House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, like all the members of this House, I have an enormous respect both for the integrity and the years of service of the member who just spoke. However, I have forgotten the name of his riding.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Yes, it is the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell as I was just reminded. I am sorry to see him today acting as a screen behind which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food can hide. I am even more sorry to hear him confess the government's powerlessness in the face of this crisis.
The member was saying a while ago that he is part of the milk caucus and that there is a meeting every second week. Therefore, for the last 18 months, there have been approximately 40 meetings. The member was asking us to give an example of what does not work in the government program to help farmers.
I will give him an example. Among those he has cited as receiving government aid, he mentioned slaughterhouses. Has nobody told the member that, right now, the slaughterhouses in Quebec do not need help from the federal government and that the ones in need of help are the producers?
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member claims that there is enough slaughter capacity to process all the excess beef we have in Canada, I do not know what he is getting his information. I do not share that view. I can tell you that there is a lack of capacity in this regard. In some areas, the slaughter levels are clearly not what they could be. There are some very particular meats being processed. Again, in some areas it is impossible at this time to accommodate the market. Therefore, I do not share the hon. member's analysis.
The member also talked about the milk caucus that has been in place since the beginning of the mad cow crisis. I am sorry to say that he has his dates mixed up. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for me to take part in this caucus since I was a minister at the time.
Lastly, about that screen business, I think I have been here long enough that I do not need to act as anyone's screen. I justify myself before my constituents, the men and women who asked me to represent them in the House of Commons, by doing what I believe is right for my country.
I have human imperfections, just like others in this House. But that does not make me a screen for anybody. Indeed, I am not known for that.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell having admitted that there are some challenges in the program and some difficulties to be resolved. He asked us to share with him what we saw that was wrong with the program. He has offered to help the minister in trying to resolve that and that is good. It gets us closer to a resolution.
This morning my colleague from Timmins--James Bay outlined what he described as a disaster with the CAIS program. In Ontario, 21,806 producers have signed up for the program, 12,201 have been processed and 4,130 producers are receiving payments. We are heading into winter, a very difficult season for farmers. The banks are indicating that they are not going to be patient much longer. I would ask the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to tell us specifically what he is going to do help the minister help our farmers.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the CAIS program is one area where I do have a number of complaints in my riding as well. I have alerted the minister's office in that regard.
I do not think there is any doubt that the department has been deluged with applications. I for one, and I am sure all my colleagues, will want to support the minister in getting the personnel necessary to process the applications as soon as possible.
Similar to what the member has just raised, I have had cases where the banks have said that they do not want to wait any longer, even though they have copies of the CAIS applications.
Another thing we need to do is to send a strong message to the banks. They know that these programs exist. When a farmer has made an application under some of these programs, if it means some bridge financing, if it means waiting a little longer, they know, or should know, that funds will be coming because the application has been made. Therefore, I had better not hear in my constituency that the banks went in and locked the door because if I do, they are going to get some free advertising on the floor of the House.
Generally that is not necessary. The banking community understands these things, or at least they ought to. I just hope that they are not too trigger happy this time. I do not believe that we as parliamentarians are going to be very pleased if they demonstrate in any way that they are not understanding of the plight that my constituents, and indeed the constituents of all of us, are living through right now.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Montcalm, especially since the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region is particularly affected by the mad cow crisis.
There are three ridings in my region which is a very important farming area. The American border has been closed to the Canadian beef for 18 months now. Meanwhile, our farmers have been suffering. They were simply abandoned by the federal government.
Last Monday, I had the opportunity to see that many farmers, dozens of desperate cattle producers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, had started to dig a big trench to bury their cows. When it gets to the point where killing off the animals without getting any compensation is better than selling them, we have to wonder. The cattle producers are facing financial ruin. The whole agriculture sector is paying the price.
Allow me to come back to this farm rally that took place in my region on November 29. I attended a function in Saint-Bruno, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, with one of my colleagues from the House, the member for Jonquière—Alma. Many farmers and leaders from the Union des producteurs agricoles and members from the dairy producers union made presentations. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the president of the farmers and dairy producers' association of my area, Michel Potvin, who is a distinguished and courageous citizen and an exemplary farmer.
Many farmers asked me to convey their message to this House and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. They are asking the government to give more money to livestock and cull producers, to offer a compensation package for the cull producers and to set a floor price.
As regards a floor price, I will get back to this issue later on, because an agreement was just reached in Quebec City.
