are some of the toughest, most resilient and hardest working people in Canada and our country has quite simply the best and safest food and the best food producers in the world. However, these farmers today, our agricultural community, are looking for our help. This is not an administrative problem. It is not a political issue. It is a human tragedy that has been affecting many Canadian communities and many Canadian families. In our own family, my wife and my in-laws have long been in this industry. They are being severely affected by it. Farmers across the country are losing their farms, their homes and their livelihoods. The border closings have cost the industry in rural communities more than $6 billion and close to 5,000 jobs that depend on this industry.

Last February our party proposed a billion dollar action plan with built in flexibility to respond quickly to these unforeseen circumstances. The plan included: topping up the 2002 Canadian farm income program from 60% to 70% payouts to full 100% coverage; a mature livestock rationalization program; replenishment of Canadian agricultural income support programs for BSE affected operations; the establishment of testing regimes for all non North American markets; and working toward integrated North American rules and processes.

The Liberals had an opportunity to implement these ideas. They chose instead to put off helping this vital industry until the crisis reached a tipping point. Only months ago the government assured producers, coincidentally with an election, the border would be open at the end of the summer. There was no plan, no realistic target, this was only wishful thinking on the part of a government and it was a cruel deception of our farmers.

The latest measures announced by the government on September 10 are long overdue, but they are also woefully inadequate and administratively bungled, as other speakers in my party will talk about in great detail. The Liberal plan, I should add, is half of what we proposed in February 2004 when the industry was not nearly in the dire straits it is in today.

BSE is not a problem that affects only our beef producers. It is not a problem that affects only western Canada. The whole Canadian economy is feeling the effects of the closure of the U.S. border to our beef exports.

Many fundamentals and pressing issues already do require the attention of the House, but as we head into winter, I really do urge the government to pay special attention to the problem of the fate of our farm communities.

Canadian consumers across the country have rallied and demonstrated confidence and support in our beef industry. This is the only country in the world where we have been touched by this problem, where consumers have gone out, supported our industry and actually raised the consumption of beef. The people of Canada have done that. It is time that the House did something and it is time that the government did its share as well.

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

Mr. Chair, I do agree with several of the points that the Leader of the Opposition made in terms of how resilient the livestock industry is and how hardworking people in that industry are and how important the livestock industry is to this country. But I do not appreciate that he would get into the political rhetoric as if the government had been doing nothing all along. He knows full well that the government has been working strenuously from the very beginning to get the border open with the United States and we continue to do that.

He knows full well that discussions have been ongoing with the industry to change the approach. The Minister of Agriculture talked about that earlier. We are changing the approach in conjunction with the industry wishes to go to a higher slaughter capacity within Canada. The member should be standing in appreciation of the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture in that regard instead of trying to play political games and make political points while the industry is in trouble.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me say this. The new minister is obviously trying to deal with a problem that is pretty well advanced, but the government has been here for the entire year and a half that this has been going on. If the government wants to hold office--and some days I wonder if it does when I listen to it--for such an extended period of time and not deal with a problem sitting right in front of it, then the government has to take responsibility for the fact that this is still going on in this industry.

I want to talk a bit about the record on this. I rose in the House of Commons when this issue broke. I stood and urged the then Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, supported by that member and all around him, to get on the telephone to the President of the United States and deal chief executive to chief executive with this problem before it got worse, before third party countries got involved, before interest groups in the United States got involved, and before it descended into the bureaucracy of the United States government. That was not done. The Prime Minister did not do that.

Instead, what the Prime Minister and the government had time to do was to call an international press conference on a transatlantic flight to Europe to explain what a terrible job the President of the United States was doing running the domestic economy of the United States. This is not an issue before Congress. This is an issue before the chief executive of the administration of the United States. The only way these kinds of issues could be effectively dealt with is at that level. Talk to anybody who has been a bureaucrat. Instead, this atmosphere was poisoned right from the outset and exactly what we feared happened.

The member for Lethbridge, the member for Medicine Hat and I went to the United States to attempt to deal with this in the summer of 2003 and we were already into this morass. It did not end there.

We understand we had differences on how we handled the Iraq situation, but even after the international community agreed to work with our allies to resolve that situation, the government, the Liberal Party, ran ads that were seen by Americans in the entire northern tier of the United States attacking United States foreign policy. What good did that do our farmers on this issue?

To this day we get an endless tirade of useless anti-American comments. If the government wants to stand up to the United States, stand up to the United States on this issue because it is treating us in a way that is totally unfair. But the government should not be jeopardizing our farmers' livelihoods and our trading relations with the United States so a couple of wing nuts on that side could make anti-American comments.

The government will obviously be working with the minister tonight and we will do whatever we can do to help the situation from here. However, the government is going to have to accept some significant responsibility for this situation.