So, at that November 29 meeting, I was told about the scope of the despair of producers in my region. They have lost all motivation. Several of them told me that they must actually pay to get rid of their cull cows. They are at the end of their rope. There is no point in them working so hard.
A member of the National Assembly from my region even symbolically helped dig the hole in which hundreds of cows may be buried, since producers are getting hardly anything for them. Indeed, they are compensated for the renewal of the first 16% of their herd, but not for the rest of it.
These producers asked me to convey their message to the House of Commons, and I am doing so very seriously.
I also want to tell the House about an agreement in principle that was just reached. At a press conference held during the UPA's convention, the Quebec minister of agriculture, Françoise Gauthier, announced that the parties have reached an agreement in principle on a floor price of 42¢, as of December 6, 2004. However, Ms. Gauthier warned that the agreement must be finalized before the government will lift the threat of resorting to special legislation.
According to Michel Dessureault of the federation of Quebec beef producers, producers will be have 80% ownership. Moreover, it is provided that producers will be the owners as of December 20, 2004. According to Mr. Dessureault, should the transaction fail, the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food has promised to pass a special act imposing a price, a volume and the presence of an administrator. It appears that the Quebec government also promised to complete the financing package.
The Bloc Québécois is pleased with this outcome. This is encouraging. The Bloc Québécois also notes that this government and this minister did not provide leadership regarding this issue. Once again, Quebec producers and the Quebec government were left on their own, even after repeatedly asking the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for help.
The reopening of our borders is a federal responsibility and it remains a priority. As for financial compensation, it is still necessary. We will see in the coming days what producers are asking for. Let us not forget that Quebec producers absorbed the $241 million losses, after compensation.
No matter how often the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food repeat that they intervened many times with the American government, they cannot blame others if they have a faulty traceability system. One can point to Quebec's system, a model that was applied well before that of the federal government.
The government has put in place an assistance plan which does not adequately cover Quebec producers. According to data from the beef producers, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins, only $90 million have been received from Ottawa since the crisis broke out. It goes without saying that these are meagre amounts, considering that the beef producers' lost incomes, for the period from May 2003 to December 2004, totals $391 million.
If the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had travelled to attend the convention of l'Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, the province's agricultural producers union, he would have heard what I heard directly from the very producers in my region. It is totally unacceptable for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to evade his responsibilities in such a way and, as a pretext, claim that he absolutely must be in the House of Commons to justify his decision not to speak to Quebec's producers. Nothing forced that minister to be present in the House of Commons all day, all the more so because the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois will not be voted on before December 7.
This is not a very common situation. I have personally seen people who are about to lose everything, not only their business, but also their family.
Often times, entire communities are affected by the crisis goes beyond economic boundaries and affects the social behaviour of people.
I want to offer my support to farmers in my region, in my riding and in Quebec.
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the recognition; the hon. member is correct about the importance of understanding this issue. It is why I have travelled to British Columbia to meet with producers. It is why I have been in Alberta three times to meet with producers. I have been to Saskatchewan four times, in Manitoba, all over Ontario, and in the Maritimes. It was particularly important, after having been minister but a few short days, that at my initiation I met with UPA and the executive of that organization because I realized the importance of the situation in Quebec.
It is unfortunate that the Bloc chose, on the day that I was going to be speaking to a larger audience, to put this motion in the House at this time. There will be other opportunities and we will take those opportunities.
I have a specific question for the hon. member. He says there has been no assistance, nothing provided to Quebec producers. Could he define how $89 million in the 2003 income stabilization program is nothing, or $100 million for the 2004 program, the $90 million of wedge funding that is going to the Province of Quebec, the $32 million over the BSE recovery program, the $18 million in the cull animal program, the $65 million in the TIS program, the money that is available for the development of increased slaughter capacity, both the fed and the feeder set-aside programs, which can be delivered under the ASRA program in Quebec? How can he quantify them? Could he explain to me and to the House how they all represent no support to Quebec producers?
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister may explain why he did not meet the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec City, I think he will not speak long enough in the House to convince us. The Quebec people themselves and Quebec producers will not be convinced. He is using an artifice, a smoke screen. He is using the excuse that he had to be here in the House.
He could easily have left for a few hours. We could have held our debate. His presence would have been very useful there. He says he is sensitive to the needs of the people. He could have made this a reality and listened to their needs.
What I am telling the minister is, before the crisis, when producers were selling a cull cow, they were getting $700. Today, they are getting $150. The federal assistance is $320 only for the 16% portion. Each producer renews a herd by 25%. This means there is a gap that is not subsidized, that does not receive any assistance from the government. The loss of revenue to the producer is $230 for each cull cow.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I think it is an important debate. I am pleased the minister is here to hear the debate because it is a very important issue.
In his speech, the member outlined that there were losses to the industry between May 2003 and December 2004 of $391 million. I think that is what he said. It appears that the stabilization fund and the other assists to the Province of Quebec exceed that amount. I am wondering if the member is aware of those numbers and whether he feels that the stabilization fund and other assists to Quebeckers have been responsive to the situation as we are waiting for its resolution.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, what I will answer is what I heard on November 29 in Saint-Bruno, in my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Several producers told me that they had a large herd. They must renew it and, since the mad cow crisis happened, they are losing around $15,000 a year and perhaps a little more. This is a significant amount when there are also many challenges and many increases in the costs that they must incur. This is the reality.
Of course, there is some assistance, but concerning cull cows, there is a real problem. It was submitted to me and I submit it in a more particular way. Several producers told me that they were losing many thousands of dollars each year. Obviously, this is significant for a farm.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I thank him for agreeing to split his time with me. Like me, he comes from an area where there is a lot of agriculture, a lot of milk producers. We know that it is also in his area that a very unfortunate event occurred. Indeed, a cow was killed in front of television cameras. We do not agree with such a thing, but we understand it.
The situation is now very critical for farmers and milk producers in Quebec. The minister did not even deign to go meet them today in Quebec City, where the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec is holding its convention.
This is a truly important motion. Maybe they should listen to it on the other side. I come from the communications sector, so I know that through repetition we can get our messages across. Maybe if I read the motion once more, the government will do something about it. The motion reads as follows:
In light of the inadequacy of current federal assistance, that this House call upon the government to implement specific measures as soon as possible to help the cattle and cull cattle producers who are suffering the impact of the mad cow crisis.
It is as simple as that. The situation has not been resolved. Fortunately, the UPA and the Quebec government announced today an agreement with the Colbex meat packing plant so that cattle producers can finally own up to 80% of a plant, according to the information we obtained. We know, however, that the federal government is not part of this agreement. It is dragging its feet once again. Fortunately, Quebec worked things out. This does not mean that there is no demand or need for assistance.
Normally, we rise in the House to say that we are pleased to speak about or debate a certain subject. Since my election, that has been my practice. However, today, I am not pleased, far from it, to rise to debate the mad cow crisis yet again. I did so on October 12, in a take-note debate that began on October 5. At the time, I did it to demand assistance for producers in our regions and in Quebec. Over one month later, we are forced to demand once again this very important financial assistance.
What Quebec producers are asking for is more money for producers of cattle and cull cattle, targeted measures to compensate cull cattle producers and the extension of existing programs at least until the U.S. border re-opens. Despite President Bush's visit, this matter is yet to be resolved. He spent more time talking about the missile defence shield than the softwood lumber problem or the mad cow crisis, unfortunately.
Eighteen months after a single case of mad cow was identified in Alberta, we continue to debate it here today. However, just a few days ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recognized that there was a problem with cull cattle. Subsequent to and despite such assistance packages, he repeated today, during his speech, that he recognized that the problem was ongoing. That is what he said during oral questions. So, why are we still here today discussing the problem, this crisis, and arguing?
While the minister is hiding behind false pretexts to avoid meeting the agricultural producers who are gathered today in Quebec City, the situation is about to explode. The producers, who are angry, and rightly so, are besieging the slaughterhouse of Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover. Perhaps that blockade will cease, now that the agreement in principle has just been signed, fortunately. That slaughterhouse is not located in my riding, but it is very close; it is in the Centre-du-Québec region where I come from. Let me remind you that the region is a very large dairy production area, counting more than 1,500 farms, or 16% of the dairy production in Quebec.
Those producers are asking for a minimum price. Incidentally, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the minister of agriculture of Quebec have asked that the federal government invoke the Agricultural Products Marketing Act and impose a minimum price of 42¢ a pound. The minister has refused, forcing the dairy and beef producers to fend for themselves. Nevertheless, they have all agreed on a minimum price to be reinstated, since the federal government has refused to do so. We managed on our own, as we often have to in Quebec, unfortunately.
Their lot: a price of 17¢. This is what we have known, from 15 to 20¢ a pound, until very recently. On the other hand, prior to the embargo imposed by the United States, producers could charge up to 60¢ a pound.
In the wake of the blockade, the slaughter of a cow, live on television—I mentioned it a moment ago—and of President Bush's fruitless visit, what is the federal government waiting for to institute real targeted aid measures?
Despite the minister's fine words, these programs will not take us to the day the border might reopen, that is six long months from now. Some of these support programs have already expired and the last of the federal programs will come to an end on February 28, 2005.
Where is the direct aid to make up for the drop in the price of cattle? Where is the interest free loan program? These are two measures Quebec producers have been waiting for. The president of the UPA Centre-du-Quebec, Mr. Denis Bilodeau, whom I know very well, has said that they were ready to spend the whole winter in front of the Colbex plant if they had to. That was before the agreement in principle we spoke about was reached. That shows how desperate these people were. They were so frustrated they were ready to do anything to be heard. Quebec listened to them, that is all. We wonder if anyone on the other side is listening. I do not think so.
Does the minister realize that there is a crisis and will he take his responsibilities?
Yesterday, I read an article on the Internet site of the L'Express/La Parole , a Drummondville newspaper, where a producer from Saint-Rosaire--that is also in my riding--drew a pretty alarming picture of the situation, and I quote:
We no longer sell our cows, we give them away. The income from cull cows can usually make the difference between a good year and a bad one. We are more than fed up.
I do not know if écoeurantite is translatable. It means we are totally fed up, that we have had it, that we can't take it any more, that we have had it up to the eyeballs. It should be obvious how fed up we are.
I am asking the minister to listen to this cry from the heart from the 25,000 agricultural operations affected in Quebec and thousands of others elsewhere in Canada. Regardless of what some may say, the sovereignists are fully aware of what goes on elsewhere, and the mad cow crisis did of course first hit Alberta and then all the other provinces. That was because Canada was not capable of regionalizing health practices, as in fact it still should today.
In Quebec, the losses add up to $241 million, even with the financial compensation that has been paid out so far. The minister is coming up with a figure of millions and millions, but what has to be kept in mind is that we in Quebec are still $241 million in the hole.
So we do not want to keep hearing from the minister about his plans. Laurent Pellerin, the head of the UPA, has said the following:
Ottawa keeps on dishing up one inappropriate program after the other, and these do not reflect the specific nature of agriculture in Quebec—
This is part of a November 30 press release from the UPA.
What the producers are calling for, in addition to a base price for cull, is an assistance package to compensate for the price drops for all classes of cattle and other ruminants, to be kept in place until the borders reopen.
Today, stock is selling at ridiculous prices, as has been said, up to 87% less than before the crisis. We have all heard of the case of the cow that went for 7¢, not 7¢ a pound but 7¢ for the whole 2,000-pound cow. My colleague from Montcalm has also shown me a cheque for just over 50¢, 56¢ I think it was—
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No, it was a cheque for 57¢ for one calf. That is what someone in his riding got. A producer from Sainte-Clotilde-de-Horton in my riding told me this past weekend that he would rather keep his animals than give them away or, worse yet, have to pay to dispose of them. But you can imagine what it costs to maintain stock that ought to have already gone to the abattoir.
How a producer who loses $500 a head each time he sells a cow is supposed to survive this crisis? The best he can get for a cull cow is $250, and the meat of that cow sells for $1,200 on the retail market. This has been going on for 18 months. Packers are the only ones making money with this crisis.
Debt and distress often breed despair. Some producers auction off their hard earned assets. Others even take their own life, as we saw recently on Radio-Canada's Le Point . This is not a soap. This is real life. For 18 months, the federal government has let down producers who have been working hard for many years, sometimes up to a hundred hours a week, to the point their situation is intolerable.
Let me conclude with this. The minister and the government have been repeating for 18 months that millions have been spent, and we should quit raising this issue. This is not the way it works. Liberals are asking us for concrete solutions. Here are some: a direct assistance program to compensate for the low prices and an interest free loans program. This is what we are asking for and insisting on. This is what is being asked for also by the UPA and the Quebec government, both of which have tried to do something since the beginning of this crisis, as my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord explained.
I ask the federal government to assume its responsibilities and do the same.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speeches made by my colleagues from Richmond—Arthabaska and from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I know those two regions, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Estrie, very well.
Indeed, in those two regions, the dairy industry managed to survive and find stability through a supply management system.
My question for the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska is the following: would he be in favour of a supply management system for the cattle industry?
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant question.
Indeed, the supply management system is very important for Quebec farmers. However, there was terrible concern from the federal government's side of things over the past few years. In Cancun, in 2003, we came very close to losing the supply management system during negotiations.
Thankfully, we made it. There was, however, a very strong agricultural lobby during the last election campaign. In my riding, they had to twist the Liberal candidate's arm to get her to sign the famous GO5 on the supply management for the five agricultural sectors.
This all boils down to the fact that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on the federal government's side. However, this system is very dear to our hearts and we will fight tooth and nail to maintain it in Quebec.
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
Mr. Speaker,I sat through this debate. I listened carefully to the Bloc Quebecois' demands. However, I did not hear anything in the way of solutions. There were many critical remarks. In my opinion, those critics went very far, but I won't go there. We have already said that unfortunately the minister could not be at two places at the same time. However, he has already met with the community concerned.
I would like to ask a very direct question to the member who just spoke. He offered a solution that we already raised with the minister and regarding which he said in his speech that a number of measures had been introduced.
However, is there anything more than words that the member could offer as a practical solution—not criticism—regarding this important problem that this government and this minister in particular have really taken into consideration? I think all the members here in the House should agree that he has a good knowledge of this issue and that he has proven that a few measures have been introduced already. In fact, he also said in his speech—and we are going to repeat it for the benefit of Canadians listening to us—that there is still a lot of work to be done and that he is ready to do it, in cooperation with colleagues who are welcome to suggest solutions to this problem.
I am asking the member who just made what I consider a critical speech what concrete solution he can suggest.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to criticize, when the government is so insensitive. That is the problem. Obviously, it is not because we criticize that we cannot make constructive suggestions. That is what we are constantly trying to do. However, I have the impression that our suggestions have not been heard.
The member opposite asks me what could be done concretely. I have said it in my speech, but I can repeat again. We ask for more money for the livestock and cull producers, targeted actions to indemnify cull producers and the extension of existing programs, at least until the reopening of the American border.
I do not think the criticism was directed at the minister's or the government's efforts. They are doing their duties. This is what we are proposing and demanding. We did not invent that today. We have been talking about that for 18 months. Quebec farmers producers have been demanding that for 18 months. If the minister had done his homework, as the member suggested, we would not be here today, on December 2, one year and a half after the outbreak of BSE in Alberta, discussing this terrible issue which is causing major problems to our producers. The problem would have been solved and farmers would have received financial aid to help them survive until the Americans finally reopen their borders.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake, Agriculture; the hon. member for Battle River, Government Contracts.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate again in this debate. It has been a little less than two months from the last time we discussed this in take note debate. The crisis still looms, particularly for small farmers across rural Canada, no less than in my backyard in Algoma.
I do not want to sound like an ingrate, so right off the top I would like to thank the minister for his efforts on behalf of some of my farmers. He met with a farmer who drove nine hours to listen to that take not debate. He took time out of his busy schedule. He had his senior policy adviser, Mr. Gary Holman, meet with the farmer. They worked out some details in his personal circumstance. Some promises were made, and were followed up to some degree. That is what I want to talk about today.
First, I want to put on the record that we are thankful to the minister for the time he gave us, for his efforts and for the degree of success we had with his assistant, Mr. Holman. However, there are still many challenges.
It was refreshing to hear the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell say that he also understood that these were very serious and major issues. I think nothing is more important to any of us here than the food we eat and those who produce it. If they are in stress and having difficulty finding the resources necessary to keep their operations running and successful, then all of us suffer. Our whole society becomes stressed and in trouble.
The member noted that he had heard from some of his own farmers, as have I. The member for Timmins—James Bay earlier said that he had talked to his farmers. He said that when he heard this debate would take place today, he took the time to phone his farmers to hear their views on this issue and how it affected them. What he shares with this place is current and it is real information from his farmers.
The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell shared some of the same information. He has heard from his farmers that there are problems and that they are having a difficult time. For example, banks are not being as patient as they perhaps should or could be in this instance. They are putting pressure on some of the small business people, those farmers who are trying to get themselves through the winter in the hopes that the border will open some time in the near future. Then they will be able to once again sell their livestock across the border. This is their livelihood. Over generations, they and their families have put their blood, sweat and tears into it, and they want to continue to do that.
I had suggested to the minister that he sit down and talk to some of these farmers. However, the minister has a call on his time to travel, to sit in cabinet and attend other meetings. He has to be out in the world to find out what other markets might be available to us. He may not have the same kind of time as an individual member might to sit down at the kitchen table and talk to farmers about the day to day challenges they face when they get up in the morning until they go to bed at night.
I suggest that he find some time. I think that is where we will find the answer to the challenge we face today, and not just for the immediate future but for the long term. When we deal with the immediate and when we talk to the people directly affected, we find the future unfolds in a better and more positive way. Farmers have a lot of the answers. We sit here, we read papers that are prepared for us by the experts and the policy analysts, but do not understand.
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
For the member who said “speak for yourself”, it is important for him to do the same thing. He should get out there and talk to some of his farmers. Then he can come in here and participate with us in a positive, constructive way and try to find an answer to this very real challenge that our constituents face.
My colleague from Timmins—James Bay was very eloquent today in sharing of some of the stories that he has heard. One of the stories that touched me the most was the story that he told about being at a farmer's market just recently where there were no farmers. He asked the question, “Where are the farmers?” A person said “Nobody cares about the farmers anymore so they're not coming. Nobody wants the farmers”.
That is just the furthest thing from the truth. If that is what farmers are feeling, or if that is what farmers are hearing or reading into the way we are dealing with them, or giving the leadership in the House in terms of how we help them in these very difficult circumstances, we have a problem. We have a real problem that we are not going to get to the bottom of until we say to those farmers, in the way that we meet with them and in the way that we listen to them and respond to the things that they say to us, that they are important. They are in fact the base upon which almost everything else that we do is built.
We know the Bloc members have concerns. They are members of the party that raised this today in the House. They have farmers who are having a difficult time and struggling through this dilemma that faces us as a nation. I am pleased that they brought this motion before the House today.
The Conservatives, including the one who threw that comment across the way a few minutes ago, sincerely and legitimately want some answers to this question as well. All of us need to take advantage of this moment that we have, as a minority government, to sit down together and stop using this real dilemma for real people as a political football and find some real answers for people.
We have a minority government. We have not had one for over 25 years. It presents, in my experience so far and I have only been here a little while, some really neat and positive opportunities to actually sit down across the table with members and come up with answers. Everyone can feel they have some ownership of this issue and will ultimately help their constituents, in this instance their farmers, find some answers and get something done that will be helpful to them and move them on.
Our farmers, like the farmers in so many other parts of the world who struggle yes, but in some instances are doing better, must feel like there is a future for them, feel like they are appreciated, feel like the work that they do is valuable, and that they in fact have a right to expect that the farm that they work on will be there for them to hand over to their children and their children's children as we move forward.
We cannot simply walk away from this and allow those farms to shut down because we did not pay attention, we did not hear, and we did not care enough. The big corporate farms, that are moving into so many parts of our world today, are destroying a way of life that we all appreciate. We want family farms to continue to be valuable today, that we do not wake up one morning and find that the family farmer has gone.
One of the things that struck me about the debate that we had the other night was the notion of the family farm. Mr. Tindall, a farmer from Desbarats, brought his family with him because that is how he works his farm. He works it with his family. It is a family enterprise. It is a family operation. I would suggest that most of the small to medium sized farms in this country are run in the same way.
We owe it to them to give them our best effort and to take advantage of this moment as a minority government to find ways together to find some common solutions. The program announced in September is not working. The original program, however well intentioned, that was rolled out a couple of years ago when this challenge first hit us did not work either. It did not work for the farmer.
We have to start, and there is no pun intended, from the ground up, from the grassroots, our farmers. What do they need? Do we want them to be able to do their work? If we do, as I wrote in a letter to the minister a couple of weeks ago, the minister should continue down that path to review the CAIS program and include some ordinary small producers on that panel, so that he has the advantage of their experience.
As well, as I said in that letter, he should find a way to take the money away that is being flowed into the CAIS program for these rather unusual circumstances of the border closed and BSE, because it is affecting what those farmers need to get through one day to the next and one week to the next. He should look to see if there is some way he can do that.
He knows and I know that the big packers that got a substantial amount of money in the first program do not have to factor that into any subsequent or further relations or dealings with the government.
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I have a comment and a couple of questions, and I will take the opportunity to answer part of his question.
In terms of the review of business risk management which he referred to in his letter, I fully agree with the member that it is important that producers and members of the industry be part of that review. That is why we are ensuring that at a minimum, 50% have to come from industry. That is appropriate because the review needs to be driven by those who are experiencing the issue.
The hon. member makes another important point by making the distinction between the income support program that deals with the impact. He has made it crystal clear that he believes there needs to be some changes and he does not believe that it is as effective as it should be. We agree with parts of it. We may disagree with other parts of it, but we will work together on that.
The other component part is the structural issue, which he says differs from CAIS. We need to address some specific issues to change the way the industry operates. I would be most appreciative if he could perhaps give some input on some of those things in terms of the development of slaughter capacity and how to deal with the oversupply?
